1
10
9
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b9d27525b969b55e8e21c38ca7e75306.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=vy4F1pCGqGlZMqemz-Vi5ztfzX16jNpVWsk-UwuDI4XGwr4VBV0BZjbUUq3RV9ZMWIb966BYwSTEH1hufM3lSzfw4-GpqvJ5wBsUEXLLWyBvQExih5b1xSFsNLlocAIH2rdqzg7fVk4dl6FAkiMSbrbzU0oD07m6Wazlbe4Dt2HjzSDY-mie-UrtkB05jPZdsn-PrQsb11oDYG85Od4dJxruGfxX4HS0C102Vbg0EBR424vUCJDfu%7E-aizY3nHb8Y65U4C5m7a1W69j5qZdAisulsdt0xgvAW-WQlflm6uV6sXi%7E5qlLDNhXg1WAA-TyZRRuYg-Hk9U%7EpVu0sVQlJg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
23c5320ee52de3c0ff1d86ed0357b7a0
PDF Text
Text
&
4-
ABSTRACT OF COLENSO
ON THE
PENTATEUCH:
A Comprehensive Summary of Bishop Colenso’s Argu
ment,
cally
Proving that the Pentateuch is not Histori
True; and that it was composed by several
WRITERS, THE EARLIEST OF WHOM LIVED IN THE TIME OF
\
Samuel, from 1100 to 1060 B. C., and the latest in
time of Jeremiah, from 641 to 624 B. C.
the
PREFACE.
The author of the book of which this pamphlet is an ab
stract is not an Infidel, but a Bishop of the Church of England,
having charge of the Diocese of Natal, in South Africa. While
engaged in the translation of the Scriptures into the Zulu tongue,
with the aid of intelligent natives, he was brought face to face
with questions which in former days had caused him some uneasi
ness, but with respect to which he had been enabled to satisfy his
mind sufficiently for practical purposes, as a Christian minister,
by means of the specious explanations given in most commenta
ries on the Bible, and had settled down into a willing acquies
cence in the general truth of the narrative of the Old Testament,
whatever difficulties might still hang about particular parts of it.
�ii
PREFACE.
But while translating the story of the Flood, a simple-minded but
intelligent native, with the docility of a child but the reasoning
powers of mature age, looked up and asked: “ Is all that true ?
Do you really believe that all the beasts, birds, and creeping
things, from hot countries and cold, came thus by pairs and en
tered Noah’s ark ? And did Noah gather food for them all; for
the beasts and birds of prey as well as the rest ? ” The Bishop
had recently acquired sufficient knowledge of geology to know
that a universal Deluge, such as is described in Genesis, could not
have taken place. So his heart answered in the words of the
Prophet, “ Shall a man speak lies in the name of the Lord ? ”
(Zech, xiii., 3.) He dared not do so, but gave the brother such a
reply as satisfied him for the time, without throwing any dis
credit upon the general veracity of the Bible history. But being
driven to search more deeply into these questions, the Bishop
wrote to a friend in England to send him the best books on both
sides of the question of the credibility of the Mosaic history. His
friend sent him the works of Ewald and Kurtz, the former in
German and the latter in an English translation. Laying Ewald
on the shelf, he studied Kurtz, who maintained with great zeal
and ability tho historical accuracy of the Pentateuch. He then
grappled with Ewald, who maintained an opposite view. The
result of the Bishop’s study, with the aid of a few other German
books, appeared in the first volume of his work issued in 1862,
followed soon after by four more volumes. The books met with
a very large sale in England. The first two volumes only aro
published as yet in this country. Perhaps the demand would not
encourage the republication of the complete set. A great deal
of the work is made up of apology, much more of answers to
orthodox expositors and critics who have attempted to explain the
very difficulties which presented themselves to the inquiring mind
of the author, and a large part of the last three volumes consists
of elaborate criticism, and a presentation of various portions of
the Pentateuch attributed to the different writers thereof. In
this Abstract all those portions are passed by, the object being to
compress into the smallest practicable compass the gist of the
whole argument. Should the reader wish to see what can be said
in answer to the very criticisms which Colenso makes, he will find
it fairly presented and candidly considered by the author in his
complete work.
�VOL. I.
INCREDIBLE NARRATIVES OF THE PENTATEUCH.
In Vol. I. Bishop Colenso shows, by means of a number of
prominent instances, that the books of the Pentateuch contain, in
their own account of the story which they profess to relate, such
remarkable contradictions, and involve such plain impossibilities,
that they cannot be regarded as true narratives of actual histori
cal matters of fact. Passing over the many difficulties which ex
ist in the earlier parts of the history, he begins at once with the
account of the Exodus.
THE FAMILY OF JUDAH.
Judah was forty-two years old when he went down with Jacob
into Egypt, being three years older than his brother Joseph, who
was then thirty-nine. For “Joseph was thirty years old when
he stood before Pharaoh ” (G. xli. 46) ; and from that time nine
years elapsed (seven of plenty and two of famine) before Jacob
came down into Egypt. Judah was born in the fourth year of
Jacob’s double marriage (G. xxix. 35), being the fourth of the
seven children of Leah born in seven years; and Joseph was born
of Rachel in the seventh year (G. xxx. 24, 26; xxi. 41). In these
forty-two years of Judah’s life the following events are recorded
in G. xxxviii.:
He grows up, marries, and has three sons. The eldest grows
up, marries, and dies. The second son marries his brother’s widow
and dies. The third son, after waiting to grow to maturity, de
clines to marry the widow. The widow then deceives Judah him
self, and bears him twins—Pharez and Zarah. One of these twins
grows up and has two sons—Hezron and Hamul—born to him be
fore Jacob goes down into Egypt.
ALL THE PEOPLE AT THE DOOR OF THE TABERNACLE.
Moses, at the command of Jehovah, gathered “ all the congre
gation together unto the door of the tabernacle.” (L. viii. 1-4.)
�4
ABSTRACT OF COLENSO
By “ all the congregation ” is meant the whole body of the peo
ple, or at all events the main body of adult males in the prime
of life, as is shown by numerous texts where the expression is
used. (E. xvi. 2; L. xxiv. 14 ; N. i. 18.) In Jo. viii. 35, the
women and children are included. The mass of the male adults
must have numbered more than the number of warriors, which is
nowhere fixed at less than 600,000. Now the whole width of the
tabernacle was only eighteen feet, as may be gathered from E.
xxvi., so that a close column of 600,000 men covering this front,
allowing two feet in width and eighteen inches in depth for each
full-grown man, would have reached back nearly twenty miles ;
or if the column covered the whole width of the court, which was
ninety feet, it would have extended back nearly four miles. The
whole court of the tabernacle comprised not more than 1,692
square yards, after deducting the area of the tabernacle itself,
which covered 108 square yards, and therefore could have held only
5,000 people closely packed. The ministering Levites “ from thirty
to fifty years old ” numbered 8,580 (N. iv. 48); even they, conse
quently, could not all have stood within the court.
MOSES AND JOSHUA ADDRESSING ALL ISRAEL.
“ These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel.”
(D.i. 1.)
“ And Moses called all Israel and said unto them.” (D. v. 1.)
“ There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which
Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the
women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conver
sant among them.” (Jo. viii. 35.)
How was it possible to do this before at least 2,000,000 people ?
Could Moses or Joshua, as actual eye-witnesses, have expressed
themselves in such extravagant language ? Surely not.
EXTENT OF THE CAMP AND DUTIES OF THE PRIESTS.
The camp of the Israelites must have been at least a mile and
a half in diameter. This would be allowing to each person on
the average a space three times the size of a coffin for a fullgrown man. The ashes, offal, and refuse of the sacrifices would
therefore have to be carried by the priest in person a distance of
three-quarters of a mile “ without the camp, unto a clean place."
tL. iv. 11, 12.) There were only three priests, namely, Aaron,
�ON THE PENTATEUCH.
5
Eleazer, and Ithamar, to do all this work for 2,000,000 people.
All the wood and water would have to be brought into this im
mense camp from the outside. Where could the supplies have
been got while the camp was under Sinai, in a desert, for nearly
twelve months together ? How could so great a camp have been
kept clean ?
But how huge does the difficulty become if we take the more
reasonable dimensions of twelve miles square for this camp ; that
is, about the size of London ! Imagine at least half a million of
men having to go out daily a distance of six miles and back, to
the suburbs, for the common necessities of nature, as the law
directed.
TWO NUMBERINGS SIX MONTHS APART ; EXACT COINCIDENCE.
In E. xxx. 11-13, Jehovah commanded Moses to take a census
of the children of -Israel, and in doing it to collect half a shekel
of the sanctuary as atonement money. This expression “ shekel
of the sanctuary ” is put into the mouth of Jehovah six or seven
months before the tabernacle was made. In E. xxxviii. 26, we
read of such a tribute being paid, but nothing is there said of any
census being taken, only the number of those who paid, from twenty
years old and upward, was 603,550 men. In N. i. 1-46, more than
six months after this occasion, an account of an actual census is
given, but no atonement money is mentioned. If in the first in
stance a census was taken, but accidentally omitted to be men
tioned, and in the second instance the tribute was paid but
accidentally omitted likewise, it is nevertheless surprising that the
number of adult males should have been identically the same
(603,550) on both occasions, six months apart.
THE ISRAELITES DWELLING IN TENTS.
The Israelites at their exodus were provided with tents (E. xvi.
16), in which they undoubtedly encamped and dwelt. They did
not dwell in tents in Egypt, but in “ houses ” with “ doors,” “ side
posts,” and “ lintels.” These tents must have been made either
of hair or of skin (E. xxvi. 7, 14, xxxvi. 14, 19)—more probably
of the latter—and were therefore much heavier than the modern
canvas tents. At least 200,000 were required to accommodate
2,000,000 people. Supposing they took these tents from Egypt,
how did they carry them in their hurried march to the Red Sea ?
�6
ABSTRACT OF COeENSO
The people had burdens enough without them. They had to
carry their kneading troughs with the dough uflleavened, their
clothes, their cooking utensils, couches, infants, aged and infirm
persons, and food enough, for at least a month’s use, or until
manna was provided for them in the wilderness, which was “ on
the fifteenth day of the second month after their departure out
of the land of Egypt” (E. xvi. 1.). One of these tents, with its
poles, pegs, etc , would be a load for a single ox, so that they
would have needed 200,000 oxen to carry the tents. But oxen
are not usually trained to carry goods on their backs, and will
not do so without training.
THE ISRAELITES ARMED.
“ The children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of
Egypt.” (E. xiii. 18.)
The marginal reading for “ harnessed ” is “ by five in rank.”
But as this would make of the 600,000 men a column sixty-eight
miles long, this translation only increases the difficulty, as it
would have taken several days to have started them all off. The
Hebrew word is elsewhere rendered “ armed,” or “ in battle array.”
Certainly about a month after the exodus the Israelites “ discom
fited ” the Amalekites “ with the edge of the sword.” (E. xvii.
13.) Hence they somehow possessed arms. And yet this army
of 600,000 had become so debased by long servitude that they
could not strike a single blow for liberty in Egypt, but could only
weakly wail and murmur against Moses, saying, “ It had been
better for us to serve the Egyptians than that we should die in
the wilderness! ”
INSTITUTION OF THE PASSOVER.
The whole population of Israel were instructed in one single
day to keep the passover, and actually did keep it. (E. xii.) At
the first notice of any such feast, Jehovah said, “ I will pass
through the land of Egypt this night.” The passover was to be
killed “ at even ” on the same day that Moses received the com
mand. The women were at the same time ordered to borrow
jewels of their neighbors, the Egyptians. After midnight of the
same day the Israelites received notice to start for the wilderness.
No one was to go out of his house till morning, when they were
to take their hurried flight with their cattle and herds. How
�ON THE PENTATEUCH.
7
could 2,000,000 people, scattered about over a wide district as they
must have been with their cattle and* herds, have gotten ready
and taken a simultaneous hurried flight at twelve hours’ notice ?
MARCH OUT OF EGYPT.
The Israelites, with their flocks and herds, reached the Red
Sea, a distance of from fifty to sixty miles over a sandy desert
in three days ! Marching fifty abreast, the able-bodied warri
ors alone would have filled up the road for seven miles, and the
whole multitude would have made a column twenty-two miles long,
so that the last of the body could not have been started until the
front had advanced that distance—more than two days’ journey
for such a mixed company. Then the sheep and cattle must have
formed another vast column, covering a much greater tract of
ground in proportion to their number. Upon what did these two
millions of sheep and oxen feed in the journey to the Red Sea
over a desert region, sandy, gravelly, and stony alternately ?
How did the people manage with the sick and infirm, and espe
cially with the 750 births that must have taken place in the three
days’ march ?
THE SHEEP AND CATTLE IN THE WILDERNESS.
The Israelites undoubtedly had flocks and herds of cattle.
(E. xxxiv. 3.)^ They sojourned nearly a year before Sinai, where
there was no feed for cattle; and the wilderness in which
they sojourned nearly forty years is now and was then a desert.
(D. xxxii. 10; viii. 15.) The cattle surely did not subsist on
manna !
EXTENT AND POPULATION OF THE LAND OF CANAAN.
The extent of land occupied by the Israelites in the time of
Joshua was about 11,000 square miles, or 7,000,000 acres—a little
larger than the State of Vermont. The number of Israelites was
not less than 2,000,000. This limited, mountainous, and by no
means fertile area of country, therefore, had to subsist these 2,000,000 people, and prior to their occupation of it had subsisted “ seven
nations greater and mightier ” than the Israelitish nation itself.
(D. vii, 1.)
�8
ABSTRACT OF COLENSO
FECUNDITY OF THE HEBREW MOTHERS.
“ All the first-born males from a month old and upwards, of
those that were numbered, were 22,273.” (N. iii. 43.) The lowest
computation of the whole number of the people at that time is
2,000,000. The number of males would be 1,000,000. Dividing
the latter number by the number of first born gives 44, which
would be the average number of boys in each family, or about
88 children by each mother. Or, if where the first born were
females the males were not counted, the number of children by
each mother would be reduced to 44.
PRODIGIOUS INCREASE IN FOUR GENERATIONS.
The number of the children of Israel who went into Egypt
was 70 (E. i. 5). They sojourned in Egypt 215 years. It could
not have been 430 years, as would appear from E. xii. 40. The
marginal chronology makes the period 215 years, and there were
only four generations to the exodus, namely, Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses (E. vi. 16, 18, 20). How could these people have
increased in 215 years from 70 souls so as to number 600,000 war
riors ? It would have required an average number of 46 children
to each father. The 12 sons of Jacob had between them only 53
sons. At this rate of increase, in the fourth generation there
would have been only 6,311 males, provided they were all living
at the time of the exodus, instead of 1,000,000. If we add the
fifth generation, who would be mostly children, the total number
of males would not have exceeded 28,465.
EXTRAORDINARY INCREASE OF THE DANITES.
Dan in the first generation had but one son (G. xlvi. 23), and
yet in the fourth generation his descendants had increased to
62,700 warriors (N. ii. 26), or 64,400 (N. xxvi. 43). Each of his
sons and grandsons must have had about 80 children of both
sexes. On the other hand, the Levites increased the number of
“ males from a month old and upwards ” during the 38 years in
the wilderness only from 22,000 to 23,000 (N. iii. 39, xxvi. 62)
and the tribe of Manasseh during the same time increased from
32,200 (N. i. 35) to 52,700 (xxvi. 34).
IMPOSSIBLE DUTIES OF THE PRIESTS.
Aaron and his two sons were the only priests during Aaron’s
�ON THE PENTATEUCH.
9
ifetime. They had to make all the burnt offerings on a single
11 tar nine feet square (E. xxxvii. 1), besides attending to other
priestly duties for 2,000,000 people. At the birth of every child,
both a burnt offering and a sin offering had to be made. The
number of births must be reckoned at least 250 a day, for
which consequently 500 sacrifices would have to be offered daily
-—an impossible duty to be performed by three priests. For poor
women pigeons were accepted instead of lambs. If half of
them offered pigeons, and only one instead of two, it would have
required 90,000 pigeons annually for this purpose alone. Where
did they get the pigeons ? How could they have had them at all
under Sinai ? There were thirteen cities where the presence of
these three priests was required (Jo. xxi. 19). The three priests
had to eat a large portion of the burnt offerings (N. xviii. 10) and
,all the' sin offerings—250 pigeons a day—more than 80 for each
priest.
IMPOSSIBLE SACRIFICES AT THE PASSOVER.
In keeping the second passover under Sinai, 150,000 lambs
must have been killed, i. e., one for each family (E. xii. 3, 4). The
Lecites slew them, and the three priests had to sprinkle the
blood from their hands (1 Chr. xxx. 16, xxxv. 11). The killing
had to be done “ between two evenings ” (E. xii. 6), and the
sprinkling had to be done in about two hours. The kifiing must
have been done in the .court of the tabernacle (L. i. 3, 5, xvii.
2-6). The area of the court could have held but 5,000 people at
most. Here the lambs had to be sacrificed at the rate of 1,250 a
minute, and each of the three priests had to sprinkle the blood of
more than 400 lambs every minute for two hours.
INCREDIBLE SLAUGHTER.
The number of warriors of the Israelites, as recorded at the
exodus, was 600,000 (E. xii. 37); subsequently it was 603,530
(E. xxxviii. 25-28), and at the end of their wanderings it was
601,730 (N. xxvi. 51). But in 2 Chr. xiii. 3 Abijah, king of Judah,
brings 400,000 men against Jeroboam, king of Israel, with
800,000, and “ there fell down slain of Israel 500,000 chosen men ”
(®. 17). On another occasion, Pekah, king of Israel, slew of Ju
dah in one day 120,000 valiant men (2 Chr. xxviii. 6.)
�10
ABSTRACT OF COLENSO
UNPARALLELED PRODIGY OF VALOR.
Among other prodigies of valor, 12,000 Israelites are recorded
in. N. xxxi. as slaying all the male Midis nites, taking captive all
the females and children, seizing all their cattle and flocks, num
bering 808,000 head, taking all their goods and burning all their
cities, without the loss of a single man. Then they killed all the
women and children except 32,000 virgins, whom they kept for
themselves. There would seem to have been at least 80,000
females in the aggregate, of whom 48,000 were killed, besides
(say) 20,000 boys. The number of men slaughtered must have
been about 48,000. Each Israelite therefore must have killed four
men in battle, carried off eight captive women and children, and
driven home sixty-seven head of cattle. And then after reaching
home, as a pastime, by command of Moses, he had to murder six
of his captive women and children in cold blood.
II
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFICULTIES.
In vol. II. Bishop Colenso devotes a preface and a first chapter
to the maintenance of the criticisms of vol. I. He shows that it
is impossible to apply any system of reduction to the exaggerated
numbers given in every part of the Pentateuch, without encoun
tering difficulties and contradictions quite as- formidable as those
presented by him. He then proceeds to investigate the question
of the real origin, age, and authorship of the different portions of
the Pentateuch and other early books of the Bible, and makes the
following points :
CONTRADICTORY STORY OF THE CREATION AND DELUGE.
The cosmogony of the 2d chapter of Genesis is contradictory
to that of chapter 1 in six particulars, the chief of which is, that
in the first chapter the birds and beasts are created before man,
and in the second after man. Again, in the first account Adam
find Eve are created together, completing the work of creation,
and in the second man is first made, then the beasts and birds,
�ON THE PENTATEUCH.
11
and lastly woman. It is therefore apparent that the two accountg
were written by different men j and this is corroborated by the
use of the name Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) in chapter 2, while
in chapter 1 it is simply God (Elohim).
A similar criticism is applied to the story of the flood, which
is evidently composed by two different writers, one making Noah
take into the ark animals of every kind, including clean beasts,
by twos (G. vii. 8, 9), and the other making him take in the clean
beasts by sevens (v. 2, 5). In this story, as in that of tne cre
ation, one writer uses the name of God simply, and the other
Lord God.
ELOHISTIC AND JEHOVISTIC WRITERS.
The book of Genesis bears evidence throughout of being the
work of two different writers, one of whom is distinguished by
the constant use of the word Elohim (translated “ God ”), and the
other by the admixture with it of the name Jehovah (translated
“ Lord ”). The Elohistic passages, taken together, form a very
tolerably connected whole, only interrupted here and there by a
break caused apparently by the Jehovistic writer having removed
some part of the Elohistic narrative, replacing it, perhaps, by one
of his own. Thus there are two contradictory accounts of the
creation and of the deluge intermingled.
THE PENTATEUCH COMPOSED EONG AFTER MOSES’S DEATn.
The books of the Pentateuch are never ascribed to Moses in
the inscriptions of Hebrew manuscripts, or anywhere else, except
in our modern translations. They must have been composed
at a later age than that of Moses or Joshua, as is shown by nu
merous passages that speak of places and things by names that
were not known nor given till long after the death of these men.
For example, Gilgal, mentioned in D. xi. 30, was not given as the
name of that place till after the entrance into Canaan (Jo. v. 9).
Lan, mentioned in G. xiv. 14, was not so called till long after the
time of Moses (Jo. xix. 47). In G xxxvi. 31, the beginning of
the reign of kings over Israel is spoken of historically, an event
which did not occur before the time of Samuel.
THE BOOK OF JOSHUA WRITTEN IN DAVID’S LIFETIME.
In Josh. x. 12-14, the miracle of the sun and moon standing
�12
ABSTRACT OF COLENSO
still is recorded, and in verse 13 these words are found: “Is not
this written in the Book ci Jasher?” Now, in 2 Sam. i. 18, we
read that David “ hade them teach the children of .Tudah the use
of the bow. Behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.” The
natural inference is, that this book was written not earlier than
the time of David, and the above passage in the bcok of Joshua
was written of course after that.
THE BOOKS OE KINGS WRITTEN AS LATE AS 561 B. C.
The Books of Kings seem to have been written as late, at least,
as 561 B. C., because in 2 Kings xxv. 27-30, mention is made of
Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, taking Jehoiachin, king of
Judah, out of prison, and feeding him “ all the days of his life.”
Evil-merodach came to the throne 561 B. C., and reigned two
years.
THE CHRONICLES WRITTEN ABOUT 400 B. C.
The author of the Books of Chronicles was probably a priest
or Levite, who wrote about 400 B. C. or nearly 200 years after
the captivity, and 650 years after David came to the throne.
These books go over the same grounds as the books of Samuel
and Kings, and often in the very same words. The Chronicles
are very inaccurate, and often contradictory to Samuel and Kings.
In 1 Chr. iii. 19-21, we have the following genealogy : Zerubbabel, Hananiah, Pelatiah; so that the Book was written after the
birth of Zerubbabfel’s grandson, and Zerubbabel was the leader
of the expedition which returned to Jerusalem after the decree
of Cyrus, 536 B. C.
EZRA AND NEHEMIAH WRITTEN AFTER 456 B. C.
The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah were, of course, written
after 456 B. C., when Ezra arrived at Jerusalem. Nehemiah’s
last act of reformation was in 409 B. C., and yet in Neh. xii. 11,
we have given the genealogy of Jaddua, who was high priest in
Alexander’s time, 332 B. C.
FIRST INTRODUCTION OF THE NAME JEHOVAH.
In E. vi. 2-8, God says to Moses: “ By my name Jehovah was
I not known to them ” (the patriarchs), and yet the name Jehovah,
translated Lord, is repeatedly used in the book of Genesis.’ If
�ON THE PENTATEUCH.
13
the name originated in the days of Moses, he certainly would
not, in writing the story of the Pentateuch, have put it into the
mouths of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (G. xiv. 22,
xxvi. 22, xxviii. 16), much less into that of a heathen man,
Abimelech (xxvi. 28). The contradiction is explained by the fact
that two different writers were concerned in composing the nar
rative, one of whom, in speaking of God, uses the name Elohim,
and the other the name Jehovah. The ground-work of the Pen
tateuch (and but a small portion of it, as the Bishop proposes to
show hereafter) was composed before the name Jehovah had been
familiar.
SAMUEL PKOBABLY THE ELOHISTIC WRITEH.
During and after the time of Samuel, we observe in the books
known by his name a gradually increasing partiality for the use
of names compounded with Jehovah (jo or iah), while there is
no instance of the kind throughout the Book of Judges, which
contains numerous names compounded with Elohim (el). In the
first seven chapters of the first Book of Samuel we find the follow
ing names compounded with Elohim : A^kanah, A'Zihu, Eli, Sam
uel, Ele&zex; while we meet with but one name compounded with
Jehovah, viz : Joshua (vi. 18). But this name evidently belongs to
a man living considerably later than the time of Samuel, for the
passage reads, “ which stone remaineth unto this day in the field
of Joshua.” Then we read in viii. 1, 2, “ When Samuel was old,
he made his sons judges over Israel; now the name of his first
born was Joel, and the name of his second AbzoA.” It is remark
able that his first-born son should be named Joel, a contraction
of the compound name Jehovah and Elohim. In 1 Chr. vi. 28,
we are told that the name of Samuel’s eldest son was Vashni.
From this it would seem that the name was afterwards changed
to Joel. In the subsequent chapters there is a gradual increase
of names compounded with Jehovah.
In the Elohistic portions of the Book of Genesis, in some
of which a multitude of names occur, and many of them com
pounded with Elohim, in the form of El, there is not a single
one compounded with Jehovah, in the form either of the prefix
Jeho or Jo, or the termination jah, both of which were so com
monly employed in the later times. The name Jehovah is first
�14
ABSTRACT OF COLENSO
introduced by the Elohistic writer in Ex. vi. 3, as a,new name for
the God of Israel.
From these and other evidences adduced, Bishop Colenso con
cludes with some degree of confidence that Samuel was the Elo
histic writer of the Pentateuch, and that the Jehovistic writer
must have written not earlier than the latter part of David’s life,
when the name of Jehovah had become quite common, and n^#ies
began to be compounded with it freely. The narrative being
written from 300 to 400 years after the death of Moses, could not,
therefore, have been historically true, but may have been intended
as a series of parables, based on legendary facts, somo of which,
perhaps, had been recorded from time to time in a roll deposited
in the temple archives, to which access was occasionally had by
the priests.
[Note.—Sir Isaac Newton, in. his “Observations upon the
Prophecies,” etc., concludes that Samuel put the books of Moses
and Joshua into the form now extant, inserting into the book of
Genesis (xxxvi. 31-39) the race of the kings of Edom.]
Ill
THE AUTHOR OF DEUTERONOMY.
In vol. III., Bishop Colenso presents in great detail arguments
to prove that the book of Deuteronomy was written by a differ
ent hand from that or those which wrote the rest of the Penta
teuch. No attentive reader of the Bible, he says, can have failed
to remark the striking difference which exists between the stylo
and contents of Deuteronomy and those of the other books gen
erally of the Pentateuch. Deuteronomy forms the living portion,
the sum and substanee, of the whole Pentateuch. When wo
speak of the “ law of Moses,” we speak of Deuteronomy. In tho
New Testament Deuteronomy is frequently quoted with emphasis
as the law of Moses.
The principal proofs of a different authorship of this book are
as follows :
1. Each writer distinctly professes to give the identical com
mandments as spoken (E. xx. 11) or written (D. v. 22) by Jehovah ;
�ON THE PENTATEUCH.
15
W each assigns an entirely different reason for the observance
of the Sabbath. In Exodus it is because God rested on the seventh
day ; in Deuteronomy it is because he brought the Israelites out of
E^ypt “through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm.”
It is remarkable that the Deuteronomist should ignore the reason
assigned in Exodus.
2. In the other books of the Pentateuch, the priests are always
styled the “ sons of Aaron” (L. i. 5, 7, 8, 11, ii. 2, iii. 2, xiii. 2 ; N.
x. 8; comp. L. xxi. 21), and never the “ sons of Levi.” In
Deuteronomy they are always called “ sons of Levi, or “ Levitcs
(D. xvii. 9, 18, xviii. 1, xxi. 5, xxiv. 8, xxvii. 9, xxxi. 9 ; comp,
xviii. 1, 5), and never “ sons of Aaron.”
3. The Deuteronomist, in using the word “ law,” invariably re
fers to the whole law (D. i. 5, iv. 8, 44, xvii. 11, 18, 19, xxvii. 3, 8,
26) ; the other books almost always use the words with reference
to particular laws (E. xii. 49 ; L. vi. 9, 14, 25, vii. 1, 7, 11, 37).
4. The Deuteronomist confines all sacrifices to one place
“ which Jehovah would choose,” “ to put his name there” (D. xii.
5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26); the other books say nothing about this, but
expressly imply the contrary (E. xx. 24).
5. The Deuteronomist, though he strictly enjoins the observ
ance of the other three great leasts, and the Passover (xvi. 1—1 <),
makes no mention whatever of the Feast of Trumpets (L. xxiii.
23-25, N. xxix. 1-6), or the Day of Atonement (L. xxiii. 26-32,
N. xxix. 7-11), on each of which days it was expressly ordered
that the people should “ do no servile work,” but should hold “ a
holy convocation.” The directions in N. xxix are supposed to
have been laid down by Jehovah only a few weeks previous to
the address of Moses in Deuteronomy ; yet here in making a final
summary of duties, as he is represented as doing, he omits all
mention of those two important days, upon which the same stress
is laid in L. xxiii. as on the other three great feasts, and for the
neglect of which death was threatened as a punishment.
6. In D. viii. 4, xxix. 5, and elsewhere, mention is made of
clothing which lasted the Israelites forty years without waxing old
upon them. No mention is made in the older narrative of this
miraculous provision of clothing.
7. In D. ix. 18, Moses says he “fell down before the Lord as
at the first forty days and nights,” and fasted as he had done also
at the first (®. 9). According to the older story, he fasted only
�16
ABSTRACT OF COLENSO
when he went up the second time—not the first (E. xxiv. 18,
xxxiv. 28).
8. In E. xviii. 25, 26, we read that Moses chose able men out
of all Israel, and made them judges over the people. This was
just before the giving of the law at Sinai. In D. i. 6-18, the ap
pointment of these same officers is made to take place nearly
twelve months after the giving of the law, when the Israelites
are just about to leave Horeb (v. 6). In E. xix. we find that the
giving of the law was in the third month after the de
parture from Egypt. The Israelites took their departure from
Sinai in the second month of the second year (N. x. 11), and this
was the time referred to in D. i. when these judges were appoint
ed (®. 6, 9).
9. In D. x. 1-5, mention is made of the ark being prepared as
a receptacle of the table of the laws before Moses goes up into
the mount. The older narrative says nothing about an ark being
prepared beforehand for the tables (E. xxxiv. 29). It is only
after comiug down with the second set of tables that Moses sum
mons the wise-hearted (E. xxxv. 10-12) to “come and make all
that the Lord hath commanded, the tabernacle, his tent and his
covering, etc., the ark,” etc. The tabernacle is constantly men
tioned in the three middle books of the Pentateuch, but is never
once named in Deuteronomy until the announcement to Moses in
xxxi. 14, 15, that he should die. And this passage is shown to be
an interpolation, with several others at the close of the book.
10. In D. x. 8, we read, “At that time the Lord separated the
tribe of Levi,” i. e., after the death of Aaron (®. 6). In N. iii. 5,
6, 7, the separation is made to take place in Aaron’s lifetime.
11. The Deuteronomist lays great stress on the duty of being
charitable and hospitable to the Levite, placing him in the same
category as the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and treat
ing him as a sort of mendicant when sojourning within the gates,
thus ignoring the fact that the children of Levi were entitled to
one-tenth in Israel for an inheritance (N. xviii. 21). Not a word
is said about the Levites having any divine right to demand or at
least to accept the payment of tithes from the people, according
to the provisions supposed to have been made by Jehovah him
self in N. xviii. 21. The Deuteronomist makes Moses speak of
the Levite as an object of charity only a few months after the pro
mulgation of this law in Numbers about the Levites’ inheritance.
�ON THE PENTATEUCH
17
Not a trace of poverty in regard to the Levites is found in the
first four books. Under the later kings we have unmistakable
indications of the poverty of the priests.
12. In D. xiv. 19, every creeping thing that flieth is declared
unclean, and is forbidden to be eaten. In L. xi. 21-23, every
creeping thing that flieth is allowed to be eatea, and four forms
of locusts are mentioned.
13. Numerous expressions common throughout the first four
books are never employed by the Deuteronomist, and vice versa.
Bishop Colenso ciles thirty-three expressions in Deuteronomy,
each of which is found on an average eight times in that book,
but not one of which is found even once in the other four books.
In Deuteronomy the expression “ the Lord thy God,” or “ the
Lord our God,” occurs with remarkable frequency ; but it is very
rarely found in the other books.
WHEN WAS DEUTERONOMY WRITTEN, AND BY WHOM?
1. The author of Deuteronomy must have lived after the other
writers of the Pentateuch, since he refers throughout to passages
in the story of the exodus recorded in the other books, and refers
directly, in xxiv. 8, to the laws about leprosy given in Leviticus.
If, therefore, the Elohistic and Jehovistic portions of the Penta
teuch were written not earlier than the times of Samuel, David,
and Solomon, it is plain that the Deuteronomist must have lived
no earlier, but probably later than the time of Solomon.
2. The phrase “ sons of Levi ” and “ Levites,” always used by
the Deuteronomist, is invariably used by Jeremiah and the other
later prophets (Jer. xxxiii. 18, 21, 22 ; Ezek. xliii. 19, xliv. 15,
xlviii. 13 ; Mai. iii. 3. Comp. Mai. ii, 4, 8). The Deuteronomist,
like Jeremiah, uses the word “ law ” in the singular only in speak
ing of the whole law (Jer. ii. 8, vi. 19, viii. 8, ix. 13). The Deuter
onomist confines all sacrifices to the place where “ Jehovah would
place his name so Jeremiah speaks repeatedly of Jerusalem or
the temple as a place called by Jehovah’s name (vii. 10, 11, 14,
30, xxv. 29). Numerous other expressions are used by the Deu
teronomist in common with the ) iter Biblical writers only. Out
of thirty-three expressions, each of which occurs on an average
eight times in Deuteronomy, but not one of which is found in
the other books of the Pentateuch, seventeen are found repeated
with more or less frequency in Jeremiah, and many of the others
�18
ABSTRACT OF COLENSO
or their representatives are partially repeated in his prophecies,
Expressions do occasionally occur in the other books of the Pen
tateuch which are peculiar to Deuteronomy ; but it is possible, if
not probable, that the writer of the latter book may have inter
polated those few passages.
3. The Deuteronomist, in xvii. 2-7, expresses strong abhor
rence of all manner of idolatry, and especially of the worship of
the “ sun or moon, or any of the host of heaven,” the first in
timation of which worship is found in the reign of Josiah’s father,
Manasseh (2 K. xxi. 3, 5).
4. That the book of Deuteronomy was written after the time
of Samuel is shown by the fact that the laws referring to the
kingdom seem not to have been known to Samuel (1 S. viii. 6-18),
nor to the later writer of Samuel’s doings. In S. xii. 17-19, he
charges it upon the people as a great sin that they had desired a
king.
5. The mention of the kingdom in D. xvii. 14-18, with the
distinct reference to the dangers likely to arise to the State from
the king multiplying to himself “ wives,” “ silver,” “ gold,” and
“ horses,” implies that the book was written after the age of Sol
omon ; and this is confirmed by the frequent reference to the
place which Jehovah would choose, i. e., Jerusalem and the
temple.
6. The tabernacle, so frequently spoken of in the three middle
books of the Pentateuch, but never once named by the Deuteron
omist till near the close of the book, in an interpolated passage,
had long since passed away in Jeremiah’s time.
7. That the book was written after the captivity of the ten
tribes, in the sixth year of Hezekiah’s reign, is evident from the
fact that the sorrows of that event are referred to as matters well
known and things of the past (D. iv. 25-28).
8. In 2 K. xxii. and xxiii. we find an account of the dis
covery of the “ book of the law in the house of the Lord,” in
the eighteenth year of King Josiah, which caused a great sensa
tion. Where conld this book have been hidden for eight centu
ries ? Could it have escaped the notice of David, Solomon, and
others ? Can we resist the suspicion that the writing of the book
and the placing of it where it was found were pretty nearly con
temporaneous ? Shaphan, the scribe, read the book before the
king, and appears to have read all the words of it. Again the
�ON THE PENTATEUCH.
19
next day the king himself read in the ears of the people “ all the
words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house
of the Lord.” The name “ book of the covenant ” cannot well
apply to all the Pentateuch, though it may apply to the book of
Deuteronomy, or to the chief portion of it, since we find it written
in D. xxix. 1, “ These are the words of the covenant.”
9. The whole description of the nature and effect of the words
contained in the book shows that it must have been the book of
Deuteronomy. A reform took place in regard to idolatrous prac
tices immediately after the discovery of this book. Never before
was such a passover held as in that same year; but we have no
sign whatever of another such passover being held, even by
Josiah. Perhaps after a time the young king also became aware
of the real facts of the case, and his zeal may have been dampened
by the discovery.
10. In that age and time of Jewish debasement, when the law
book as it then existed was not well suited to the present necessi
ties of the people, Jeremiah or any other seer may have considered
himself justified in summoning up the spirit of the older law in
a powerful address adapted to the pressing circumstances of the
times, putting words into the mouth of the departed lawgiver,
Moses, to reinforce the laws by solemn prophetical utterances.
The intention may have been to put down by force the gross idol
atries which abounded in the kingdom, through the influence of
a disguised prophecy upon the mind of a well-meaning king.
11. The book of Deuteronomy must have been written after
the great spread among the tribes of Canaan of the worship of
the sun and moon and host of heaven (D. iv. 19). It seems to
have been first generally practised in Judah in the reign of Manasseh, the father of Josiah (2 K. xxi. 3, 5 ; 2 Chr. xxxiii. 3).
Manasseh’s grandfather Ahaz may have introduced it, as appears
from a comparison of 2 K. xxiii. 12 ; but it probably was not
much practised, and it certainly was not adopted by his son
Hezekiah. In Manasseh’s reign, however, it seems to have
flourished.
12. It must have been written before the time of Josiah’s
reformation, since the words ascribed to Huldah the prophetess,
in D. xxii. 15-20, refer to it; for she says, “ All the words of this
book wherein the king hath read shall be fulfilled.” She was
probably in the secret, and shared the hope of a great reforma-
�20
ABSTRACT OF COLENSO
tion, and there is little doubt that the “ book of the law ” was the
direct cause of that reformation. The whole theocratic state was
in imminent danger from the idolatrous practices that were pre
vailing. So the Deuteronomist laid down a new set of laws in
the name of Moses, and gave a new and firmer foundation to the
theocratic state. The attempted reformation was not, however,
successful, except to secure temple service at Jerusalem. That
introduced dead formalism, which existed until the Israelitish
nation became extinct.
13. It can scarcely be doubted, therefore, that it was written
either in the latter part of Manasseh’s reign or the early part of
Josiah’s. If it was written in the latter part of Manasseh’s reign,
the author must have lived, and probably have died, without see
ing the result of his labor—without betraying his secret; or, if
he lived j^Hl the disclosure of it, it is difficult to account for his
long silence with respect to its existence, which was maintained
during seventeen years of Josiah’s reign, when the king’s docile
piety and youth would have encouraged the production of such
a book if it really existed, and there was such imperative necessity
for that reformation to be begun as soon as possible, with a view
to which the book was written. Thus it seems most reasonable
to suppose that the book was in process of composition during
the first seventeen years of Josiah’s reign, when the youth of the
prince and his willingness to follow the teachings of the prophets
around him gave every encouragement for such an attempt being
made to bring about the great change that was needed.
14. Jeremiah lived in that very age, and began to prophesy
in the thirteenth year of Josiah, four or five years before this
book was found.
IMMORAL COMMANDS OP DEUTERONOMY.
Bishop Colenso is glad to know that such commands as these,
taken from this book, are at variance with God's law :
1. Excluding from the congregation of the Lord persons mu
tilated in helpless infancy, while those by whose agency the act
in question was encouraged or perhaps performed are allowed
free access to the sanctuary.
2. Excluding in like manner the innocent base-born child,
but taking no account of the vicious parent.
3. Commanding the stubborn, rebellious son to be stoned to
�ON THE PENTATEUCH.
21
death, when, oftentimes the father and mother, who by their bad
example had corrupted, or by their faulty training had ruined
their child, deserved rather to suffer punishment.
4. Ordering that any city of any distant people with whom
Israel might be at war should first be summoned to surrender,
and if it should refuse to make peace on condition of all its in
habitants becoming tributary and doing service to Israel, it should
then be besieged and every male thereof should be put to the
sword; while of the cities which Israel was to inherit they were
to save nothing that breathed, lest they should become corrupted
by their idolatries and abominations.
THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY.
In vol. IV., after a long preface devoted to answers to objections
made to positions taken and supported in the previous volumes,
Bishop Colenso proceeds to make a critical comparison of the
Elohistic and Jehovistic passages in the first eleven chapters of
Genesis, to show that they were composed by two distinct writers.
The author then attacks the scientific and historical truthful
ness of the Scripture cosmogony, making the following points-:
THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION.
Despite all the criticisms of the word “create,” the plain
meaning of the first verse in Genesis is, that in the beginning of
the six days, as the first act of that continuous six days’ work
about six thousand years ago, according to the Biblical chronolo
gy, God created the heaven and the earth. But geology teaches
that the earth had existed millions of years before, and was brought
into its present form by continual changes through a long succes
sion of ages, during which enormous periods innumerable varieties
of animal and vegetable life abounded, from a time beyond all pow
er of calculation. So, also, God is represented as completing the
work of creation in six literal days, and resting upon and sancti
fying the seventh. In E. xx. 11, it is expressly said that “ in six
days God made the heaven and the earth, and all that in them is.”
�22
ABSTRACT OF COLENSO
That they were not indefinite periods of time is further shown by
the setting of two great lights in the firmament on the fourth day,
to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light
from the darkness. If the first three days were indefinite days,
why is the same word in the Hebrew used for that portion of the
twenty-four hours which the sun rules over ? Is the sense of the
word day, from the fourth day onward, to be considered different
from that of the same word as used prior thereto?
THE ORDER OF CREATION.
The order of creation in Genesis is, first plants, then fish, then
fowls, then cattle and reptiles, and lastly man. Geology shows
that in the different ages plants and animals of all kinds appeared
together at the same time on the earth; so that they were not
successively created, as the Bible says, first all the plants, and then
dll the fish, etc.
CHAOS.
Genesis represents the earth as “ without form and void,” in a
state of utter chaos and confusion, and wrapped in darkness, im
mediately before the races of plants and animals now existing on
its face were created. Geology proves that the earth had existed
generally just as now, with the same kind of animal and vegeta
ble life as now, long before the six thousand years implied in the
Bible story, and that no sudden convulsion took place at that time
by which they might have been destroyed, so as to give occasion
for a new creation.
THE SUN AND MOON CREATED ON THE FOURTH DAY.
It is a mere evasion of the plain meaning of words to say that
God meant the sun and moon to appear first only on the fourth
day, although they had been long before created—appear, that is,
to the earth, when, however, according to the story, there was as.
yet no living creature on its face to see them I The writer uses
the same Hebrew word “ made ” as he had used before when he
says God made the firmament, and which he afterwards uses when
he says God made the animals.
THE FIRMAMENT OF WATERS.
The dividing of the waters below the firmament from the
�ON THE PENTATEUCH.
23
waters above it was founded upon the idea that the sky was an
expanse, a spread-out surface, and that the upper waters dropped
rain.
WHAT DID BEASTS OE PREY EAT ?
To every animal God gave every green herb for meat. The
question arises, how were the beasts of prey to be supported, since
their teeth, stomachs, and bodily form were not adapted for eating
herbs ? But in fact geology teaches that ravenous creatures
preyed on their fellow creatures, and lived on flesh, in all ages of
the world’s past history, just exactly as they do now. Besides, al
most all fishes are carnivorous.
THE ZENDAVESTA STORY OF CREATION.
The account of the creation in Genesis corresponds with that
of the Zendavesta, which was composed near the same locality.
According to the latter, the universe was created in six periods of
time by Ormuzd, in the following order : 1. The heaven and the
terrestrial light between heaven and earth ; 2. The water; 3. The
earth ; 4. The trees and plants ; 5. Animals ; 6. Man ; whereupon
the Creator rested and connected the Divine origin of the festivals
with these periods of creation. The Persian tradition is substan
tially the same, showing that the story of Genesis had the same
origin. It is an ancient myth.
ADAM FORMED OF DUST.
“And the Lord God formed man (Adam) of the dust of the
ground” (Adamha). A play upon words.
THE RIVERS EUPHRATES, TIGRIS, NILE, AND INDUS UNITED.
The four rivers of Eden are made to unite in one. One of
these rivers is the Euphrates, and there is but little doubt that the
Hiddekel and the Gihon, as Josephus says, are the Tigris and Nile
respectively, and Pison probably the Indus.
DEATH THREATENED FOR DISOBEDIENCE.
“ In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
How could the first man understand what death was ? He had
not seen it.
NAMING OF THE ANIMALS.
Man was created before the other animals (the fishes excepted)
�24
ABSTRACT OF COLENSO
according to the second chapter, and they were brought to Adam
to be named. How could the white bear of the frozen zone and
the humming bird of the tropics have met in one spot to be
named, and then dispersed again ?
WAS EDEN THE CENTRE OF CREATION ?
Was there only one centre of creation? Were all reptiles,
fishes, and insects, as well as all plants, created in Eden only, and
thence scattered to the ends of the earth ?—the Indian corn, for
instance, which was not known in the eastern hemisphere until
after the discovery of America ?
ORIGIN OF THE DIFFERENT HUMAN RACES.
It is even now an open scientific question whether the Austra
lian savage, the African negro, the American Indian, and the Cau
casian are all descendants of a first pair.
WOMAN MADE OUT OF A RIB.
The making of the woman out of the man’s rib is thought by
some to convey an idea of the intimate relationship, sacredness,
and indissolubility of the conjugal state. The Greenlanders
believe that the first woman was fashioned out of the man’s
thumb I
THE CUNNING SERPENT.
“Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the
field.” It is the Jehovistic interpolator who writes this passage.
Here is the origin of evil, in a speaking serpent.
THE SERPENT CRAWLING AND EATING DUST.
“ Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shall thou eat.”
Here the serpent is represented as degraded and debased from
what it was originally. But geology shows that it was the same
kind of creature before man existed on the earth. As to the ser
pent’s eating dust, it is a falsehood founded on the scantiness of
its food. As to the enmity between the woman’s seed and the
serpent, it is not true. A snake is held in great respect among
the Zulus. It was an emblem of healing wisdom among the
Greeks, and a symbol of eternity to the Phoenicians.
PAIN IN CHILDBIRTH.
Pain to the woman in childbirth, and the subjection of woman
�ON THE PENTATEUCH.
25
to her husband, are fancies in the imagination of the Hebrew
writer. The subjection of the female to the male is not peculiar
to man amongst animals; and in tropical countries childbirth is
attended with little more pain and disturbance than the birth of
a beast.
CURSING THE GROUND.
“ Cursed is the ground for thy sake.” Geology shows no signs
of any such curse. Thorns and briers were as plentiful in the
primeval world as now ; and a life of toil and exertion is far more
healthful and ennobling than one of indolence and inactivity.
RETURNING TO DUST.
“ Till thou return unto the ground, for out of it thou wast
taken.” Geology shows that living creatures died long before.
“For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” This
would imply that Ada'm was not punished by death for his sin.
Death of the body was regarded by the ancient writers as the
end of all. No mention is made of the immortality of the soul.
PERSIAN STORY OF THE FIRST PAIR.
The Persian myth is similar to that of the Hebrews. The
first couple, Meshia and Meshiana, lived originally in purity and
innocence. Perpetual happiness was promised to them by the
Creator. An evil demon (Dev) came to them in the form of a
serpent, and gave them fruit of a wonderful tree, which imparted
immortality. Consequently they fell and forfeited the eternal
happiness for which they were destined. They killed beasts and
clothed themselves; they built houses, but paid not their debt of
gratitude to the Deity, and the evil demon obtained still more
perfect power over their minds.
CHINESE STORY OF HIE FALL.
The Chinese have their age of virtue, when Nature furnished
abundant food, and man lived peacefully, surrounded by all the
beasts, not knowing what it meant to do good or evil, and not
subject to disease or death. But partly by an undue thirst for
knowledge, and partly by increasing sensuality and the seduction
of woman, he fell. Passion and lust ruled his mind, war with
the animals began, and all Nature stood inimically arrayed
against him.
�26
ABSTRACT OF COLENSO
PARADISE OF THE GREEKS.
The Greeks had their Paradise or Elysium—their garden of
Hesperides, with its golden apples, in the islands of the blessed,
guarded by ever-watchful serpents.
SACRED MOUNTAIN- OF THE HINDOOS.
The Hindoos have their sacred mountain, Meru, in which no
sinful man can exist. It is perpetually clothed in the golden
rays of the sun, guarded by dreadful dragons, adorned by celes
tial plants, and watered by four rivers, which separate and flow
in four directions.
WHO WAS TO KILL CAIN ?
Cain is made to say, “ Every one that findeth me shall slay
me.” The only man on the face of the earth was Adam; Seth
was not yet born.
cain’s descendants favored.
The introduction of cattle-keeping, music, and smithery is
ascribed to the descendants of Cain, on whom the curse had
been pronounced I
LONGEVITY IN PREHISTORIC TIMES.
The great longevity of ancient times is common to the tra
ditions of all nations. As soon as we come down to historical
times we see no more of these great ages.
SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN.
“ The sons of God saw the daughters of men.” This is bor
rowed from foreign or heathen sources. See Book of Enoch—
an acknowledged forgery.
ANCIENT GIANTS.
“ There were giants in the earth in those days.” The belief in
races of giants was universal among the ancients, but that the
stature of the human race was really the same generally in those
days as now, is shown by the remains discovered in ancient tombs
and pyramids.
STORY OF THE DELUGE.
In the story of the deluge the ark is made to rest on the
highest summit of Ararat, and remain there seventy-three or
�ON THE PENTATEUCH.
27
seventy-four days after the waters had retired from the earth.
At this elevation of 17,00u feet—1,000 feet higher than Mont
Blanc, and 3,000 feet above the region of perpetual snow—all the
inhabitants of the ark must have frozen to death. Many other
difficulties are presented and discussed, and in conclusion Colenso
says that geology absolutely disproves the story.
WAS IT A PARTIAL DELUGE?
1. The difficulty of worms and snails crawling into the ark
from some large terrestrial basin in western Asia, is just as great as
from distant parts of the earth. One small brook would have been
a barrier to further progress. Nor could Noah have provided for
the wild carnivorous animals—the lion, leopard, eagle, vulture,
etc. And what need to crowd the ark with birds which could
easily have escaped beyond the boundaries of the inundation ?
2. The language of the Bible is too sweeping. God says,
“ Every living substance that I have made will I destroy from
off the face of the earth.” (G. vii. 4.)
3. One volcanic region, forty miles by twenty, in the provinces
of Auvergne and Languedoc, in France, contains deposits of sco
ria and lava extending over many miles, and in some places from
fifty to one hundred feet deep, which must have taken many
thousands of years to accumulate, and which have certainly not
been submerged during at least eighteen thousand years past.
4. In all the diluvian deposits no trace of human remains has
ever been found.
CHALDEAN STORY OE THE DELUGE.
Many heathen nations have traditions concerning a universal
deluge. There is a Chaldean story of Xisthurus building an immense ship, 3,000 by 1,200 feet, loading it with provisions, enter
ing it with his family and all species of quadrupeds, birds, and
reptiles, and sailing toward Armenia. When the rain ceased he
sent out birds to ascertain the condition of the earth. Twice
they returned—the second time with mud on their feet. The
third time they returned no more. By this time the ship had
grounded on the side of an Armenian mountain, whereupon Xis
thurus and his family left it, erected an altar, and offered sacri
fices to the gods. Pieces of bitumen and timber, ostensibly taken
from the ship, were in later times chiefly used as amulets.
�28
ABSTRACT OF COLENSO
GENERATIONS OE NOAH.
In G. x. the generations of Noah are enumerated. The nations
of Eastern Asia are not enumerated at all, though the writer
seems to have had some vague notion of the existence of distant
families (». 30).
IDENTITY OF LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS AND CANAANITES.
The fact that the patriarchs and Hebrews could converse with
the surrounding nations shows that their language was common,
and the indications are that the vernacular language of the
Canaanites was substantially the same as that of the Hebrews.
The language was radically the same from the earliest times.
THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, WHENCE DERIVED.
Whence was the Hebrew language derived ? The fact that
the Pentateuch was written in pure Hebrew appears to be strong
if not positive proof of its having been written at a much later
period of their national history than the exodus, or at a time
when the language of Canaan had become, after several genera
tions, the common tongue of the invading Hebrews, as well as of
the heathen tribes which they drove out, and ■which they were
unwilling to acknowledge as brethren. We never read of any in
terpreter between the Hebrews and the Philistines.
THE DISPERSION OF TONGUES.
The story of the dispersion of tongues is connected by the
Jehovistic writer with the famous unfinished temple of*Belus, of
which probably some wonderful reports had reached him, in
whatever age he may have lived. The derivation of the name
Babel from the Hebrew word meaning confound, which seems to
be the connecting point between the story and the tower of
Babel, is altogether incorrect, the literal meaning of the word
being house, or court, or gate of Bel.
REMARKABLE INCREASE IN FOUR HUNDRED YEARS.
In Abraham’s time, not four hundred years after the deluge,
the descendants of Noah’s three sons, none of whom had a child
before the deluge, had so multiplied that four kingdoms are men
tioned as engaging in war against five other kingdoms (G. xv.
1, 2). Besides these there are a multitude of other nations named
�ON THE PENTATEUCH,
29
in the same chapter, some of which had attained a high state of
civilization.
COMPLETE CHANGE OE PHYSICAL CHARACTER.
Moreover, in this short interval we find the most marked dif
ferences of physiognomy stamped on the different races, as shown
on the ancient monuments of Egypt. There was a completo
change of form, color, and general physical character, which
seem not to have been modified during the four thousand years
since.
NOAH’S VNDVTIFUL PROGENY.
Noah, and all the rest of Abraham’s ancestors after Noah,
were still living, as appears from the following record:
Noah
Sliem .
Arphaxad, born
Salah,
“
Eber,
“
Peleg,
“
Rmi,
“
Serug,
“
Nahor,
“
Terah,
“
Abraham, “
Isaac,
“
Jacob,
“
.
.
’2
37
67
101
131
163
193
222
292
392
452
.
died
“
years after, died
<<
“
“
Cl.
“
cc
“
cc
“
Cl
“
Cf
“
Cl
“
14
“
Cl
“
.
350 years after the flood.
cl
CC
502
cc
cc
404
cc
cc
470
cc
cc
351
cc
cc
340
cc
cc
370
cc
cc
393
cc
cc
341
«
u
427
cc
cc
467
cc
cc
572
cc
cc
599
And yet we do not find the slightest intimation that Abraham,
Isaac, or Jacob paid any kind of reverence or attention to their
illustrious ancestors.
ABRAHAM’S INCREDULITY ABOUT HAVING A SON.
Abraham laughed when told that a son should be born to him
that was a hundred years old ; and yet there were actually living
those ancestors of his from one hundred and seventy to five hun
dred and eighty years old at the time. Shein was one hundred
years old two years after the deluge, when he begat Arphaxad,
and he lived thereafter five hundred years, and begat sons and
daughters.
�30
ABSTRACT OF COLENSO
SILENCE OF THE REST OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ABOUT EDEN,
THE FALL, AND THE DELUGE.
The fact that nowhere in the other books of the Old Testa
ment is found any reference to the story in Genesis of the crea
tion, or the fall of man, or the deluge, except in Isaiah liv. 9
(where the waters of Noah are mentioned), and Ezek. xiv. 14-20
(where the name of Noah is mentioned), is easy of explanation if
the writer of these stories lived in the latter part of David’s reign.
THE BOOK OF ENOCH.
In an appendix to vol. IV. the book of Enoch is examined.
The Bishop says there is no doubt that the book is a fiction. Ac
cording to Archbishop Laurence, it was composed within about
fifty years immediately preceding the birth of Christ. From it
most of the language of the New Testament, in which the judg
ment of the last day is described, appears to have been directly de
rived. It is full of such expressions and sentences as these : “ Day
of judgment.” “ Judgment which shall last forever.” “ Lowest
depths of fire in torment.” “Ancient of Days upon the throne of
his glory.” “ The book of the living was opened in his presence.”
“ Valley burning with fire.” “Fetters of iron without weight.”
“ Furnace of burning fire.” “ The word of his wrath shall de
stroy all the sinners and all the ungodly, who shall perish at his
presence.” “ Trouble shall seize upon them when they shall be
hold this son of woman sitting upon the throne of his glory.’’
“ They shall fix their hopes on this son of man, shall pray to him
and petition for mercy. Then shall the Lord of spirits hasten to
expel them from his presence. Their faces shall be full of confu
sion, and their faces shall darkness cover. The angels shall take
them to punishment that vengeance may be inflicted on those
who have opposed his children and his elect. . . . But the saints
and the elect shall be safe in that day. . . . The Lord of spirits
shall remain over them, and with his son of man shall they dwell,
eat, lie down, and rise up forever and ever.”
BOOK OF JOSHUA.
Vol. V. opens with an examination of the book of Joshua
�ON THE PENTATEUCH.
31
after which the Bishop endeavors to separate the different por
tions of the different writers of the Pentateuch and the book of
Joshua, and to fix their exact age. The larger portion of the book
of Joshua, he believes, is due to the Deuteronomist, who must
consequently have lived at all events after the days of Moses,
since the death and burial of Moses are recorded in D. xxxiv.
The argument proceeds as follows :
THE DEUTERONOMIST.
Numerous expressions common to Deuteronomy and Joshua
occur nowhere else in the Pentateuch. These Deuteronomistic
formulas do not occur throughout the whole of the book of Joshua,
but only in certain portions of it; in the remaining parts of the
book, in which we find none of these formulas, we meet again
with the peculiar phrases of the old writers of the Pentateuch
which are never used by the Deuteronomist. The original lan
guage has been retouched and blended with that of the Deuter
onomist. The same also is true of the other four books ; there
is plain evidence that the Deuteronomist has revised and retouched
the manuscript before he added to it the sum and substance of the
law of the book of Deuteronomy. More than half of the book of
Joshua, especially of the historical and hortatory matter, consists
of interpolations by the Deuteronomist.
RESEARCHES OF HUPFIELD AND EOEnMER.
The author gives a summary of the researches of Hupfield
and Boehmer, exhibiting the Elohistic passages in Genesis, and
showing great unanimity as the result of three independent re
searches. They all agree substantially, except in regard to four
genealogical sections.
ELOHISTIC AND JEnOVISTIC PECULIARITIES.
There are more than one hundred different formulas or expres
sions, each of which occurs on an average more than ten times in
Genesis, but only in those portions of it which remain when the
Elohistic parts are removed. Some of them occur three times in
one verse. On the other hand, the Eloliistic portions in their
turn exhibit their own phraseology, which is never repeated in
the Jehovistic parts. Thus, only the Jehovistic portions contain
such expressions as “ lift up the eyes and see “ lift up the voice
and weep •” “ fall on the neck and weep ; ” “ find favor in the eyes
�32
ABSTRACT OF COLENSO
of;” “ see the face of; ” “run to meet,” etc.; and such words as
“ sin,” “ swear,” “ steal,” “ smite,” “ slay,” “ fear,” “ hate,” “ com
fort,” “ embrace,” “ kiss,” and even “ love.”
SIMPLICITY OF TIIE ELOHIST.
The Elohist appears to have had more correct views of the
nature of the Divine Being and of his paternal relations to mankind, and less gloomy views of man’s nature and the prospects of
the human race. According to him, “ God saw everything that
he had made, and behold it was very good.” But the Jehovist
speaks of the earth as corrupt and filled with violence. The lat
ter has a deep sense of sin and its consequences. The former
knows nothing about the Garden of Eden, the forbidden fruit, the
wily serpent, or the fall of man ; it is only the Jehovist who mul
tiplies curses upon the earth and pains of child-birth as the bitter
consequences of our first parents’ sin. The Jehovist gives all the
darkest parts of the histories of indvidual life, such as the drunk
enness of Noah, the presumption of the Babel builders, the great
selfishness of Lot, the uncleanness of Sodom, the wickedness of
Onan, etc. All those stories of impurity which make so many of
the passages of Genesis totally unfit to be read in public or in the
family are due to the Jehovist. The original Elohittic writer
presents the character of the three patriarchs substantially with
out a flaw. It is the Jehovist who lowers them.
INTERPOLATIONS IN THE JEHOVISTIO NARRATIVE.
We have seen that there are interpolations in the original
Elohistio narrative. We also find similar interpolations in differ
ent portions of the non-Elohistic matter itself. The non-Elohistic matter consists of the contributions of three or four different
■writers. For instance, chapter xiv. has no relation with any other
part of Genesis. It brings Abraham before us in the. character of
a warlike Sheik, with 318 trained servants. But in the subse
quent account of his going to Gerar (chap. xx.). where Abimelech
takes his wife from him, Abraham is afraid of his life, and prac
tises deceit, showing plainly that he could have had no such im
mense band of trained servants with him. lie had routed the
combined forces of Eastern kings, and needed not therefore, to
have ieared the power of the petty Prince of Gerar. This
chapter contains four times the expression, “God most high,”
�ON THE PENTATEUCH.
33
which occurs nowhere else in the Pentateuch, and only three
times besides in the Bible—namely, in the Psalms.
THE DEUTERONOMIST AN EDITOR.
The later writer or Deuteronomist was not the compiler, but
the editor of the Pentateuch and book of Joshua, which he inter
polated throughout and enlarged, especially by the addition of
the book of Deuteronomy. The interpolated passages for the
most part seem to have been inserted for the purpose of quicken
ing the history with a deeper spiritual meaning and stirring more
effectually the reader’s heart with words of religious life and
earnestness. To this editor Colenso ascribes sixty-three verses
entire of Genesis, and many more fragmentary notes.
FIRST AND SECOND ELOHIST.
About three-fourths of Genesis remain after removing the
parts due to the second Jehovist and Deuteronomist. This threefourths is so homogeneous in style that it is almost impossible to
distingush the difference in style between the different sections
of it except in one respect. There is a second Elohistic writer
who uses decidedly Jehovistic formulas, though he has abstained
from the use of the name Jehovah (Lord). But though it is diffi
cult to separate the parts due to these two writers, Colenso has
endeavored to do it. According to the critics there arc five wri
ters of the Pentateuch—namely, the Elohist, the Elohist number
two, the Jehovist, the Jehovist number two, and the Deuterono
mist. But Colenso thinks Elohist number two is the same as the
Jehovist, only at an earlier period of his life. In his earliest at
tempts at interpolation he was perhaps somewhat stiff in style,
which stiffness he overcame in his later years. Therefore the two
may be identical.
HOW THE JEHOVIST REGARDED THE ELOHISTIC NARRATIVE.
It has been already shown in vol. II. that the first chapter of
Genesis was written by the same hand which wrote Exodus
v. 2-7, revealing the name of Jehovah to Moses. The Elohistic
writer not having used that name until he used it in the above
passage, intended to be understood that the name was unknown
among men till then. Now if Moses himself really recorded that
fact is it possible that other writers of his time would have dared
to contradict it by interpolations ? It is incredible. The interpo-
�34
ABSTRACT OF COLENSO
lations must have been made at a later age by a writer who knew
that the original record was not historically true, and therefore
ventured to interpolate the name Jehovah. He must have known
that the original narrative was a work of the imagination, and
therefore that it was not necessary to adhere to the older state
ment.
AGE OF THE ELOHIST.
1. There is an air of primitive simplicity pervading the whole
Elohistic story. The style is grave, prosaic, and unadorned.
There is no instance of a story of indecency; crimes of violence
are mentioned, but none of an indecent character.
2. According to the Elohist mankind first lived on vegetable
food, and were not allowed to eat animals until after the flood.
3. In the Elohistic narrative there is no mention made of houses.
The ark is the only exception, but the details of if—the dimensions,
the door, the window, the roof, the stories—are given by the Jehovistic writer.
4. The Elohist makes no mention of sacrifices, priests, or tithes.
5. In G. xlviii. 5, 13, 14, Ephraim is set before Manasseh, though
the latter was the first born, and both are reckoned as tribes of Is
rael. “As Reuben and Simeon they shall be mine.” Now Manasseh
was the most prominent among the Northern tribes until shortly
before the time of Samuel, through its hero, Gideon (Jud. vi. 15).
Hence the composition of Genesis cannot be assigned at an earlier
period than about fifty years before Samuel, the time of Jephthah,
nor later than the time of David, shortly after Samuel.
6., In S. xxxv. 11, God promises Jacob that “a nation and a
company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of
thy loins,” No reference is made to his desccendants forming, as
they did, two nations, Judah and Israel; but a nation is spoken of
There is no enmity whatever implied in the Elohistic narrative
between Joseph and his brethren. The children of Israel are
plainly united in one body.
7. There is no enmity existing betweenEsau and Jacob—i. e.,
Edom and Israel; so that the narrative must have been written
before the feeling between them became bitter, as recorded in 2
S. viii. 14. This brings the date to a time not later than Samuel.
8. “ These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before
there reigned any king over the children of Israel” (G. xxxvi. 31)
�ON THE PENTATEUCH.
35
—meaning of course, all Israel, which restricts the time to that
of Saul, David, and Solomon, the first three kings. But as the
signs of a more primitive civilization in the narrative forbid our
assigning it to the age of Solomon, or even the latter part of
David’s reign, we must refer it to the early part or the time of
Samuel, when “ all the Israelites went down to the Philistines to
sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his ax, and his
mattock and when “ in the day of battle there was neither
sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were
with Saul and Jonathan ” (1 S. xiii. 20, 23),
9. The Elohist lays great stress on Hebron, in the land of
Canaan, where the field of Machpelah lay, as the resting place of
the bones of the Patriarchs. David, by Divine command, was di
rected (2 S. ii. 1) to make Hebron the centre of his power or seat
of Government. He reigned in Hebron over Judah seven
and a half years, and then in Jerusalem thirty-three years over
Israel and Judah (2 S. v. 5). After this Hebron disappears from
history altogether, except that Absalom begins his rebellion by
asking leave to go and pay a vow unto the Lord in Hebron (2 S.
xv. 7), and there sets up his kingdom (y. 10). It would seem highly
improbable that all this importance should be ascribed to Hebron
if the writer wrote after the first few years of David’s reign, when
he had captured the fortress of Zion and made Jerusalem his royal
city (2 S. v. 6, 7).
10. Samuel lived three years after the anointment of David,
and must have been aware of his valiant acts ; and his hopes seem
to have been centred in David after he had utterly despaired of
Saul. He may have advised David to go to Hebron, and may have
written the passages before us with a view to that event. Samuel,
having most likely a band of young men under his training, had to
provide instruction for them as a school of prophets. They had
no Bible, no body of Divinity; and what is more likely than that
he should have done his best to prepare such a narrative ?
AGE OF THE JEHOVIST.
1. The style of the Jehovist seems to be freer and easier than
that of the second Elohist, thereby indicating a later authorship.
2. Extended geographical knowledge is exhibited, pointing to
a later age than Samuel (G. ii. 11-14 and x.), when the people had
�36
ABSTRACT OF COLENSO
passed out of the mere agricultural condition in which they were
living in the time of Samuel, and had begun to have freer inter
course with surrounding nations and more especially with the
maritime people of Tyre and Sidon.
3. Indications of advanced civilization and even luxury are
found in the Jehovistic portions (G. ii. 11, 12). Instruments of
music and working in brass and iron are spoken of (iv. 21, 22),
whereas in Saul’s time “ there was no smith found throughout all
the land of Israel ” (1 S. xiii. 19).
4. Considerable acquaintance with Egyptian affairs and cus
toms is exhibited (xxxix. 20, xliii. 32, xlvi. 34, xlvii. 26, 1. 3).
5. Jacob is recorded as building himself a house (xxxiii. 17).
The details of Noah’s ark are similar to the directions for the
tabernacle. There are indications of artistic skill of every kind
which can scarcely have existed before the age of Solomon, and
which in fact never was indigenous, but belonged to the Tyrian
builders and other artisans engaged in the erection of the temple.
6. The hatred of Esau by Jacob is spoken of. In 2 K. viii. 2022, we read of Edom revolting from under the hand of Judah.
The prophecy in G. xxv. 23, that “ the elder shall serve the
younger,” seems to have had its fulfilment in the latter part of
David’s reign, when Edom was crushed and did remain a servant
to his younger brother Israel during the remainder of David’s
reign. But Edom recovered its independence at the beginning of
Solomon’s reign.
7. This w'ould also explain another phenomenon in connection
with this matter which we observe in the Jehovistic portion of
Genesis—viz., the reconciliation of Esau and Jacob, and the gen
erous conduct described in the narrative of chapter xxxviii.
8. The result remains that the Jehovistic sections of G. xxvii.
40, etc. referring to Esau, cannot have been written till after Da
vid’s death, but were probably composed at the very beginning of
Solomon’s reign, when Edom had long been serving his brother
and had just thrown off the yoke.
9. The Jehovist lays almost as much stress on Beer
sheba as the Elohist does on Hebron. Both Abraham and Isaac
dig a well at Beersheba and acquire the right of possession in
connection vi-ith a solemn covenant made with the Philistine king;
whereas, according to the Elohist, each of the three patriarchs
�ON THE PENTATEUCH.
37
lived solely at Hebron—at least after Abraham’s acquisition of
property there. And the Jehovist also in various places takes
account of their having lived there at some time in their lives.
10. In the days of David and Solomon the Israelitish territory
extended from Dan to Beersheba. The great stress laid on Beer
sheba therefore seems to point to the time of David and Solomon.
The phrase “from Dan even to Beersheba” is first used in Jud.
xx. 1, and in 1 S. iii. 20, narratives written, no doubt, in this age.
It is afterwards repeated.
AGES OF THE DIFFERENT WRITERS.
The result of Colenso’s researches is to fix the age3 of the dif
ferent writers, with the names of distinguished cotemporary
prophets, as follows :
Elohist, . . 1100—1060 B. C., cotemporary prophet, Samuel
2d Elohist,
Jehovist, )f 1AAA 1A1A
1060-1010
“
“
“
Nathan.
2d Jehovist, 1035
“
“
“
Gad.
Deuteronomist, 641—624
“
“
“ Jeremiah.
Samuel may have begun the Elohistic story, and left it unfin
ished in the hands of his disciples, Nathan and Gad, whom we
may fairly suppose to have been thrown under his auspices.
PHOENICIAN ORIGIN OF THE NAME JEHOVAn.
The name Jehovah the author traces to the Phoenicians. They
no doubt practiced substantially the same religion and spoke the
same language as the Israelites. Most decisive proof is given of
this by the series of Phoenician inscriptions lately published by
the authorities of the British Museum. The great Phoenician
Deity was the Sun, the male principle, while the Moon was re
garded as the symbol of the co-operating recipient powers of na
ture, the female principle. The Sun was worshipped under a
variety of names, among others that of Baal (Lord) and Adonis
(my Lord). But there was one name more augu-t and mysterious,
employed chiefly at the great feast of the harvest, and expressed
both by Christian and heathen writers by the very same Greek
letters, by which they express also the mysterious Hebrew name.
Thus there must have been a very close resemblance between the
two names, and accordingly we find Phoenician names compound-
�38
ABSTRACT OF C0LEN.50
ed with Jah exactly as Hebrew. It is preposterous to suppose
that the Phoenicians derived their names from the Hebrews.
It is not necessary to suppose that the Elohist invented the
name of Jehovah for his people. Samuel probably finding the
tribes, the northern especially, already in possession of the name,
adopted it as the name of the God of Israel. Afterwards the
Deuteronomist breathed new life into the dead letter of the law.
Meanwhile the people generally practised idolatry, even in the
reign of David and Solomon. Jehosophat, Asa, Ahaziah, and
Amaziah worshipped Jehovah (JHVH) on the high places, who
was the Baal of Israel. There is no censure of the kings for al
lowing this idolatry by the writer of the books of Samuel and
Kings. Yet all this while the great prophets of Israel were striv
ing with their stolid and perverse countrymen, to raise their
minds to higher views of the Divine nature, and nobler concep
tions of the meaning of that name they were daily profaning.
CORRUPT WORSHIP OF JEHOVAH.
The worship of Jehovah being introduced among the Hebrews
was long continued among them, as regards the great mass of the
people, in the same low form in which it existed among the Ca
naanite tribes, and was only gradually purified from its grosser
pollutions by the long continued efforts of those great prophets
whom God raised up for the purpose from time to time in differ
ent ages, aided no doubt in this work by the powerful national
calamities which befell them, and probably also in some measure by
their coming in contact during the time of their captivity with
those divine truths which were taught in the Zroasterian religion.
In fact, the state of Israel may be compared with that which, in
the view of many ardent Protestants, exists even now in Catholic
communities. The people in such cases worship the same God as
the Protestants; they call themselves Christians, servants of the
same Lord, yet there is much in their religion which Protestant
travelers regard as profound idolatry, and denounce as gross
abominations.
�THE NATION AND COUNTRY OF THE JEWS.
By W. H. B.
Very erroneous ideas prevail in regard to the magnitude of the nation
and country of the Jews, and their importance in history. Most maps
of ancient Palestine assign far too much territory to that nation. They
make the greatest length of the country from 160 to 17-5 miles, and its
greatest breadth from 70 to 90, inclosing an area of from 10,000 to
12,000 square miles—a little larger than the State of Vermont. They
not only include the entire Mediterranean coast for 160 miles, but a
considerable mountain tract on the north, above Dan, and a portion of
the desert on the south, below Beersheba, besides running the eastern
boundary out too far. Moreover, they lengthen the distances in every
direction. From Dan to Beersheba, the extreme northern and southern
towns, the distance on Mitchell’s map is 165 miles, and on Colton’s, 150;
but on a map accompanying “Biblical Researches in Palestine,” by
Edward Robinson, D. D., which is one of the most recent and elaborate,
and will doubtless be accepted as the best authority, the distance is only
128 miles.
Now, the Israelites were never able to drive out the Canaanites from
the choicest portion of the country—the Mediterranean coast—nor even
from most parts of the interior. (Judges i. 16-31 ; 1 Kings ix. 20, 21.) The
Phenicians, a powerful maritime people, occupied the northern portion
of the coast, and the Philistines the southern ; between these the Jebusites, or some other people, held control, so that the Israelites were
excluded from any part of the Mediterranean shore. The map of their
country must therefore undergo a reduction of a strip on the west at
least 10 miles wide by 160 long, or 1,600 square miles. A further reduc
tion must be made of about 400 square miles for the Dead Sea and Lake
of Tiberias. This leaves at most 9,000 square miles by Colton’s map.
But on this map the extreme length of the country is 175 miles ; which
is 47 miles too great; for the whole dominion of the Jews extended only
from Dan to Beersheba, which Dr. Robinson places only 128 mi es apart.
We must therefore make a further reduction of an area about 47 by 60
miles, or 2,800 square miles. Then we must take off a slice on the east,
at least 10 miles broad by 60 long, or 600 square miles. Thus we reduce
the area of Colton’s map, from 11,000 square miles, to 5,600—a little
less than the State of Connectidlit.
But now if we subtract from this what was wilderness and desert,
and also what was at no time inhabited and controlled by the Israelites,
we further reduce their habitable territory about one-lialf. The land of
�40
THE NATION AND COUNTRY OF THE JEWS.
Canaan being nearly all mountainous, and bounded on the south and east
by a vast desert which encroached upon the borders of the country, a
great part of it was barren wilderness. Nor did but one-fifth of the Is
raelites (two and a half tribes) occupy the country east of the Jordan
which was almost equal in extent to that on the west, the proper land of
promise. The eastern half, therefore, must have been but thinly popu
lated by the two and a half tribes, who were only able to maintain a
precarious foothold against the bordering enemies. So then it is not
probable that the Israelites actually inhabited and governed at any time,
a territory of more than 3,000 square miles, or not much if any larger
than the little State of Delaware. At all events, it can hardly be doubted
that Delaware contains more good land than the whole country of the
Jews ever did.
The promise to Abraham in Gen. xv. 18, is “from the river of Egypt
to the river Euphrates.” But the Jewish possessions never reached the
Nile by 200 miles. In Ex. xxxiii. 31, the promise is renewed, but the
river of Egypt is not named. The boundaries are “from the Red Sea
to the Sea of the Philistines (the Mediterranean), and from the desert to
the river.” By “the river ” was doubtless meant the Euphrates; and
assuming that by “ the desert ” was meant the eastern boundary (though
Canaan was bounded on the south also by the same great desert, which
reached to the Red Sea), we have in this promise a territory 600 miles
long by an average of about 180 broad, making an area of about 100.000
square miles, or ten times as much as the Jews ever could claim, and
nearly one-half of it uninhabitable. So then the promise was never ful
filled, for the Israelites were confined to a very small central portion of
their land of promise, and whether they occupied 3,000 or 12,000 square
miles in the period of their greatest power, the fact is not to be disputed
that their country was a very small one.
What was the physical character of the land of Canaan ? It is de
scribed in the Pentateuch as a “ land flowing with milk and honey.”
Such it may have seemed to the Israelites after wandering forty years
through the frightful desert of Sinai and Edom, where but for the
miraculous supply of food and water, every soul of them would have per
ished. But what was there in Canaan to warrant so extravagant an enco
mium 2 Surely there are no signs there now of its ever having been even
a fertile country. Modern travelers all agree that it is very barren and
desolate. How could it be otherwise 2 It is a country of rocks and
mountains, and is bounded on two sides by a vast desert.
Lamartine describes the journey from Bethany to Jericho as singularly
toilsome and melancholy—neither houses nor cultivation, mountains
without a shrub, immense rocks split bjitime, pinnacles tinged with colors
like those of an extinct volcano. “ From the summit of these hills, as
far as the eye can reach, wo see only black chains, conical or broken peaks,
a boundless labyrinth of passes rent through the mountains, and those
�THE NATION AND COUNTRY OF THE JEWS.
41
ravines lying in perfect and perpetual stillness, without a stream, with
out a wild animal, without even a flower, the relics of a convulsed land,
with waves of stone.” (Vol. II., p. 146.)
But lest it may be thought that these dismal features arc due to modern
degeneracy, let us take the testimony of an early Christian father, St.
Jerome, who lived a long time in Bethlehem, four miles south of Jeru
salem. In the year 414 he wrote to Dardanus thus :—
“ I beg of those who assert that the Jewish people after coming out of
Egypt took possession of this, country (which to us, by the passion and
resurrection of our Saviour has become truly the land of promise), to
show us w]iat this people possessed. Their whole dominions extended
only from Dan to Beersheba, hardly 160 Roman miles in length (147 geo
graphical miles). The Scriptures give no more to David and Solomon,
except what they acquired by alliance, after conquest......... Iam ashamed
to say what is the breadth of the land of promise, lest I should thereby
give the pagans occasion to blaspheme. It is but 47 miles (42 geograph
ical m:les) from Joppa to our little town of Bethlehem, beyond which,
all is a frightful desert.” (Vol. II., p. 605.)
Elsewhere he describes the country as the refuse and rubbish of nature.
He says that from Jerusalem to Bethlehem there is nothing but stones,
and in the summer the inhabitants can scarcely get water to drink.
In the year 1847, Lieut. Lynch, of the U. S. Navy, was sent to explore
the river Jordan and the Dead Sea. He and his party with great diffi
culty crossed the country from Acre to the lake of Tiberias, with trucks
drawn by camels. The only roads from time immemorial were mule
paths. Frequent detours had to be made, and they were compelled ac
tually to make some portions of their road. Even then the last declivity
could not be overcome, until all hands turned out and hauled the boats
and baggage down the steep places ; and many times it seemed as if, like
the ancient herd of swine, they would all rush precipitately into the sea.
Over three days were required to make the journey, which, in a straight
line would be only 27 miles. For the first few miles they passed over a
pretty fertile plain, but this was the ancient Phenician country, which
the Jews never conquered. The rest of the route was mountainous and
rocky, with not a tree visible, nor a house outside the little walled vil
lages. (pp. 135 to 152.)
. Arriving at the ancient sea of Galilee, they purchased the only boat
owned there (Letter to the Secretary of State). On this insignificant body
of water, 12 miles long by 7 wide, all the commerce of the Jews was
carried on, except in the reign of Solomon, when they had the use of
a port on the Red Sea. From thence, the party proceeded down the
Jordan; some in boats, the rest by land. They had to clear out old
channels, make new ones, and sometimes, trusting in Providence, they
plunged with headlong velocity down appalling descents. On the third
morning the frame boat was smashed and abandoned. The metallic boats
which they had provided for this perilous voyage were the only kind that
�42
THE NATION AND COUNTRY OF THE JEWS.
would survive. They plunged down twenty-seven threatening rapids,
besides many smaller ones in their passage from the lake to the Dead
Sea, a distance of 200 miles by the crooked Jordan, but only 56 in a
straight line. The fall in the whole distance is 654 feet. The width of
the river, Lieut. Lynch says, was 75 feet; but as this was at the time of
the flood, it must have been much less at low water. Other travelers
say it is only 40 feet wide. Even as it was, their boat, drawing only eight
inches of water, grounded in mid-channel, showing how very shallow
the river must have been in summer. A bridge spanning the stream with
a single pointed Saracenic arch is described by Lieut. Lynch, and a draw
ing of it is given by the Rev. Mr. Tristram in his “ Land of Israel ” (Lon
don, 1865) Through this single arch the waters have rushed for centu
ries, and still the bridge endures. Such is the famous Jordan—a narrow,
shallow, crooked, impetuous mountain stream.
In a book entitled “ The Holy Land, Syria,” etc., by David Roberts,
R. A. (London, 1855), the valley of the Jordan is thus described:—
“A large portion of the valley of the Jordan has been from the earliest
time almost a desert But in the northern part, the great number of rivu
lets which descend from the mountains on both sides, produce in many
places a luxuriant growth of wild herbage. So too in the southern part, ,
where similar rivulets exist, as around Jericho, there is even an exuber
ant fertility; but those rivulets seldom reach the Jordan, and have no
effect on the middle of the Ghor. The mountains on each side are rug
ged and desolate; the western cliffs overhanging the valley at an eleva
tion of 1,000 or 1,200 feet, while the eastern mountains fall back in rano-es
of from 2,000 to 2,500 feet.”
From the mouth of the Jordan to Jerusalem, the elevation is 3,927 feet.
The distance in a straight line on Robinson’s map is 16 miles. From the
nearest point on the Dead Sea it is 12 1-2 miles. An air-line railroad,
therefore, from the mouth of the river to Jeru alem would require an
average grade of 245 feet to the mile; and from the nearest point on the
Dead Sea, 314 feet to the mile. The length of the route would have to
be more than doubled or trebled to make a railroad practicable. From
Jerusalem to Yafa, the nearest practicable point on the Mediterranean,
is 33 miles in a direct line. As Jerusalem is 2,610 feet higher than the
sea level, the average grade of an air-line railroad between the two places
would be about 80 feet per mile. Should the time ever come when a
railroad would be required from the Mediterranean to the river Jordan,
via Jerusalem, the question might arise, which would be the most prac
ticable—the heavy grades required, or a tunnel from ten to twenty miles
long, and from one to two thousand feet below the site of the holy city.
What -was the size of ancient Jerusalem? We know pretty nearly
what it is now, and how many inhabitants it contains. It is three-quar
ters of a mile long, by a half a mile wide, and its population is not more
than 11,500 {Biblical Researches, Vol. I., p. 421), a large proportion of
whom are drawn thither by the renowned sanctity of the place. Dr.
�THE NATION AND COUNTRY OF THE JEWS.
43
Robinson measured the wall of the city, and found it to be only 12,978
feet in circumference, or nearly two and a half miles. (Vol. I., p. 268.)
In a book entitled “An Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jerusa
lem,’’ by James Fergusson (London, 1847), a diagram is given of the
walls of ancient and modern Jerusalem, from which it appears that the
greatest length of the city was at no time more than 6C00 feet, or a little
more than a mile, and its greatest width about three-quarters of a mile;
while the real Jerusalem of old was but a little more than a quarter that
size. The author gives the area of the different walled inclosures as
follows (p. 52): —
■ Area of the old city. ------ 513,000 yards.
That of the city of David, . 213,000
Partial Total,
-.................................... 756,000
That inclosed by the wrall of Agrippa,
- 1,456,000
Grand total, -----2,212,000
With these measurements Mr. Fergusson undertakes to estimate the
probable population o: the ancient city, as follows:—
“ If we allow the inhabitants of the first named cities fifty yards to
each individual, and that one-half of the new city was inhabited at the
rate of one person to each one hundred yards, this will give a permanent
population of 23,000 souls. If on the other hand we allow only thirtythree yards to each of the old cities, and admit that the whole of the new
was as densely populated as London; or allowing one hundred yards to
each inhabitant, we obtain 37,000 souls for the whole—which I do not
think it at all probable that Jerusalem ever could have contained as a
permanent population.”
In another part of the book (p. 47) he says :—
“If we were to trust Josephus, he would have us believe that Jerusa
lem contained at one time, or could contain, two and a half or three
millions of souls, and that at the siege of Titus, 1,100,000 perished by
famine and the sword; 97,000 were taken captive, and 40,000 allowed by
Titus to go free.”
In order to show the gross exaggeration of these numbers, he cites the
fact that the army of Titus did not exceed, altogether, 30,000, and that
Josephus himself enumerates the fighting men of the city at 23,400,
which would give a population something under 100,000. But even this
he believes to be an exaggeration. For says he :—
“ In all the sallies it cannot be discovered that at any time the Jews
could bring into the field 10,000 men, if so many.............. Titus inclosed
the city with a line four and one half miles in extent, which, with his j
small army, was so weak a disposition that a small body of the Jews
could easily have broken through it; but they never seem to have had
numbers sufficient to be able to attempt it.”
The author guesses that the Jews might have mustered at the begin
ning of the seige about 10,000 men, and that the city might have con
tained altogether about 40,000 inhabitants, permanent and transient, in
�44
THE NATION AND COUNTRY OF THE JEWS.
a space which in no other city in the world could accommodate 30,000
souls. But the wall of Agrippa was built, as this same author states,
twelve or thirteen years after the crucifixion ; hence prior to that time
the area of Jerusalem was only 756.000 yards, and it was capable of con
taining only 23,000 inhabitants at most, but probably never did contain
more than 15,000.
Now Jerusalem was the chief city of the Jews, and the greatest extent
of territory occupied by that nation does not now contain more than
200,000 inhabitants, if as many. Allowing to Jerusalem, in the period of
the greatest prosperity of the Jews, a population of even 20,000, is it at
all probable that the whole country could have contained anything like
even the lowest estimate to be gathered from the Scripture record? In
1 Chr. xxi. 5, 6, we read that the number of “ men that drew the sword ”
of Israel and Judah, amounted to 1,570,000, not counting the tribes of
Levi and Benjamin. In 2 Samuel xxiv. 9, the number given at the same
census is 1,300,000, and no omission is mentioned. Assuming the larger
number to be correct, and adding only one-eighth for the two tribes of
Levi and Benjamin, which may have been the smallest, we have 1,766,000
fighting men. This would give, at the rate of one fighting man to four
inhabitants, a total population of over 7,000,000 souls. But if we adopt
a more reasonable ratio, of one to six, we have a population of over
10,500,000 souls. And then we omit the aliens. These numbered 153,600
working men only two years later (2 Chr. ii 17), and the total alien
population, therefore, must have been about 500,000, which, added to the
census, would make the total population from 7,500,000 to 11,000,000, or
more. Can any intelligent man believe that a mountainous, barren coun
try, no larger than Connecticut, without commerce, without manufactures,
without the mechanical arts, without civilization, ever did, or could sub
sist even two millions of people ? Much less can it be believed that it
subsisted “ seven nations greater and mightier than the Israeliti'li nation
itself” (Deut. vii. 1), i. e., not less than 14,000,000.
That the Jews were a very barbarous people is undeniable. Assuming
as true, the account of their remarkable battle with the Midianites prior
to their entrance into Canaan, the wholesale slaughter of men, women
and children was an act peculiar only to a savage people. Who but a
barbarian chief could have commanded the murder in cold blood by
the returning victors, of all their captive women and children, save
32,000 virgins whom they were to keep alive for themselves I
Again, on taking the town of Jericho, they massacred all its inhabi
tants, saving only the harlot Rahab, who by falsehood and treachery had
betrayed her own people.
Sometime afterwards a civil war broke out among the Israelites them
selves, in which the tribe of Benjamin was almost, exterminated, leaving
only 600 males; whereupon the people, unwilling that one of their tribes
should be annihilated, fell upon and sacked a whole city of another of
�THE NATION AND COUNTRY OF THE JEWS.
45
their tribes, killing all its inhabitants except the virgins whom they gave
for wives to the survivors of the tribe of Benjamin. The Benjamites
lost in that battle 26,100 men, and their adversaries 40,030. (Judges xx.
15, 21, 25, 81.) The latter, however, not content with slaughtering all
the Benjamites but 600, proceeded to their towns and slew every man,
woman and child of the tribe. These must have numbered at least
80,000 ; so that the whole number killed in the three days of fraticidal
warfare was not less than 146,000.
Slavery necessarily makes a people barbarous. Not only were the
Israelites a nation of slaves, according to their own record, but after
their entry into Canaan, they were six times reduced to bondage in their
own land of promise. During a period of 281 years, they were in slavery
111 years, viz :—
Under the King of Mesopotamia, - 8 years. (Judges, iii. 8.)
iii. 14.)
- 18 (C
Under the-King of Moab,
( “
iv. 3.)
- 20 cc
Under the King of Canaan,
( “
vi. 1.)
7 cc
Under the Midianites,
( “
x. 8.)
- 18
In Gilead,
( “
- 40 :c
Under the Philistines,
( “ xiii. 1.)
That the Jews were far behind their surrounding neighbors in civili
zation is shown by the fact that in the first battle they fought under their
first king, Saul. they had in the whole army “neither sword nor spear
in the hand of any of the people,” except Saul and Jonathan. (1 Samuel
xiii. 22.) Nor was any “smith found throughout all the land of Israel”
(.r 19), but “ all the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen
cvo-y man his share, and his coulter, and his ax, and his mattock.” (v.
20.) This was 404 years after the exodus, and only 75 years prior to the
building of Solomon's temple. Their weapons of war were those of the
rudest savage. David used a sling to kill Goliath, showing that he had
not yet learned the use of more civilized weapons; not even the bow,
which he afterwards caused to be taught to liis people. (2 Samuel i. 18.)
As another evidence of the barbarism of the Jews, when David resolved
to build a house for himself, he had no native artisans, but had to send to
Hiram, King of Tyre, for masons and carpenters. (2 Samuel v. 11.)
Even the wood itself had to be brought from Tyre. It would seem that
even in those days, as now, the mountains of Canaan were destitute of
trees—a sure sign of a sterile country. The wood of course had to be
carried over land. Wheel-carriages were unknown to the Israelites, ex
cept in the form of chariots of iron used by their enemies, which pre
vented Judah, even with the help of the Lord, from driving out .the
inhabitants of the valleys. (Judges i 19.) David captured 1,000 chariots
in about the 16th year of his reign, of which he preserved only 100,
disabling all the horses. (1 Chr. xviii. 3.) Prior to this event neither
chariots nor horses had been used by the Israelites, nor was much use
made of them by the subsequent kings. Oxen and asses were their
�46
THE NATION AND COUNTRY OF THE JEWS.
beasts of burden; camels were rare even long after Solomon’s reign.
How then was the wood brought from Tyre over the mountains, unless
it was carried on the backs of oxen or asses, or dragged along the
ground ?
The national wealth seems to have increased prodigiously in David’s
reign—chiefly from spoils—but the amount is manifestly greatly exag
gerated. Among his spoils was the crown of the King of Rabbah, the
weight of which was a talent of gold (2 Samuel xii. 30) ; i. e., 93 3-4
pounds avoirdupois—a pretty heavy burden for a royal head. At the
beginning of his reign, David had not even iron with which to forge
weapons of war or implements of agriculture, and yet after forty years
it is said that he left to his son Solomon, for the temple; 3,000 talents
of gold and 7,000 of silver. (1 Chr. xxix. 4.) Now a talent of gold,
according to the “ table of weights and money ” in the Bible, pub
lished by the American Bible Society, is equal to 5,4647. 5s 8 1-27.,
or §26,447 ; and a talent of silver is equal to 3417. 10s. 4 1-27., or
§1,653. The amount of gold and silver, therefore, which David con
tributed was equal to §90,912,000. But this is not all. The chiefs,
princes, captains, and rulers over the King’s work gave 5,000 talents, and
10,000 drachms of gold, and 10,000 talents of silver (v. 7),—equal to
§153,845,000. So that the total sum of gold and silver contributed by
David and his chiefs was §244,757,000, besides precious stones and an
incredible quantity of brass and iron. Can it be believed that David and
his men acquired such riches that they were able to make these enormous
contributions ?
In the reign of Solomon gold and silver continued to pour in so that
he was able to buy a fleet of ships in the Red Sea, of Hiram, King of
Tyre, and these ships brought him from Ophir 450 talents of gold, as we
read in 2 Chr. viii. 18—equal to about §12,000,000—though in 1 Kings ix.
28, the amount given is 420 talents, or about §800,000 less. Again, we
read in 1 Kings x. 14, that the weight of gold that came to him in. one
year was 666 talents—equal to about §18.000,000. And yet this same
monarch, who “exceeded all the Kings of the earth for riches ” (v. 23),
had neither wood, nor skilled workmen to build his palace and temple,
but bought the wood and hired the artisans of the King of Tyre. (2 Chr.
ii. 3-10 ; 1 Kings v 6-12.) The laborers erffployed in the Temple were all
the strangers in the land, numbering 153,000, of whom 3,600 were made
overseers. (2 Chr. ii. 17, 18.) Over these were set 550 Jewish overseers
according to 1 Kings ix. 33, or 250 according to 2 Chr. viii. 10. With
this great number of wkmen Solomon was seven years in building this
celebrated Temple, which was only 110 feet long, 36 wide, and 55 high.
(1 Kings vi. 2.) How many a modern church edifice exceeds in size
Solomon’s great Temple .' But there were additions to the house. First,
there was a porch at one end 36 feet by 18 (r. 3). This porch is said, in
2 Chr. iii. 4, to have been 220 feet high, or four times the height of the
�THE NATION AND COUNTRY OF THE JEWS.
47
house! But as nothing is said about the hight of it in Kings, we may
assume that the chronicler made a mistake in his figures in this case, as
he has so frequently done in others. Then there were added to the walls
of the house outside chambers, nine feet high, and from nine to thirteen
feet broad, in three tiers, making a hight of 27 feet. But even with
these additions, the temple was not remarkable for size, and the story
that 150,000 laborers were employed seven years in its construction, is
incredible.
So, too, as regards the amount of the precious metals said to have been
used in the building of the Temple, it is fabulous. And yet the amount
that David and his chiefs contributed was but a seventeenth part of what
David promised, namely, 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 of silver,
(1 Chr., xxii, 14)—equal to $4,297,700,000, or twice our national debt.
The gold alone would weigh 9,375,000 pounds, or 4,347 tons—enough to
have built the walls two feet thick of that metal; and the silver, being ten
times that weight, would have filled the temple three-quarters full.
On the death of Solomon a division took place among the tribes, the
kingdom was torn asunder and divided into two small provinces, called
Judah and Israel ; two and a half tribes composing the former, and nine
and a half the latter. A religious war broke out between the two king
doms, and while it was going on the kings of Assyria came down upon
the nine and a half tribes and carried them away captive. The captives
never returned, nor can any one to this day tell where they were dis
persed. The small remnant of the Jews soon after became a prey to
conquerors and were carried captive to Babylon. The captivity of the
two and a half tribes took place 588 years B. C., and was practically an
end of the Jewish nation. They were slaves in Babylon and its vicinity,
till 536 years B. C. (Ezra i. 1-6), a period of 52 (not 70) years, when they
were released by Cyrus and allowed to return to Judea. But it appears
that less than 50,000 returned. (Ezra ii. 64, 65.) These, no doubt, were
of the poorer class, the wealthier remaining in Babylon, and contribut
ing alms for the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem and the Temple.
The amount contributed, according to Ezra ii 68, 69, was 61,000 drachms
of gold, and 5000 pounds of silver—equal in the aggregate to about
$110,000; but according to Nehemiah vii. 70, 72, it was 41,000 drachms of
gold and 4,200 pounds of silver—equal to 'about $290,000. Whichever
was the correct amount, it was not a 600th part of what David and his
men contributed for the first temple.*
About eighty years later, further contributions were made, amounting
* These two chapters, Ezra ii. and Nehemiah vii. are almost exactly alike, the
whole of the former being’ repeated in the latter, with slight variations. Both give
the names of the families that returned, and the number of each. They agree in
making the whole number 42,360, besides 7,337 servants ; but on casting up the sep
arate numbers, the whole sum in Ezra is 29,818 ; and in Nehemiah 31,089. Again,
on comparing the two chapters verse by verse, we find twenty-seven discrepancies in
figures, and thirty in names.
�48
THE NATION AND COUNTRY OF THE JEWS.
to nearly $1,000,000 (only a 60th part of what David and his men gave),
and sent by Ezra with a guard of about 1.750 men from Babylon to Jeru
salem. (Ezra viii.) But the effort to re-establish the Jewish nation proved
futile. Though they.were permitted in some degree to establish their
superstitious religious rites in their former country, they were ever af
terwards the subjects of other powers, until their final dispersion at the
siege of Jerusalem, by Titus, A. D. 70. For half a century after its
destruction, says Dr. Robinson, there is no mention of Jerusalem in his
tory ; and even until the time of Constantine its history presents little
more than a blank. (Vol. I., pp. 367, 371.)
Such was the insignificance of the Jews as a people, that the historical
monuments preceding the time of Alexander the Great, who died 323
years B. C., make not the slightest mention of any Jewish transaction.
The writings of Thales, Solon, Pythagoras, Democritus, Plato, Herodotus,
and Xenophon, all of whom visited remote countries, contain no mention
of the Jews whatever. Neither Homer, the cotemporary of Solomon,
nor Aristotle, the correspondent of Alexander, makes any mention c-f
them. The story of Josephus, that Alexander visited Jerusalem, ha
been proved to be a fabrication. Alexander’s historians say nothin"
about it. He did pass through the coast of Palestine, and the only,
sistance he encountered was at Gaza, which was garrisoned by Persiahi
(TVyttenbacKs Opuscula, Vol. II., pp. 416, 421.)
Soon after the death of Alexander, the Jews first came into notic-*
under Ptolemy I. of Egypt, and some of their books were collected at
the new-built city of Alexandria. But they remained an obscure people,
so much so that when Christ was crucified in the province of Judea under
the Roman government, no record of the event seems to have been r 'gistered in the archives of that great empire; for if any had been, it
would doubtless have heen preserved, at least for 300 years, and pro
duced by the Emperor Constantine, the first royal pagan convert to Chris
tianity, in his oration before the council of Nicaea, A D. 326, on the evi
dences of the Christian religion.
Persecution has probably made the Jews in modern times more numer
ous than they ever were as an ancient nation. Little reliance can be
placed upon their early history, which is entirely unsupported by cot1
porary records. The story of their origin is doubtless fabulous. It is
more probable that they were at first a wandering tribe of Bedouin Arabs
who got possession of the sterile portion of Palestine, and held it until
it was pretty thoroughly ruined. At all events it is clear that their im
portance has been unduly magnified.
���
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
Abstract of Colenso on the Pentateuch: a comprehensive summary of Bishop Colenso's argument, proving that the Pentateuch is not historically true; and that it was composed by several writers, the earliest of whom lived in the time of Samuel, from 1100 to 1060 B. C., and the latest in the time of Jeremiah, from 641 to 624 B. C.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Colenso, John William
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [New York]
Collation: 48 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. "A comprehensive summary of Bishop Colenso's argument, proving that the Pentateuch is not historically true; and that it was composed by several writers, the earliest of whom lived in the time of Samuel, from 1100 to 1060 B.C., and the latest in the time of Jeremiah, from 641 to 624 B.C. To which is appended an essay on the nation and country of the Jews." Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[sold by American News Company]
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
CT26
Subject
The topic of the resource
Judaism
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Burr, William Henry (ed)
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 (Abstract of Colenso on the Pentateuch: a comprehensive summary of Bishop Colenso's argument, proving that the Pentateuch is not historically true; and that it was composed by several writers, the earliest of whom lived in the time of Samuel, from 1100 to 1060 B. C., and the latest in the time of Jeremiah, from 641 to 624 B. C.), 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
Bible. O.T. Joshua
Bible. O.T. Pentateuch
Conway Tracts
Jews
Judaism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/21f5e6229e8260abdf94a1a0aa2374da.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=MPZkIFr3xX7COtAl8QdxURIOFZebJdY-JxYGUa6v3CJomM1AdDXPqSIkvYXgto46XMU4cBeDWPPACSIp94I-IEJDv6cqvA1v6K%7Eh8fx3Lsg1c9HuqPIBmMQtVHY%7EJHcJuX0SXap7gODf5ySc7XHVJk6u9LtvxNrvGyT%7EOOYp8ophVBUOBd%7EZcEf4kRLNuYdjTmU-1ZNXQl8j%7EBdqat6jUHUlULZKQhmD0c5hy69Ayg4lv7Wgk6p6qCJO%7E42f9hTledyd7uWAAxWR4wRErz-qLCzYe-jPjImz1HFXesY26AYmvMJA8tKApw4VbplIkTpiWY5qV7lN14QBtCgkSKIAcw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b6b05c2e73eef03625b4987fadb6b5e7
PDF Text
Text
PUBLISHING CO
NY'S EDITION.
A lecture
DELIVERED TO IMMENSE AUDIENCES IN THE
METHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63, FLEET STREET, E.O.
1883.
PRICE THREEPENCE.
�[“A brilliant, gonial gentleman; a man of brains, and a heart as tender as a
woman's; a man greatly respected and admired by all who know him, greatly
detested by many among those who do not, and who do not agree with him in
opinion; a man who does his own thinking, and who says what he thinks, and
thinks before he says, is about to address you in review of a great historical
character. He will do this from his own standpoint, and in his own way. Had
he lived one hundred years ago, and succeeded in doing this, he would, under the
forms of law, had been imprisoned — if, indeed, he were suffered to live —his
children taken from him, his property confiscated, his name traduced and his
memory vilified. Times have changed. The world of thought and opinion moves
as well as the world of matter. He may speak to you here to-day, freely and
without reserve. He may give his honest thought. You have come to hear him
and not me. Let me introduce him—Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll.” ]
�MISTAKES OF MOSES.
Ladies and Gentlemen : Now and then some one
asks me why I am endeavoring to interfere with the
religious faith of others, and why I try to take from
the world the consolation naturally arising from a
belief in eternal fire. And I answer, I want to do
what little I can to make my country truly free. I
want to broaden the intellectual horizon of our people.
I want it so that we can differ upon all these questions,
and yet grasp each other’s hands in genuine friend
ship. I want, in the first place, to free the clergy. I
am a great friend of theirs, but they don’t seem to
have found it out generally. I want it so that every
minister will not be a parrot, not an owl sitting upon
a ‘dead limb of the tree of knowledge, and hooting the
hoots that have been hooted for 1800 years. But I
want it so that each one can be an investigator, a
thinker; and I want to make his congregation grand
enough so that they will not only allow him to think,
but will demand that he shall think, and give to them
the honest truth of his thought. As it is now, ministers
are employed like attorneys—for the plaintiff or the
defendant. If a few people know of a young man in
the neighborhood, maybe, who has not had a good con
stitution—he may not be healthy enough to be wicked
—a young man who has shown no decided talent—
it occurs to them to make him a minister. They con
tribute and send him to some school. If it turns out
that that young man has more of the man in him
than they thought, and he changes his opinion, every
one who contributed will feel himself individually
swindled, and they will follow that young man to the
grave with the poisoned shafts of malice and slander.
�4
Mistakes of Moses.
I want it so that every one will be free—so that a
pulpit will not be a pillory. They have in Massachussetts, at a place called Andover, a kind of minister fac
tory, and every professor in that factory takes an oath
once in five years—that is as long as an oath will last
—that not only has he not during the last five years,
but so help him God, he will not during the next five
years, intellectually advance, and probably there is no
oath he could easier keep. Since the foundation of
that institution there has not been one case of perjury.
They believe the same creed they first taught when the
foundation stone was laid, and now when they send
out a minister they brand him, as hardware from Shef
field and Birmingham. And every man who knows
where he was educated knows his creed, knows every
argument of his creed, every book that he reads, and
just what he amounts to intellectually, and knows he
will shrink and shrivel, and become solemnly stupid,
day after day, until he meets with death. It is all
wrong; it is cruel. Those men should be allowed to
grow. They should have the air of liberty and the
sunshine of thought.
I want to free the schools of our country. I want it
so that when a professor in a college finds some fact
inconsistent with Moses, he will not hide the fact, that
it will not be the worse for him for having discovered
the fact. I wish to see an eternal divorce and separa
tion between church and schools. The common school
is the bread of life; but there should be nothing taught
in the schools except what somebody knows ; and any
thing else should not be maintained by a system of
general taxation. I want its professors so that they
will tell everything they find; that they will be free
to investigate in every direction, and will not be tram
melled by the superstitions of our day. What has
religion to do with facts ? Nothing. Is there any
such thing as Methodist mathematics, Presbyterian
botany, Catholic astronomy, or Baptist biology ? What
has any form of superstition or religion to do with a
fact or with any science? Nothing but to hinder,
delay, or embarrass. I want, then, to free the schools;
and I want to free the politicians, so that a man will
�Mistakes 0/ Moses.
5
not have to pretend that he is a Methodist, or his wife
a Baptist, or his grandmother a Catholic; so that he
can go through a campaign, and when he gets through
will find none of the dust of hypocrisy on his knees.
I want the people splendid enough that when they
desire men to make laws for them, they will take
one who knows something, who has brain enough to
prophesy the destiny of the American Republic, no
matter what his opinions may be upon any religious
subject. Suppose we are in a storm out at sea, and
the billows are washing over our ship, and it is
necessary that some one should reef the topsail, and
a man presents himself. Would you stop him at the
foot of the mast to find out his opinion on the five
points of Calvinism ? What has that to do with it ?
Congress has nothing to do with baptism or any par
ticular creed, and from what little experience I have
had of Washington, very little to do with any kind
of religion whatever. Now, I hope this afternoon
this magnificent and splendid audience will forget
that they are Baptists or Methodists, and remember
that they are men and women. These are the highest
titles humanity can bear—man and woman ; and every
title you add belittles them. Man is the highest ;
woman is the highest. Let us remember that we are
simply human beings, with interests in common. And
let us all remember that our views depend largely
upon the country in which we happen to live. Sup
pose we were born in Turkey, most of us would have
been Mohammedans ; and when we read in the book
that when Mohammed visited heaven he became ac
quainted with an angel named Gabriel, who was so
broad between his eyes that it would take a smart
camel three hundred days to make the journey, we
probably would have believed it. If we did not,
people would say: “ That young man is dangerous ;
he is trying to tear down the fabric of our religion.
What do you propose to give us instead of that angel ?
We cannot afford to trade off an angel of that size
for nothing.” Or if we had been born in India, we
would have believed in a god with three heads. Now,
we believe in three gods with one head. And so we
�6
Mistakes oj Moses.
might make a tour of the world and see that every
superstition that could be imagined by the brain of
man has been in some place held to be sacred.
Now, some one says: “The religion of my father
and mother is good enough for me.” Suppose we all
said that, where would be the progress of the world ?
We would have the rudest and most barbaric religion,
which no one could believe. I do not believe that
it is showing real respect to our parents to believe
something simply because they did. Every good
father and every good mother wish their children to
find out more than they knew ; every good father
wants his son to overcome some obstacle that he could
not grapple with ; and if you wish to reflect credit
on your father and mother, do it by accomplishing
more than they did, because you live in a better time.
Every nation has had what you call a sacred record,
and the older the more sacred, the more contradictory
and the more inspired is the record. We, of course,
are not an exception, and I propose to talk a little
about what is called the Pentateuch, a book, or a
collection of books, said to have been written by Moses.
And right here in the commencement let me say that
Moses never wrote one word of the Pentateuch—not
one word was written until he had been dust and
ashes for hundreds of years. But as the general
opinion is that Moses wrote these books, I have entitled
this lecture “ The Mistakes of Moses.” For the sake
of this lecture, we will admit that he wrote it. Nearly
every maker of religion has commenced by making
the world ; and it is one of the safest things to do,
because no one can contradict as having been present,
and it gives free scope to the imagination. These
books, in times when there was a vast difference be
tween the educated and the ignorant, became inspired,
and people bowed down and worshipped them.
I saw a little while ago a Bible with immense oaken
covers, with hasps and clasps large enough almost for
a penitentiary, and I can imagine how that book would
be regarded by barbarians in Europe when not more
than one person in a dozen could read and write. In
imagination I saw it carried into the cathedral, heard
�Mistakes of Moses.
7
the chant of the priest, saw the swinging of the censer
and the smoke rising; and when the Bible was put
on the altar I can imagine the barbarians looking at
it and wondering what influence that black book could
have on their lives and future. I do not wonder that
they imagined it was inspired. None of them could
write a book, and consequently when they saw it
they adored it ; they were stricken with awe ; and
rascals took advantage of that awe.
Now they say that the book is inspired. I do not
care whether it is or not; the question is, is it true ?
If it is true it does not need to be inspired. Nothing
needs inspiration except a falsehood or a mistake. A
fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth
scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every
other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell
whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit any
thing except another lie made for the express purpose ;
and, finally, someone gets tired of lying, and the last
lie will not fit the next fact, and then there is a chance
for inspiration. Right then and there a miracle is
needed. The real question is : In the light of science,
in the light of the brain and heart of the nineteenth
century, is this book true ? The gentleman who wrote
it begins by telling us that God made the universe out
of nothing. That I cannot conceive ; it may be so, but
I cannot conceive it. Nothing, in the light of raw
material, is, to my mind, a decided and disastrous
failure. I cannot imagine of nothing being made into
something, any more than I can of something being
changed back into nothing. I cannot conceive of force
aside from matter, because force, to be force, must be
active, and unless there is matter there is nothing for
force to act upon, and consequently it cannot be active.
So I simply say I cannot comprehend it. I cannot
believe it. I may roast for this, but it is my honest
opinion. The next thing he proceeds to tell us is that
God divided the darkness from the light; and right
here let me say when I speak about God I simply mean
the being described by the Jews. There may be in
immensity some being beneath whose wing the uni
verse exists, whose every thought is a glittering star,
�8
Mistakes of Moses.
but I know nothing about him—not the slightest—and
this afternoon I am simply talking about the being
described by the Jewish people. When I say God, I
mean him. Moses describes God dividing the light
from the darkness. I suppose that at that time they
must have been mixed. You can readily see how light
and darkness can get mixed. They must have been
entities. The reason I think so is because in that same
book I find that darkness overspread Egypt so thick
that it could be felt, and they used to have on exhihition in Rome a bottle of -the darkness that once over
spread Egypt. The gentleman who wrote this in
imagination saw God dividing light from the darkness.
I am sure the man who wrote it believed darkness to
be an entity, a something, a tangible thing that can be
mixed with light.
The next thing that he informs us is that God divided
the waters above the firmament from those below the
firmament. The man who wrote that believed the
firmament to be a solid affair. And that is what the
Gods did. You recollect the Gods came down and made
love to the daughters of men—and I never blamed
them for it. I have never read a description of any
heaven I would not leave on the same errand. That is
where the Gods lived. That is where they kept the
water. It was solid. That is the reason the people
prayed for rain. They believed that an angel could
take a lever, raise a window, and let out the desired
quantity. I find in the Psalms that “ he bowed the
heavens and came down ; ” and we read that the chil
dren of men built a tower to reach the heavens and
climb into the abode of the Gods. The man who wrote
that believed the firmament to be solid. He knew
nothing of the laws of evaporation. He did not know
that the sun wooed with amorous kiss the waves of
the sea, and that, disappointed, their vaporous sighs
changed to tears and fell again as rain. The next
thing he tells us is that the grass began to grow, and
the branches of the trees laughed into blossom, and
the grass ran up the shoulder of the hills, and yet not
a solitary ray of light had left the eternal quiver of the
sun. Not a blade of grass had ever been touched by a
�Mistakes of Moses.
9
gleam of light. And I do not think that grass will
grow to hurt without a gleam of sunshine. I think
the man who wrote that simply made a mistake, and
is excusable to a certain degree. The next day he
made the sun and moon—the sun to rule the day, and
the moon to rule the night. Do you think the man
who wrote that knew anything about the size of the
sun ? I think he thought it was about three feet in
diameter, because I find in some book that the sun
was stopped a whole day to give a general named
Joshua time to kill a few more Amalekites; and the
moon was stopped also. Now, it seems to me the sun
would give light enough without stopping the moon ;
but as they were in the stopping business they did it
just for devilment. At another time, we read, the sun
was turned ten degrees backward to convince Heze
kiah that he was not going to die of a boil. How
much easier it would have been to cure the boil! The
man who wrote that thought the sun was two or three
feet in diameter, and could be stopped and pulled
around like the sun and moon in a theatre. Do you
know that the sun throws out every second of time as
much heat as could be generated by burning eleven
thousand millions tons of coal ? I don’t believe he
knew that, or that he knew the motion of the earth.
I don’t believe he knew that it was turning on its axis
at the rate of a thousand miles an hour, because, if he'
did, he would have understood the immensity of heat
that would have been generated by stopping the world.
It has been calculated by one of the best mathemati
cians and astronomers that to stop the world would
cause as much heat as it would take to burn a lump of
solid coal three times as big as the globe. And yet we
find in that book that the sun was not only stopped,
but turned back ten degrees, simply to convince a gen
tleman that he was not going to die of a boil! They
may say I will be damned if I do not believe that, and
I tell them I will if I do.
Then he gives us the history of astronomy, and he
gives it to us in five words. “ He made the stars also.”
He came very near forgetting the stars. Do you be
lieve that the man who wrote that knew that there are
�10
Mistakes of Moses.
stars as much larger than this earth as this earth is
larger than the apple which Adam and Eve are said to
have eaten ? Do you believe that he knew that this
world is but a speck in the shining, glittering universe
of existence ? I would gather from that that he made
the stars after he got the world done. The telescope,
in reading the infinite leaves of the heavens, has ascer
tained that light travels at the rate of 192,000 miles per
second, and it would require millions of years to come
from some of the stars to this earth. Yet* the beams of
those stars mingle in our atmosphere, so that if those
distant orbs were fashioned when this world began,
we must have been whirling in space not six thousand,
but many millions of years. Do you believe the man
who wrote that as a history of astronomy really knew
that this world was but a speck compared with mil
lions of sparkling orbs ? I do not. He then proceeds
to tell us that God made fish and cattle, and that man
and woman were created male and female. The first
account stops at the second verse of the second chapter.
You see the Bible originally was not divided into
chapters; the first Bible that was ever divided into
chapters in our language was made in the year of grace
1550. The Bible was originally written in the Hebrew
language, and the Hebrew language at that time had
no vowels in writing. It was written entirely with
consonants, and without being divided into chapters
or into verses, and there was no system of punctuation
whatever. After you go home to-night write an
English sentence or two with only consonants close
together, and you will find that it will take twice as
much inspiration to read it as it did to write it. When
the Bible was divided into verses and chapters, the
divisions were not always correct, and so the division
between the first and second chapter of Genesis is not
in the right place. The second account of the creation
commences at the third verse, and it differs from the
first in two essential points. In the first account man
is the last made; in the second, man is made before
the beasts. In the first account man is made “ male
and female ; ” in the second only a man is made, and
there is no intention of making a woman whatever.
�Mistakes of Moses.
11
You will find by reading that second chapter that
■God tried to palm off on Adam a beast as his helpmeet.
Everybody talks about the Bible, and nobody reads it:
that is the reason it is so generally believed. I am
probably the only man in the United States who has
read the Bible through this year. I have wasted that
time, but I had a purpose in view. Just read it, and
you will find, about the twenty-third verse, that God
caused all the animals to walk before Adam in order
that he might name them. And the animals came
like a menagerie into town, and as Adam looked at
all the crawlers, jumpers, and creepers, this God stood
by to see what he would call them. After this proces
sion passed, it was pathetically remarked : “ Yet was
there not found any helpmeet for Adam.” Adam
didn’t see anything that he could fancy. And I am
glad he didn’t. If he had, there would not have been
a Freethinker in this world; we should have all died
orthodox. And finding Adam was so particular, God
had to make him a helpmeet; and, having used up the
nothing, he was compelled to take part of the man to
make the woman with, and he took from the man a
rib. How did he get it ? And then imagine a God
with a bone in his hand, and about to start a woman,
trying to make up his mind whether to make a blonde
or a brunette. Right here it is only proper that 1
should warn you of the consequences of laughing at
any story in the Holy Bible. When you come to die,
your laughing at this story will be a thorn in your
pillow. As you look back upon the record of your
life, no matter how many men you have wrecked and
ruined, and no matter how many women you have de
ceived and deserted—all that may be forgiven you;
but if you recollect that you have laughed at God’s
book you will see, through the shadows of death, the
leering looks of fiends and the forked tongues of
devils. Let me show you how it will be. For in
stance, it is the day of judgment. When the man is
•called up by the recording secretary, or whoever does
the cross-examining, he says to his soul: “ Where are
you from ? ” “ I am from the world.” “ Yes, sir.
What kind of a man were you ? ” “ Well, I don’t like
�12
Mistakes of Moses.
to talk about myself.” “ But you have to. What kind
of a man were you?” “Well, I was a good fellow; I
loved my wife, I loved my children. My home was
my heaven ; my fireside was my paradise, and to sit
there and see the lights and shadows falling on the
faces of those I love, that to me was a perpetual joy.
I never gave one of them a solitary moment of pain.
I don’t owe a dollar in the world, and I left enough
to pay my funeral expenses, and keep the wolf of
want from the door of the house I loved. That is
the kind of man I am.” “Did you belong to any
church ? ” “I did not. They were too narrow for me.
They were always expecting to be happy simply be
cause somebody else was to be damned.” “Well, did
you believe that rib story ? ” “ What rib story ? Do
you mean that Adam and Eve business ? No, I did not.
To tell you the God’s truth, that was a little more than
I could swallow ” “ To hell with him ! Next. Where
are you from?” “I’m from the world, too.” “ Do1
you belong to any church?” “Yes, sir, and to the
Young Men’s Christian Association.” “ What is your
business ? ” “ Cashier in a bank.” “ Did you ever run
off with any of the money ? ” “ I don’t like to tell, sir.”
“Well, but you have to.” “Yes, sir, I did.” “What
kind of a bank did you have ? ” “ A savings’ bank.”
“ How much did you run off with ?” “ One hundred
thousand dollars.” “ Did you take anything else along
with you?” “Yes, sir.” “What?” “I took my
neighbor’s wife.” “ Did you have a wife and children
of your own?” “Yes, sir.” “And you deserted
them ? ” “ Oh, yes ; but such was my confidence in
God that I believed he would take care of them.”
“ Have you heard of them since?” “No, sir.” “Did
you believe that rib story ? ” “ Ah, bless your soul,,
yes! I believed all of it, sir; I often used to be sorry
that there were not harder stories yet in the Bible, so
that I could show what my faith could do.” “ You
believed it, did you?” “Yes, with all my heart.”
“ Give him a harp.”
I simply wanted to show you how important it is to
believe these stories. Of all the authors in the world
God hates a critic the worst. Having got this woman
�Mistakes of Moses.
13
done he brought her to the man, and they started
housekeeping, and a few minutes afterwards a snake
came through a crack in the fence and commenced to
talk with her on the subject of fruit. She was not
acquainted with the neighborhood, and she did not know
whether snakes talked or not, or whether they knew
anything about the apples or not. Well, she was
misled, and the husband ate some of those apples and
laid it all on his wife; and there is where the mistake
was made. God ought to have rubbed him out at once.
He might have known that no good could come of
starting the world with a man like that. They were
turned out. Then the trouble commenced, and people
got worse and worse. God, you must recollect, was
holding the reins of government, but he did nothing for
them. He allowed them to live 669 years without
knowing their A. B. C. He never started a school, not
even a Sunday school. He didn’t even keep his own
boys at home. And the world got worse every day,
and finally he concluded to drown them. Yet that
same God has the impudence to tell me how to raise
my own children. What would you think of a neigh
bor who had just killed his babes, giving you his views
on domestic economy ? God found that he could do
nothing with them, and he said : “ I will drown them
all except a few.” And he picked out a fellow by the
name of Noah, that had been a bachelor for 500 years.
If I had to drown anybody, I would have drowned
him. I believe that Noah had then been married
something like 100 years. God told him to build a
boat, and he built one 500 feet long, 80 or 90 feet
broad, and 55 feet high, with one door shutting on the
outside, and one window 22 inches square. If Noah
had any hobby in the world it was ventilation. Then
into this ark he put a certain number of all the animals
in the world. Naturalists have ascertained that at
this time there were at least 100,000 insects necessary
to go into the ark, about 40,000 mammalia, 1,600 reptilla, to say nothing about the mastodon, the elephant
and the animalculae, of which thousands live upon a
single leaf, and which cannot be seen by the naked
eye. Noah had no microscope, and yet he had to pick
�14
Mistakes of Moses.
them out by pairs. You have no idea the trouble that
man had. Some say that the flood was not universal,
that it was partial. Why, then, did God say: “ I will
destroy every living thing beneath the heavens ?” If
it was partial, why did Noah save the birds ? An ordi
nary bird, tending strictly to business, can beat a
partial flood. Why did he put the birds in there—the
eagles, the vultures, the condors—if it was only a
partial flood ? And how did he get them in there ?
Were they inspired to go there, or did he drive them
up ? Did the polar bear leave his home of ice and
start for the tropics inquiring for Noah ; or could the
kangaroo come from Australia unless he was inspired,
or somebody was behind him ? Then there are animals
on this hemisphere, not on that. How did he get them
across ? And there are some animals which would be
very unpleasant in an ark unless the ventilation was
very perfect.
When he got the animals in the ark, God shut the
door and Noah pulled down the window. And then
it began to rain, and it kept on raining until the water
went 29 feet over the highest mountain. Chimborazo,
then as now, lifted its head above the clouds, and then
as now, there sat the condor. And yet the water rose
and rose over every mountain in the world—29 feet
above the highest peaks, covered with snow and ice.
How deep were these waters ? About 5-g- miles. How
long did it rain ? Forty days. How much did it have
to rain a day ? About 800 feet. How is that for
dampness ? No wonder they said the windows of the
heavens were open. If I had been there I would have
said the whole side of the house was out. How long
were they in this ark ? A year and ten days, floating
around with no rudder, no sail, nobody on the outside
at all. The window was shut, and there was no door,
except the one that shut on the outside. Who ran this
ark—who took care of it ? Finally it came down on
Mount Ararat, a peak 17,000 feet above the level of the
sea, with about 3,000 feet of snow, and it stopped there
simply to give the animals from the tropics a chance.
Then Noah opened the window and got a breath of
fresh air, and he let out all the animals ; and then
�Mistakes of Moses.
15
Noah took a drink, and God made a bargain with him
that he would not drown us any more, and he put a
rainbow in the clouds and said : “ When 1 see that I
will recollect that I have promised not to drown you.”
Because if it was not for that, he is apt to drown us at
any moment. Now, can anybody believe that that is
the origin of the rainbow ? Are you not all familiar
with the natural causes which bring those beautiful
arches before our eyes ? Then the people started out
again, and they were as bad as before. Here let me
ask why God did not make Noah in the first place ?
He knew he would have to drown Adam and Eve and
all his family. Then another thing, why did he want
to drown the animals ? What had they done ? What
crime had they committed ? It is very hard to answer
these questions—that is, for a man who has only been
born once. After a while they tried to build a tower
to get into heaven, and the Gods heard about it and
said : “ Let’s go down and see what man is up to.”
They came and found things a great deal worse than
they thought, and thereupon they confounded the
language to prevent them succeeding, so that the fellow
up above could not shout down “mortar ” or “ brick ”
to the one below, and they had to give it up. Is il
possible that anyone believes that that is the reason
why we have the variety of languages in the world ?
Do you know that language is born of human expe
rience, and is a physical science ? Do you know that
every word has been suggested in some way by the
feelings or observations of man—that there are words
as tender as the dawn, as serene as the stars, and others
as wild as the beasts ? Do you know that language is
dying and being born continually—that every language
has its cemetery and cradle, its bud and blossom, and
withered leaf ? Man has loved, enjoyed, and suffered,
and language is simply the expression he gives those
experiences.
Then the world began to divide, and the Jewish
nation was started. Now, I want to say that at one
time your ancestors, like mine, were barbarians. If
the Jewish people had to write these books now they
would be civilised books, and I do not hold them
�16
Mistakes of Moses,.
responsible for what their ancestors did. We find the
Jewish people first in Canaan, and there were seventy
of them, counting Joseph and his children, already
in Egypt. They lived 215 years, and they then went
down to Egypt and stayed there 215 years. They
were 430 years in Canaan and Egypt. How many
did they have when they went to Egypt ? Seventy.
How many were they at the end of 215 years ? Three
millions. That is a good many. We had at the time
of the Revolution in this country 3,000,000 of people.
Since that time there have been four doubles, until
we have 48,000,000 to-day. How many would the
Jews number at the same ratio in 215 years ? Call
it eight doubles, and we have 40,000. But instead
of 40,000 they had 3,000,000. How do I know they
had 3,000,000 ? Because they had 600,000 men of war.
For every honest voter in the State of Illinois there
will be five other people, and there are always more
voters than men of war. They must have had, at
the lowest possible estimate, 3,000,000 of people. Is
that true ? Is there a minister in the city of Chicago
that will certify to his own idiocy by claiming that
they could have increased to 3,000,000 by that time ?
If there is, let him say so. Do not let him talk about
the civilizing influence of a lie.
When they got into the desert they took a census
to see how many first-born children there were. They
found they had 22,273 first-born males. It is reason
able to suppose there was about the same number
•of first-born girls, or 45,000 first-born children. There
must have been about as many mothers as first-born
children. Dividing 3,000,000 by 45,000 mothers, and
you will find that the women in Israel had to have
on the average sixty-eight children apiece. Some
stories are too thin. This is too thick. Now, we
know that among 3,000,000 people there will be about
300 births a-day ; and according to the Old Testament
whenever a child was born the mother had to make
a sacrifice—a sin offering for the crime of having been
a mother. If there is in this universe anything that
is infinitely pure, it is a mother with her child in
her arms. Every woman had to have a sacrifice of
�Mistakes of Moses.
17
a couple of doves, a couple of pigeons, and the priests
had to eat those pigeons in the most holy place. At
that time there were at least 300 births a day, and the
priests had to cook and eat those pigeons in the most
holy place ; and at that time there were only three
priests. Two hundred birds apiece per day ! I look
upon them as the champion bird-eaters of the world.
Then where were these Jews ? They were upon
the desert of Sinai; and Sahara compared to that is
a garden. Imagine an ocean of lava, torn by storm
and vexed by tempest, suddenly gazed at by a Gorgon,
and changed to stone. Such was the desert of Sinai.
The whole supplies of the world could not maintain
3,000,000 of people on the desert of Sinai for forty
years. It would cost one hundred thousand millions
of dollars, and would bankrupt Christendom. And
yet there they were with flocks and herds—so many
that they sacrificed over 150,000 first-born lambs at
one time. It would require millions of acres to sup
port those flocks, and yet there was no blade of grass,
and there is no account of it raining bailed hay. They
sacrificed 150,000 lambs, and the blood had all to be
sprinkled on the altar within two hours, and there
were only three priests. They would have to sprinkle
the blood of 1,250 lambs per minute. Then all the
people gathered in front of the tabernacle eighteen
feet deep. Three millions of people would make a
column six miles long. Some reverend gentlemen
say they were ninety feet deep. Well, that would
make a column of over a mile.
Where were these people going ? They were going
to the Holy Land. How large was it ? Twelve
thousand square miles—one-fifth the size of Illinois—
a frightful country, covered with rocks and desolation.
There never was a land agent in the city of Chicago
that would not have blushed with shame to have
described that land as flowing with milk and honey.
Do you believe that God Almighty ever went into
partnership with hornets ? Is it necessary unto salva
tion ? God said to the Jews : “ I will send hornets
before you to drive out the Canaanites.” How would
a hornet know a Canaanite ? Is it possible that God
�18
Mistakes of Moses.
inspired the hornets—that he granted letters of marque
and reprisals to hornets ? I am willing to admit that
nothing in the world would be better calculated to
make a man leave his native country than a few hor
nets attending strictly to business. God said : “ Kill
the Canaanites slowly.” Why ? “ Lest the beasts of
the field increase upon you.” How many Jews were
there ? Three millions. Going to a country, how
large ? Twelve thousand square miles. But were
there nations already in this Holy Land ? Yes, there
were seven nations “mightier than the Jews.” Say
there would' be 21,000,000 when they got there, or
24,000,000 with themselves. Yet they were told to kill
them slowly, lest the beasts of the field increased upon
them. Is there a man in Chicago that believes that ?
Then what does he teach it to little children for ? Let
him tell the truth.
So the same God went into partnership with snakes.
The children of Israel lived on manna—one account
says all the time, and another only a little while. That
is the reason there is a chance for commentaries, and
you can exercise faith. If the book was reasonable
everybody could go to heaven in a moment. But
whenever it looks as if it could not be that way, and
you believe, you are almost a saint, and when you
know it is not that way and believe, you are a
saint. He fed them on manna. Now manna is
very peculiar s'tuff. It would melt in the sun, and
yet they used to cook it by seething and baking. I
would as soon think of frying snow or boiling icicles.
But this manna had other peculiar qualities. It shrunk
to an omer, no matter how much they gathered, and
swelled up to an omer, no matter how little they
gathered. What a magnificent thing manna would be
for the currency, shrinking and swelling according to
the volume of business ! There was not a change in
the bill of fare for forty years, and they knew that
God could just as well give them three square meals
a day. They remembered about the cucumbers, and
the melons, and the leeks and the onions of Egypt, and
they said : “ Our souls abhorreth this light bread.”
Then this God got mad—you know cooks are always
�Mistakes of Moses.
19
touchy—and thereupon he sent snakes to bite the men,
women and children. He also sent them quails in
wrath and anger, and while they had the flesh between
their teeth, he struck thousands of them dead. He al
ways acted in that way, all of a sudden. People had no
chance to explain—no chance to move for a new trial—
nothing. I want to know if it is reasonable he should kill
people for asking for one change of diet in forty years.
Suppose you had been boarding with an old lady for
forty years, and she never had a solitary thing on her
table but hash, and one morning you said : “ My soul
abhorreth hash.” What would you say if she let a
basketful of rattlesnakes upon you ? Now is it possible
for people to believe this ? The Bible says that their
clothes did not wax old—they did not get shiny at the
knees or elbows—and their shoes did not wear out.
They grew right along with them. The little boy
starting out with his first pants grew up, and his pants
grew with him. Some commentators have insisted
that angels attended to their wardrobes. I never could
believe it. Just think of one angel hunting another
and saying : “ There goes another button.” I cannot
believe it.
There must be a mistake somewhere or somehow. Do
you believe the real God—if there is one—ever killed
a man for making hair oil ? And yet you find in
the Pentateuch that God gave Moses a recipe for
making hair oil to grease Aaron’s beard ; and said
if anybody made the same hair oil he should be killed.
And he gave him a formula for making ointment,
and he said if anybody made ointment like that he
should be killed. I think that is carrying patent laws
to excess. There must be some mistake about it. I
cannot imagine the infinite Creator of all the shining
worlds giving a recipe for hair oil. Do you believe
that the real God came down to Mount Sinai with
a lot of patterns for making a tabernacle—patterns
for tongs, for snuffers, and such things ? Do you
believe that God came down on that mountain and
told Moses how to cut a coat, and how it should be
trimmed ? What would an infinite God care on which
side he cut the breast, what color the fringe was, or
�20
Mistakes of Moses.
how the buttons were placed ? Do you believe God
told Moses to make curtains of fine linen ? Where
did they get their flax in the desert ? How did they
weave it ? Did he tell him to make things of gold,
silver, and precious stones when they hadn’t them?
Is it possible that God told them not to eat any fruit
until after the fourth year of planting the trees ? You
see all these things were written hundreds of years
afterwards, and the priests, in order to collect tithes,
dated the laws back. They did not say: “This is our
law,” but: “Thus said God to Moses in the wilderness.”’
Now, can you believe that ? Imagine a scene : The
eternal God tells Moses, “ Here is the way I want you
to consecrate my priests. Catch a sheep and cut his
throat.” I never could understand why God wanted
a sheep killed just because a man had done a mean
trick ; perhaps it was because his priests were fond
of mutton. He tells Moses further to take some of
the blood and put it on his right thumb, a little on
his right ear, and a little on his right big toe. Do
you believe God ever gave such instructions for the
consecration of his priests ? If you should see the
South Sea Islanders going through such a performance'
you could not keep your face straight. And will you
tell me that it had to be done in order to consecrate a
man to the service of the infinite God! Supposing the
blood got on the left toe !
Then we find in this book how God went to work
to make the Egyptians let the Israelites go. Supposewe wish to make a treaty with the Mikado of Japan,,
and Mr. Hayes sent a commissioner there ; and sup
pose he should employ Hermann, the wonderful Ger
man, to go along with him; and when they came in
the presence of the Mikado Hermann threw down an
umbrella, which changed into a turtle, and the com
missioner said : “ That is my certificate.” You would
say the country is disgraced. You would say the
president of a Republic like this disgraces himself'
with jugglery. Yet we are told God sent Moses and
Aaron before Pharaoh, and when they got there Moses
threw, down a stick, which turned into a snake. That
God is a juggler—he is the infinite prestidigitator..
�Mistakes of Moses.
21
Is that possible ? Was that really a snake, or was it
the appearance of a snake ? If it was the appearance
■of a snake, it was a fraud. Then the necromancers of
Egypt were sent for, and they threw down sticks,
which turned into snakes, but those were not so
large as Moses’ snake, which swallowed them. I
tain that it is just as hard to make small snakes
.as it is to make large ones ; the only difference is, that
.to make large snakes either larger sticks or more prac
tice is required.
Do you believe that God rained hail on the innocent
■cattle, killing them in the highways and in the field ?
Why should he inflict punishment on cattle for some
thing their owners had done ? I could never have any
respect for a God that would so inflict pain upon a
brute beast simply on account of the crime of its owner.
Is it possible that God worked miracles to convince
Pharaoh that slavery was wrong ? Why did he not
tell Pharaoh that any nation founded on slavery could
not stand ? Why did he not tell him: “ Your govern
ment is founded on slavery, and it will go down, and
the sands of the desert will hide from the view of man
your temples, your altars, and your fanes ? ” Why ,
did not he speak about the infamy of slavery ? Be
cause he believed in the infamy of slavery himself.
Oan we believe that God will allow a man to give his
wife the right of divorcement, and make the mother
•of his children a wanderer and a vagrant ? There is
not one word about women in the Old Testament ex
cept the word shame and humiliation. The God of the
Bible does not think woman is as good as man. She
was never worth mentioning. It did not take the pains
to recount the death of the mother of us all. I have no
respect for any book that does not treat woman as the
equal of man. And if there is any God in this uni
verse who thinks more of me than he thinks of my wife,
he is not well acquainted with both of us. And yet
they say that that was done on account of the hardness
of their hearts; and that was done in a community
where the law was so fierce that it stoned a man to
death for picking up sticks on Sunday. Would it not
have been better to stone to death every man who
�Mistakes of Moses.
abused his wife, and to allow them to pick up stickson account of the hardness of their hearts ? If God
wanted to take those Jews from Egypt to the land of
Canaan, why didn’t he do it instantly? If he wasgoing to do a miracle, why didn’t he do one worth
talking about ?
After God had killed all the first-born in Egypt, after
he had killed all the cattle, still Egypt could raise an
army that could put to flight 600,000 men. And be
cause this God overwhelmed the Egyptian army, he
bragged about it for a thousand years, repeatedly
calling the attention of the Jews to the fact that heoverthrew Pharaoh and his hosts. Did he help mucin
with their 600,000 men ? We find by the records of theday that the Egyptian standing army at that time was
never more than 100,000 men. Must we believe all
these stories in order to get to heaven when we die ?
Must you judge of a man’s character by the number of
stories he believes ? Are we to get to heaven by creed
or by deed ? That is the question. Shall we reason,,
or shall we simply believe? Ah, but they say the
Bible is not inspired about those little things. The
Bible says the rabbit and the hare chew the cud, but
they do not. They have a tremulous motion of the'
lip. But the being that made them says they chew
the cud. The Bible, therefore, is not inspired in na
tural history. Is it inspired in its astrology? No..
Well, what is it inspired in? In its law? Thousands
of people say that if it had not bee.n for the ten com
mandments we would not have known any better than
to rob and steal. Suppose a man planted an acre of
potatoes, hoed them all summer, and dug them in the
fall; and suppose a man had sat upon the fence all thetime and watched him, do you believe it would benecessary for that man to read the ten commandmentsto find out who, in his judgment, had a right to take
those potatoes ? All laws against larceny have been
made by industry to protect the fruits of its labor.
Why is there a law against murder ? Simply because
a large majority of people object to being murdered.
That is all. And all these laws were in force thou
sands of years before that time.
�Mistakes of Moses.
23
One of the commandments said they should not
make any graven images, and that was the death of art
in Palestine. No sculptor has ever enriched stone with
the divine forms of beauty in that country; and any
commandment that is the death of art is not a good
commandment. But they say the Bible is morally in
spired, and they tell me there is no civilisation without
this Bible. Then God knows that just as well as you
do. God always knew it, and if you can’t civilise a
nation without a Bible, why didn’t God give every
nation just one Bible to start with? Why did God
allow hundreds of thousands and billions of billions to
go down to hell just for the lack of a Bible ? They
say that it is morally inspired. Well, let us examine
it. I want to be fair about this thing, because I am
willing to stake my salvation or damnation on this
question, whether the Bible is true or not. I say it is
not; and upon that I am willing to wager my soul. Is
there a woman here who believes in the institution of
polygamy ? Is there a man here who believes in that
infamy? You say : “No, we do not.” Then you are
better than your God was 4,000 years ago. Four thou
sand years ago he believed in it, taught it, and upheld
it. I pronounce it and denounce it the infamy of in
famies. It robs our language of every sweet and
tender word in it. It takes the fireside away for ever.
It takes the meaning out of the words father, mother,
sister, brother, and turns the temple of love into a vile
den, where crawl the slimy snakes of lust and hatred.
I was in Utah a little while ago, and was on the moun
tain where God used to talk to Brigham Young. He
never said anything to me. I said it was just as rea
sonable that God in the nineteenth century would talk
to a polygamist in Utah as it was that 4,000 years ago,
on Mount Sinai, he talked to Moses upon that hellish
and damnable question.
I have no love for any God who believes in poly
gamy. There is no heaven on this earth save where
the one woman loves the one man, and the one man
loves the one woman. I guess it is not inspired on the
polygamy question. Maybe it is inspired about reli
gious liberty. God says that if anybody differs with
�24
Mistakes of Moses.
you about religion, “ kill him.” He told his peculiar
people: “ If anyone teaches a different religion, kill
him! ” He did not say : “ Try and convince him that
he is wrong,” but “ kill him.” He did not say : “ I
am in the miracle business, and I will convince him,”
but “ kill him.” He said to every husband : “ If your
wife, that you love as your own soul, says, 1 Let us go
and worship other gods,’ then ‘ Thy hand shall be first
upon her, and she shall be stoned with stones until
she dies.’ ” Well, now, I hate a God of that kind, and
I cannot think of being nearer heaven than to be away
from him. A God tells a man to kill his wife simply
because she differs with him on religion 1 If the real
God were to tell me to kill my wife, I would not do it.
If you had lived in Palestine at that time, and your
wife—the mother of your children—had woke up at
night and said : “ I am tired of Jehovah. He is always
turning up that board bill. He is always telling about
whipping the Egyptians. He is always killing some
body. I am tired of him. Let us worship the sun.
The sun has clothed the world in beauty; it has
covered the earth with green and flowers ; by its
divine light I first saw your face; its light has enabled
me to look into the eyes of my beautiful babe. Let us
worship the sun, father and mother of light and love
and joy.” Then what would it be your duty to do—
kill her ? Do you believe any real God ever did that ?
Your hand should be first upon her, and when you
took up some ragged rock and hurled it against the
white bosom filled with love for you, and saw running
away the red current of her sweet life, then you would
look up to heaven and receive the congratulations of
the infinite fiend whose commandments you had to
obey. I guess the Bible was not inspired about reli
gious liberty. Let me ask you right here. Suppose, as
a matter of fact, God gave those laws to the Jews, and
told them : “ Whenever a man preaches a different
religion, kill him,” and suppose that afterwards that
same God took upon himself flesh and came to the
world and taught and preached a different religion,
and the Jews crucified him, did he not reap exactly
what he sowed ?
�Mistakes of Moses.
25
Maybe this book is inspired about war. God told
the Israelites to overrun that country, and kill every
man, woman, and child for defending their native
land. Kill the old men? Yes. Kill the women?
Certainly. And the little dimpled babes in the cradle
that smile and coo in the face of murder—dash out
their brains ? That is the will of God. Will you tell
me that any God ever commanded such infamy ? Kill
the men and the women, and the young men and the
babes! “What shall we do with the maidens?”
“Give them to the rabble murderers!” Do you be
lieve that God ever allowed the roses of love and the
violets of modesty that shed their perfume in the heart
of a maiden to be trampled beneath the brutal feet of
lust ? If there is any God, I pray him to write in the
book of eternal remembrance, opposite to my name,
that I denied that lie. Whenever a woman reads a
Bible and comes to that passage she ought to throw the
book from her with contempt and scorn. Do you tell
me that any decent God would do that ? What would
the devil have done under the same circumstances ?
Just think of it; and yet that is the God that we wish
to get into the Constitution. That is the God we teach
our children about, so that they will be sweet and
tender, amiable and kind ! That monster—that fiend!
I guess the Bible is not inspired about religious liberty,
nor about war.
Then, if it is not inspired about these things, may
be it is inspired about slavery. God tells the Jews to
buy up the children of the heathen round about, and
they should be servants for them. What is a “ser
vant” ? If they struck a “servant” and he died imme
diately, punishment was to follow; but if the injured
man lingered a while there was no punishment,
because the servant represented their money! Do you
believe that it is right—that God made one man to
work for another and to receive pay in rations ? Do
you believe God said that a whip on the naked back
was the legal tender for labor performed ? Is it possi
ble that the real God ever gave such infamous blood
thirsty laws ? What more does he say ?
When the time of a married slave expired, he could
�26
Mistakes of Moses.
not take his wife and children with him. Then if the
slave did not wish to desert his family, he had his ears
pierced with an awl, and became his master’s property
for ever. Do you believe that God ever turned the
dimpled cheeks of little children into iron chains to
hold a man in slavery ? Do you know that a God like
that would not make a respectable devil! I want
none of his mercy. I want no part and no lot in the
heaven of such a God. I will go to perdition where
there is human sympathy. The only voice we have
ever had from either of those other worlds came from
hell. There was a rich man who prayed his brothers
to attend to Lazarus, so that they might “ not come to
this place.” That is the only instance, so far as we
know, of souls across the river having any sympathy..
And I would rather be in hell asking for water than
in heaven denying that petition. Well, what is this
book inspired about? Where does the inspiration
come from ? Why was it that so many animals were
killed ? It was simply to make atonement for man—
that is all. They killed something that had not com
mitted a crime, in order that the one who had com
mitted a crime might be acquitted. Based upon that
dea is the atonement of the Christian religion. That
is the reason I attack this book; because it is the basis
of another infamy—viz., that one man can be good for
another, or that one man can sin for another. I deny
it. You have got to be good for yourself; you have
got to sin for yourself. The trouble about the atone
ment is, that it saves the wrong man. For instance, I
kill some one. He is a good man. He loves his wife
and children, and tries to make them happy ; but he is
not a Christian, and he goes to hell. Just as soon as I
am convicted and cannot get a pardon, I get religion,,
and I go to heaven. The hand of mercy cannot reach
down through the shadows of hell to my victim.
There is no atonement for the saint—only for the
sinner and the criminal. The atonement saves the
wrong man. I have said that I would never make a
lecture at all without attacking this doctrine. I did
not care what I started out on. I was always going to
attack this doctrine. And in my conclusion I want to
�Mistakes of Moses.
27
draw you a few pictures of the Christian heaven. But
before I do that I want to say the rest I have to say
about Moses. I want you to understand that the Bible
was never printed until 1488. I want you to know
that up to that time it was in manuscript, in possession
of those who could change it if they wished ; and they
did change it, because no two ever agreed. Much of
it was in the waste basket of credulity, in the open
mouth of tradition, and in the dull ear of memory. I
want you also to know that the Jews themselves neveragreed as to what books were inspired, and that therewere a lot of books written that were not incorporated
in the Old Testament. I want you to know that twoor three years before Christ, the Hebrew manuscript
was translated into Greek, and that the original from,
which the translation was made has never been seen
since. Some Latin Bibles were found in Africa, but
no two agreed ; and then they translated the Septua. gint into the languages of Europe, and no two agreed..
Henry VIII. took a little time between murdering his
wives to see that the Word of God was translated cor
rectly. You must recollect that we are indebted tomurderers for our Bibles and our creeds. Constantine,
who helped on the good work in its early stage, mur
dered his wife and child, mingling their blood with
the blood of the Savior.
The Bible that Henry VIII. got up did not suit, and
then his daughter, the murderess of Mary Queen of
Scots, got up another edition, whichfalso did not suit
and, finally, that philosophical idiot, King James, pre
pared the edition which we now have. There are at
least 100,000 errors in the Old Testament, but every
body sees that it is not enough to invalidate its claim
to infallibility. But these errors are gradually being
fixed, and hereafter the prophet will be fed by Arabs
instead of “ ravens,” and Samson’s 300 foxes will be
300 “sheaves” already bound, which were fired and
thrown into the standing wheat. I want you all toknow that there was no contemporaneous literature at
the time the Bible was composed, and that the Jews
were infinitely ignorant in their day and generation—
that they were isolated by bigotry and wickedness
�.28
Mistakes of Moses.
from the rest of the world. I want you to know that
there are 1,400,000,000 of people in the world; and that
with all the talk and work of the societies, only
120,000,000 have got Bibles. I want you to understand
that not one person in 100 in this world ever read the
Bible, and no two ever understood it alike who did
read it, and that no person probably ever understood it
-aright. I want you to understand that where this Bible
has been man has hated his brother—there have been
dungeons, racks, thumbscrews and the sword. I want
you to know that the cross has been in partnership
with the sword, and that the religion of Jesus Christ
was established by murderers, tyrants, and hypocrites.
I want you to know that the church carried the black
flag. Then talk about the civilizing influence of this
religion.
Now, I want to give an idea or two in regard to the
Christian’s heaven. Of all the selfish things in this
world, it is one man wanting to get to heaven caring
nothing what becomes of the rest of mankind. “ If I *
can only get my little soul in.” I have always noticed
that the people who have the smallest souls make the
most fuss about getting them saved. Here is what we
are taught by the Church to-day. We are taught
by it that fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters
can all be happy in heaven, no matter who may be in
hell ; that the husband can be happy there with the
wife that would have died for him at any moment
of his life, in hell. But they say : “We don’t believe
in fire. What we believe in now is remorse.”
What will you have remorse for ? For the mean
things you have done when you are in hell ? Will
.you have any remorse for the mean things you have
done when you are in heaven ? Or will you be so good
then that you won’t care how you used to be ? Don’t
.you see what an infinitely mean belief that is ? I tell
you to-day that, no matter in what heaven you may be,
no matter in what star you are spending the summer,
if you meet another man you have wronged you will
drop a little behind in the tune. And no matter in
what part of hell you are, and you meet some one
whom you have succored, whose nakedness you have
�Mistakes of Moses.
29'
clothed, and whose famine you have fed, the fire will
cool up a little. According to this Christian doctrine,
when you are in heaven you won’t care how mean you
were once.
What must be the social condition of a gentleman in
heaven who will admit that he never would have been
there if he had not got scared ? What must be the
social position of an angel who will always admit that
if another had not pitied him he ought to have been
damned ? Is it a compliment to an infinite God to say
that every being he ever made deserved to be damned
the minute he got him done, and that he will damn
everybody he has not had a chance to make over ? Is
it possible that somebody else can be good for me, and'
that this doctrine of the atonement is the only anchor
for the human soul ?
For instance, here is a man seventy years of age,,
who has been a splendid fellow and lived according to'
the laws of nature. He has got about him splendid'
children, whom he has loved and cared for with all
his heart. But he did not happen to believe in this
Bible ; he did not believe in the Pentateuch. He did
not believe that because some children made fun of a
gentleman who was short of hair, God sent two bears
and tore the little darlings to pieces. He had a tender
heart, and he thought about the mothers who would
take the pieces, the bloody fragments of the children,
and press them to their bosoms in a frenzy of grief ;
he thought about their wails and lamentations, and
could not believe that God was such an infinite mon
ster. That was all he thought, but he went to hell..
Then, there is another man who made a hell on earth
for his wife, who had to be taken to the insane asylum,
and his children were driven from home and were
wanderers and vagrants in the world. But just be
tween the last sin and the last breath, this fellow got
religion, and he never did another thing except to take
his medicine. He never did a solitary human being a
favor, and he died and went to heaven. Don’t you
think he would be astonished to see the other man
in hell, and say to himself: “ Is it possible that
such a splendid character should bear such fruit,.
�30
Mistakes of Moses.
and that all my rascality at last has brought me next
to God ? ”
Or, let us put another case. You were once alone in
in the desert—no provisions, no water, no hope. Just
when your life was at its lowest ebb, a man appeared,
gave you water and food and brought you safely out.
How you would bless that man. Time rolls on. You
die and go to heaven; and one day you see through
the black night of hell, the friend who saved your life,
begging for a drop of water to cool his parched lips. He
cries to you : “ Remember what I did in the desert—
give me to drink.” How mean, how contemptible you
would feel to see his suffering and be unable to relieve
him. But that is the Christian heaven. We sit by the
fireside and see the flames and the sparks fly up the
•chimney —everybody happy, and the cold wind and
sleet are beating on the window, and out on the door
step is a mother with a child on her breast freezing.
How happy it makes a fireside, that beautiful con
trast. And we say “ God is good,” and there we sit, and
she sits and moans, not one night but for ever. Or we
are sitting at the table with our wives and children,
everybody eating, happy and delighted, and Famine
•comes and pushes out its shrivelled palms, and with
hungry eyes, implores us for a crust; how that
would increase the appetite ! And yet that is the
Christian heaven. Don’t you see that these infamous
doctrines petrify the human heart. And I would have
every one who hears me, swear that he will never con
tribute another dollar to build another church, in which
are taught such infamous lies. I want every one of you
to say that you never will, directly or indirectly, give a
dollar tetany man to preach that falsehood. It has done
harm enough. It has covered the world with blood.
It has filled the asylums with the insane. It has cast
a shadow in the heart, in the sunlight, of every good
and tender man and woman. I say, let us rid the
heavens of this monster, and write upon the dome :
“ Liberty, love, and law.”
No matter what may come to me or what may come to
you, let us do exactly what we believe to be right, and
let us give the exact thought in our brains. Rather
�Mistakes of Moses.
31
than have this Christianity true, I would rather all the
'Gods would destroy themselves this morning. I would
rather the whole universe would go to nothing, if such
a thing were possible, this instant. Rather than have
the glittering dome of pleasure reared on the eternal
abyss of pain, I would see the utter and eternal destruc
tion of this universe. I would rather see the shining
fabric of our universe crumble to unmeaning chaos
and take itself where oblivion broods and memory for
gets. I would rather the blind Samson of some im
prisoned force, released by thoughtless chance, should
so rack and strain this world that man in stress and
straint, in astonishment and fear, should suddenly fall
back to savagery and barbarity. I would rather that
this thrilled and thrilling globe, shorn of all life, should
in its cycles rub the wheel, the parent star, on which the
light should fall as fruitlessly as falls the gaze of love
on death, than t@ have this infamous doctrine of eter
nal punishment true ; rather than have this infamous
selfishness of a heaven for a few and a hell for the
many established as the word of God !
One world at a time is my doctrine. Let us make
someone happy here. Happiness is the interest that a
decent action draws, and the more decent actions you
do the larger your income will be. Let every man try
to make his wife happy, his children happy. Let every
man try to make every day a joy, and God cannot afford
to damn such a man. I cannot help God ; I cannot
injure God. I can help people. I can injure people.
Consequently humanity is the only real religion.
I cannot better close this lecture than by quoting
four lines from Robert Burns :
“ To make a happy fireside clime
To weans and wife,
That’s the true pathos and sublime
Of human life.”
��
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
Mistakes of Moses : a lecture delivered to immense audiences in the United States
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Inscription on front flyleaf half title page: Mr R.M. Elliott, 9 Henry St [?], Deptford, to be returned to the owner, not forgotten. No. 69k (1883 ed.) in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1883
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N375
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 (Mistakes of Moses : a lecture delivered to immense audiences in the United States), 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
Bible. O.T. Pentateuch
Moses
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1904fcefb34ca0020501b73b8ed9acea.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=q-AEcSl8k0dUhr0RtKyRJOUJYl6C0C4ad-R2zt9lt%7E8O3lEz8kqzrgLSJ7xI9RjdGtrPczEKgCpFeWuyPTlJBlM8mpoMgEoiVPnHpEm7Ke4tiiU9-G6bkOOG3uZbrLF3eKlOw%7E4vJp9DiVXJKTLOQp-YwCZ5ILFLiAi6JbU9y5n8aMbO7qBs1NWLsZGl-c69JIsk8ZgxaxbNWwwoABJwCM5SaGF4XjfBR5-GoM1HXOOgf5UyK5BguKUcA16QbmLrb9bkJ%7EojdaHAI7-GZ39rl59V2GvHdxEDvvpmGoOucsw9NdVlsbonZ6btAYwssso2Y7e-llepvqTzujGnNShD4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
829a39b0ca123ca533f98bb5c0a788fd
PDF Text
Text
REMARKS
UPON THE
RECENT PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE
OF
ROBERT LORD BISHOP OF CAPETOWN
AND
METROPOLITAN
AT HIS PRIMARY METROPOLITICAL VISITATION OF
THE DIOCESE OF NATAL.
BY THE RIGHT REV.
JOHN WILLIAM COLENSO, D.D.
BISHOP OF NATAL.
LONDON:
LONGMAN, GREEN, LONGMAN, ROBERTS, & GREEN.
1864.
�LONDON
PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND 00.
NEW-STBBET SQUARE
�CONTENTS.
—♦—
PAGE
.
Occasion of these Remarks............................................................................ 1
Proceedings of the Bishop of Capetown at Durban
....
Proceedings of the Bishop of Capetown at Maritzburg
The Bishop’s Charge; his claim of Jurisdiction
2
...
10
....
15
The Bishop of Capetown’s threatened Secession from the Church of
England
....................................................................................................... 21
The Bishop of Capetown’s stronglanguage............................................. 27
The Bishop of Capetown’sown religious teaching
33
....
The Bishop charges the Bishop of Natal with reckless haste in
publishing...................................................................................................... 38
The Bishop’s personal observations upon the Bishop of Natal
.
.
40
List of Books prepared by the Bishop of Natal for the use of Missionary
Students and Native Scholars................................................................ 46
Another view of the charge of dishonesty............................................. 57
Appendix.
1. Extracts from the Bishop of Natal’s Books .
.
.
.64
(i) On the Fear of Death, from the Commentary on St. Paul’s
Epistle to the Romans, p. 144-7............................................. 64
(ii) On the Reading of the Scriptures, from the Pentateuch
Critically Examined, Part III, p.628-32
...
66
2. Opinions of various 'Writers in the Church of England respecting
the Authorship of the Pentateuch............................................. 69
3. Extracts from the Fathers and others, shewing their views as
to the limitation of our Lord’s knowledge as the Son of Man
79
4. Correspondence of the Bishop of Natal with the Bishop of
Oxford and the -Bishop of Capetown............................................. 81
5. Letters from native converts, received by the Bishop of Natal
while in England......................................................................... 86
6. Proposed alteration of the Supreme Court of Appeal
.
.
94
��REMARKS
^c.
Occasion of these Remarks.
I regret very much that it should be necessary for me to draw
attention again in this way to the proceedings of the Bishop of
Capetown. My respect for his personal character, — no less
than my sense of duty to the high office which he fills,—would
assuredly, under any ordinary circumstances, have constrained
me to keep silence, even though suffering from acts (as it seems
to me) of undue hastiness and precipitancy on his part. But
the present is no ordinary occasion; and the course of conduct
which Bishop Gray has pursued is so strange, that I can only
regard it as a striking instance of the disturbing effect, on the
purest mind, of strong religious and ecclesiastical prejudices.
As the circumstances which have transpired during the last
two months in my distant diocese, though partially reported
from a partizan point of view in certain journals, are probably
unknown to the great mass of English Churchmen,—are cer
tainly unknown to them in their naked simplicity,—and, as
those circumstances are such as to justify fully to my own mind
the present publication,—I have thought it right to place on
record the main facts of the late Metropolitical Visitation of the
Diocese of Natal, as I have gathered them from the colonial
journals, from published documents, and from private com
munications.
It will thus be seen that not merely my own personal interests
are here concerned, but that far graver issues have been raised,
B
�2
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
of vital consequence to the whole National Church,—in fact,
no less than this, whether Her Majesty’s Supremacy shall any
longer be maintained, in matters ecclesiastical affecting the
Clergy of the Church of England, within the Province of Cape
town, and, by inevitable consequence, within the other colonies
of the British Empire, if not, ultimately, within the mother
country itself.
Proceedings of the Bishop of Capetown at Durban.
The following extract from the Natal Mercury of May 3,
1864, will inform the reader as to the circumstances attending
the Bishop of Capetown’s arrival in the colony on this Visita
tion. I may premise that Natal contains, at the present time,
an European population of 13,990 (by the last Blue Booty, of
whom about 10,000 are English. There are only tw.o towns—
Durban, on the coast, which, regarded as a port, is known
commonly as Port-Natal, with a white population of 2,567, and
Maritzburg in the interior, the capital city and seat of govern
ment, with a population of 3,118, and a very small cathedral,
consisting merely of a nave and chancel, and capable of holding,
comfortably seated, about 250 persons. The remainder of this
small European population is scattered about the colony, in
separate farms or small villages, over 18,000 square miles of
country—an area about one-third the size of England and Wales.
Bishop Gray landed at Durban on April 27, and the Mer
cury reports as follows:—
On Sunday last, the 1st of May, the Bishop of Capetown, as Metropolitan
of the Church of England in South Africa, carried out in St. Paul’s Church,
Durban, his expressed intention of ‘deposing ’ the Bishop of Natal from his
office, and of prohibiting him from the exercise of his functions in the
(Metropolitan Province of South Africa.’
As his Lordship’s views were generally understood after his arrival on
Wednesday, and as a large number of Churchmen in Durban held strong
opinions (wholly irrespective of Dr. Colenso’s theological views) regard
ing the illegality of the position taken up by Bishop Gray, as opposed to
Her Majesty’s Letters Patent, the following protest was sent in on Saturday:—
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
3
‘ To the Wardens of St. Paul’s Church, Durban.
April 29, 1864.
‘Gentlemen,—We, the undersigned members of St. Paul’s Church,
Durban, having heard that the Bishop of Capetown intends to pronounce
“ sentence ” or “ judgment ” against the Bishop of Natal, beg most empha
tically to protest against any proceedings which interfere with the authority
of the Bishop of Natal (pending the decision of the Queen in Council),
and tend to disturb the peace and quiet of our Church.
‘ Edward W. Holland
‘ And a number of others.’
To this document [which was handed to him by the Churchwardens]
the Bishop made the following reply :—•
‘Gentlemen,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of the documents placed
in my hand late on Saturday night. I regret that, when you found that
any members of the Church were disturbed in their minds about the publica
tion of the Sentence delivered in Capetown during Divine Service, you did
not at once communicate with me, and that, when I was anxious, even at
the late hour at which I received the memorial, to discuss the matter, they
declined to accept my invitation. The publication of the Sentence in the
diocese is a mere matter of form; but I am advised that it is essential to its
completeness and validity. It will be published to-day in all the diocese.
I could not revoke the order which I have given as regards St. Paul’s
Church, on the grounds which Dr. Colenso’s friends suggest, without
stultifying my whole proceedings, and acknowledging the right of appeal
to the Privy Council, which I formally repudiated. The appeal to Canter
bury, provided for by the Letters Patent, and which I did recognize, I am
informed by His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury has never been made.
I have already mentioned to you that the Sentence is not one of excom
munication of Dr. Colenso, as one of you informed me was widely believed
to be the case. It is simply the notifying the fact, that the Bishop has not
retracted the opinions which have been condemned, and that the Sentence
of Deprivation, therefore, takes effect. The Judgment itself requires that
this should be done.
‘ It is to me a source of very great regret that any misunderstanding should
have arisen. I have come here at the earnest request of the clergy, who
have all determined never to recognize Dr. Colenso again as their Bishop,
and to take charge, as my office of Metropolitan requires me to do, of a
vacant, distracted diocese, which, as I believe you well know, is rapidly
sinking into a lifeless condition. I am ready to receive your assurance that
very few of the subscribers sympathise with Dr. Colenso’s views : but you
have candidly admitted that the document fbrwarded to me has been got up
by those who have alas! through him been led into unbelief. It is clear
that the subscribers will, unless they disclaim the imputation, be generally
and fairly considered as having adopted the views of those who have been.
B 2
�4
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
forward in the matter. I need scarcely say that it deeply grieves me that,
coming as I do with a sincere desire to help you, and to revive a languishing
Church, my efforts should, as far as your parish is concerned, be greatly
hindered by the misunderstanding which has arisen.
11 remain, Gentlemen,
1 Durban: Sunday morning, May 1st, 1864.’ (Signed) 'R. Capetown.’
On Sunday morning St. Paul’s Church was crowded,—a large number of
attendants of other Churches [i.e. members of other religious bodies] in town
being attracted by the novelty of the proceedings. After the Nicene Creed
was read by the minister of the parish, the Rev. A. W. L. Rivett, the
reverend gentleman proceeded to read the following document. No sooner,
however, had he begun, than several gentlemen (the number of whom is
varyingly stated at from fifteen to forty) got up and left the Church.
*
[Then follows a formal notice, ending with these words :—
'Now, therefore, we do hereby adjudge and decree the sentence so pro
nounced on the Sixteenth of December, One thousand eight hundred and
sixty-three, to be of full force, virtue, and effect, from and after this date;
and we do, accordingly, decree and sentence the said Bishop of Natal to be
deposed from the said office as such Bishop, and prohibited from the exercise
of any divine office within any part of the Metropolitical Province of Cape
town.
' In testimony whereof, &c.
R. Capetown.’]
After the service was over, his Lordship delivered a sermon, which is
variously spoken of by many who heard it, concluding with a vehement ex
hortation upon the unhappy state of things existing in the Church of England
in this diocese.
This Sentence of Deposition will be disregarded by a large body of the
Church of England in this colony, and it is believed that the authorities
will not recognize its validity. This attitude has reference to the civil aspect
of proceedings only, and does not necessarily involve any concurrence in’ the
theological opinions avowed by Bishop Colenso.
There are some points in the above letter of the Metro
politan which may be noticed.
* An anonymous correspondent of the ‘ Guardian ’ states that ‘ a few, who had
come to church in order to leave it when the Bishop entered the pulpit, did so,’
whereas, in fact, they left because the officiating clergyman began to read the
Sentence of Deposition. He speaks also of ‘ home ideas of Church and State
perplexing many minds,’ and of ‘some having prayed his Lordship, the night
before, to stay the Sentence,’ whereas a number of the Laity had ‘ most emphatically
protested' against the Bishop’s proceedings. It will be seen, as we proceed, that
these are but instances of the suppress™ veri, which characterises the communi
cation of this correspondent throughout.
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
5
(i) It is not easy to see how the protesters could be quieted
by being told that the publication of the ‘Sentence’ was ‘a
mere matter of form,’ and yet that it was ‘ essential to its com
pleteness and validity.''
(ii) The Bishop says that he had ‘ recognized the appeal to
Canterbury, provided for by the Letters Patent.’ But it must
be observed that he did not recognize it as a right which the
Patent distinctly allowed, but only vouchsafed it as a favour,—
‘ in this particular case, which is in itself novel, and of great importance to
the whole Church.’ See my Letter to the Laity, p.2.
*
(iii) It is impossible to avoid observing the undue pressure,
here put upon the subscribers to the Durban protest,-—which
expressed no more than a simple desire on their parts to await,
as loyal subjects, ‘the decision of the Queen in Council,’—by
the intimation that, if they did not openly ‘ disclaim the im
putation ’ of sympathising with my views, they would be
‘ generally and fairly considered as having adopted them.’
(iv) It was also, as it seems to me, not worthy of the present
grave occasion, to have stigmatized the gentlemen, supposed to
have promoted the address, as ‘ having alas I through him (the
Bishop of Natal) been led into unbelief’—as if no layman in
Natal was capable of forming some judgment for himself, as
educated men do^ upon the relations of Science and Scripture.
(v) If, however, as the Bishop of Capetown assumes, ‘ very
few of the subscribers sympathised with my views,’ there must
be others of the Laity in Natal who do; inasmuch as I received
from them some months ago a hearty expression of good-will, in
an address numerously and respectably signed.
But I desire to draw attention, specially, to the following
two statements which are made in the Bishop’s letter:—* The Bishop (Waldegeave) of Cablisle says in his recent Charge,—
‘ There has been on the part of the Bishop of Capetown a resolve,—in the carrying
out of which he has received no little encouragement from the authorities, both
civil and ecclesiastical, at home, and also, of late, from his own Suffragans on th e
spot,—to vindicate for himself a Metropolitical Jurisdiction, independent, as far
as possible, of that of the See of Canterbury.’
�6
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
The Bishop says—
I could not revoke the order,—[which had been issued for the publi
cation of this ‘ Sentence ’ in St. Paul’s Church,]—without stultifying
my whole proceedings, and acknowledging the right of Appeal to the Privy
Council, which I had formally repudiated.
It should be observed that I have not appealed to the Privy
Council, but to Her Majesty Herself as Head of the Church of
England, who has exercised Her constitutional right in this
matter, and referred my petition to the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council.
But again the Bishop says—
I have come here at the earnest request of the clergy, who have all deter
mined never to recognize Dr. Colenso again as their Bishop.
This was a very grave statement for him to have made on an
occasion like the present: and I must think that it ought not
to have been made by the Metropolitan, without the most
perfect certainty that it expressed the actual state of the case.
No sanguine expectations of his own,—no mere assurances of
eager and excited partizans,—as to what was, or would be, the
state of feeling among the clergy,-—could have justified, as
it seems to me, so strong an assertion,—nothing but the fact,
that he had actually received such a ‘ request,’ and an expression
of such a ‘determination,’ from all the clergy—from all, at
least, who were in the colony, and accessible.
But how stands the fact ? The total number of the clergy
in the diocese is, as stated by the correspondent of the Guardian.,
June 27, at this time eleven,—besides two now in England, and
two engaged as Missionaries, beyond the border of the colony,
in Zululaud. And by the previous mail I was made aware that
this statement was certainly not correct, so far as three, at
all events, of those eleven clergy were concerned. I very much
doubt, also, if, at that time, all even of the remaining eight
had expressed any such a determination. But the following
letter from one of the clergy in question, which appeared in the
Natal Mercury of May 19, 1864, will speak for itself:—
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
7
To the Editor of the ‘ Natal Mercury.'
Sir,—Tn the Bishop of Capetown's letter to some of the inhabitants of
Durban, dated May 1st, appears the following- statement:—11 have come
here at the earnest request of the clergy, who have all determined never to
recognize Dr. Colenso again as their Bishop.’
Allow me to state through your journal that I am not aware of having
joined in that request, or expressed any such determination.
If the ‘ Privy Council,’ to which Dr. Colenso has appealed, recognize
him as the lawful Bishop of Natal, I will do the same, or return my license.
No real good can be effected by disobeying the law, or disregarding the
highest civil authority in the land. And I hope, therefore, that some, at
least, of my brother clergymen will pause before they lend themselves to
any course of action, which in future they may have reason to regret.
We need not fear the result of investigation and criticism : for the doc
trines of the Church, and the teaching of the Bible, have a solid foundation ;
and, when the storm has past, and the dust subsided, we shall see the truth
even more clearly than before. 1 If this Council or this work be of man, it
will come to nought; but, if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it.’
I hope you will publish this without delay, as an accident, which I met
with a few days back, made me unable to attend to' it earlier.
Umgababa Mission Station,
I remain, Sir, yours, &c.,
Umkomazi, May 7, 1864.
A. Tonnesen.
The anonymous correspondent of the Guardian writes of
the above clergyman as follows :—
One [of the clergy], unhappily, did withdraw himself from his brethren,—
not, it is said, because he has been drawn away from the truth, but on some
extreme views of Church and State;—
that is to say, he still clings, it seems, to the good old English
Protestant principle, of recognizing the Queen as supreme in
all matters within her realm, spiritual as well as temporal, and
of regarding it as the first duty of an Englishman, whether
clergyman or layman, to render obedience to the law.
But, it is added by the same authority, this clergyman ‘ has
since, we hear, come in.’ This means that he has been obliged
to succumb, to some extent, under the heavy pressure brought
to bear upon him, and has published in his church, by the com
mand of the Metropolitan, the ‘ Sentence of Deposition,’ which
he had at first refused to do. I have reason to know that the
following arguments, among others, have been used to produce
this effect with him, and, possibly, with others of my clergy
�8
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
(i) That they are wrong in disobeying the Metropolitan^—
(ii) That the sentence is a spiritual sentence, which does not fall under
the jurisdiction of the ‘ Privy Council,’—
(iii) That the Bishop of Natal had not appealed, and, therefore, they
had no right to assume that, as a ground for any opposition,—
(iv) If they would not obey the Metropolitan, their licenses would be with
drawn, and their names struck off the list of the Gospel-Propagation Society.
This, then, is the process by which dissentients are to be
eliminated or coerced, and the unanimity of the clergy is to be
secured in this matter ! With respect to the arguments brought
thus to bear upon them, I may remark as follows:—
(i) The clergy of Natal would have been perfectly justified
in disobeying the command of the Metropolitan,—as Mr. Long
was in disobeying that of Dr. Gray as Bishop,—if they deemed
it unlawful, and were prepared to take the consequences of dis
obedience. But, being ignorant themselves of the real facts of
the case, and having before them only the positive statements
of the Metropolitan,—not corrected by the information, which
my published ‘ Letter to the Laity of Natal ’ would have given
them, had it by that time reached the colony,—I cannot wonder
at the course which for the present the majority have taken.
(ii) The idea, that the Bishop of Capetown’s sentence,
being a ‘spiritual’ sentence only, will, therefore, ‘not fall
under the jurisdiction of the Privy Council,’ will, I apprehend,
be found to be a fallacy. The 36th Canon says distinctly:—
The King’s Maj esty, under God, is the only supreme Governor of this
realm, and of all other His Highness’s dominions and countries, as well in
all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal.
If the Bishop had first resigned his Patent, he might issue,
no doubt, sentences of deposition and bulls of excommuni
cation, as a Bishop of the ‘ Church of South Africa,’ fortified
by the ‘ Canons of Antioch, confirmed by the General Council
of Chalcedon,’ as quoted in p.29 of his recent Charge. And
such proceedings would certainly not be referred by Her
Majesty to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But
they would be as harmless, and would as little trouble our
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
9
peace and order, as Members of the Church of England, as if
they were issued by a Roman Catholic Bishop, or by the Greek
Patriarch, or by the Pope himself,—by whom indeed, speaking
in the name of all £ the Churches of the Roman obedience,’
(Charge, p.4), the Bishop himself is, at this very time, con
demned of schism and heresy, and excommunicated.
But, so long as the Bishop of Capetown holds Her Ma
jesty’s Letters Patent, he is, I apprehend, responsible to the
Queen Herself for using the powers committed to him, whether
spiritual or temporal, in relation to any of the Queen’s subjects,
rightfully and lawfully. Otherwise it is plain that, by means
of this new device of a distinction between 4 spiritual ’ and
‘ temporal ’ judgments, (long ago used in defence of the
Inquisition,) he might use his high office to condemn with
a 6 spiritual sentence,’—to place under the ban and excom\nunicate, and so virtually deprive of his ministry,—any one
of\his own clergy, without being liable to have his proceedings\brought under review, as they were in Mr. Long’s case,
before yhe Civil Courts of the colony, and finally before the
Queen in Council.
(iii) I regret that any of my clergy should have been misled by the statement that I had not appealed,—a statement
which, under the circumstances, would be naturally understood
to mean that I was not intending, and had taken no steps, to
test- the legality of the Bishop’s proceedings. I had, however,
given formal notice of my intention to do this; and it was
perfectly well known that I was seeking to obtain a judicial
decision upon the case from the highest Court of Justice in the
Realm. But the Bishop of Capetown has moved so precipi
tately in the matter, that there was no time for me to receive
even a reply, as to the advice which would be tendered to Her
Majesty with respect to my petition, before he proceeded to
carry out his Sentence in Natal.
(iv) Such arguments as these, which threaten to take away
�10
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
a man’s means of livelihood, or in well-known Zulu phrase to
‘ eat him up,’ for disobedience, must often be irresistible,—
especially when coupled with positive assertions, as above,
with respect to the extent of the Metropolitan’s jurisdiction,
and his independence of control. Yet the threat held out—
of striking off the Missionary’s name from the list of the Pro
pagation Society, if he refused obedience to such a command
of the Metropolitan—was, in fact, not justified by any vote of
the Society, empowering the Bishop to pledge it to this course
of proceeding, as a means of coercion in such a case. On
the contrary, it is well known that, when the Bishop recently
applied to the Society to grant him virtually such a power, the
request was refused, in a great measure through the sound
advice of some eminent laymen.
In fact, it is plain that, under the arrangement desired
by the Bishop of Capetown, the Society’s funds would be em
ployed to support the system,—not of the ‘ Church of England,’
which it is generally understood to represent, but—of the
‘ Church of South Africa.,’ which, in the language of the Bishops
meeting in Synod at Capetown, while ‘receiving ’ the Articles
and Formularies of the Church of England,—
is not bound by any interpretations put upon those standards by existing
Ecclesiastical Courts in England, or by the decisions of such courts in matters
of faith.
Proceedings of the Bishop of Capetown at Maritzburg.
The Bishop, having concluded his Visitation at Durban,
proceeded to Maritzburg, and there, on May 18, delivered a
‘ Charge ’ in the Cathedral Church (which shall be considered
presently)—after which the clergy then present, who appear to
have been nine in number, signed and presented the following
Address, drawn up probably by the correspondent of the
Guardian, with the view of its being signed by all the
clergy: —
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
11
To the Most Reverend the Lord Metropolitan of South Africa.
My Lord,—We, the clergy of the Church of England in the diocese of
Natal, assembled in the cathedral church of Pietermaritzburg, to confer with
your Lordship on the present state of the diocese, desire to express our deep
sympathy with your Lordship in the painful duty you have been called upon
to perform in sitting on judgment upon Bishop Colenso, and gratitude for
the fatherly care and help your Lordship has extended towards this portion
of your province, in the perplexities and trials to which it has been sub
jected. We would also place on solemn record our emphatic repudiation of
the erroneous teaching of Bishop Colenso, and our conviction that, should
it please Gon, for the chastisement of our sins, to allow Bishop Colenso to
return to the diocese with legal authority, he must still be regarded as
lying under a righteous sentence of condemnation, and that we dare not
acknowledge him as having authority in spiritual matters.
We would further beg to be allowed to offer your Lordship our most
grateful thanks for the Charge your Lordship has delivered to us in this
cathedral this day, and pray your Lordship to permit it to be printed, that
it may be in the hands of every member of our flock, and to allow the MS.
to be placed among the archives of this diocese.
St. Peter’s Cathedral, Pietermaritzburg, 18th May, 1864.
The above was signed by 1 the Dean,’ and eight other clergy.
Among the above signatures is that of one of the Missionaries
in Zululand ; and, accordingly, the informant of the Guardian
writes—
You will remark that, whilst I give the numbers of the clergy as eleven,
there are but eight signatures to the Address.
One clergyman is in
England; another, having broken a blood-vessel, is lying ill in bed, but
is well known to believe (s«c).
Thus this address has been signed by eight colonial clergy,
of whom several are catechists, who have been ordained by myself.
And these have been permitted by the Metropolitan—nay, en
couraged, if not, in some instances, virtually commanded and
compelled, to give their judgment on these great questions of
the day, and pronounce condemnation on their own Bishop, who
at any rate has been to some of them a Father in God, from
whose hands they have received ^ordination. If it had been
signed by all the clergy of such a diocese as that of Natal, it
is obvious that the weight to be attached to such a document
would have been incomparably less than would belong to a like
declaration, if made by the majority of the clergy of an English
�12
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
diocese. And the value even of such signatures has been
recently set very low by the Bishop of St. David’s.
The Bishop of Capetown replied as follows:—
Deanery, Maritzburg, May 19, 1864.
Reverend and Dear Brethren,—I beg to thank you very sincerely for your
Address. The duty, which I have had to discharge, has been a most pain
ful one. All personal considerations, however, must give way, when the
faith of Christ is at stake. The questions, which your late Bishop has
raised, are, as I have said in my Charge, no less than these,—Is there a
written revelation from God ? Is our Lord, God Incarnate ? Is Chris
tianity true ?
We ought not to suppose for a moment that any Civil Court would, if
appealed to on the question of civil right, venture to send back to this land
one, whose teaching you yourselves, with the whole Church, have solemnly
repudiated, with the right to take possession of the property of the Church,
given for far different purposes ; nor do I imagine that anyone would have
thought it possible, had it not been for the confident tone of Dr. Colenso
himself, assuring those to whom he had written that such was about to be
the case.
It rejoices me, my brethren, to receive from yourselves the assurance that,
let the worldly position of Dr. Colenso be what it may, you ‘ dare not
acknowledge him as having authority in spiritual matters.’ Maintain your
ground as witnesses for Christ, and for ‘ the faith once for all delivered to
the Saints,’ and, in God’s good time, all will be well. Our country’s Courts
will not commit the great wrong of giving a legal right to a bishop, deposed
and rejected by the Church, to force himself into your churches, and pro
claim from your pulpits ‘ erroneous and strange doctrines, contrary to God’s
Word,’ which he and you have sworn at your ordination ‘ with all faithful
diligence to banish and drive away,’ and thereby to compel your congregations,
—who, I rejoice to hear, have no more sympathy than yourselves with the
late Bishop’s teaching,—to abandon the churches which they have erected
for themselves.
But, if it were so, your course is plain. Christians have, before now,
been driven to worship on the mountain-top or by the river-side, in dens
and caves of the earth. I believe there is faith and zeal enough among
yourselves, if driven to it, to do the same.
I shall have much pleasure in complying with your wish, by publishing
my Charge, and by placing the MS. afterwards at your disposal.
I am, Rev. and Dear Brethren,
Your faithful servant and brother in Christ,
R. Capetown, Metropolitan.
The Rev. the Clergy of the Diocese of Natal.
A similar document, almost the counterpart of the chief
clause in the clerical ‘ declaration,’ was subsequently signed by
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
13
the same nine clergymen as before, and also by seven laymen
—six signing as churchwardens of four churches, but signing in
their own names merely, without the authority of the congre
gations.
It is obvious to remark how positively in his reply, as
above,-—and we shall see that he does the same in his Charge,—
the Metropolitan reiterates the statement, that e the whole
Church has solemnly repudiated my teaching,’ that ‘ I have
been deposed and rejected by the ChurchC But he must have
*
been aware that my books have never been condemned at all
by the whole Church, or by any competent authority in the
Church of England, and that not a few of the clergy of that
Church, and a very large body of the more intelligent laity,
are so far from condemning me, that they have openly come
forward to declare their disapproval of his proceedings.
Further, I maintain, as I have partly shown in my ‘ Letter to
the Laity,’ p. 10-14, that all the charges brought against me at
my (so-called) ‘ Trial ’ will fall to the ground by virtue of recent
decisions in this country, some in consequence of recent Judg
ments of the Privy Council, others by reason of a decision in
the Court of Arches—the very Court of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, under whose ‘general superintendence and revision’
the Bishop of Capetown bound himself to act, in accepting his
Letters Patent from the Crown,—which decision, however, he
distinctly repudiates, see Trial, p.388, declaring positively that
he ‘ cannot concur ’ in it, and presuming to say that ‘ it is a
wrong to the Church ’ of which he is still content to remain a
Bishop.
With respect to the ‘ questions,’ which, as the Bishop of
* Of the ‘ nearly fifty ’ clergy in the diocese of Capetown, very many of them
selected or ordained by the Bishop himself, about one-third do not appear to have
signed the ‘Declaration’ of ‘rejection,’ lately published in the Times, Sept.l. But
the signatures to this Declaration do not profess to be those of Clergy of the Church
of England, but of Clergy ‘ ministering in the Church in South Africa,' and they
address, accordingly, the ‘ Bishops of the Church in South Africa.’
�14
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
Capetown says, ‘ I have raised,’ or which, as he says elsewhere,
Charge, p.14, ‘have really been raised by my writings,’ I cannot
be responsible for inferences, which he or others may think
proper to draw from my critical conclusions. I must refer the
reader to the books themselves for the statements which I have
really made; but I emphatically deny that I myself have
raised these ‘ questions.’ On the contrary—
(i) I have said of the Bible, Part I.p.13, that it has—
‘through God’s providence, and the special working of His Spirit on the
minds of its writers, been the means of revealing to us His True Name, the
Name of the only Living and True God, and has all along been, and, as far
as we know, will never cease to be, the mightiest instrument in the hand of
the Divine Teacher, for awakening in our minds just conceptions of His
character and of His gracious and merciful dealings with the children of
men. Only we must not attempt to put into the Bible what we think ought
to be there,. . . and lay it down for certain beforehand, that God could only
reveal Himself by means of an infallible book.’
(ii) I have done my utmost to show, Part I.p.xxix-xxxii,
Part II.p.xv,xvi, Part Ill.p.xxxiii-xl, that the recognition of the
results of the criticism of the Pentateuch ‘ is perfectly consis
tent with the most entire and sincere belief in our Lord’s
Divinity,’—whereas Bishop Gbay’s view seems to lose sight of
the human nature of our Lord altogether, or to trench on the
Eutychian and Monophysite heresies, which confounded the
two natures in one.
(iii) I fully believe in the Divine origin of Christianity,
—not certainly of that Christianity, which may be blown away
by a breath, which teaches that ‘all our hopes for eternity are
taken from us,’ if one line in Esther or Chronicles is shown to
be unhistorical or untrue, whose ‘ foundation ’ is the dogma,
that ‘ the whole Bible is the unerring Word of the Living God,’
—but a Christianity rooted and grounded in those ‘words of
Christ’ — ‘the primal, indefeasible truths of Christianity,’ as
Dean Milman calls them,— ‘ which shall not pass away,’ — a
Christianity which at once satisfies the deep wants and longings
of the human heart, and is confirmed, as of Divine original, py
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
15
the whole course of human history,—a Christianity, to use again
the words of the same writer, which is 4 comprehensive, all-em
bracing, catholic, which knows what is essential to religion, what
is temporary and extraneous to it,’ and, being such, ‘ may defy
the world.’
And let me say further, it is not I who have said that Chris
tianity will not bear a close and critical investigation, that it
will not endure the searching eye of ‘ free enquiry.’ I believe
that it will, that it is essentially and eternally true. But I do
not believe that all is true, which ancient or modern dogmatisers
have asserted to be essential to the creed of Christendom, and by
which they always obscure, and not unfrequently put out of sight
altogether, the grand truths, which alone are ‘ indefeasible ’
and imperishable. I hold with Bishop Thirlwall, Charge,
p.123, that—
The numbers, migrations, wars, battles, conquests, and reverses of Israel
have nothing in common with the teaching of Christ, with the way of sal
vation, with the fruits of the Spirit. They belong to a totally different
order of subjects. They are not to be confounded with the spiritual revela
tion contained in the Old Testament, much less with that fulness of grace
and truth which came by Jesus Christ. . . . Such questions must be left to
every one’s private judgment and feeling, which have the fullest right to
decide for each, but not to impose their decisions as the dictate of an infal
lible authority on the consciences of others. Any attempt to erect such
facts into articles of faith would be fraught with danger of irreparable evil
to the Church, as well as with immediate hurt to numberless souls.
The Bishop’s Charge; his claim, of Jurisdiction.
I come now to consider the Bishop of Capetown’s Charge,
which is described by the correspondent of the Guardian as—•
the greatest, some say who know England well, that had ever been delivered
by an English Bishop.
In the first portion of it, p.1-12, the Bishop states his views as
to the office and powers of a Metropolitan.
These I need not
here consider at length, as these points, no doubt, will come
under discussion when my case is heard, as Her Majesty has
ordered, by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I
�16
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
remark only that I have no concern with, and do not in any
manner recognize, the powers of a Metropolitan, as they may
have existed at some time or other in the ancient Catholic
Church, or as they may now exist ‘in the Churches of the
Roman obedience,’ in which latter, says the Bishop, p.14—
since the Council of Trent, the powers of the Metropolitan, as well as
those of the Episcopate generally, have been, to a very great extent, merged
in the Papacy.
I recognize them only so far as they exist in ‘the United Church
of England and Ireland, as by law established,’ in which, as is
well known, the supreme powers, usurped by the Pope in the
Roman Church, are restored by the Constitution to the Crown.
And I note that the Bishop has entirely ignored the Act of
Submission of the Clergy, 25 Henry VIII, which surrenders
all those powers to the Sovereign, with respect to which Mr.
A. J. Stephens says, Laws relating to the Clergy, i.p.23 :—
The grand rupture [with Rome] happened in the reign of Henry VIII,
when all the jurisdiction usurped by the Pope in matters ecclesiastical was
restored to the Crown, to which it originally belonged, so that the statute
25 Hen. VIII was but declaratory of the ancient law of the realm.
I may observe, however, that the Bishop repeats on p.8
the assertion, which I have already been obliged to contradict
on p.6 of my ‘ Letter to the Laity ’; for he says—
Your late Bishop, who had for years recognized my jurisdiction, as has been
abundantly shown by the documents produced at his Trial, denied on that un
happy occasion that I had any jurisdiction over him, and protested against
the exercise of it.
I have shown in my Letter—
(i) That I have never recognized in the Bishop of Capetown
any jurisdiction over me personally, though I have recognized
his Metropolitan dignity, as my Patent requires me to do, in
accordance with the system of the Church of England; that is,
I have recognized (i) his preeminence and precedence as that of
a Bishop primus inter pares, (ii) the right of any one of my
clergy, who may deem himself aggrieved by any of my decisions,
to appeal to him as Metropolitan ;
.,
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
17
(ii) That the documents produced at my so-called ‘Trial’
do not imply any recognition of the jurisdiction which he
now claims over me as Metropolitan;
(iii) That the Bishop of Capetown himself, only a few years
ago, was then, as he expressed himself,—
in doubt as to the extent of Metropolitan jurisdiction.
By this time, I hope, my ‘ Letter to the Laity ’ may have
cleared up this matter of jurisdiction to the minds of many of
my Clergy and Laity. In the absence of any such correcting
influence, I cannot wonder that they should have been much
impressed by the positive statements of the Metropolitan, and
by his language at p.8—
If Dr. Colexso claims to be Bishop over the Clergy and Laity of this
diocese, he can scarcely question my authority over him. We derived our
respective jurisdictions from the same source.
I have shown in my^ Letter,’ p.5, that in my Patent, which
is of an earlier date than that of the Bishop of Capetown, I am
placed by the Crown in the same relation to him as Metropolitan,
that any one of the Suffragans of the Province of Canterbury
stands in to the Archbishop of that Province. And if, as I am
advised, the office of a Metropolitan in England involves no right
or power to exercise an irresponsible jurisdiction over a Suffragan,
without any right of appeal to the Sovereign, then neither has
the Bishop of Capetown any such right or power over me, nor
could such a power have been given him by the later Patent
which he has received.
The Bishop, however, says, p.6—
There remain the facts, that, if the Church; and Crown united in the
appointment of a Bishop, they were united also in the appointment of a
Metropolitan,—that, if one office exists, the other exists also,—and that each
of the eight South African Bishops, that have been appointed since tfie
Province was formed, solemnly swore before God that he would render
canonical obedience to me as Metropolitan at his consecration.
I have already shown, ‘ Letter to the Laity,’ p.4, that according
c
�18
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
to the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Long v.
Bishop of Capetown, viz.—
the oath of canonical obedience does not mean that the clergyman will
obey all the commands of the Bishop against which there is no law, but that
he will obey all such commands as the Bishop by law is authorized to impose,__
I am not bound by this oath to any obedience, except to such
commands of the Metropolitan as he may be lawfully empowered
to impose. And while I recognize his e dignity ’ as Metropolitan,
I deny that he is ‘ by law authorized ’ to summon me before him,
and sit in judgment upon me.
Moreover, that the dignity of Metropolitan may exist, without
his having any lawful jurisdiction, is plain from the following
letter, which has been recently addressed by the Duke of New
castle, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, to the GrovernorCreneral of Canada.
Downing Street, 10th February, 1864.
My Lord,—A Correspondence, which arose out of the recent case of
Long v. The Bishop of Capetown, has led me to submit, for the opinion of
the Law-Officers of the Crown, the question whether any, and, if so, what,
Metropolitan preeminence or jurisdiction was conveyed by the Letters
Patent bearing date the 12th Feb. 1862, which constituted the Bishop of
Montreal Metropolitan Bishop in the Province of Canada,
The following is the answer which I have received:—
4 We think it was competent to the Crown to constitute his Lordship a
Metropolitan, and thereby to give him gyreewiinence and precedence over his
Suffragans, but that, as to the coercive jurisdiction which the Metropolitan,
may exercise, and the manner in which it is to be exercised, these are
matters which must be settled by the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of the
Church in a general Assembly of the Province, according to the provision
of the local Act of the Canadian Legislatru-e, 19 & 20 Victoria, cap. 121.’
You will be good enough to communicate a copy of this opinion to the
Bishop of Montreal, adding, that it will be for his Lordship, in concert
with the other authorities of the Canadian Church, to determine for them-’
selves whether they would prefer to apply for fresh and amended Letters
Patent, or to allow the existing instrument to remain in force, with the
knowledge that, so far as it assumes to invest the Metropolitan with coercive
jurisdiction, it is of no effect.
I have, &c.,
(Signed)
Newcastle.
It will be observed that the Patent of the Bishop of Montreal
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
19
did profess to give him, as Metropolitan, a power of e juris
diction,’—probably in the very same terms as those used in the
Bishop of Capetown’s. But this part of his Patent is pro
nounced invalid, by reason of rights already existing. And
the Metropolitan of Canada has only 4 preeminence and pre
cedence ’ over the other Bishops of his Province—he is primus
inter pares—but cannot exercise any jurisdiction over them.
I believe that precisely the same state of things exists in the
Province of Capetown, and that this will be made plain by the
decision of the Privy Council upon the hearing of my case.
What would be thought, however,—or what would be said
and done,—if the Bishop of Montreal were to throw to the
winds this opinion of the Law-Officers of the Crown, and, in
defiance of the Royal authority, were to assert, with the Bishop
of Capetown, that, in the exercise of what he pretends to call a
spiritual jurisdiction, he will proceed to summon, convict, sus
pend, deprive, any one of his Suffragans—e.g. the Bishop of
Heron,—and ‘should he presume to exercise Episcopal func
tions in his diocese, after the sentence of the Metropolitan shall
have been notified to him,’ will further proceed, ‘after due
admonition, to pronounce the formal sentence of excommunica
tion against him’ ? I apprehend that, in such a case, the LawOfficers of the Crown would have another duty to perform, and
would vindicate in due course Her Majesty’s Supremacy.
But the Bishop of Capetown lays great stress upon the
point that the Church, as well as the Crown, has conferred on
him his office as Metropolitan, and from the former he seems to
derive his 4 spiritual jurisdiction.’ But how has 4 the Church ’
done this ? The Bishop says, p.5—
The subject was fully discussed at a meeting of the English Bishops, and.
such of the Colonial Bishops as were within reach, summoned by the late
Archbishop of Canterbury in 1853. At that meeting, at which I was pre
sent, it was resolved that Metropolitans should be at once appointed over
the churches of Canada, New Zealand, South Africa (Australia and the Hast
Indies being already under Metropolitans); and the concurrence and joint,
c 2
�20
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
action of the Crown in this matter was sought and obtained. The Crown
gave what force of law it was in its power to do to the decision of the Church.
• • • By the concurrent action of the Church and of the Crown, and, at their
united call, I hold the office which I now fill.
It is obvious to ask, by what concurrent action of the Church
and State were the Metropolitans of Australia and India
appointed, previously to this meeting of the Bishops ? Here,
however, a resolution of certain Bishops is spoken of as a
‘ decision of the Church ’! to which the Crown ‘gave what force
of law it was in its power to do’! Convocation had no voice in
the matter: the Laity were not consulted: only a private
conclave of Bishops, English and some Colonial, c resolved ’ that
‘Metropolitans should be at once appointed,’ and then ‘the
concurrence and joint action of the Crown in this matter was
sought and obtained.’ And this is called ‘the action of the
Church ’I I leave Archdeacon Denison to settle this matter
with the Bishop of Capetown. But I maintain—and the Duke of
Newcastle’s letter abundantly shows it—that the Crown alone
appointed these Metropolitans.
The Bishop again observes, p.10—
It is the Canons, which define the relations of the Priest and Deacon to
the Bishop, of the Bishop to the Metropolitan, of the Metropolitan to the
Primate and at present, it would seem, the de facto Patriarch of all
Churches of the English Communion.
And then he proceeds to speak of the authority given him as
Metropolitan by the ‘Canons of the Church.’ Not a word,
however, is said in the Canons of the Church of England as to
the relations of the Bishop to the Metropolitan, or of the
Metropolitan to the Primate or Patriarch; nor are even the
names of Metropolitan, Primate, Patriarch, so much as men
tioned in any one of them. And, further, the appeal from the
Archbishop of York is not to the Archbishop of Canterbury as
‘ Patriarch,’ but to the ‘ Queen in Council.’ The Bishop refers,
no doubt, to certain ancient Canons, which, however, have no
force in the Church of England, except that, as Lord Hale says,
in Stephens, Laws relating to the Clergy, i.p.225,—
�THE BISHOP OP CAPETOWN.
21
So far as such, laws are received and allowed of here, so far they obtain,
and no farther.
And this is made still more plain by Lord Denman, as quoted
in Stephens, ii.p.1449 :—
I think it necessary to reassert, what has so often been declared by our
illustrious predecessors in this Court, and by the greatest writers on the
English constitution, that the Canon Law forms no part of the law of Eng
land, unless it has been brought into use and acted upon in this country.
Hence I am of opinion that the burden of proof rests on those, who affirm the
adoption of any portion of it in England.
But the hearer or reader of the Bishop’s words, if ignorant
of ecclesiastical matters, would be misled by the context, and
suppose that he was speaking of the Canons of the English
Church, since the next preceding sentence of the Charge runs
thus—
They [English Churchmen, who go out as colonists] carry with them
their Bible and their Prayer-book, and with them the laws of their Church
embodied in the Canons, so far as these are applicable to their new circum
stances. It is the Canons which define, &c.,—
that is to say, in two successive clauses, the Bishop uses the
expression c the Canons ’ in two totally different senses !
The Bishop goes on to assure my Flock that the Law-Officers
of the Crown were e not likely to consent ’ to advise Her Majesty
to refer my case to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
—that the Queen could only do so 4 by a stretch of Her pre
rogative,’ p.ll,—that this would be—
in fact, to revive the Courts of Preview, Star Chamber, and High Commission, with all their arbitrary powers.
The only answer to these assertions is the fact, that Her
Majesty, by the advice of Her Privy Council, has so referred it,
and, in so doing, has exercised an unquestionable right, derived
from the first principles of our Protestant Constitution.
The Bishop of Capetozvris threatened Secession from the
Church of England.
But should Her Majesty, acting upon the advice that may be
tendered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, be
�22
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
pleased to decide in my favour, it appears that the Bishop of
Capetown contemplates in that case a formal secession from the
Church of England. His language on this point is most remark
able, and cannot, as it appears to me, be understood to mean
anything short of this.
The fear is expressed, that a Civil Court might send back Dr. Colenso as
Bishop of this Diocese, because there is no legal power in the Metropolitan
to deprive him. The question, however, is, not whether there is a legal
power, i.e. a power conferred by some civil law—[in other words, a power
conferred by Her Majesty’s Letters Patent],—but whether there is any right
in the Metropolitan to deprive, and whether I am Metropolitan. I have shown
above that, by the joint action of the Church and the State, I am Metro
politan, and that the Metropolitan has power by the laws of the Church
[what Church ?] to deprive. I do not believe that any Civil Court would
deny this; because, first, by so doing it would declare that the Church, or,
if the term is preferred, the ‘voluntary association,’ in this country, called
the Episcopal Communion, is the only religious association, or the only
society in the land of any kind, that cannot remove an unfaithful officer
from his office : for, if the Metropolitan, with the aid of the other Bishops
of the Province, cannot do it, no power on earth can. The Archbishop of
Canterbury cannot do so. The Crown cannot. Were a Bishop to become
an Atheist, or were he to believe in Mahomet, or to teach all Roman doc
trine, it would by such a sentence be affirmed that there is no redress, no
power of removal, pp. 12,13.
Let us stop here for a moment, and consider the statement
which I have above italicized, and in which lies the Bishop’s
whole misapprehension of his position. He asserts that the
Crown cannot remove a Bishop: I am advised that the Crown
can remove a Bishop, and that no other power in the Church
of England can. Here, then, is the true remedy for the present
supposed grievance. The Queen, by and with the advice of
Her Privy Council, can cancel my Patent, or, if necessary,
can cancel that of the Bishop of Capetown. If, then, as it is
asserted, I have transgressed so grievously—nay, if I have
transgressed at all—the laws of the Church of England, it is
perfectly competent for the Bishops of Capetown and Grahamstown, or any Bishops of England my accusers, to make their
complaint to Her Majesty, and seek redress at Her hands ; they
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
23
may present, as I myself have done, a petition to be heard
before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or any
other Court which Her Majesty may see good to appoint, while
accusing me of serious derelictions of duty, in the discharge
of the high office which I hold by Her Majesty’s authority. I
call upon them solemnly to do this, and not to persist in the
unjustifiable practice of uttering abusive and, in fact, libellous
invectives against me. I will put no obstacles in the way of such
an enquiry: I will raise no technical objections, nor interpose
unnecessary delays. But, if they refuse to do this, then let them
hold their peace as to the point, of my having broken faith
with the Church of England, and violated her laws. Or, if they
reject Her Majesty's Supremacy, and desire to shake off the
control of those wholesome laws, which protect the clergy of the
Church of England from the grinding oppression of mere eccle
siastical domination, then let this purpose be distinctly avowed,
and so we shall understand more clearly the end which is aimed
at, and the nature of the conflict in which we are engaged.
But the Bishop proceeds, p.13—
And, next, it would thereby declare that the Church in this colony,
which is a branch of the oldest Corporation of the world, shall not be
governed by its own laws,—laws which it inherits from the Church from
which it derives its origin. I will not believe that any Civil Court on
earth would so openly violate the religious liberties of any denomination of
Christians.
Here, again, is the same fallacy as before. If the Bishop of
Capetown will surrender his Letters Patent, and, with any of
the Clergy or Laity, who are willing to secede with him from
the ‘ Church of England,’ will form another Church—to be
called, e.g. ‘the Church of South Africa, in union and full
communion with the United Church of England and Ireland,’—
and to be modelled (if they desire it) after that of some ancient
Church, with a complete mediaeval system of ecclesiastical tra
ditions, Priestly Authority, Episcopal and Metropolitan Courts,
exercising jurisdiction over clergy and laity, issuing sentences of
�24
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
suspension and deprivation for the former, and decrees of
excommunication for both,—there is nothing to prevent their
so doing: no Civil Court would interfere with them, or e violate
the liberties ’ of such an 4 association.’ But he cannot, I appre
hend, retain his status as a Bishop of the Church of England,
and then renounce the system of that Church, which rightly or
wrongly—most rightly, as I believe, though the Bishop of Cape
town seems to think otherwise—declares by the 37th Article
and the 36th Canon, that—
the Queen’s Majesty under God is the only supreme governor of this realm,
and of all other Her Highness’s dominions and countries, as well in all spi
ritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal.
The Bishop still proceeds, p.13—
But, if it did, it would only deprive the Church of its property. It
could not give spiritual authority to any man. Christ has not given this
power to Kings or Civil Courts. He has given it only to His Church: and,
if any Church were to surrender this power to Civil Courts, it would un
Church itself—cease to he a Church.
But the Church of England notoriously asserts that to the
Queen in Council rightfully Belongs the power of allowing or
disallowing the judgments, which may have been passed by
Archbishops and Bishops upon their clergy ; nor does it recog
nize the distinction, which the Bishop of Capetown attempts to
draw, between their 4 spiritual’ and ‘temporal’ jurisdiction.
And, accordingly, Dr. Williams has been restored to his spiritual
functions by the decree of the Privy Council, in direct oppo
sition to the strongly-expressed sentiments of his own Bishop.
It is obvious that, on the principle put forth by Bishop Gray,
Bishop Hamilton might have condemned Dr. Williams 4 spi
ritually,’ in spite of the decision of the Privy Council,— he
might have announced to him in the very language (mutatis
mutandis') of the three South-African Bishops, in their 8th
Resolution, adopted at the 4 Synod,’Dec. 15, 1863, with reference
to myself (see Letter to the Laity, p.31)—
Should [Dr. Williams] presume to exercise [Priestly] functions in the
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
25
diocese of [Salisbury], after [this spiritual] sentence of the Bishop shall have
been notified to him, without an appeal to Canterbury, and without being
restored to his office by the [Bishop], he will be ipso facto excommunicate,
and it will be the duty of the [Bishop], after due admonition, to pronounce
the formal sentence of excommunication.
Of course, the Bishop of Salisbury, though feeling so
deeply on this question, has never attempted to carry out such a
measure. The notion of such a proceeding would not now be
tolerated for a moment in England. Besides, the Bishop of
Salisbury knows that by the First Canon of the Church of
England, he himself, as well as the Bishops of Capetown and
Graiiamstown, is bound—
To the uttermost of his wit, knowledge, and learning, without any colour
or dissimulation, to teach, manifest, open, and declare, four times every year
at the least, in his sermons and other collations and lectures, .... that the
king’s power, within his realms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and all
other his dominions and countries, is the highest power under God;—
and that by the Second Canon it is declared—
Whosoever shall hereafter . . . impeach any part of his regal supremacy
in the said [ecclesiastical] causes restored to this Crown, and by the laws of
this realm therein established, let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not
be restored, but only by the Archbishop, after his repentance and public
revocation of those his wicked errors.
If, however, such a proceeding be acquiesced in silently,
while being thus introduced in a distant colony,—if it be once
admitted, in any part of the Queen’s dominions, that a distinc
tion may be drawn between a 4 spiritual ’ and a 4 temporal ’
judgment of an ecclesiastical Judge of the Church of England,
—I venture to predict that the experiment will be tried, at no
distant day, at home.
But Bishop Gray proceeds as follows, and I call special
attention to these ominous sentences, which seem very distinctly
to imply that he contemplates secession from the Church of
England, should the Privy Council pronounce in my case (what
he ventures to call beforehand) an 4 unrighteous decision,’ by
which he means a nullification of his own judgment, and a
�26
REMARKS OX THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
declaration of my right to retain—under the laws of the Church
of England—the office which I hold as Bishop of Natal.
If this diocese, therefore, were to be deprived of its temporalities by an
unrighteous decision, the Mother Church would provide means for the support
of another Bishop, and send him out to minister to the faithful in the land.
I would myself, were life and strength spared, undertake to return home,
and rouse it up to the discharge of this duty, and would, with my episcopal
*
brethren, consecrate another Bishop to minister to the flock, and to witness
for Christ, and His word, and His truth, in this land.
If the Bishop first resigns his See, and his connection with the
Church and State of England, it is perfectly open to him to
adopt the course proposed, and to establish this ‘Free Church.’
The Bishop, indeed, says, p.8—
I have claimed the same right, but no greater, to administer the laws of
this Church, whether in my capacity as Metropolitan or in that of Bishop,
than would be conceded to a Roman Catholic Bishop or a Wesleyan Super
intendent, in the administration of the laws of their respective communities.
This I deny. I think I have sufficiently shown that the Bishop
claims the right, not of administering the laws of the Church
of England, as they are laid down in her formularies, and inter
preted by the decisions of her highest Courts of Appeal, but of
declaring, by his own authority, the laws which he is to
administer, or, at all events, the interpretation which he will
put upon those laws, as Metropolitan of the Church of South
Africa.
Besides which, the heads of the Roman Catholic, Wesleyan,
Dutch Reformed, and other Churches, have never subscribed the
Canons and Articles of the Church of England, and conse
quently are not bound by her laws, as the Bishop of Capetown
is. If Bishop Gray really does what he has here threatened
to do, without relieving himself by resignation of those grave
responsibilities which he incurred, when he signed his adhe* Would the English Bishops, with the penalties of prcemunire before them,
venture to do this ? or would even Bishop Cotterill of Grahamstown, or Bishop
Welby of Saint Helena, holding Her Majesty’s Letters Patent ? Bishops Twells
and Tozer, or any other Missionary Bishops, not holding office from Her Majesty,
might possibly set at nought the Royal Supremacy.
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
27
rence to the 1st, 2nd, 36th and 55th Canons, and declared
his unfeigned eassent’ to the 37th Article, and as the very
condition of his being admitted to the Episcopate of the Church
of England, ‘solemnly swore before God,’ to use his own
words, that he would exercise whatever jurisdiction might be
committed to him—
according to such authority as you have by God’s Word, and as to you shall
be committed by the Ordinance of this Realm,—
I apprehend that the act would be one of disobedience of
the Law, violation of the Oath of Consecration, and rebellion
against the Queen’s Supremacy. I doubt, however, if there
are many of the Laity, or even of the Clergy, of Natal, who
would be prepared to follow the Metropolitan in this secession.
I doubt also if all of those, who signed their names to the
documents already quoted, appreciated fully at the time the
nature of the act which they were committing, or saw clearly
the course to which the Bishop of Capetown wTas pledging
them. For these remarkable passages were not uttered in their
hearing as a part of the original Charge, but were added after
wards as a note, as the Bishop says, p.12—■
in the hope that it may relieve the anxieties of some, who have spoken to
me on the subject.
The Bishop of Capetown’s strong language.
The Bishop has asserted on p.13 that my condemnation—
has been deemed unavoidable by the Bishops of this Province, as well as by
the whole Episcopate of the Church.
I do not believe that he has any authority for this latter
statement. I presume it to be of the same kind as that other
assertion, into which his warmth of feeling has betrayed him,
viz. that all the clergy of Natal had declared that they would
never again receive me as Bishop. At all events, the language
of the Bishop of London and others in Convocation showed
sufficiently that they, at least, would not for a moment justify
�28
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
an act so unconstitutional and so unrighteous, as that which
Bishop Wilberforce regarded with so much complacency, viz.
the condemnation and deprivation of a Bishop of the Church
I
of England by the single voice of a Metropolitan, without
any right of appeal whatever,—not even to the Archbishop of
Canterbury,—a right which is enjoyed by the humblest Deacon
in the diocese of Capetown.
The Bishop then goes on to speak of the case on its
merits. And here he certainly does not spare hard words, which,
indeed, with thoughtful minds will not supply the absence of
arguments, and would not be used, I imagine, in support of a
really strong cause, but which produced, no doubt, to some
extent, the desired effect for the present moment upon the feel
ings of those who heard them. He speaks of ‘ the heresy of
these awful and profane words,’ p.19, of my ‘ reckless arrogance,
like that which marked the infidels of the last century,’ p.20,
of my using i the language of the boaster and the scorner,’ p.21,
of my ‘distempered imagination,’ p.21, of my ‘awful writings,
and of his duty to ‘ earnestly warn the flock against their im
piety,’ p.25, of my ‘ being led captive of the Evil One,’ p.33, of
my ‘ instilling the poison of unbelief,’ p.33, of my ‘ teaching the
very opposite to that which I undertook to teach,’ and ‘enjoying
the emoluments of my abused office and violated trust,’ p.31,
of my—
‘ teaching directly contrary to what She [the Church, i.e. as his hearers
would suppose, the Church of England] holds on fundamental points, and
directly opposite to what I undertook to teach when She gave me my com
mission, and for the teaching of which her faithful children have provided
for me a maintenance,’ p.32.
Finally, he asserts, p.36, that I ‘have forsaken the Living Word
of God,’ and, p.37, that—
all that would be respectable in the world, ignorant and careless though
some be,—all but the scoffer and unbeliever,—avowedly are on God’s side,—
and, therefore, he evidently means it to be inferred, are in
direct opposition to ‘ the Evil One ’ and me.
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
29
These are, certainly, strong expressions. I cannot wonder
that the Clergy or Laity of Natal, who were present, after
hearing these terrible denunciations, enforced by the personal
energy of the Metropolitan and the (supposed) authority of his
office, signed at once the documents above quoted. Indeed, I
found it necessary, after reading this vehement Charge, to turn
for a while to the quiet reading of my own books, that I might
know myself again, and satisfy myself that I was not really
such a monster of iniquity as is here depicted. As some
of those, however, into whose hands this pamphlet may come,
may not have seen the two works of mine which have been so
stigmatised, and may not be able to procure them, I have
thought it well to quote a passage of some length from each of
them in the Appendix (1), from which the reader will be able
to judge in some measure how far such language as the above
was really justified. I shall also, for my own protection from
misrepresentation, publish, as soon as possible, an abridged
popular edition of my work on the Pentateuch, so far as it
has proceeded, which will enable many, I hope, to form a more
correct opinion of its nature than they could gather from
reviews, whether friendly or hostile. As before, however, I
challenge the Bishop of Capetown to present me by petition to
Her Majesty, praying that the charges against me may be
heard and investigated before a lawful Court, in such manner
as Her Majesty may direct. And thus it will be decided, not
by the arbitrary judgment of a single ecclesiastic, but by the
rightful authority of the Sovereign, as Supreme Head of Church
and State, acting through the recognised organs, whether I have
in any way ‘ abused ’ my office, or i violated ’ my trust.
But the Bishop also uses, as others have done, another
class of weapons, in place of argument: he tries to cover me
with ridicule and contempt.
My writings—which I have
‘ poured forth voluminously, borrowing for the purpose from all
sources of German infidelity,’ have been e met and exposed by
�30
REMARKS OX THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
not less than seventy writers ’; and he repeats the usual
formulge, p.25,26,—
The rapidly declining interest felt in his writings, now that the novelty
arising from the author’s position has worn away,—the wearisome length of
full replies,—an objection, started in a few lines, requiring many pages for
a 'thorough and efficient answer,—the little bearing that many of these
sceptical questionings have upon the real point at issue,—may all combine to
make theologians think that their time had better be devoted, as some are
devoting it, to solid works, such as the two great Commentaries on Scrip
ture, now in the course of publication, in which the chief doubts and
difficulties, which not a single writer only, but others, whether in England or
the Continent, have raised or felt, may be examined, and receive such solu
tion as our present knowledge and learning may enable us to give them.
I am glad to find that in these ‘two great Commentaries/
the ‘ chief doubts and difficulties,’ which continental, as well as
English, writers have ‘raised or felt,’ will be examined, and
‘receive such solution’ as the case admits of. But I venture to
predict that, if this is really done, the result will be somewhat
different from that which the Bishop of Capetown anticipates.
It is obvious that he himself is not personally acquainted with
the criticism of the Pentateuch, or he would not have ventured
to speak (p.19) of ‘the seeming difficulties and obscurities’ in
it, as—
arising, to a very great extent, from the brevity with which it relates events,
and possibly from errors in the text, which from multiplied transcriptions
may have crept in, but which are of no great moment.
If he had personally devoted some time to the close exam
ination of the matter, he would have found that the difficulties
are not seeming, but real,—that they do not arise chiefly from
any ‘ brevity ’ in the narrative, which is often, on the contrary,
very diffuse, but from conflicting statements, written by different
hands in different ages,—that any errors of the text, which
may arise from transcription, are, indeed, ‘ of no great moment,’
but they scarcely affect any one of the more important of these
‘ difficulties.’ At all events, he would have found, as others
have found already (App.ty, who have honestly commenced the
critical examination of the Pentateuch from the most orthodox
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
31
point of view, that the popular traditionary notion, to which he
clings, of its being wholly the work of Moses, cannot possibly
any longer be maintained.
But the Metropolitan has still other modes of describing
me. He says, p.27,—
With many other unbelievers, he is purely a fanatic.
mysticism, based upon assumption.
His system is a false
The passage, which contains the evidence of my 4 fanaticism,’
is the following, from a letter to himself produced at my
4 Trial’:—
Another takes a different view of Inspiration, as I do myself, and believes
that God’s Spirit is, indeed, speaking in the Bible to all, who will humbly
seek and listen to His teaching,—but that, even when we read the different
portions of it, we are to 4 try the spirits, whether they are of God,’ to 4 prove
all things, and hold fast that which is good,’ to 4 compare spiritual things
with spiritual,’—that it is a part of our glorious, yet solemn, responsibility
to do this,—that, having the Spirit ourselves, an 4 unction from the Holy
One, that we may know all things,’ having the promise that we shall be
4 guided into all truth,’ if we seek daily to have our minds enlightened
and our consciences quickened, by walking in the Light already vouchsafed
to us, we are not at liberty to shake off this responsibility of judging for
ourselves, whether this or that portion of the Bible has a message from God
to our souls or not; God will not relieve us from this responsibility; He
will not give us what, in one form or other, men are so prone to desire,—
an infallible, external guide—a voice from without, such as men often wish
to substitute for the voice within.
I have quoted the passage at length, that the reader may
see from the whole context, and not merely from the defective
*
* The Bishop has more than once misquoted my expressions. Thus he speaks of
me as having said that ‘ a man can try, and ought to try, the very words of our Lord
Himself, whether they teach truth or not,’ p.14, as ‘intimating that he may sit in
judgment upon the very words of Him, whom he still professes to regard as God
Incarnate,’ p.18,—whereas my words are these,—‘ By that light the words recorded
to have been littered by our Lord Himself must all be tried.’ In like manner, he has
quoted me, p.20, as saying, ‘ though a thousand texts of Scripture should be against
us,’—whereas I have written, ‘ should seem to be against us; ’ and I have further ex
plained myself thus, Comm, on Romans, p.209: ‘Either we have misinterpreted the
words of Scripture, or we have missed their connexion, or we have lost sight of the
real point and spirit of the passage, insisting on the mere letter of the word, and some
minor particulars, which were only thrown in to fill up the imagery, but were never
�32
EEMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
extracts quoted by the Bishop, what is my real meaning,—that
I am speaking here of Christian men, devout students of the
Bible, and am not claiming, as the Bishop says,—
for the heathen, quite as much as for the Christian, ... an unction from
the Holy One to guide him unto all truth.
But when the Bishop ridicules me as a ‘ fanatic,’ p.16,17, for
intended to bind our consciences.’ Again, on p.19 he quotes my words thus: “ ‘It is
not to be supposed,’ lie says, ‘ it cannot be maintained,’ that ‘ He possessed a know
ledge, surpassing that of the most pious and learned adults of His nation, upon the
subject of the authorship and age of the different portions of the Pentateuch,’ that
‘ He knew more than any educated Jew of His age.’ ” But my words are these, Part
I,p.xxxi: ‘ It is not supposed that, in His human nature, He was acquainted, more
than any educated Jew of the age, with the mysteries of all modern sciences ; Dor, with
St. Luke’s expressions before us, “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature,” can
it be seriously maintained that, as an infant or young child, He possessed a know
ledge, surpassing that of the most pious and learned adults of His nation, &c.’
So on p.23 he says of me, “In his Part IV,p.xiii, after having spoken con
temptuously of the Creeds, . . regarding them, evidently, as venerable documents,
which we may, if we please, altogether set aside, and quoting, in support of his
unbelief, the language of one, who, even in the worst days of the last century, was,
in his sense of duty towards his flock, and to the Chief Shepherd, far behind others,
&e.” I do not intend to endorse the character here given of Bishop Watson ;
but, at any rate, it would have been fair to have told his hearers that it was not I,
but His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, who brought him forward as a
bulwark of the faith, one who had long ago ‘refuted my arguments,’ and that I had
expressed no opinion whatever of my own respecting the Creeds, contemptuous or
otherwise, but had merely quoted Bishop Watson’s views.
But perhaps the most notable instance of this strange habit of misquotation occurs
on p.22 of the Charge, where the Bishop writes as follows
“Again, p.629, he says: ‘.They must try the spirit of the Prophet’s words by
that law, which they have within them, written upon their hearts.’ . . ‘If
the words which that Prophet speaks to them come home to their consciences as
right and true words, then, in God's name, let them acknowledge and welcome
them, and send them [on] with a blessing of ‘ God-speed ’ to others. If the voice
which speaks within declares that the utterance from without is false, then shall
thou not hearken; the word is not God’s, and he, who hears it, must not obey it.’
In other words, every living man has a higher inspiration in him than the Prophet;
or, as most plain men will think, the Prophet has none, i.e. he was not commissioned
by God, not moved by the Spirit to deliver what he did deliver.”
The reader will scarcely believe that the Bishop has here left out the first and
third clauses of a paragraph, of which he has quoted all the rest,—those two clauses
distinctly showing that I am here only paraphrasing the words of a passage of
Deuteronomy, xiii.l—3. See the whole passage quoted in App.l,p.67.
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
33
believing that there is in every heart a witness for God, and for
saying that-—
the voice of this inner witness is closer to him than any that can reach him
from without, and ought to reign supreme in his whole being; for the
Light in which he thus sees light, the Voice which he hears, is the Light
of the Divine Word, is the Voice of his Lord:—
and when he asks—
What is this but to place man’s mind above God’s Holy Word,—human
reason above Divine Revelation ?—
I can only say that it appears to me to do just the very opposite ;
it teaches that man’s mind must be subject to the ‘Word of God/
to the Living Voice which speaks within him,—that ‘ Divine
Revelation ’ is the very light of ‘ human reason,’—that, in
truth,—
‘ There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth him
understanding.’ Job.xxxii.8.
At all events, I should say that such a view, if wrong, scarcely
deserves to be derided as the ‘fanaticism of unbelief,’ p.15,—
that it is one, at least, which is shared with me by multitudes
of good men now, as it was held by many holy men of old, who
were not ashamed to be stigmatized as ‘ fanatics,’ because with
St. John, i.4,5, they believed in ‘ the Life, which was the Light
of Men,’ ‘ the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh
into the world.’
The Bishop of Capetown's own religious teaching.
It would be impossible, as it would be useless, to discuss
here at full length the different points on which the Bishop of
Capetown accuses me, as—
teaching directly contrary to what the Church [of England] holds on funda
mental points.
I have already touched upon these above, and in my ‘Letter
to the Laity’: and I can only repeat that I have taught nothing,
as I believe, which is forbidden by the laws of the Church of
England, and I challenge him to bring the doctrines of my
books before the only authority which has a right to try them.
D
�34
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
But the reader will gather the position which the Bishop him
self has assumed, in direct defiance to the recent decisions of
the Privy Council, from the following extracts from his
Charge —
(i) ‘Our Church, in common with the whole Catholic Church, of which
she claims to he a branch, holds that the Bible is the Word of God. Dr.
Colenso says that it is not.’ j>.31.
[I have said, Part II,p.387, 1 The Bible is not itself “ God’s Word ” ;
but assuredly “God’s Word” will be heard in the Bible by all who will
humbly and devoutly listen for it.’
I have said also, Part III,p.28, ‘ There is a sense in which I am quite
ready to speak of the Bible as the “ Word of God.” . . . But I prefer the
language of the First Homily : “ In it (Holy Scripture) is contained the Word
of God: ” and I agree fully with the language of Dean Milman : 11 The moral
and religious truth, and this alone, I apprehend, is the ‘Word of God,’
contained in the Sacred Writings.”’
But our Church,—the ‘Church of England,’ not the ‘Church of South
Africa,’—has declared, as the Bishop already knew, by the voice of her
highest Court of Appeal, that she does not require her clergy to say that the
Bible is the Word of God.]
(ii) ‘ The Church teaches that the wicked perish everlastingly,—that
this is our time of trial and probation,—that in the eternal world there is
no more trial,—that the judgment fixes our condition for ever. Dr. Colenso
rejects this view, in the teeth of the Word of God and the faith of the
whole Church of Christ! ’ p.32.
[Though the Church of England does not require its clergy to maintaiu
the endlessness of future torments, and I have given reasons why I should
refuse any longer to do so, yet, in point of fact, I have not maintained the
contrary. I have said that, ‘ I dare not any longer dogmatize at all on the
matter; I can only lay my hand upon my mouth, and leave it in the hands of
the righteous and merciful Judge.’ Nay, I have said further: ‘As many
leave this world, whether in Heathen or in Christian lands, it may seem to
us almost past belief that the vessel so defiled should ever be cleansed
again, and made fit for the Master’s use. And it may be so: we cannot
assert to the contrary, whatever hidden hope we may entertain.’—Comm,
on the Homans, p.216.]
There is one point, however-—the question, I mean, of ‘ as
cribing ignorance to Jesus as the Son of Man ’—which has never
been discussed before the Privy Council, and on which the
Bishop lays very great stress, speaking of ‘ the heresy of these
awful and profane words,’ p.19, and not thinking it beneath the
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
35
gravity of the occasion to use (as he does more than once in the
course 'of the Charge) a tone of mockery and scoffing. With
respect to this point I assert once more, that I have said nothing
which is not strictly consistent with the most orthodox faith—
that my view is the orthodox view, and that the dogma, which my
adversaries maintain, bears no little resemblance to that which
was considered ‘ heresy ’ in Eutyches, who is said to have main
tained —
That the Divine nature of Christ had absorbed the human, and that, con
sequently, in Him there was but one nature, viz. the Divine. Mosh. H.v.22.
In addition to the words of Bishop Thirlwall, already quoted
in my ‘Letter to the Laity,’ pp.35,36, I think it well to repro
duce in the Appendix (3) some extracts from the letter of the
Rev. W. Houghton, printed at length in the preface to my Part
III—since it may not be known to many of my readers.
The following are some further extracts from the Bishop’s
Charge, &c., from which the reader will be able to judge how
extreme are his views, on some of the great subjects which are
now under discussion at home.
Thus he maintains the infallible truth of every statement in
the Bible, as follows, Trial, p.390 —
The Church regards, and expects all its officers to regard, the Holy
Scriptures as teaching pure and simple truth: it is nothing to reply that
they teach what is true in all things necessary to salvation.
And again he says, Trial, p.388:—
‘The Ordinal does not ask of those, who are seeking to be admitted
to the lowest office in the ministry, whether they believe that the Scriptures
u contain everything necessary to salvation,” but whether they believe them
to be God;s Word—whether they believe them [‘ all the Canonical Scrip
tures ’] to be true. This is the first condition of admission to the ranks
of the ministry. The truth of the Scriptures [of every statement of the
Book of Chronicles, Esther, the Book of Job!] lies at the foundation of
Christianity. The first and most anxious enquiry, therefore, of those about
to be sent forth in the Church’s name, though without full authority to teach,
is whether they believe them—believe them to be true. Then, when the
Priestly office is sought, when the position of teacher is to be undertaken,
the Ordinal goes further (!), and requires not merely belief in the Scriptures
n2
�36
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
themselves, [as being- in every line and letter infallibly true], but a belief
that those Scriptures contain [N.B. the Ordination Sendee says 11contain
sufficiently”] all things necessary to salvation, and a promise to teach
nothing, as required of necessity to eternal salvation, but wliat [N.B. a you
shall be persuaded ”] may be concluded and proved by the Scripture.’
[I need hardly say, that these assertions are made directly in the teeth
of the late judgment of the Court of Arches, which stands at the present
time as Law in the Church of England, and by which it was ruled that
the pledge given in the Deacon’s Declaration at Ordination 1 must be regarded
as sufficiently fulfilled, if there be a bond fide belief that the Holy Scriptures
contain everything necessary to salvation, and that to that extent they have
the direct sanction of the Almighty.’ But their extravagance is at once
apparent, when we find the Bishop attempting to maintain that the Decla
ration made by the Priest at Ordination goes further than that of the Deacon,
the latter being understood in the sense in which it has just been interpreted
by himself,—i. e. he asserts that the avowal, that the Scriptures ‘ contain
sufficiently all things necessary to salvation,’ goes further than the assertion,
that every single statement in the Bible is divinely and infallibly true,—e. g.
that the colloquies in Job i.6-12, ii.1-6, between Jehovah and Satan, literally
took place in the courts of heaven, or that Jehovah ‘answered Job out of
the whirlwind,’ in the grand Hebrew poetry of Job xxxviii-xli.
Let it be noted that the same Declaration, which is made by the Priest,
is made also by the Bishop; so that it cannot be said that the Deacon’s
stringent declaration of belief is not repeated at the admission to the Priest
hood, because, having been once made, the second declaration is only super
imposed upon it; for, if this is the case, why is this second form of declara
tion required to be made again by the Bishop? Nor is there any ground for
saying that the Priest has to make an additional declaration as a ‘ teacher ’;
for ‘ it appertaineth to the office of the Deacon ’ also ‘ to preach, if he be
admitted thereto by the Bishop.’ . . It is plain that the declaration of
the Priest and Bishop really interprets that required to be made by the
Deacon,—in accordance, in fact, with Dr. Lushingtox’s decision.]
The following is taken from the Bishop’s ‘ Sermon, preached
at Maritzburg, on Sunday, May 8, 1864,’ p.10:—
The fact of the Resurrection is not questioned, nor yet the accu
racy of the records which the Gospels furnish of our Saviour’s life and
teaching. But, if they were, it would not avail. Other records besides these
abundantly testify to the historic Christ. AU the great facts concerning Him
are preserved in other writings, Were there no written and inspired record
of the Christ, uninspired history would, upon all fundamental points, supply
the deficiency (!).
The following are taken from the Charc/e:—
‘ We must commence by assuming something.
We need assume for our
�THE BISHOP OP CAPETOWN".
37
purpose no more than that the facts recorded in the New Testament are facts,
■—that the things were done, and the words were spoken, which are there
declared to have been done and spoken.’ p.34.
’
‘ What the Catholic Church, while yet one, during the first thousand
years of her history (!), under the Spirit’s guidance in her great Councils,
declared to he, or received as, the true faith,
is "the true Faith, and that
we receive as such. More than this we are not bound to acknowledge.
Less we may not.’ p.35.
[What was it that happened at the precise moment indicated, a.d. 1000,
to deprive the decisions of the 1Great Councils’ of the Church of that
character of infallibility, which is here ascribed to them up to that time ?
But the Church of England says in her 21st Article: ‘ General Councils
may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of
Princes. And, when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an
assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of
God), they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto
God.']
‘It is the office of Reason to examine the grounds, to weigh the
■ evidence, of their being a Revelation from God. Prophecy and miracles are
the grounds upon which Revelation rests its claims! Through them an appeal
is made to the reason of man in support of the truth of God’s Word
[?. e. of every line and letter of Esther and Chronicles], and the Divine
Mission of our Lord. . . When the understanding is convinced that the
Bible is the record of God’s Revelation [“ ? that the letter of the Bible is
God’s Revelation”], the functions of Reason end. It has no right to sit in
judgment upon the contents of that Revelation, and reject what it dislikes,
or cannot comprehend.’ p.15.
[Alas for the multitudes of ‘ wayfaring men,’ if the only grounds upon
which the Bible claims our reverence, as ‘containing God’s Word,’ are the
external grounds of ‘prophecy’ and ‘miracles’! But there is One who has
told us that it is only ‘an evil and adulterous generation’ that ‘seeketh after
a sign’: and the Bible itself teaches us, Deut. xiii.1-3, that ‘ if there arise
a Prophet, and give us a sign or a wonder,’ and the ‘sign’ or the ‘wonder’
actually come to pass, whereby he has attempted to seduce us from our
duty, from that which we know to be the right, the good, and the true, from
the worship in heart and life of the One True and Living God,—we are not
to hearken to the words of that Prophet.
*
Yes, truly! ‘the Word of God
* Comp, the language of the Reviewer in the Guardian, Aug. 31, 1864, p.858:_
‘ Thus much seems to be clear, that a miracle per se neither has nor ought to have
that infallibly demonstrative effect, which Mr. Row attributes to it. Has he for
gotten that the Israelites in old times were forbidden (Deut.xiii.) to be lad away
into error by workers of miracles, and that we are no less expressly warned in the
N. T. against “ false Christs and false prophets, who shall shew great signs and
wonders, and deceive the very elect ” ? How then can a miracle, simply as such,
accredit an alleged revelation ? ’
�38
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and is a
discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’ Thank God ! we have
no need to 'examine the grounds’ and 'weigh the evidence,’ in order to
believe that we have in the Bible a Divine Revelation,—in order to realise
most fully 'the truth of God’s AVord ’ and the 'Divine Mission of our Lord?
But, in fact, the Bishop, it will be seen, while professing to vindicate the
authority of the Bible, really rests it all upon the authority of the Church,
and puts the Creeds on a level with the Bible.]
To sum up, we believe the Scriptures to be the AVord of God, because the
Church, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, declared them to be such. . . .
On the very same grounds, we believe the Creed [he says afterwards 'the
Creeds ’] to be the true interpretation of the Word in all essential points. It
icas fi amed by the Church under the same guidance, vouchsafed in conse
quence of the same promises.
'One step further I will go. The Creeds, interpreted as the Church, which
drew them up under the Spirit’s guidance, intended them to be interpreted,
contain the whole Catholick Faith.’— Charge, p.34-35.
' Even were there no Scripture, the truth would not fail. We should
still have an independent witness to Christ in the teaching of the Apostles’
Creed. That Creed, though in strictest accordance with Scripture, is a
witness in addition to Scripture. Both owe their origin to the Church, under
the Inspiration of the Spirit of God.'' *—Sermon at Moritzburg, p.13.
[Is it Dr. Guay that I hear, or Dr. Williams ? the Bible' owes its origin
to the Church,’ says the one—it is ' the written voice of the Congregation,’
says the other.
The Bishop charges the Bishop of Natal with reckless haste
in publishing.
On p.27 of his Charge the Bishop of Capetown makes a
statement which I am bound to notice.
Upon the appearance of his first work, assailing the faith through his
Commentary [on the Romans], I wrote a letter, earnestly entreating him
* It is remarkable how exactly the Bishop of Capetown re-echoes the words of
the Bishop of Oxford, who says in his last Charge (1863), p.58:—‘AVe shall in the
long run be unable really to maintain the Divine authority of Holy Scripture, if
we give up the Divine authority, in its proper place [what does this mean ?], of
‘ the Holy Catholic Church ’; and again, p. 60, ‘ Once received on external evidence,
[«.e. on the authority of the Church], as the revealed will of God, soul after soul
will have, in passage after passage, the inward witness, that, through it, God Himself is speaking to its inward ear. . . . But the Book, as a Book, must come to
[the faithful soul] from the witness of the Church, before it is capable of receiving
from his own spiritual experience these inward confirmations.’
It is obvious to ask, how did the ‘AVbrd of God’ come home with piercing power
to the hearts of men in those centuries, when the canon of Scripture was still
�. THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
39
not to publish, and, when too late to hinder publication, sought to point
out to him wherein he had taught amiss. When unable to convince him,
I referred the book, and our correspondence, to the Fathers of the Church
at home, who met, at the call of the late Archbishop, now with God, to
consider it. Before I could receive their answer, the death of the beloved
Bishop Mackenzie compelled me to proceed to England. I then received
the concurrence of the Bishops, generally, in the course which I had pur
sued ; and, on the arrival of your late Bishop shortly after me in England,
I communicated their views to him. At the same time I entreated him to
meet three of the most eminent Bishops of our Church, who had expressed
their willingness to confer with him on his arrival, and discuss his difficulties
with him, hoping that he might thereby be induced to suppress his book so
full of error. He, however, declined. He would not meet more than one,
and then not as if he were in any error, but only as a common seeker after
truth. At that time he had not published his open assault upon the Word
of God; but, hearing that he had printed, for private circulation in the
Colony, a work reputed to be sceptical in its tendency, I besought him not
to put it forth in England, until he had met and discussed his views with
the Bishops. But this also was declined, and the work was published.
I must first correct one statement in the above, which
might lead to an erroneous impression. The Bishop says that
he had ‘ heard that I had printed ’ the rough draft of my work
on the Pentateuch £ for private Circulation in the colony.’ The
information, which the Bishop had received, was not correct:
and as I myself stated distinctly to him (see (i) in App.^p^')
the reason for which I printed it, viz. to put it the more easily
before learned and judicious friends in England, I regret that
he has repeated the above misstatement.
The charge, however, is here made formally against me,
that I wilfully rejected the kindly-offered counsel of my
Episcopal Brethren in England,—that I rushed hastily and
impetuously into publication, without caring for the advice of
those eminent scholars on the English Bench, who might
have rendered me assistance in my difficulties. This charge,
unsettled ? But from the above principles the Bishop, of course, deduces the
paramount necessity of believing in the Church, that is, as he says, of ‘ a hearty
belief alike in her Sacraments, her Creeds, her Orders, and her Bible,’—so that
belief in the Divine authority of ‘the Church’s’ Bible is here put on exactly the
same footing as belief in that of Episcopacy and Episcopal Ordination!
�40
REMARKS OX THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
I am aware, has been insinuated in other quarters, and probably
has done me some injury in the minds of fair-judging men.
But I have never seen it openly made before; and I am thank
ful for the opportunity, which it gives me, of setting the real
facts of the case before the eyes of my fellow-countrymen. As
the Bishop of Capetown has stated so circumstantially the
course which he adopted towards me, I feel it incumbent on me
also to state what occurred, and to support my statement with
the necessary documents:
The Bishop’s personal observations upon the Bishop of Natal.
There is yet one other portion of the Bishop’s Charge
which I am compelled in my own defence to notice. And here
I must, indeed, express my astonishment at the course, which
the Bishop has thought it right to pursue. Holding the very
strong opinions which he does on the subject of Church
authority and Scripture infallibility, and other questions raised
in the present day, I am not altogether surprised—however I
may regret—that he has denounced so vehemently the views
which I have expressed, that he has warned my flock solemnly
against adopting them, and laboured zealously to build them
up in the belief, which he himself holds to be essential to a
true living faith. And, confident as he appears to be in the
strength of bis ecclesiastical position, I can understand—though
I cannot justify—his hastening to anticipate any steps on my
part, for bringing the matter, though with unavoidable delays,
before the highest authority in the realm. He may be—and,
I believe, he is—acting now illegally, and with undue precipi
tation. He has hurried up to Natal, and taken advantage of
my absence to undermine my authority, and, in violation, as it
seems to me, of the constitution and order of the Church of
England, he has sought to withdraw my Clergy and my Flock
from their allegiance to their lawful Bishop. And even now he
is acting, as I apprehend, in defiance of the law, and in dis
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
41
regard of Her Majesty’s authority, by setting at nought the
decision of the Court of Arches, and asserting positively, in his
assumed office as Judge, that the Church of England does
hol'd, and requires its Clergy to hold, two doctrines, which the
late Judgment of the Privy Council has declared the Church of
England does not maintain; and he threatens to go still fur
ther, should the decision of the Privy Council be in my favour.
But the Metropolitan manifestly transgressed the bounds of
what could be proper and becoming on such an occasion, even
from the highest view that may be taken of his office, when he
proceeded to discuss my personal religious life before my Clergy
and Laity in my own Cathedral, and to hold up to them—many
of them my own children in the ministry, ordained by me to the
Diaconate and Priesthood,—a picture of ‘ the past career of
Bishop Colenso.’ As he has said of my criticisms that—
an objection started in a few lines requires many pages for a thorough and
efficient answer,—
so here, in making these personal remarks upon me, the Bishop'
must have been perfectly aware that I could not reply to his
charges, made in a few words, without entering at length into
details, which, though well known to himself, would be weari
some to my readers, and would involve the characters of others.
(I know,’ however, to use the words of the Bishop of Oxford,
on a recent occasion in the House of Lords,—however little he
has acted up to the spirit of these words, in the language which
he has used with reference to myself and others—
I know enough of the people of England to know that it is not by trying
to produce a momentary pain on those who cannot properly reply to them,
that great questions will be solved; but that it is by dealing with them
with calmness, with abstinence from the imputation of motives, and, above
- all, with the most scrupulous regard to stating upon every -point that which
shall prevent any man being led to a conclusion other than that which the
facts warrant.
The Bishop of Capetown speaks, for instance, of the Euro
pean population of the colony, as ‘ a soil in which the Church
�42
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
might have struck deep her root,’ if I had only done my work
more faithfully; he says—
the spiritual wants of the English population would have been supplied;
an influence would long ere this have been brought to bear on the tribes
within the colony, and the regions beyond; and, socially and politically,
the condition of this land would have been sounder and safer than it is, and,
religiously, nearer to God. p.30.
He does not mention that special reasons existed, independently
of the Bishop, why the Church has not ‘ struck her root ’ more
deeply in the white population,—that in Maritzburg the principal
clergyman, one of Bishop Gray’s own choice, holds views, de
scribed by the Bishop himself, as expressed in language ‘ going
beyond that of the Church,’ such views being utterly opposed to
the general feeling of the whole community,—or that in the other
chief town there existed an equally sufficient reason of another
kind, which I cannot here mention, but which will be well known
to every colonist, and especially well known to the Bishop of
Capetown himself, who warned me, when I took charge of the
See, that I should find this particular difficulty. He well
knows also that, of the Clergy now in the diocese, several are
invalids—who either sought the colony at first because of their
health giving way in England, or have broken down in their
work in Natal. And yet these are still drawing their stipends
as missionaries from the limited funds granted to my diocese
by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel; and it would
be impossible at present, through want of means, to fill up
their place with others.
Then, as regards the heathen, the Bishop says, p.30:—
There is no saying what the effect of vigorous and extensive Church
Missions might have been upon the mass of untutored heathenism around
you, directed by one endowed with considerable gifts, who had prepared the
way for great success, by mastering, beyond all others, the difficulties of the
language, and making its future acquisition easier to all religious teachers.
But there came a falling away. The subtle poison of unbelief entered in:
the mind was turned away from the practical work which lay before it, and
given to the working out of sceptical theories. Confidence was shaken.
Works, begun well, were abandoned. Progress there was none. Instead
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
43
thereof there has been declension. The Clergy are reduced in number from
what they were. Men are unwilling to remain under such a state of things
as has existed among you. Others have shrunk from supplying their places.
Whatever there is of real work, whether in the mission-field or in parochial
work, was the result of first efforts, when faith was not undermined; and
for the last few years has been carried on by zealous men,—apart from,
almost in opposition to, him who might have been the soul of it, but from
whom there has been of necessity a continually increasing alienation.
The statements in the above passage—the only object of which
seems to be that of overwhelming the merits of my case with
prejudices—involve, I assert it deliberately, a most unjust and
cruel suppression of the truth. I will not stay to ask how the
Bishop was authorised to pronounce so definitely about the
direct consequences of my f falling away,’ as he calls it, in its
effect upon my practical work, of which he knows nothing, but
what he has heard from others, and those my adversaries. But
I may state that the chief contents of my Book on the Romans,
which he deems so e heretical,’ were present to my mind many
years before I went to Natal,—that I have gone over the
ground, again and again, with my own soul and with my
pupils, while yet I ministered as a Parish Priest in England,
—and that (as the memoir of Bishop Mackenzie mentions)
I expounded this very epistle—in substance, on almost all
main points, precisely as I afterwards commented upon it—in
daily lectures to the Missionary party who went out with me
at first to the colony. The spirit of that book has been all along
—and will be, I trust, to the end—the very life of my Mis
sionary labours.
But what have those labours been ? When I landed in
Natal, there were no books in Zulu for the instruction of
Missionaries, no dictionary, no grammar, (except an admirable
sketch in Danish, which a lady of my acquaintance most kindly
translated for me)—there were none for the education of the
natives, no translation of the Scriptures or Prayer Book, (except
a translation of St. Matthew by the American Missionaries,—an
excellent first attempt, but very defective,—and a few scraps of
�44
REMARKS OK THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
Genesis). The whole work had to be done from the beginning,
the language having to be learned from natives who could not
speak a word of English, and written down, and analysed, with
infinite, intense, labour,—and this in addition to the other
duties which devolved upon me, of preaching and ministering
to Europeans and natives, visiting from time to time on horseback
the different parts of my diocese, (one-third the size of England
and Wales,) and keeping up a laborious correspondence.
The Bishop of Capetown, I believe, has never set his hand
to this branch of the Missionary work: and he, therefore,
knows not what it is. When he had charge, at first, for several
years, of the Kafirs and Zulus in his vast original diocese, he
made no attempt, I imagine, to acquire the native tongue; nor
now, I believe, has he done anything personally to acquire the
language of such wild tribes as still exist within his own present
diocese. The coloured people, who abound in the more civilised
districts of his diocese, speak, more or less, the Dutch language :
and I do not suppose that he has ever preached in Dutch even
to them. But, if so, there were books enough in existence, from
which that language might have been learned. Very far, indeed,
am I for blaming him for this omission: he, too, has had intense,
infinite, labour; but it has been labour of another kind, in
building up the Church chiefly among a civilised European
population. And hence the injustice of his remarks upon
myself.
He speaks, indeed, of my being s endowed with consider
able gifts,’ of my having—
prepared the way for great success, by mastering, beyond all others, the
difficulties of the language, and making its future acquisition easier to all
religious teachers.
But he seems totally unable to estimate the amount of work
involved in this. I thank God for such c gifts ’ as I have, and
for the blessing of an University education, which has enabled
me to use them more effectively. But I have no special gift
for languages, but what is shared by most educated men of fair
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
45
ability. What I have done, I have done by hard work—by
sitting with my natives day after day, from early morn to sunset,
till they, as well as myself, were fairly exhausted,—conversing
with them as well as I could, and listening to them conversing,
—writing down what I could of their talk from their own lips,
and, when they were gone, still turning round again to my
desk, to copy out the results of the day.
In this way, and by degrees, I was able to force my way
into the secrets 'of their tongue, and to overcome those difficulties
which had to be encountered before any Missions could be set
forward to any considerable effect among the natives. Instances
of missionaries, indeed, may occur now and then—I am fortunate
in having some at this time among my clergy, of whom, however,
two are foreigners—by whom the native language may be
acquired, without the aid of books, from mere contact with the
natives, the Missionary himself having natural gifts, and de
voting his whole time to the study and practice of it. But with
the ordinary English teacher the case is different. He needs a
grammar, dictionary, translations—by means of which he may
correct the faults, which he makes in his first attempts at con
versation, and increase his acquaintance with the forms of speech
and vocabulary of the language. And the Missionaries will all
need books for the use of their native classes, and these, not only
portions of the Bible and Prayer Book, but books of instruction
in matters of common life,—containing the simple lessons,
which an English child should learn, in Geography, Astronomy,
History, Geology, &c.
Before, therefore, any considerable number of Mission stations
could be established, this work had to be done ; and such books
it has been my duty to prepare, for the use of the teachers, as
well as of the taught. And, after the character which the
Bishop of Capetown has given me, I must ask to be forgiven
for showing to what this labour has really amounted. I landed
with my family in Natal on May 20, 1855 : and it happened
�46
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
that on the same day of the year, May 20, 1862, after a sojourn
of exactly seven years, I re-embarked for England. Let it be
remembered that, during this interval, a considerable time had
to be spent in mastering sufficiently for myself the native tongue,
before I could venture to undertake the work of preparing books
for others. And then let the reader judge if the Metropolitan
was justified in his remarks upon me, when he had, or might
have had, before him the results of my labours, even in this one
department, during these seven years.
List of Books prepared by the Bishop of Natal for the use of
Missionary Students and Native Scholars.
(i) Grammar of the Zulu-Kafir Language, pp. 184.
(ii) First Steps in Zulu-Kafir, an abridgment of the former, pp. 82.
(iii) Zulu-English Dictionary, pp. 552.
(iv) Three Native Accounts of a Visit to the Zulu King, in Zulu, with
translation, vocabulary, and explanatory notes referring minutely to the
Grammar, designed expressly for the use of Missionaries studying the
language.
(v) First Reading Book or Primer (in Zulu). .
(vi) Second Reading Book—fables and stories (in Zulu), some of which
were communicated to me by one of the Missionaries.
(vii) Third Reading Book—sentences and narratives, from the lips of
natives (in Zulu).
(viii) Fourth Reading Book—elements of Geography and History (in
Zulu), 2nd Ed.
(ix) First Lessons in Science, Part I—elements of Geology, written in
easy English for Zulus learning English.
(x) First Lessons in Science, Part II—elements of Astronomy, do. do.
(xi) Common Prayer-Book, Morning and Evening Prayer, Collects, many
Psalms, and all the Occasional Services, and Metrical Psalms and Hymns
(in Zulu), 3rd Ed.
(xii) Book of Genesis (in Zulu), 2nd Ed.
(xiii) Book of Exodus (in Zulu).
(xiv) Books of Samuel (in Zulu).
(xv) Harmony of the four Gospels (in Zulu), 2nd Ed.
(xvi) New Testament, complete (in Zulu).
(xvii) Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, upon the proper treat
ment of cases of Polygamy, as found already existing in converts from
heathenism, 2nd Ed., pp. 94.
(xviii) Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, pp. 311.
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
47
I might add also the first rough sketch of my work on the
Pentateuch, pp.72O; for I believe that by this work, and by my
Commentary on the Romans, I have done more to promote the
cause of sound learning and religious education, than by all
my other labours put together.<■
Of course, in preparing for each new edition of any book,
the whole work had to be carefully gone over again with my
natives. I make no mention here of first attempts, now thrown
aside as imperfect,—though they may have cost much labour to
produce,—but only name those books which are actually in use
in our Missions in Natal and Zululand, or, at least, will be in
use as soon as I return to the diocese: for I understand that in
my absence it has been ordered that none of my books sjiall be
circulated, for fear of their containing, I suppose, some porten
tous heresy.
In fact, among other attempts to defame my character, in
order to dispose more easily of my arguments, I have seen in
the Guardian statements to the effect that I have corrupted
the Scriptures in my translations. It is ridiculous to suppose
that I could attempt such a folly, which any Missionary of any
Church might detect. I am far indeed from supposing that my
versions are perfect; I may have missed the meaning of the
original in some places, and failed to express it satisfactorily in
Zulu in others. And I shall of course make it my duty, as new
editions are required, to revise and amend them continually,
giving all due heed to the suggestions of others now engaged in
the Mission work. But I challenge anyone to point out a single
passage, wherein I have dishonestly departed from the meaning
of the text of Scripture,—not certainly as it exists in the English
version, but in the Hebrew and Greek originals, as interpreted
by the most able commentators.
And this also I can say with confidence, that these books
are all written in correct idiomatic Zulu, and, as such, are
very acceptable to the natives themselves. My plan to secure
�48
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
this correctness was, never to trust to my own translations,
but to pass every word through the mouth of some one or
other intelligent native before I printed it. I would take,
for instance, the Greek Testament; and, first representing
in Zulu, as accurately as I could, the meaning of a clause of
the original, I would then require my native to repeat the
same in his own phraseology. In so doing, he would adhere,
of course, generally to mine; but, having been trained to
understand my purpose, he would introduce also those nicer
idioms, which at once mark the difference between the work of
an European and a native. Having mastered the Zulu tongue
sufficiently to be able to know whether he had clearly expressed
the meaning of the original or not, I would persevere in this
way until the desired object was gained; although, perhaps, in
the rendering of difficult passages, a considerable time might have
to be spent in expressing perfectly a single verse. All Mission
aries, of course, who have been personally engaged in the work
of translation, know something of this labour, and are able
to appreciate it: but the Bishop of Capetown seems to make
very light of it.
And who was the chief printer of many of these books ?
A Zulu lad, whom I took as a young savage from his kraal a
few years ago, with a number of others, who were given up to
us for education by their fathers for five years. The story of
their being brought to us is very interesting, but it cannot be
told at length here. Suffice it to say that we did keep them for
five years, as agreed, and that during this time—with the usual
drawbacks, difficulties, disappointments, failures,—which must
attend any school, but especially a school of savages, whose
white teachers at the best spoke only with stammering lips in the
native tongue,—we made fair progress with them in reading,
writing, and arithmetic, and the general elementary work of vil
lage schools. Some of them, besides, were taught the business
of the printer and binder, and others made some progress in
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
49
other manual arts, though not so much as we had hoped and
desired. The great difficulty was to procure the proper teachers
—steady energetic men, possessing manual skill of any kind, yet
willing to work in instructing these lads in a colony like ours,
where such skill and industry were much less easily obtained than
in Capetown, and secured readily among the colonists a far
greater remuneration than the Mission station could afford to
give them.
At the end of the five years, when the term for which they
had been sent to us had expired, their mothers, brothers, sisters,
worried their fathers to reclaim them: and, just as in any English
school, the lads, now grown many of them to the critical age,
themselves desired to be released from thraldom. At that
time, also, I had no efficient teachers skilled in manual arts,
under whom to place them if they had been willing to remain ;
and I was about myself to return to England—as I should have
had to do in any case, quite independently of my book on the
Pentateuch, for the purpose of raising supplies of money and
men for extending our Mission work. Of course, it was im
possible for me to conduct the whole work of this primary
Institution myself, or even to oversee it at all times, though it
was carried on beneath my own roof. I felt this more especially
when required to visit the different parts of my diocese, or when
called to leave it for some weeks together, to visit the Zulu king,
or to attend a conference of Bishops, 800 miles away, at Capetown.
Under all these circumstances, I had no alternative but, for
prudential reasons as well as in answer to the expectations
of the boys and their parents, to allow the children of the Insti
tution to return for the present to their homes, about a year
before I left Natal. They were most of them able to read and
write and cypher, and had made some progress in other ways ;
and I trust that they have carried to their kraals the first seeds
of a civilizing influence,—so far, at least, as to lead them to
desire to bring their own children hereafter for training, and
E
�50
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
leave them in our hands with more hearty readiness than their
parents did.
And this is the work of which the Bishop says, c works well
begun were abandoned ’—as if it were nothing that one of these
very boys, now a youth of eighteen, is at this very moment
conducting the whole work of our Printing Press, continuing
steadily at his labour, during my absence, without any super
vision in his office, correcting the sheets himself with the
greatest accuracy, and sending me regularly, month by month,
the fresh (proofs ’ from the press, which mark the progress of
his work, and not only labouring himself, but training others
also, without any white man to help him I
Doubtless, during the last twelve months or more of my
residence in Natal, my mind had been intensely occupied with
the questions which had been raised upon the Pentateuch in
the course of, and by consequence of, that very ‘ practical work ’
itself, in which I had been engaged. If I had never translated
with my natives the books of Genesis and Exodus,—if I had
been content merely to superintend the diocese, devoting myself
to the more easy and pleasant occupation of riding about from
place to place, visiting and preaching to the English community,
addressing the native congregations by the dull, lifeless, process
of speaking through the mouth of an interpreter, but letting the
native language alone,—I should, perhaps, never have had my
attention drawn so closely to the criticism of the Pentateuch.
But so far was I even then from ‘ abandoning ’ my native work,
that my very last act before leaving Natal was to revise carefully
once more the Prayer Book, the New Testament, and the book
of Genesis throughout, in order to give my boy steady employ
ment during my absence in England.
I think it best to quote in the Appendix (5) some letters
from this youth, received during my sojourn in England, which
will not only show the steady industry and energy with
which he carries on his appointed labour, but will also indicate
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
51
the course which the Metropolitan has thought it right to take
with respect to my native converts. It was not enough, it seems,
to brand me before my Clergy and Laity, generally, with all
kinds of hard names, but my poor simple natives must be told
that I have i gone astray exceedingly,’—that I 4 have rebelled,’
—-that I 4 do not believe in God.’ I translate also in the
Appendix some letters which I have received, while in England,
from native catechists, of whom also the Metropolitan says
nothing. They will serve to show in what spirit these, too, have
been trained, and to what temper they have attained, by God’s
blessing, under my instructions.
I repeat, it is unjust and reckless in the extreme in the Bishop
of Capetown, who went up to my residence, and saw this very
work going od, to make these statements—and others like them
—for the mere purpose of raising prejudices and causing pain.
As regards the particular assertion, that—
for the last few years this work has been carried on by zealous men, apart
from, almost in opposition to, him who might have been the soul of it, but
from whom there has been of necessity a continually increasing alienation,—
I do not think it necessary to descend into personal questions of
this kind: but I may say, (i) that such alienation, wherever
it may exist, may arise from other causes as well as ‘ sceptical
theories,’ and may be the fault of others as well as myself,—
(ii) that the Bishop’s statement is here, as I have shown it
to be elsewhere, very heated and exaggerated,—(iii) that with
respect to one, at least, of the most 4 zealous ’ and able Mis
sionaries in the colony, the Bishop, as appears from the facts
already stated, is prepared to drive him from the diocese,
notwithstanding the small number of the clergy which he
laments so much, because of his dutiful attachment to me as
his Bi,shop, whatever differences may exist in our religious views.
But the Bishop says—
The clergy are reduced in number from what they were. Men are
unwilling to remain under such a state of things as has existed among you.
Others have shrunk from supplying their places.
E2
�52
REMARKS ON TIIE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
Doubtless, those among the clergy, who do not agree with those
‘ extreme views of Church and State,’ which the correspondent of
the Guardian naively calls e home views,’ and who are prepared
with the Metropolitan to abandon the Church of England altoge
ther, rather than submit to her system and her laws, may be
4 unwilling to remain ’ under present circumstances. But the
statement that 4 the clergy are reduced in number from what
they were,’ coming from the Bishop of Capetown, is again most
unfair and unwarranted.
In the first place, the statement is not correct. The clergy
under my charge are at the present moment fifteen, including
two now in England, and two—both ordained by myself, and
drafted from my ozvn diocese, but—sent by myself to labour
beyond the bordei' in Zululand, and there placed, by an express
resolution of the Gospel-Propagation Society, under my charge as
Bishop. On reference to the lists of the Society from the year
1853, when I first took charge of the diocese, (though I only
began to reside in 1855), to 1863, the numbers of clergy
labouring under my direction will be found as follows, 4, 4, 4, 5,
7, 9, 13, 11, 12, 13,13;—to which are to be added in each year
two chaplains, military and colonial, who do not appear in the
Society’s lists, and also, from 1855 to 1860, my dear departed
friend and fellow-labourer, Bishop Mackenzie, whose noble
services as Archdeacon, given gratuitously to my diocese, I need
scarcely say, were not likely to be replaced. Thus the number of
the clergy has been increased from 6 in 1853 to 15 in 1863.
And I may add that, when I first landed in the diocese, there
was one single small church approaching to completion ; while
in the case of the two principal churches, (the Cathedral at
Maritzburg, and St. Paul’s at Durban,) the works indeed had
been begun, but they were stopped in each instance for want of
funds, the walls being only partially raised, and suffering injury
from exposure to the weather. At this time there are fourteen
churches, not reckoning chapels on Mission Stations.
Thus the statement above quoted is not even accurate in
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
53
point of fact.
*
But, when I consider the circumstances under
which it was made, I have still more reason to complain of it.
* The correspondent of the Guardian writes as follows: ‘His lordship [the Bishop
of Capetown] arrived by the mail-steamer on April 7th, to find the number of the
clergy dwindled down to eleven, some of whom also from ill-health are incapable
of work;—a sad sight to one who had just left nearly fifty clergy and thirty
catechists, actively and zealously employed in his own diocese, containing a
population inferior in number to ours.’
The audacity of this assertion is really amazing. In the first place, the number
of clergy has not ‘ dwindled ’ at all, as appears from the above data; secondly, the
fact, that some are in ill-health, is no fault of mine, but makes it more difficult to
supply their inefficiency with more active labourers, as the invalids still receive the
stipends of the Society; thirdly, as to the comparison with Bishop Gray’s diocese,
let it be noted that (i) the diocese of Capetown (52,702 sq. miles) is nearly four
times as large as mine (14,397 sq. miles); (ii) the white population of the former
(54,477) is also/owr times as large as mine (13,990), while a very large proportion
of the coloured people of the former (66,026) are comparatively civilised, living in
towns or villages, and able to speak Dutch or English, whereas the 156,061 natives
, of Natal are almost all mere savages, living in their kraals, and speaking only some
Kafir dialect; (iii) that the colonial government at the Cape allows for the clergy
of the Church of England in the Western Province AJ2,032 per annum, and I
presume that similar assistance is given in the matter of schools, while in Natal
only £350 is allowed (of which £250 goes to the chaplain at Durban, and £100 to
the Dean of Maritzburg), and the legislature has distinctly refused to grant more.
In short, such a comparison as the above may be hazarded in England; but it
would simply be deemed ridiculous in Capetown or Natal. The whole grant of
the Society in my diocese for heathen-work was £1,350 per annum, which
(allowing for contingencies) would not support more than six or seven married
missionaries, since their stipends must almost wholly be paid from home. And
how far would the £500 allowed for work among Europeans go, in a colony like
ours, where the white population are very much scattered, except in the two chief
towns, and where other denominations are very strong? For some years, the Dean of
Maritzburg absorbed £150 of this sum, and Archdeacon Fearne another £100; and
even in Maritzburg, the cathedral city, Dean Green, by the last Blue-Book, received
only £50 from his congregation, whereas the sum raised by the Cathedral Church
of Capetown in one year is returned by the last Blue Book as £1,288. For the
diocese of Capetown, the Society paid, in 1861, £3,782; in 1862, £4,101; in 1863,
£4,398, ‘general, appropriated, and special funds’; and only two or three, I
believe, of the clergy are engaged in work among the heathen-, so that the amount
granted viz., £6,430 from the Government and the Society, that is, thrice as much
as is granted to my diocese—is almost all effective in stimulating the exertions of
the white population. And, I need hardly say, it is comparatively easy to secure
those, who will be willing to minister among civilised people, white or coloured, in
villages or towns. Whereas, even when the means of livelihood are provided, it is
most difficult to find well-educated men, (i) willing to devote themselves to the
study of a barbarous language, (ii) able sufficiently to master it, (iii) ready to
bury themselves in the solitudes of savage heathenism, far removed from medical
advice, congenial society, and the other blessings of civilisation.
�54
EEMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
No one knows better than the Bishop of Capetown that the first
thing needed for securing clergy in a colony is money—and
then men—men of the right stamp, who will not be a hindrance
to the work, instead of a help in it. Bishop Gray, I believe,
has once—if not twice—been in England, collecting money and
obtaining men for his work, while I have been fastened to my
desk in Natal, engaged upon Zulu nouns and particles. It
would have been just to have remembered this.
And then, also, it would have been only fair to have borne
in mind that my diocese is, as regards the European population,
in very different circumstances from his own. The Cathedral
city, Maritzburg, contains about 3,000 white inhabitants, while
Capetown alone has more than 17,000, a population a fourth as
large again as the whole white population of Natal. The
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel had strictly limited
for some years past, before I left Natal, its grant for the
colonists to 500/. per annum, of which the Dean of Maritzburg
alone had been receiving 150/. (reduced of late to 100/.,
and, perhaps, now to 50/.), so leaving but a small sum to
be divided among the other clergy, in the more sparsely
inhabited, and therefore poorer, parishes. Efficient men are
not to be secured, except in rare instances upon the narrow
*
and uncertain incomes which colonial cures usually supply.
Yet, for work among the white-men of a colony, such
men are needed, as well as for work at home, not catechists
of limited attainments, or clergymen going out in search of
health, (though, for want of others, we should thankfully make
use of these)—but gentlemen of education, intelligence, and
energy, who will help to form the minds, and raise the tone of
feeling, as well as guide the religious belief, of the next generation.
And for work among the heathen, too, such men are needed—
men of large hearts, and abilities strengthened and refined by aca
demical training, with the power of mastering a native language,
*
* Of five catechists, sent out to me some years ago from England for native
work, with the view of their being, perhaps, ultimately ordained, one only shewed
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
55
and, when they have mastered it, of sitting down to talk out
religious questions with the native, entering within his heart,
as it were, penetrating into its secret chambers of thought, and
drawing out into the light of day the fears and hopes which
are common to man,—the religious ideas which lie undeveloped
in the consciousness of the veriest savage, ready to be quickened
into life by Christian teaching,—the eternal laws, which are
written by the finger of God on his heart as well as on ours.
This work, I need hardly say, is something very different from
the tame repetition, with babbling defective utterance, of the
cumbrous, and often unintelligible and absurd, circumlocutions,
which stand so commonly as representatives, in a barbarous
tongue, of the grand expressive language of our formularies.
But this work requires men of a different stamp from the
great majority, who are generally willing to give themselves to
it. Admission to the ministry in the Church of England invests
many a man on a Missionary Station with the social rank of a
gentleman, who in England would have been but a second-rate
schoolmaster in a National School, and who is utterly inca
pable of appreciating the grandeur, as well as the difficulties, of
the work which lies before him. To such a teacher let the
native bring his doubts, and he will be crushed with a severe
reproof, and warned of the guilt of unbelief. And so the old
evil will be repeated, and the futile attempt will be made to
propagate, as the essentials of religion, dogmas, from which the
native’s own quickened intelligence, as he makes increased ac
quaintance with facts in our schools, will of its own accord revolt,
and which he will hear also disavowed by many—not of loose
living and irreligious, but—of the most thoughtful and intelli
gent, white-men around him.
I believe that the Missions of the Church of England
require much improvement in this respect, and demand the
services of some of our best University men, and would
any capacity whatever for learning the Zulu language. It was impossible to turn
the others to account for our purposes, to my extreme disappointment, as at the
time they were very greatly needed.
�56
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
abundantly reward their labours. For myself, however, instead
of employing a number of inefficient and illiterate clergy for this
work, I would rather devote myself to raising up an intelligent
body of native teachers, who, if precluded from being ordained
as clergy—(for they might never be able to sign their adherence
to the Thirty-nine Articles and the Athanasian Creed, which
latter cannot at present even be expressed in their language)—
would yet, I trust, do good work as catechists and schoolmasters,
in spreading throughout their tribes the light of civilization and
Christianity.
So far, then, as ‘practical work ’ is concerned, I can assure my
readers that the Metropolitan’s fears are unfounded. My mind is
not‘ turned away ’ from it. I never felt a more hearty desire to
engage in such work than I do now. And I believe, as I have said,
that no part of all my life has been better spent for the advance
ment of this ‘practical work’ of religious teaching, and more
especially of Missionary teaching among the heathen, than that
which I have devoted to the composition of my books upon the
‘ Epistle to the Eomans ’ and the ‘Pentateuch.’ If, then, there
has been any seeming intermission in my personal labour—as, of
course, there has been during my two years’ stay in England—I
have but recoiled for a moment, to spring to it again with more
vigour than ever, and in the spirit of my books to carry forward
the work of God among my people.
My labours in the Zulu tongue are now, to a great ex
tent, completed—at least, those more pressing labours, which
have kept me, as I am painfully conscious, during the past
seven years, so closely engaged in work for the natives, as to
seem—but only to seem—to have felt less acutely the wants of
the European portion of the colony. The Bishop of Capetown
knows nothing, I imagine, of such distraction. But I shall
be free now to expend more of my time, as I fully hope to do,
in ministering to the wants of this part also of my flock, telling
them the glad tidings of their Father’s Love, revealed to us in the
Gospel of Christ, and teaching them that ‘having these promises,’
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
57
as 6 sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty,’ they should—
‘ cleanse themselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness
in the fear of God.’
Another view of the charge of dishonesty.
I have now concluded my review of the Bishop of Cape
and Charge. There is nothing in his subse
quent Visitation of the diocese which requires further notice
at present. But I think it right to say one thing more. The
Bishop has accused me repeatedly, in the plainest terms, of
dishonesty in the course which I am pursuing. He has spoken
of me, p.32, as one who is—
town’s proceedings
teaching directly contrary to what she [the Church of England] holds on
fundamental points, and directly opposite to what he undertook to teach,
when she gave him his commission, and for the teaching of which her
faithful children have provided for him a maintenance.
And he says further, Trial, p.399 :—
It appears to me to be of far higher obligation to maintain good faith in the
keeping of engagements voluntarily undertaken with most solemn vows,
than to remain in a post, the duties of which one can no longer fulfil, in the
hope of bringing about a change.
I, in my turn, will now set before the reader two pictures, and
will leave it for him to say which presents the portraiture of the
more honest and consistent clergyman of the Church of England.
The Bishop of Natal held, when in England, a College
living, the reward of his exertions in earlier days, and which
no Bishop could have taken from him for anything that he has
written. He resigned this preferment, and accepted from the
Crown the appointment to the See of Natal, knowing that he
would be a Bishop of the Church of England, and, as such,
would still be under the protection of her laws, whatever those
laws might be. For the sake, however, of what he believed
to be the truth, he was prepared to resign his See, if he had
found that the laws of the Church of England forbade the
publication of his views on the Pentateuch.
He now challenges his adversaries to point out a single
�58
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
passage in his works, which is condemned by the existing laws
of the Church, or else, if they are in doubt on any points,
to bring them at once to an issue before the only lawful
authority. He is ready also even now to resign his See,
whenever he shall be satisfied that he cannot hold it con
scientiously, or that it would be better for his fellow-men, and
for the Truth itself, that he should resign it,—which he does- not
feel to be the case at present.
The Bishop of Capetown has subscribed the 36th Canon, viz.—
The Queen’s Majesty, under God, is the only supreme governor of this
realm, and of all other Her Highness’s dominions and countries, as well in
all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal;
he has declared his ‘unfeigned assent’ to the 37th Article, viz.—
The Queen’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and
other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this
realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, doth appertain ;
he has ‘ solemnly sworn before God ’ to ‘ correct and punish ’—
according to such authority as to him should be committed by the Ordinance
of this Realm;
and he has received his appointment as Bishop and Metropolitan,
on the express conditions implied in the above acts. He was
bound, therefore, to exercise any jurisdiction which he might
claim as Metropolitan, in agreement with the above conditions.
But the Bishop of Capetown, while still holding Her Majesty’s
Letters Patent, deliberately sets aside the existing Law of the
Church of England, disregards the Queen’s authority, and re
pudiates the judgments of the Privy Council, past and pros
pective. And he positively asserts, in the teeth of the late
decision, that the Church of England holds all her officers
bound to teach two dogmas, which, it has been declared on
the highest authority, she does not hold them bound to teach,
viz. that ‘the whole Bible is the Unerring Word of the Living
God,’ Trial, p.382, and that ‘the punishment of the wicked in
hell is endless,’ Trial, p.370.
Let Englishmen, lovers of fair play, judge between us. I do
not accuse the Bishop of Capetown of downright dishonesty in
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
59
the course which he is pursuing, though it is obvious that the
very same language, which he has applied to me, may be retorted,
and with, at least, equal force applied to himself: e.g. p.31 —
What we have to consider is, whether one, who undertook an office of great
trust and dignity [at the hands of the Crown, as Bishop and Metropolitan of
the Church of England], and received the emoluments [and honours] thereof,
upon a distinct understanding that he ivould [acknowledge the Royal supre
macy in the Church of England, and act according to the laws and constitu
tion of that Church, which the Queen of this Protestant nation, who
appointed him], deemed to be of the very deepest importance [for the repression
of ecclesiastical domination, and the promotion of true religion among her
people], is to be allowed, now that he has changed his mind, and holds and
teaches [independence of state-control,—a principle] the very opposite to that
which he undertook to teach, and atfirst did teach—to retain his position in the
Church [of England], and to enjoy the emoluments of his abused office and vio
lated trust:
or again, p.32—
She [Her Majesty the Queen] has no wish unduly to interfere with [Dr.
Gray’s] liberty of thought or teaching; but she says, that, if he teaches directly
contrary to what she [in her constitutional office, as head of the Church of
England,] holds on fundamental points, [enforcing, as doctrines of the Church
of England, dogmas, as to the Bible and endless punishment, which she has
authoritatively forbidden to be enforced within the Church of England,]
and directly opposite to what he undertook to teach, [in respect of the Royal
Supremacy], when she gave him his [appointment], he shall not do so in [her]
name, or as a Bishop of the Church [of England]. He must do it outside
the Church [of England] :
or again, as above:—
It appears to me to be of far higher obligation to maintain good faith in the
keeping of engagements voluntarily undertaken with most solemn vows, than to
remain in a post, the duties of which one can no longer fulfil, in the hope of
bringing about a change
*
* In like manner, it would be easy for anyone so disposed to retort upon the
Bishop some of his other expressions. Thus he calls me a ‘ fanatic’: but no fanati
cism can exceed that with which, shutting his eyes to the realities around him, and
to the circumstances of the age in which he lives, he appears to surrender his
whole being to the worship of his own ideal of a Catholic Church, which, in defiance
of the known facts of history, he assumes to have continued one and ■undivided
‘ during the first thousand years of her history,’ and of which he seems to
consider himself, by virtue of his ‘Apostolic Succession,’ the infallible repre
sentative and exponent in all South Africa. So, when he exclaims in his
Sermon at Maritzburg, p.10, ‘ Conscience, Reason, Intellect—These be thy Gods,
�60
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
As I have said, I would not ascribe such dishonesty to the
Bishop of Capetown, though he has not hesitated to ascribe it to
me. I assume that, from his own point of view, his course of
conduct appears correct and justifiable, however others may
view it, who, perhaps, might say that, if he is not satisfied with
the laws and constitution of the United Church of England and
Ireland, and feels that he cannot conscientiously, in the exercise
of his Episcopal or (supposed) Metropolitan jurisdiction, allow
as the laws of the Church of England do allow—a clergyman
to say that e the Bible is not in itself God’s Word, though it
contains it,’ or that ‘ the punishment of the wicked may not be
endless,’ his only proper course is to resign his office as one of
that Church’s ‘ representatives in her high places’—that he
might still exercise jurisdiction as the Head of a dissenting
community, but not as a Bishop of the Church of England.
But the Bishop, with the exercise of charity and courtesy, might
have admitted the possibility that my course of conduct also,
from my own point of view, appears to me at least as correct as
his own—if not more correct—since that, which I and those who
think with me have done, we have done in the very spirit of the
Protestant Reformation, which proclaimed the principle of ‘ free
inquiry,’ and the right and duty of ‘ private judgment.’ We
have taken merely a step further in the very same direction. As
the Bishop of London said in his Charge (see my Part II,p.xxvi)—
As to free inquiry, what shall we do with it ? Shall we frown upon it,
denounce it, try to stifle it ? This will do no good, even if it he right. But
after all, we are Protestants. We have been accustomed to speak a good
deal of the right and duty of private judgment. It was lyy the exercise of
this right, and the discharge of this duty, that our fathers freed their and our
souls from Home's time-honoured falsehoods.
But the course followed by the Bishop of Capetown would
lead us back to Rome: it is directly opposed to the spirit of
the Reformation. Bishop Gray speaks, indeed, Charge, p.35,
0 Israel! ’ it is obvious to substitute ‘ Tradition, Authority, Sacerdotalism! ’ If
some are in danger of unduly exalting one set of powers, others are, at least, in
as much danger of making idols of the others.
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOW.
61
of 4 the modem Roman corruptions of, and additions to, the
faith,’ which, he says, the true Churchman 4 rejects and even
these he describes in very mild terms, as 4 grave errors and
mistakes on matters rather of opinion than of faith,' against
which the Church 4 protested,’in her Articles, 4 at the period
of the Reformation.’ This is certainly strange language from
a Protestant Bishop, the 19th Article of whose Church declares
that—
as the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the
Church of Home hath erred, not only in [heir living and manner of cere
monies, hut also in matters offaith.
In fact, the principle put forth by Bishop Gray is the very
same with that which was advanced in the celebrated Tract,
No. 90, the author of which subsequently acknowledged his
position in the Church of England to be untenable, by seceding
to the Church of Rome.
4 Modem corruptions of the Church of Rome ! ’ We know,
at all events, that the worship of the Virgin Mary, Saints, and
Images, was in full operation in the Church of Rome at the
beginning of the eighth century.
*
So much for the purity of
the Catholic Church 4 during the first thousand years of its history! ’ Nay, before the end of that same century, the portent
of the Papacy itself loomed already, as a dark cloud, on the
horizon,—and the minds of men were rapidly becoming familiar
with the idea of an 4 Universal Bishop,’ by whose irresponsible
decisions the whole Church was to be bound. And the fact is,
that, of these papal pretensions, the claims, put forth by the
Bishop of Capetown, are, though on a small scale, the counter
part; and, if we are driven to compare them, the latter are
as exorbitant as the former, and more preposterous, as resting
* See Milner s Church History, iii. p.159, where he quotes from a letter of Pope
Gregory III., as follows: ‘ We do not look upon them [images] as gods: but, if it
be the image of Jesus, we say, “ Lord, help us! ” if it be the image of His Mother
we say, “ Fray to your Son to save us ! ’’ if it be of a Martyr, we say, “ St. Stephen,
pray for us! ” ’
’
�62
REMARKS ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE OF
on a less tangible basis, while they arrogate to the Metropolitan
more than even papal irresponsibility. He claims, for instance,
for himself, and for all Metropolitans and quasi-Metropolitans,
absolute freedom from all control. He might be guilty with
impunity of simony, felony, or treason; he might go over
openly to the Church of Rome; or, to use his own words, p.22,—
Were a [Metropolitan] to become an Atheist, or were he to believe in
Mahomet, or to teach all Roman] doctrine, it would by such a [principle]
be affirmed that there is no redress, no power of rem oval.
Happily, the constitution of the Church of England, by recog
nizing the Royal Supremacy, forbids such a claim as this to be
made within her pale.
Were there no other reason for my maintaining firmly my
ground against his proceedings, I should feel bound as a Bishop
of the English Church to do so, in order to vindicate the Church
of England from any complicity with those essentially Roman
principles, which are—perhaps unconsciously—maintained by
some, and by none more persistently than by the Bishop of Cape
town, but which I believe to be antagonistic to the first prin
ciples of our reformed Protestant Church, as by law established.
And so, when he continually repeats that—
‘the faithful children of the Church of England have provided for him, as
Bishop of Natal, a maintenance,’ p.32,—
and speaks of the congregations of Natal being—
1 driven from the churches which they have built, in faith that the teaching
of the Church, and of the Word of God, would be ever proclaimed within
their walls, and compelled to seek refuge in other religious bodies, where
discipline will at least secure to them the essentials of the faith,’ p.33,—•
when he says, Trial, p.399, that—
the founders of the See filled by the Bishop were still living, and provided
an endowment only ten years before, expressly for the purpose of teaching
and maintaining those truths, which they still hold, but which he has aban
doned,—
and talks [see above, p.12] of my being 4 sent back ’—
with the right to take possession of the property of the Church given for far
different purposes,—
�THE BISHOP OF CAPETOWN.
63
I reply that, if any, in England or in South Africa, have con
tributed to the foundation of the See of Natal, and to the
erection of the churches within the diocese, in the idea that that
See would be abused by me, while holding Her Majesty’s Letters
Patent, to cooperate with the Bishop of Capetown for the
establishment of a ‘ Church of South Africa,’ which should set
at nought the decisions of the Court of Arches and the Privy
Council, and disown the Royal Supremacy—or that those
churches would not be opened as widely, for the utterance of
free thought and the results of free inquiry, as is allowed to be
lawful in the Church of England,—they deserve to be disap
pointed : I never have been, and never will be, a party to such
a scheme,—to such ‘ wicked errors,’ [see 2nd Canon]—to such
(as it would seem to me) a treacherous abuse of my office.
But, as regards the churches in my diocese, I would remind
the Metropolitan that there are some, at least, of the laity who
have helped to build them, who do not agree with his views.
Further, I would observe that they are almost without exception
built on land granted as a free gift by the Crown itself, and that
these sites, as well as the far more valuable tracts of land,
which have been given by the Government for missionary
purposes, and which are now beginning to become productive,
were granted to me, as Bishop of the United Church of England
and Ireland, in trust for the uses of that Church, and not for
the ‘ Church of South Africa,’ which disregards the decisions of
the Supreme Court of Appeal (App.G) in the Church of England,
and disavows the Queen’s Supremacy. For such a Church as
this these grants were certainly never intended: this ‘property,’
at all events, c was given for far different purposes.’ And I
should hold it to be an act of dishonesty on my part, if I allowed
it to be diverted from the purpose for which it was originally be
stowed, so long as Her Majesty retains Her hold upon the district
of Natal as a British possession, and so long as I am entrusted
with authority to act in Her name as Bishop of Natal.
�APPENDIX
■—♦ —
1. Extracts from the Bishop of Natal’s Books: p.29.
(i) On the Fear of Death, from the Commentary on St.
Paul's Epistle to the Romans, p. 144-7.
Death in itself is no sign of a curse. Death was in the world, for the
countless races of animals and animalcules, ages before man’s .sin. There
was no sign of curse in their death. Nor would the death of man be
attended with any notion of a curse attached to it, but for the consciousness
of sin. The less we know or think of sin, the less we dread deatli; the
more we know and think of sin, the more we dread it, unless we have the
Light of God’s Love in the Gospel to cheer us. As human beings, bound
by ties of tender affection to one another, there is, of course, connected with
death, the grief of separation from those whom we love. There is also,
generally, the anticipation, and the actual sense, of pain and physical dis
tress. But the sense of grief and pain is not the sense of a curse. And
feelings of this kind are often overpowered by nobler feelings, quickened
within the hearts of men—even heathen men—by the grace of God, though
untaught, by more intimate acquaintance with the truth, as we Christians
know it, to understand more fully the baneful nature of sin, and to bless
God for its antidote revealed in the Gospel. How many thousands die on
every battle-field, or in the active discharge of life’s duties in every land,
without any dread of death, as necessarily coupled with a curse ! What
notion of a curse embittered the glorious hours of those who fell, fighting
for their homes and their fatherland, at Thermopylae or Marathon ?
So then, the idea of death is not necessarily connected in the minds of
men with that of a curse. But then comes the Law, and brings home to
our consciences the bitter sense of sin, of evil that has been committed,
against the light which we had, against our better knowledge and better
resolves, before the Face of a most Pure and Holy Being. And the
Devil—the Slanderer—the Accuser of God and the Brethren—makes use
of this to fill our hearts with guilty fears, which keep us away from our
Father's footstool. He teaches us thus to connect the idea of a curse with
�APPENDIX.
®
65
death. .-And many go trembling along the path of life, with the gloomy grave
at the end of it, afraid to look the ghastly terror in the face. And so they
turn their eyes ever, as it were, to the ground as they go, and busy them
selves closely with the petty things of this life, its business and pleasures,
that they may for the present forget their fears, instead of making light of
death, as they might, as they ought, and manfully pressing on to do the
work of their Lord.
For how utterly unchristian, how utterly contrary to the whole spirit
and letter of the Gospel, is this notion of death, as something to be dreaded,
not merely for the pain, or present sense of separation from the objects of our
love, which it brings with it, but for itself, for some idea of a curse attending
it, as the carrying out of a fearful doom, a judgment from God, which Adam’s
sin has brought on his race ! Separations take place continually in families,
lifelong separations, for various reasons, in the common path of duty,
with grief of heart, no doubt, and the dropping of natural tears of pure
affection, sometimes with bitter pain and anguish, but yet without sense of
awe or horror. Extreme pain is undergone under various circumstances, in
the hospital-ward, on the battle-field, far exceeding in intensity that which
we see to be generally connected with death. Often such pain is borne
courageously and cheerfully, sometimes with fear and shrinking; but there
is no sense of horror, no notion of a curse, mixed up with this fear. Now,
if we read the New Testament rightly, we shall learn to look at the sepa
ration which death brings with it, and the pain which may attend it, in
something of this temper. We shall learn to look upon death as a Chris
tian should do, as St. Paul did, who takes but little account of it, and rushes
very small provision in his letters for the comfort of bereaved friends, 'and
none at all for the dying Christian himself, except to tell him that he has
fought the good fight, and finished his course, and may now hope to enter
into rest. Indeed, we make far too much of death in these days. We
crown him King of Terrors, when our gracious God and Father has bereft
him of all his power to harm us, and deprived him of his sting, and made
him a messenger of grace to us.
Will it be said that after death still comes the judgment ? Why, yes,
and before death too. And this is the point, which we ought to bear in
mind, not to prepare for death, but to prepare for our Lord’s appearing, for
His coming to judge us, as He may do at any moment, as He actually does,
from day to day, from hour to hour’, in the ordinary work of common life,
as well as on special great occasions. The reason why we are so ' prone
to connect this judgment only with death is this, that we cannot conceive
of its actually taking place in this blessed world, where on every side we
find a Father’s Love. And yet it is really taking place from day to day
even here. A Father’s Hand is blessing continually, or chastening, His
children. But we feel as if we shall then stand before Him all alone,
stripped of the countless gifts of His Goodness, which here relieve our fears,
F
�66
APPENDIX.
and are meant to do so under the Gospel of His Grace, but which are too
often perverted into reasons for sinning yet more, and turned into lascivious
ness. In truth, however, the 1 judgment after death’ is but the carrying
on of that which is going on in life,—the manifestation of that which is
now taking place, it may be in silence and secrecy,—the revelation of that
Lord, who is even now, daily and hourly, taking account with His ser
vants. Those, who never bethink themselves now of their Master’s Presence,
will, indeed, then seem to see Him, perhaps, for the first time, who has been
with them, speaking in their consciences, observing and overruling their
doings, all along. And those, who have been consciously 1 keeping back
the truth in unrighteousness,’ all their lives long, and have died, hardened
in impenitence, may have reason to dread death, because it will bring them
face to face with Him, whose Voice they have heard in their hearts, whose
Light shone upon their minds, whose Love they felt on every side, and
yet they chose ‘the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds
were evil.’ But even to such as these death itself has no curse attached to
it. It is but the gate, through which their Lord and Master calls them to
Him, that He may pass the righteous sentence of His Love upon them—
that is, that He, who knows exactly what they are, in consequence of what
they have done, may appoint for them that lot, that degree of purifying
chastisement, which they need. And this, indeed, may be something fearful
and terrific, as the needful rod is to children.
But Christians should learn to make light of death, as St. Paul did.
Indeed, he tells us, ‘ we shall not all die.’ And, as we do not couple the
1 change,’ which St. Paul says, will pass on the bodies of some, by which
1 this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality,’ with any notion of a curse attached to it, so neither ought we
to connect any such notion with death, as it will come to others. To ‘ die,’
or to ‘ be changed,’ it is all one, it should be all one, to the Christian.
How courageously and cheerfully may we go to the duties of life, whatever
dangers they may entail upon us, with this thought to sustain us, instead of
shrinking and weakly wailing with fear at the idea of death ! To the frail
flesh, indeed, the form of death may often be terrible : but the thing itself
ought not to be, even to the spirit. There are some, who will say ‘ good
night ’ to one another, and retire to rest, perhaps at early eve, perhaps at
midnight, and who, on waking on the glorious mom, will put on their new
apparel. There are others who will not go to rest at all, but, having
watched all night, will rise up at once at the break of ‘ that day,’ and be
clothed upon, and mortality will be swallowed up at once in life.
(ii) On the Reading of the Scriptures, from the Pentateuch
Critically Examined, Part III, p.628-32.
"We must, then, even in reading the Scriptures, ‘ fry the spirits, whether
they are of God.’ In this way only can we do the Will of God, and discharge
�APPENDIX.
67
the true duty, and rise to the true dignity, of man as the child of God. We
might wish, perhaps,—many do wish,—to have it otherwise, to be able to
fall back upon the notion of an Infallible Book or an Infallible Church.
But God has not willed it so. He will not give us,—at least He has not given
us,—a Revelation of such a kind, as to relieve us from the solemn duty of
judging, each for himself, what is right and true in His Sight. His Spirit
has quickened us, that we may do, as living men, His work in the world:
He will not suffer us to abdicate the glorious office to which He calls us.
We must—not only claim and exercise the right, but—bear the responsibility,
of private judgment, upon the things of the life to come, as well as of this
world.
■ The Beuteronomist himself will teach us this lesson. He tells us, indeed,
that God in all ages will.raise up Prophets like unto ourselves, xviii.18, will
kindle His Fire within the heart, and put His words into the mouth, of
men, who, in all the weakness of humanity, shall speak to their fellow-men
all that they feel commanded to teach in His Name,—who shall utter His
Eternal Truth, and minister to their brethren the lessons of 1 doctrine,
reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.’ And their brethren shall
c hear ’ them; they dare not neglect the Truth, of whatever kind, which
God’s own grace imparts and brings home to them from the lips of a fellow
man, however high or humble.
But they must not listen to him with a blind unreasoning acquiescence,
though He speak to them in the Name of Jehovah, and though the '■ sign or
wonder ’ come to pass, xiii.2, which he brought to them as the very creden
tials of his mission. They must ‘ try the spirit ’ of the Prophet’s words by
that law which they have within them, written upon their hearts. Jehovah,
their God, is proving them, to know whether they truly and entirely love
Him, and love His Truth, ( with all their heart and with all their soul.’ If
the words, which that Prophet speaks to them, come home to their con
sciences as right and true words, then in God’s Name let them acknowledge
and welcome them, and send them on with a blessing of ‘ God speed! ’ to
others. If the Voice, which speaks within, declares that the utterance from
without is false, then ‘shalt thou not hearken,’ xiii.3; the word is not God’s;
and he, who hears, must not obey it.
In this spirit we must read the book of Deuteronomy itself, and we shall
find the Living Bread which our souls may feed on,—we shall find in it the
Word of God. And that Word will not be at variance with the eternal and
essential substance of Christianity, with those words which ‘ shall not pass
away.’ Then we shall live no more in constant fear, that some rude stroke
of criticism may shake, perhaps, the ‘very foundations of our faith,’ or that
the announcement of some simple fact of science or natural history may
threaten to ‘take from us our nearest and dearest consolations.’ We shall
learn thus to have ‘faith in God,’ as our Lord has bidden us, Mark xi.22,
and not in the written records, through which He has been pleased, by
r 2
�68
APPENDIX.
inspiring the hearts of our brother men with life, to quicken and comfort our
own. When we hear such words as these—
‘ Man doth not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of
the mouth of God doth man live,’ D.viii.3—
‘ Thou shalt also consider in thine heart that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the
Living God, thy God, doth chasten thee,’ D.viii.5—
‘ If from thence ’—from the very depth of sin-wrought misery—‘ thou shalt seek
the Living God, thy God, thou shalt find Him, if thou seek Him with all thy heart
and with all thy soul,’ D.iv.29—
we shall joyfully welcome them as messages of truth, not merely because we
find them in the Bible, but because they are true—eternally true.
It is true that God loves us as dear children, and that we may go to Him
at all times, as to a wise and tender father, with a child-like trust and love,
as with a child-like reverence and fear. Rather, we must go to Him thus if
we would please Him, and act upon the words of our Lord, who has taught
us all to say, ‘ Our Father.’ We must ‘consider in our hearts ’ that He, who
has planted in our breasts, as parents, dear love to our children, a love
stronger than death, does by that very love of ours shadow forth to us His
own Eternal Love. Our love can take in every child of the family: our
hearts can find a place for all; yes, and our love embraces the far-off prodigal,
in his miserable wanderings, no less surely and no less tenderly, than the
dear obedient child, that sits by our side, rejoicing in the sweet delights of
home. He that has taught us to love our children in this way, how shall
He not also love His children, with a Love in which the separate loves of
earthly parents are blended, and find their full, infinite, expression,—the
Father’s loving wisdom and firmness, to guide and counsel, and, if need be,
to correct and chasten,—the Mother’s tender pity and compassion, that will
draw near with sweet consolations, in each hour of sorrow and suffering,
will sympathise with every grief and trial, will bow down to hear each
shame-stricken confession, will be ready to receive the first broken words of
penitence, and whisper the promise of forgiveness and peace.
Ah! truly, the little child may cling to its mother’s neck, and the
mother’s love will feel the gentle pressure, and will delight to feel it: but
it is not the feeble clinging of the little one that holds it up; it is the
strong arm of love that embraces it. And we, in our most earnest prayers
and aspirations, in our cleaving unto God, in our longing and striving after
Truth, as in these poor enquiries, are but as babes, ‘ stretching out weak
hands of faith ’ to lay hold of Him, Whom no man hath seen or can see, but
Who, unseen, is ever near us, whose tender Love embraces all His children,
those that are far off as well as those that are near, the heathen and the
Christian, the sinner and the Saint.
Happy, indeed, are we, who are blessed to know this—to know the high
calling and the glorious privileges of the children of God—not that we may
be more safe than others, who as yet know it not, but that we jnay be filled
�APPENDIX.
69
with hope and strength and courage in the assurance of this Truth,—that
we may he more living and earnest and joyful in our work,—more brave to
speak the Truth, to do the Right, to wage eternal war with all that is
false and base and evil, within us and without,—more patient in suffering,
—more firm and true in temptation and trial,—more sorrowful and ashamed
when we have fallen,—more quick to rise, and go on again, in the path of
duty, with tears and thanksgivings,—more eager to tell out the Love of
God to others, whether to those who as yet are groping, ‘ if haply they may
feel after Him and find Him,’ Who ‘ is not far from any one of them,’ ‘ in
Whom they live and move and have their being,’ or to those who have
known Him, but know no longer now the joy of His children, 1 sitting in
darkness and in the shadow of death, fast bound in misery and iron.’
But, in all this, it is not our knowledge, however clear, or our faith, how
ever firm and orthodox, or our charity, however bright or pure, that holds
us up daily, and binds us to the Bosom of our God. ? Our Father ’ will
delight in all the sacred confidences of His children,—their clingings of
faith and hope,—their longings of pure desire for a closer sense of His
Presence, — their holy aspirations and penitential confessions. But it is
not our prayer that will hold us up. It is His Love alone which does this.
‘ The Eternal God is our refuge,
And underneath are the Everlasting Arms.’ D.xxxiii.27.
2. Opinions of various Writers in the Church of Eng
land RESPECTING THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH : p.30.
It is interesting to observe that many, who have recently gone into the
questions of criticism connected with the Pentateuch—not merely those
treated of in Part I of my work, but such as are discussed in Part II, and
especially in Parts III and IV,—though starting from the traditionary
point of view, have arrived at conclusions more or less departing from it.
This alone must be sufficient to show to any thoughtful mind that that view,
at least—which ascribes the whole Pentateuch to Moses, except, perhaps, a
few sentences, interpolated here and there by another hand—is, at all events,
uncertain and disputable.
(i) Thus Bishop Browne, who has engaged to write upon the Pentateuch
in the Speaker’s Commentary, has said in his reply to the clergy of Cambridge,
in reference to my criticisms,—
‘The study of all the objections lately raised may, probably, oblige us
to take a wider view of some points than we had atfirst expected.’
(ii) The Rev. W. H. Hoare has said (see my Part III, p.xiii)—
‘ The general idea of dividing the documents in the manner that has been in
dicated [i.e. into Elohistic and Jehovistic portions], has, I believe, been sho-wn
to be based on more than merely critical conjecture. Aaron or Eleazar may
�70
APPENDIX.
fairly contest with Samuel the honours of the Elohist, and Moses, with “the
promising young men of Samuel’s time,” the honours of the Jehovist.’
(iii) The Rev. W. Houghton has said (see my Part IH,p.xl)—
‘I have diligently, conscientiously, and prayerfully studied the whole
question at issue for the last six months, and am compelled to admit. the
general truth of your arguments, though differing in some particulars. You
are aware that I published a pamphlet in reply to your Part I. I have
withdrawn that reply from circulation.’
(iv) The Rev. J. J. S. Perowne has said (see my Part LV,p.xxix)—
‘ So far, then, judging this work [the Pentateuch] simply by what we
find in it, there is abundant evidence to show that, though the main hulk
of it is Mosaic, certain detached portions of it are of later groivthd
(ff) The ‘Layman,’whose book is dedicated by permission to the Archbishop
of York, says (see my ‘Letter to the Laity,’ p.39-41)—
‘ It must be confessed that the results we have arrived at do differ very
'materially from the views commonly held. . . . These are facts very strongly at
variance with the notions generally entertained. Facts they are, however,__
not mere theoretic fancies or unfounded assumptions.
‘ Much of it [the Pentateuch] is certainly un-Mosaic, some earlier, some
contemporary, some later than Moses. Many portions of the Pentateuch
could not have proceeded from his pen, or even have been written under his
direction.’
It is true, the Archbishop of York has now stated, in his correspondence
with the Rev. James Brierley, published in the Times of July 26, that he
‘does not concur’ in the conclusions of the ‘Layman’ : nor do I. I believe
that they are only the first conclusions of an honest and truth-seeking
enquirer, which he will, perhaps, hereafter feel obliged to modify, as he
becomes better acquainted with the subject, and, in so doing, he may find
himself compelled to depart still further Rom the traditionary view, and
approximate more closely to my own on some points. But, however this may
be, these and other important statements are still allowed by his Grace to
circulate under the authority of his name; and though they had been specially
brought under his notice on May 18, by one of the clergy of his diocese, yet
two months afterwards, on July 15, he had not ‘found time’ even to look into
the book, of which (we must believe) a presentation copy lay upon his table.
The only inference, as it seems to me, that can fairly be drawn from this
fact is, that the Archbishop is aware that these statements, though he
does not wholly concur in them, are yet, more or less, and substantially,
true,—that his Grace knows that an honest examination into the question
will lead to results such as these, differing only in detail from my own,—
that, at all events, he did not consider these statements, which were so
severely judged when made by me, to be of so deadly a nature, when circulat-
�APPENDIX.
71
lag in a book 1 dedicated by permission ’ to himself. I may now, surely, predict
with some confidence, that at no very distant day the main results of these
criticisms on the Pentateuch, which have been scorned and stigmatised by
■many of my clerical brethren, both here and in South Africa, will be generally
acknowledged as truths in the Church of England, and form part of the
basis of all sound theological training.
Since the above was written, the ‘ Layman ’ himself has addressed a letter
to Mr. ~Rp.rRHT.-RV, which appears in the Guardian of August 8, as follows:—
1 July 26.
‘Rev. Sir,—My attention having been drawn to the letters which have
passed between yourself and the Archbishop of York, (touching a work of
mine on the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch), published in this day’s Times,
I desire to inform you that his Grace is in no sense responsible for any of the
views there set forth, still less for the way in which they are expressed.
For all this I alone am answerable. I have never regarded his Grace’s
acceptance of the dedication as in any way implying his sanction or approval
of its contents, but merely as an expression of his kindly feeling towards
myself. And I must confess that I am surprised that you should have put
any other construction upon it. I may add that the Archbishop expressly
declined to inspect any portion of this work before publication, doubtless
from the desire to leave both himself and me entirely unfettered.
‘ With regard to the matter of your observations, I would recommend a
more attentive study of the views I have set forth, in the form and connection
in which I have stated them, before you hastily conclude them to be identical
in tendency with those advanced by the Bishop of Natal. The main point
at issue in this controversy (as I apprehend it) is not whether every verse of
the Pentateuch was actually written by Moses himself—a point of very little
moment—but whether the Pentateuch is to be regarded as a true history,
composed in or about the times of which it treats, or as a collection of utterly
untrustworthy legends, wrought up into their present shape by writers many
centuries removed from the events narrated. On this fundamental point the
views advanced by the Bishop of Natal and myself are as diametrically
opposite as can well be conceived. Of this it will be easy for you to con
vince yourself, if, instead of trusting to a few extracts culled by the Bishop
to suit a particular purpose, you should think it worth while attentively to
peruse the books themselves. I remain, Rev. Sir, yours respectfully,
‘ A Layman or the Church or England.
‘Author of The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuch Considered?
With reference to the above, Mr. Brierley has favoured me with the
following communication:—
1 Mossley Hall, Congleton, Aug. 25, 1864.
‘Mv Lord,—In the Guardian of Aug. 3, there appeared a letter addressed
to myself from the “ Layman,” author of “ The Pentateuch Considered.”
‘ On Aug. 8 I sent the enclosed 11 Reply ” to that letter to the Editor of
�72
APPENDIX.
the Guardian. As this has not been published in that j oumal, either on the
10th or 17th or 24th, I can only conclude that it has been designedly, and,
I must say, most unfairly, suppressed.
‘1 now beg leave to forward it to you, requesting you to make any use
of it you may think proper. I have the honour to be, my Lord, your
humble and obedient servant,
‘ James Brierley.’
(Mossley Hall, Congleton, August 8, 1864.
* Sir,—In reply to your letter addressed to me, and published in last week’s
Guardian, I beg leave to make the following observations:—
* (1) The question is not in what light you may have regarded the Arch
bishop’s acceptance of your dedication, but in what light the Church atlarge, and readers generally, will regard it.
‘(2) I put no “ construction” upon his Grace’s acceptance of it, until I
had drawn his attention to the extracts in question, had asked whether he
approved of them, and had waited six weeks in vain for a reply, when I
very naturally assumed that his Grace did approve of them.
( (8) It now appears that it was not through some accident, or from
want of time, that the Archbishop did not look at your book, before he
allowed it to circulate under the authority of his name; but that he de
liberately a declined" to look at it beforehand, “doubtless,” as you say,
“from the desire to leave both himself as well as you unfettered.”
‘ This course of proceeding will seem strange, I think, to many of the Clergy
and Laity, with reference to such a book as this, at such a crisis in the
history of the Church.
1 (4) I said nothing of the u tendency ” of your views. I stated only that,
assuming your statements to be in any degree well-founded, they are u ex
traordinary ”; that “they make it impossible to deny the Tight of the
a Bishop of Natal to maintain his theory of the composition of the PentaII teuch, which only differs in point of detail from yours ”; that we “ must
il now make up our minds to admit the composite character of the Penta11 teuch, and the non-Mosaic origin of considerable portions of it.”
1 (5) The question at issue is not certainly whether every verse of the
Pentateuch was actually written by Moses himself, but whether large
portions of it—(you say, more than one-fifth at least)—were written “ after
the conquest of Canaan,” while, you add, “ a variety of explanatory notes,
“ additions, and occasional alterations, with a few passages of greater
“ length, chiefly from other ancient narratives, were introduced by a writer
“of much later date, very probably, in the days of Saul,”—that is, I suppose,
by a writer some centuries removed from the events narrated.
‘ (6) Though I and others may admit that this point, of the Mosaic
authorship of the whole Pentateuch, is “ a point of very little moment,” yet
you must be aware that this is a point considered to be of vital consequence
�APPENDIX.
73
by numbers of the orthodox Clergy and Laity, as by the Rev. Sir PI.
Thompson, who says of your own statements, in the Churchman of July 14,
that their 11 intended drift is to unsettle our belief that the Pentateuch is the
u work of Moses," and that they are “ scattering broadcast throughout the
“ land the seeds of doubt and infidelity.”
1 (7) As towhat the Bishop of Natal’s motives in “culling” extracts
from your book may have been, of course I know nothing; but it appears to
me that he has done so for no other purpose than to show, as he says himself,
in his letter to the Laity, p.38, that an honest enquirer (meaning yourself)
has been obliged to admit “that the results which he has arrived at do
“ differ very materially from the views commonly held," that “these wq facts,
“ very strongly at variance with the notions generally entertained," that “facts
“ they are, however, not mere theoretic fancies, or unfounded assumptions."
‘ At all events, the Bishop does not claim you as agreeing in his “ views.”
He says in his letter, p.41, that “ the author believes, apparently, in the
“ literal historical truth of the accounts of the Creation, Paradise, the Fall,
“ the Deluge, the Rainbow, and the Confusion of Tongues,” which the
Bishop, in his books, tells us plainly he does not believe in.
i (8) In conclusion, if I could only find time, I would gladly read your
work : but-you must pardon me for saying that it can scarcely be necessary
for me to do so; since, however, your views upon the whole subject may
differ from the Bishop of Natal’s, the admissions made by yourself (as proved
by the extracts quoted) sufficiently agree with his statements, as to satisfy
me that th the main the question as to the unity and authenticity of the
Pentateuch is pretty much as the Bishop has stated it to be,—in accordance,
I believe, with most of the great continental critics.
11 remain, Sir, yours truly,
1 James Brierley,
1 Incumbent of Holy Trinity, Mossley, near Congleton.
1 To “A Layman,” &c.’
(vi) The Bishop of Oxeord, also, appears to have made admissions of some
importance at the recent Conference of his clergy at Oxford, though it is
somewhat difficult to gather the Bishop’s exact meaning from the reports
which have been given of his words by different hearers, and from his own
statement as copied below.
(1) One report (Standard, August 10) says as follows:—
1 The Bishop of Oxford, in an elaborate address, enlarged with much
force upon the anti-Biblical opinions enunciated by distinguished members
of the University during the past few years, and by careful argument urged
that the true explanation of the unhappy differences existing was to be
found in a misconception of the manner in which inspired truths were trans
mitted to us. He contended that the apparent anomalies in Holy Writ were
�74
APPENDIX.
in consequence of indirect revelations,—the persons, to whom many of the
revelations were made, having varied their rendering of them to such an extent
as to give grounds for objections on the part of those, who are disposed to
look at the Scriptures with a severely critical eye. In proof of this position,
his lordship pointed out that the Ten Commandments, which were inscribed
by the finger of God on Mount Sinai, and the miracles He worked, and the
parables He gave,—the whole of which acts were performed directly by God
Himself,—had never been the subject of adverse criticism from the pen of
the greatest infidel, from the proclamation of the Gospel to the present
time. That anomalies did exist, no one was prepared to doubt. But the
clear and only explanation was given in the fact, that the messages from
Heaven were not verbally transmitted. And his lordship strongly urged that
this construction was one that should be used by all members of the Chris
tian Church, in refuting the attacks to which it was subject at the hands of
those who were prepared to doubt, or to induce others to doubt, the inspi
ration and authenticity of the Divine Word.’
(2) The account in the Guardian of August 17, taken from the Oxford
Herald, and having all the appearance of being a tolerably accurate report
of the Bishop’s words, contains the following statements as corm’ng from his
mouth in the course of his address:—
‘Reverend Brethren,—It has been set down in the scheme of this after
noon that I should address a few words to you first upon a discussion of the
Word of God, of which you are afterwards to hear from Archdeacon Lee
and Dr. Wordsworth. But I am at a loss to know what to do in saying a
few general words to the purpose; because, in doing so, I might be in dan
ger of intrenching upon the deliberations of those, who have prepared papers
for this Congress; and I almost thought it would be better to offer no
remarks till the conclusion of your proceedings. But I have been told that
you think I am under an engagement to offer some preliminary observations;
and I therefore do not hesitate to respond to the wishes so expressed. Of
course, the great matter before us is the consideration—not of that doctrinal
question so admirably set before us in the sermon this morning, for which
we cannot be too grateful,—it is not so much to discuss that, as it is to
considei' the question of the Inspiration of the Word of God, which some of
the present members of the Church have raised into great prominence, so
that we may be prepared with answers to objections so raised.
‘ It is of great importance at the present time that these matters should
have been well thought over by the clergy in considering the great and
difficult subject of what is understood by the Inspiration of the Word of
God. In limine it is of great importance to notice this question: for the fact,
that all Scripture is written by Inspiration for our instruction, means that
Scripture is inspired by the Holy Ghost; and, because that is true, we dispose
of the most formidable objections, which stand in the way of any dispute.
�APPENDIX.
75
I All truth is from God alone. Truth on any subject-matter being from
God, shows that it must be inspired so far as it is true. . . . But now what
is Inspiration ? Because we all know that TIoly Scripture has given us no
definition of what it is, or what the Church has held it to be, and we are
therefore led to decide what it is according to the ordinary latitude of in
terpretation. And, first, in approaching that point, and in giving our inter
pretation of what Inspiration does mean, we can have recourse to no antecedent
probabilities as our sure guide—nothing which would show what would be the
precise message of God's thought to man, so that the only way is to take the
Rook as a fact, examining it as to the way in which God has been pleased to
give us His inspired word.
*
And, if we do that, we are met by this view.
Taking it as a message from God to man, knowing that it embodies thought,
which man without the message could not have conceived, and knowing
that he could not from antecedent probabilities have discovered the inten
tions of God, we must examine it as we should any other message, and see how
He, who has sent it, has been pleased to send it to us......
‘ As under the first message that was inscribed in stone, or that was spoken
by the Prophet in a state of rhapsody, there would be the simple communi
cation from God to the receiver; but in the other cases, in which the mes
senger was to deliver the message, there was room for admitting the presence
of the human essence, in a way that, while it had the authority of God,
leaves room for the surrounding human element, in which there might be direct
error, without touching the slightest truth of Inspiration.’
(3) 'An Oxfordshire Rector’ reports to the Record (August 10) as
follows:—
II was present yesterday and to-day at a conference of the clergy under
the presidency of the Bishop of the Diocese. The subjects for discussion
were “ The Word of God and Inspiration.” All the speakers recognised the
fact, that these for the Christian are the great subjects of the day. The
Bishop opened the conference with some general remarks, and inter alia
propounded his theory of Inspiration. It was, I think, as follows,—“ That
the writers of the Old and New Testament might be either conscious or
unconscious of the meaning, scope, and object of the message which they
* I need hardly say that it is very satisfactory to find the Bishop of Oxford
here using language, which is almost identical with that, by which on p.xix of
my Part IV I have sought to justify my Critical Examination of the Pentateuch.
I have said: ‘ We are utterly unable to judge a priori what parts of Scripture must
be recorded with strict verbal accuracy. We can only do—what in these criticisms
we are endeavouring to do,—that is, work out,—with all care, with all the ability
which God has given us, and with all the help of our best critical apparatus,—a
posteriori, from the documents actually in our hands,—the real substantial facts
which the Bible contains, and take them as God’s facts for our guidance.’
�76
APPENDIX.
delivered; that, if the first, as would, of course, he true in the case of Jesus,
they could make no possible mistake, all which they said would be abso
lutely true, it would be without reservation the mind of the Spirit of God;
that, if the latter, they might err, from the want of the power of comprehension
incident to humanityThe Bishop explained, with his accustomed power
and facility of diction, the opinion which he had formed upon the subject,
and illustrated his meaning at length by adducing the simile of the servant
sent by his master to convey a message to a friend, of the nature of which
the two corresponding parties wished the servant to be ignorant: and, in the
course of his remarks, the Bishop used the terms, “ the human element in the
Bible.”
‘ There was, of course, considerable discussion subsequently upon the re
marks made by his lordship, and to-day the subject was again referred to.
Many of the clergy present felt startled to find that one of those, who were
foremost to denounce Colenso and the Essayists, appeared to endorse the
truth of the principle which they advocate. The Bishop attempted to
explain his meaning to-day : he re-announced his opinion with this saving
proviso, that as yet he had not found, and he believed he never should find,
a particle of error in the Word of God. But what of the principle which
he enunciated ? Many assert that they have discovered historical, geographi
cal, arithmetical, scientific, moral, and religious error in the Bible. How
does his lordship propose to answer them ? ’
(4) Among the clergy, who ‘ felt startled ’ at the above remarkable admis
sions, appears to have been the Rev. W. R. Fremantle, one of the leaders in
procuring the signature of the 11,000 clergy to the Oxford Declaration. He
writes to the Record (August 17) as follows:—
‘ What I understood the Bishop to say [on the second day] was that the
whole Scripture had been written under the superintendence of the Holy Ghost,
so that all and every part of it was absolutely free from error,—that no error
had as yet been found in it, and he believed no error ever would be found
in it. He believed the Bible not because it contained the truth, but because
it was given to us by inspiration of God. Then, in speaking of the two
forms of inspiration referred to by the u Oxfordshire Rector,” the Bishop
said that, as regards the human element, he thought there were some points
in which a man’s natural reason and memory would suffice without a su
pernatural revelation, as, for example, St. Paul referring to his cloak being
left at Troas (!) In this department of the subject, he could conceive the
possibility in the surroundings of the man of the existence of inconsistency,
contradiction, and error, if the writers had been left entirely to themselves.
But, inasmuch as a revelation to the man was one thing, and inspiration to
record truth was another, so the human element had been guided and kept
from error by the general superintendence of the Holy Ghost.
( This explanation I accepted with much thankfulness; for, after the state
�APPENDIX.
77
ment made by his lordship on the first day, I, in common with others of the
clergy present, was in some doubt as to what he really meant.’
(5) So, too, the Rev. F. M. Cunningham writes to the Record (August
19) and states, inter alia, as follows :—
‘ On the second day, Mr. Fremantle called his Lordship’s attention to the
fact that the minds of his clergy were disturbed, and requested him to give
an explanation of his meaning. He did so, and in such terms as led Mr.
Fremantle to say that his mind was inexpressibly relieved. In this view
of the case I am convinced that most of those who were present fully con
curred.’ But Mr. Cunningham also admits that 1 in his Lordship’s address
on the first day, there was undoubtedly room for anxiety, and the minds of
many were disturbed. I largely shared in their anxiety, though I felt
assured that I had misunderstood the Bishop, when I heard him, at the
end of the first day’s proceedings, endorse with entire cordiality all that had
fallen from Archdeacon Lee of Dublin.’
(6) Once more, ‘ An Oxford Rector ’ (the Rev. A. M. W. Christopher)
writes also to the Record, of the same date, stating that he had enclosed
to the Bishop the Standard}s report of what he had said, and also that of
the ‘Oxfordshire Rector,’ asking his Lordship,'/if he thought fit to do so,
kindly to write briefly his opinion on the subject on which he spoke, that
this might be "given accurately in his own words ’: and he also added,
‘ Your Lordship will not, I am sure, think me wanting in respect, if I say
that I was not satisfied by what your Lordship said, as I understood it, on
the first day of the Conference.’
(7) The Bishop replied as follows :—
‘ ‘ Many thanks for your very kind letter. I had not seen either of the
newspaper extracts you send me. But if I had, I should not have answered
them. It is a hopeless endeavour to set oneself right by answering anything:
and, if you reply to one, you must reply to all. I therefore leave matters to
right themselves. It is quite a different matter replying to you; and I do
it with the greatest pleasure. I said nothing of the sort attributed to me in
these extracts. Perhaps the subject was too abstruse to be treated so briefly;
and this has led to misapprehension. In brief, my belief is this: The
whole Bible comes to us as “ The Word of God,” under the sanction of God
the Holy Ghost. We cannot pick and choose amidst its contents. All is
God’s Word to us. But, as I believe that this, which I hold as the only
orthodox view, is encompassed with many difficulties by what is called
the theory of “Verbal Inspiration,” I desired to show how, in my judgment,
a careful scrutiny of the Bible, which revealed the “divers manners” in
which the Holy Ghost spake,—
1 (1) Sometimes by the mere mechanical use of the human agent who
�78
APPENDIX.
conveyed the message, as when (i) God wrote words on the first tables,
(ii) dictated them for the second, or (iii) committed them to prophets simply
to repeat, or (iv) spake them through the prophets,—
‘(2) Sometimes by possessing the human instrument with a complete
knowledge of that he was to speak, and leaving him to express it, under the
mere suggestions and guardianship of His own special presence, according to
the natural use of the human faculties,—
‘I desired, I say, to show how this would greatly lessen these difficulties,
and enable men to realize the essential difference between Holy Scripture
and any other books,—namely, that as all truth comes from God, other books
may be in a sense said to be inspired because they are true, but Holy
Scripture alone can be affirmed to be true because it is inspired.
‘ You are quite free to make any use of this you see fit.
‘I am, yours most truly,
'S. Oxon.’
The above, which ‘ inexpressibly relieved ’ the minds of Mr. Fremantle
and others of the clergy, represents, we must suppose, what the Bishop
said on the second day. It is very difficult to understand from the above
letter what the Bishop really does hold on the subject of Inspiration.
But it is singular that such a master of rhetoric, upon a subject of such
grave importance at the present time, and which he himself, no doubt, had
fixed beforehand for the consideration of his clergy, expressed himself on
the first day so imperfectly, as to have been so seriously misunderstood—not
only by the sih? above quoted, viz. the reporters of the Standard and Herald,
the Oxfordshire and Oxford Rectors, the Rev. Messrs. Fremantle and
Cunningham,—but, it would seem, by the whole body of the clergy. As
the subject was known beforehand, it was not necessary that there should
have been any ‘cloudiness’ in the original statement, however brief. But
it is difficult to see how the view now put forth by the Bishop lessens any
of the more serious difficulties of the theory of 1 Scriptural infallibility,’
which, it would seem, (if I understand him rightly,) the Bishop still
maintains,—e. g. that which arises from Moses saying in D.v.22, ‘ These
words Jehovah spake unto all your assembly in the Mount out of the midst
of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, and He added no more;
and He wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me ’
—compared with E.xx.l, ‘God spake all these words, &c.’ which latter
1 words ’ differ materially from the former; comp, especially E.xx.11 and
D.v.15.
(8) In the Spectator of August 27, a letter appears from Oxoniensis,
from which I quote the following extract:—
‘ An article of great ability recently appeared in the Quarterly Review,
which is almost universally attributed, in part if not wholly, to the Bishop
of Oxford, It contains statements about Inspiration, which I believe to be
�APPENDIX.
79
perfectly wise and just. It is too long to quote, but its gist is that there is
a “human” as well as a “Divine” element in Scripture, and that humanly
the Scripture writers were liable to occasional error. The following are
some of the words:—“ In the utterance his own peculiarities will all be
present, and so his ignorance upon matters lying wholly outside the message,
as to which, therefore, the sender of the message has not enlightened his mes
senger. . . . When, for instance, St. Paul reveals to us the depths of the
Divine counsels, we know that we are listening, not to man, but to God.
. . . But, when the same apostle writes that the cloak which was left at
Troas should be brought after him, does any reasonable man really maintain
that, if it could be made certain that the cloak was left—not at Troas,
but—at another place, the veracity of Holy Scripture would be thereby
impugned ? ” ’
I add another extract from the same article in the Quarterly, April 1864,
p.552
1 If the intention of the Almighty was through His word to reveal reZagious truth to man, what would be more natural than that He should pour
into the minds of His instruments a flood of light upon those truths, which
He intended them to declare, leaving them still uninformed as to matters, of
which they were the bearers of no message to their brethren ? . . . On this
theory, as to whatever it (the Bible) professes to reveal, we know it must
be absolutely true, because in that it is the result of the inspiration of God ,•
whilst in that, which is the accident and not the object of the message, the
messenger is left to his own unaided powers.’
I need hardly say that this is precisely the ground, which I myself have
taken in all my writings. The ( religious truth,’ which God 1 intends to
reveal] that, and that alone, is the ‘ Word of God ’ in the Bible.
3. Extracts from the Fathers and others, shewing their
VIEWS AS TO THE LIMITATION OF OUR LORD’S
the
Son of Man:
KNOWLEDGE
AS
p.35.
For Mr. Houghton’s letter, with the references at full length, see my
Part HI on the Pentateuch, p.xxxviii-xl. The following are some of the
authorities which he quotes on the subject:—
‘ One must know that most of the Fathers—indeed almost all—appear to
say that He (Christ) was ignorant of some things; for, if He is said to be
in all respects of the same substance with us, and we are ignorant of some
things, it is manifest that He also was ignorant, and the Scripture says of
Him, that He increased in age and wisdom.’—Leontius.
‘To whom can it be a matter of doubt that He has a knowledge of that
hour, indeed, as God, but is ignorant of it, as man ? ’—Gregory Naz.
(As on becoming man He hungers and thirsts, and suffers with men, so
with men, as Man, He knows not.’—Athanasius.
�80
APPENDIX.
'The ignorance, then, does not belong to God the Word, but to the form
of the servant, which knew at that time such things as the indwelling
Divinity revealed.’—Theodobet.
°
We ought not to accuse the Word of God, and rashly to impute any
ignorance to Him. But we should rather admire His love towards man,
who did not refuse, out of His love towards us, to bring Himself down to so
great an humiliation, as to bear all things that are ours, one of which also is
ignorance. ’—Cybil of Alexandria.
* Just as Chbist took this upon Himself in common with men, to hunger,
thirst, and suffer the other things which are spoken about Him, exactly in
the same way
is nothing to offend any one, if He be said, as man, to have
been ignorant also in common with men.’—In.
' He is ignorant, then, according to His human nature, who knows all
things according to the power of His Divinity.’—Chbysostom.
Dr. Pusey, after stating what he considers to be the ' doctrine of the
Church ’ on this point says, on Atman. Diss. II. against Arianism (Library
of the Fathers), ch.xxviii:—
'However, this view of the sacred subject was received by the Church
after St. Athanasius’s day; and it cannot be denied that he and others of
the most eminent Fathers use language, which primd facie is inconsistent
with it. They certainly seem to impute ignorance to our Lord as man, as
Athanasius in this passage.’
But foi the doctrine of those which . . . only affirm that, though as
God He knew all, yet as man He was ignorant of some things, just in the
same manner as He was passible and subject to all human infirmities which
had not sin in them, . . . this sure is so far from heresy that ... it is the
[almost] unanimous assertion of all the Fathers.’—Hammond.
' To say that the Second Person in the Trinity knows not something, is
blasphemy; to say so of the Messias, is not so, who nevertheless was the
same with the Second Person in the Trinity.’—Lighteoot.
' Certainly, when the Apostle teaches that He (Jesus) was like to us in all
things, sin excepted, without doubt he comprehends this also, that His soul
was subjected to ignorance. ... In fine, unless anyone pleases to deny that
Chbist was made a true man, let us not be ashamed also to confess that He
voluntarily took upon Himself all things which cannot be separated from
human nature.’—Calvin.
' As it may be truly said of the body of man that it is not immortal,
though the soul be, so it may be truly said that the Son of Man was not
knowing, though the Son of God knew everything.’—Watebland.
In the face of all these authorities, however, the Bishop rides, Trial, p. 345
' I must decide that in imputing to our Blessed Lord [the Bishop does
not give my full statement, " as the Son of Man ”] ignorance, and the
possibility of error, the Bishop has committed himself to a subtle heresy.’
Let the reader notice that I have used identically the same language as
�APPENDIX.
81
Gregory Naz., Athanasius, Cyril, Chrysostom, and 1 others of the most
eminent Fathers,’ who, says Dr. Pusey, ‘ certainly seem to impute ignorance
to our Lord as man.’
4. Correspondence of the Bishop of Natal
Bishop of Oxford and the Bishop of Capetown :
with the
p.40.
Within a few days after my arrival in England, I received a letter from
the Bishop of Oxford, which, being marked 1 secret,’ I do not quote—except
so far as is rendered absolutely necessary, for my justification under the
present circumstances. In this letter, the Bishop said, with reference to
some points in my Commentary on the Romans :—
Gin these points I should greatly like calmly and prayerfully to talk
with you, if you will let me. They are too long for writing. But what I
mainly wish for now is, to pray you not to take any irretrievable step, until
you have, in free discourse with some of us, reviewed the whole matter. . . .
All I would ask for Christ’s sake is, that you rest not satisfied until you have
given us some such opportunity of free brotherly converse. ... If you could
come to me, to give a day or two to such a consultation, you would find a
warm greeting, and, I hope, a loving and unprejudiced discussion of
differences.’
To this affectionate appeal I was about to respond at once in the same
spirit, accepting heartily the invitation given, when another post on the
same day brought me a letter from the Bishop of Capetown, which seemed
to change wholly the character of the proposed discussion. It appeared to
me, in short, that, instead of being invited to a friendly conference, I was
about practically to be ‘ convened ’ by him, as Metropolitan, before a bench
of Bishops for my offences. And that I was not wrong in this supposition, is
shown by the fact, that the Bishop of Capetown did not correct my own
view of the matter, as expressed in my letters to him, copied below, and
that he still says, in the extract cited on p.39, from his Charge,—
1 He would not meet more than one [of the English Bishops], and then
not as if he were in any error, but only as a common seeker after truth.’
This language may be compared with the expressions of the Bishop of
Oxford—‘free discourse with some of us,’ ‘free brotherly converse,’ ‘loving
and unprejudiced discussion of differences.’
(i) As by submitting to be thus called to account by him, I should have
recognised indirectly the j urisdiction of the Metropolitan, I thought it my
duty to reply to the Bishop of Oxford and to the Bishop of Capetown,
as follows, Aug. 9, 1862
‘ To the Bishop of Oxford.
i I thank you most sincerely for your most kind and friendly letter. I
should be most happy to discuss any points in my Book on the Romans,
G
�82
APPENDIX.
either with yourself or any other brother Bishop, singly and privately ; though
I must confess that I do not anticipate much result from such a conference,
as the views which I have expressed in that book are, generally speaking,
not the result of a few years’ colonial experience, but have been long held
by me, have grown with my growth, and are, as I fully believe, quite com
patible with a conscientious adherence to the Articles and Formularies of
the Church of England. I do not think, however, that any good would
result from my meeting a number of Bishops together upon the subject, and,
therefore, would prefer declining your very kind invitation.
1 Under any circumstances, I am sure that you would be the last person to
wish me, for any personal reasons, to shrink from the confession of what I
believe to be the truth.’
To the Bishop of Capetown.
‘Just before your letter reached me, I had received one—a very kind one
—from the Bishop of Oxford, making a similar proposal. I should be most
haPPV t° meet any of my brother Bishops singly, and discuss with him any
portions of my Book on the Romans ; but for various reasons I do not think
it would be productive of any good result for me to meet a number of them
together, and I have written to that effect to the Bishop of Oxford.
‘ With respect to my other book ... it is quite true that I have been for
some time past deeply engaged in the study of the Pentateuch, and have
arrived at some startling results. I have had a portion of them privately
printed, for the express purpose of laying them before such of my friends in
England as would be most likely to be able to give me assistance and
advice in this matter, by possessing sufficient acquaintance with the subject,
and by being free from those strong prejudices, which would prevent their
discussing calmly and dispassionately with me the points in question. I
trust that I duly leverence both the Church and the Bible : but the Truth is
above both. I have already taken measures for submitting my views on
the Pentateuch to some of my friends, and shall be glad to do so privately
to any intelligent candid, and truth-seeking student. Among others, 1 had
thought of asking the Bishop of St. David’s to confer with me upon the subject.
But I am not prepared at present to propound my views prematurely to any
one.’
(ii) The Bishop of Capetown replied as follows, A
u
*g.
12, 1862 :—
‘I think you have not quite understood the object of my proposal. I
have been placed in great difficulties by the book [Commentary on the
Romans] you have published. People in England, and many of the Bishops
who have read it, are pained and shocked by it. They have thought, and
so have I, that the most Christian course was for those who were able to
do so, to meet you, and endeavour to convince you that you were in error.
1 If, by God’s blessing, they should succeed in this, it might lead to your
�APPENDIX.
83
withdrawing a book which so many think unsound, and render all other
jjroceedings unnecessary.
‘ I doubt much whether one Bishop would meet you (!), and I do hope that
you will not decline to meet any who wish to discuss the language used,
lovingly with you, as a Brother.’
As from the expression above italicised it was now plain to me that the
proposed proceedings, under the guise of a friendly conference, were really
intended to have a formal meaning, and to be, in fact, indirectly, an asser
tion of jurisdiction over me,—and as I did not believe that, in my Book
on the Romans, I had written anything which could warrant such a course
of conduct torvaids me, so that I must not so much as indulge the thought
that any Bishop of the Church of England would be willing to meet me
singly, in private, friendly, conference—I replied briefly, adhering to my
former resolution.
(iii) I now quote the Bishop of Capetown's answer, dated Aug. 20,1862 :
(I am very(gorry that you have come to the conclusion that you will not meet
the Bishops ; and I do earnestly hope that you will reconsider your decision.
‘ Just think what the position of this painful case is. You have pub
lished a work [on the Romans] which has distressed many, both in this
country and in Africa,—which has led some of your clergy to communicate
formally with me on the subject,—which, when examined, appears to me,
and the other Bishops of the Province, to contain teaching at variance with
that of the Church of which we are ministers, and which is, in consequence
referred by me to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and, through him, to cer
tain other Bishops for their opinion. These Bishops, without pretending to
sit in judgment upon the work, do, nevertheless, very generally [X.B°not
unanimously] concur in thinking that its teaching is extremely painful and
apparently not in accordance with that of the Church of England,—so much
so, indeed, that several of them have expressed themselves as unable, under
present circumstances, to admit you to officiate iu their dioceses. You may
be able, at an interview, to explain much that shocks the minds of others^-
or they may, if they should meet you, be able to convince you that yoJ
have expressed yourself unguardedly and unscripturally.
‘In the hope that by God's grace they might be able"to do this, men like
the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Oxford, the Bishop of Lincoln and
I doubt not, others too, would meet you, and endeavour to show you wheie
your error lies. If they should succeed, they would win a brother. If they
should fail, they would at least have used every effort to lead him back to
the truth, from which they believe him to have departed. Is not the course
proposed, of ‘ two or three ’ meeting you, the truly Christian and Scriptural
one ? And is it right to refuse to be a party to it ?
‘ The case is not an ordinary one. You cannot but be aware that you have
propounded views which are very startling—which you did not hold when
g
2
�84
APPENDIX.
you were consecrated—some of which have just been condemned by a legal
Court—and which it is impossible that the Church should silently acquiesce
in. It is not we who are the first to move in this matter. It is you that
have departed from your former standing-ground, and have been led to
adopt views, which l am sure you are far too honest to maintain are those of
the Church of England, and to propagate those views by your writings and
by word of mouth. As the guardians of the Church’s faith, we cannot but,
under such circumstances, plead with you.
‘ Forgive the freedom with which I write. There is, I believe, on
the part of the Bishops a very earnest desire to do what in them lies
to recover one who ... [I omit some complimentary expressions.]
I venture to hope that, if you are willing to meet the chief Pastors of
the Church at home in the same spirit in which they are prepared to
meet you, and to discuss with them those views which you have recently
adopted and propounded, good only would result from it. But I confess
that I do not see how they can consent to meet you, one by one, merely in a
private way, or treat the grave statements which you have made as open
questions. Many of these statements, however qualified by a different
language in other parts of your book, appear to all the Divines that I have
met with, who have studied your book, to be both unsound and dangerous.
You may be able to show them that you have been misunderstood, or you
may be led to qualify statements which we regard as rash and erroneous.
Do not lightly throw away the chance of setting yourselfbright, and settling
a matter of very great importance to yourself and to the Church.’
(iv) My reply to the above was as follows, dated August 27, 1862 :—
‘I received your last letter before I left Cornwall, but have delayed
replying that I might give its contents a due consideration. I thank you
most sincerely for the kind expressions which you have used towards myself
in it. I wish, indeed, that I were more worthy of them. But, as to the
main question, I am sorry to be obliged to say that I feel it due to myself,
and to my rightful position, to adhere to my resolution of declining to meet
a number of Bishops together in the way proposed.
‘I do so for the following reasons among others. I am so far from con
sidering that the views which I have expressed in my Commentary on the
Romans are contrary to the teaching of the Church of England, that—
as, indeed, I have already stated in the first letter which I addressed to you
from Natal in reply to yours, expressing your disapproval of my book,—I
entirely believe that what I have taught in that book I am permitted to
teach, within the liberty allowed me by the Articles and Prayer Book of
the Church of England, and with a conscientious adherence to the letter
and spirit of them. With, I think, two exceptions only, those views I held
as strongly, and preached them as plainly, when I was consecrated, as I do
now. On two points, I admit,—the Scripture doctrine of the Atonement,
�APPENDIX.
S5
and the subject of Eternal Punishment,—my mind has progressed with
advancing age, experience, enquiry, and meditation, to my present views.
But I have said nothing, as I believe, and as able and eminent divines assure
me, which can justly deserve the censures which some have passed upon my
book.
1 Of course, I am aware that the recent judgment of Dr. Ltjshington [in
“ Essays and Reviews ”] brings me under condemnation on certain points.
But you cannot surely believe that flat judgment will be maintained in the
Court of Appeal, when it obviously departs from the very principles which
the Judge himself laid down, and which the higher Court has laid down
in other cases. Mr. Grote’s pamphlet makes this abundantly plain. If,
however, it should be confirmed on these points, it will then be the dutv of
myself and a multitude of other clergymen, who have held and taught
views like my own, to decide on our future course.
‘Believing, then, that there is no real ground whatever for the opinion
that the views expressed in my Commentary on the Romans, however they
may differ from those of some of my episcopal brethren, ai’e in any way con
demned by the Articles and Formularies of the Church, and having already
entered into a full explanation on all those points, on which you expressed
objection to my teaching, in a letter which (I presume) has been laid before
the Bishops assembled to discuss my book, I feel that I should place myself
in a false position, if I should consent to be convened before a number of
Bishops in the way proposed, which would, in fact, amount to a recognition
of their right to interrogate me.
‘Nevertheless, as I have said, I shall be most glad to meet singly and
privately with any Bishop, who either from a sense of duty to the Church,
and to what he believes to be the truth, or from a feeling of charity to
wards a brother whom he wishes to “recover,” would be willing to meet
and discuss with me any of the questions raised in the Commentary. It
seems to me that this course will be most truly in accordance with the
Scriptural rule to which your letter refers.
‘ I was wholly unaware that Bishop Clavghton had joined in the con
demnation of my book, (though I knew that he did not agree with some of
my views), and certainly from his letters to myself I should never have
inferred it.
The only pain I feel is that of causing to yourself so much anxiety and
giief, in addition to your other vexations. But this God lays upon you
(and upon me also) in the'path of duty.’
(v) At the end of three weeks, I received this note from the Bishop of
Capetown, dated Sept. 17, 1862
‘ I think that I ought to tell you that the dear good old Bishop of St.
Asaph has expressed a readiness to discuss your views with you, if you
chose to visit him with a^view to that purpose, and that, although I have
�86
APPENDIX.
no commission from the Bishop of Oxford to say so, I cannot help feeling
that he would be ready to do the same. I cannot tell you how deeply I
grieve over the case.’
As the Bishop of Capetown must have discussed the whole matter with
the Bishop of Oxford, and ‘ had no commission from him ’ to say that he
would be -willing- to see me, of course the latter porti'on of the above note had
no meaning- for me under the existing- circumstances. For the Bishop of St.
Asaph I have the deepest esteem and respect, and, perhaps, I ought to have
gone to him for the purpose. But I was in London, he in Wales; and I
liaidly felt that, with a Prelate of his advanced years, a discussion upon my
Commentary would be likely to lead to any practical result, and I had no
leason to suppose that he had studied at all the criticism of the Penta
teuch. To the Bishop of St. David’s, whom I myself mentioned to Bishop
Gray, and whose learning might, indeed, have been profitably consulted
bv us, my proposal, as his Lordship has informed me, was never in any wav
communicated. 1 he fact was, as I believe, and as the above correspondence,
I think, will sufficiently evidence, that the Bishop of Capetown was
determined from the first to bring me to account, if possible, in some form
01 other, for my Book on the Romans,—which, though containing, as I
maintain, no single statement at variance with the Articles and Formu
laries, was yet very strongly condemned by himself and others, holding
extreme views in the Church on either side, both in England and in South
Africa. If I had consented to be thus ‘ convened,’ no doubt the act would
have been quoted, as my private letters have been, to show that I had
1 recognised’ the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan.
5. Letters from native converts, received by the Bishop
of
Natal
while in
England: p.5O.
From a native youth,
C)
1 Feb. 2, 1863.
(My Father,—I thank you very much for your reply to me about that
matter which I told you about [his marriage], and I too for my part wish
that you may come and settle that affair. Wre here are living verv happilv.
We rejoiced greatly at the arrival of Dulela [sent back from England]; she
arrived on J an. 6 : we asked of her the news about you, and she told us.
But we shall be very delighted when we see you all, through the mercy of our
God and Father. A little while ago I was sick for a time, Oct. 23,1862; and I
vent away home, but returned here ag-ain, Nov. 3, 1862. I began to print
the Gospel of Matthew, and finished it on Jan. 28, 1863. Now I am
printing the Gospel of Mark. Lingane is working upon the Book of Genesis;
and I think he works remarkably well. Llansi also is learning very well:
as far as I can see, I should say that he will learn well presently. But I
wish very much to hear when you will come back to us here; for we all
remember you exceedingly, longing that you may come immediately. I
�APPENDIX.
87
should like you to tell the Inkosikazi [Mrs. Colenso] that I am now
learning to play the harmonium; but I teach myself by myself; some tunes
too I am now able to play well when we worship. Also the Inkosikazi
[Mrs. Grubb] said to me that she would like me to help her in teaching
other people of an evening; so I teach them, Umpiwa there, and Simoi,
and Henry, another man of Mr. Robertson the teacher in Zululand. Again,
I have heard that now Umpiwa wishes to be admitted into the Church of
the Lord, and be baptized. I rejoiced very much at that. Salute for me,
&c.; all of ours here salute you very much. But all blessing and glad
ness are in the hands of God our Father, who is Almighty, of His great
mercy, to protect us well and all our brethren.’
i March 20, 1863.
Father,—I wish now to write to you about how we are going on at
Ekukanveni. I wish also to hear how you are going on in England. We
are all well: but I am just now in great trouble, because Llansi is going
away. I do not all complain of his being sent away : I am only very sorry
for it: for I see that I shall be without any one to help me, since Lingane
wishes also soon to go. But I have spoken with the Archdeacon, and
asked him to send for Mankentyane. The Archdeacon consented, and I
hope that M. will help nicely in what I want: besides I know that he is
much more expert than either Lingane or Llansi. But, as for Llansi, I did
hope that he would have helped me, and that I should have taught him
thoroughly according to your word: now, however, I am quite grieved at
the sad story of his going away. [Llansi had not committed any very
serious offence: but he was in fault, and it was thought most prudent to
send him away from the station, and he was then employed by a printer in
town.] We are very glad to hear of your welfare at this time; and we
trust that God will grant us through His mercy to see you again.
Glut, my father, about the matter of the gun, which I wished to buy, now
I see that I don’t much need it. I wish to leave it, and not to buy it now.
I don’t say that I leave it, because I see something else which I desire : I
wish to leave it simply because I don’t particularly want it. What I wish
now is to lobola [deposit cows for a girl whom he wishes to marry] a
little. Not that I want to marry immediately—I remember your advice to
“ wait till I am older.” I quite agree to this : I only wish to begin by de
grees. Therefore I should like you to tell ------ that I wish to use this
money of the gun for this purpose, since this affair is to be settled by you
as that of the gun was ; and, though I still wish for this gun, I wish also to
restrain my heart with respect to it, lest, perhaps, I should injure any one
with it.
‘ Salute for me Inkosikazi and all the children. Tell them that I shall
greatly rejoice to see them again through the mercy of our Father.’
(ii)
i My
�88
APPENDIX.
J-111)
_
‘April 29, 1863.
‘ My Lord, I rejoiced exceedingly to-day because we heard of your life
and your work there in England; for there arrived that letter of yours
which you sent to William, and we heard it all clearly ; it rejoiced us ex
ceedingly. . . . But one thing will gladden us especially ; we shall joy when
we see you heie again in Natal, since we have been looking for you exceed
ingly- • . . I am now at work with Mankentyane and Fani ; Lingane went
away a few days after Llansi’s departure ; but presently these two arrived.
They help me capitally. I am now in the middle of Luke: Mankentyane
has printed Genesis: Fani is stitching Prayer-books. This is how we are
working here. ... A few weeks past Undiane made a call, coming to ask
the Aichdeacon [Grubb] for a book, “ First Lessons in Science ” : I fancy
the Archdeacon gave him one. . , .’
The above three letters are translated literally from the original, written
in Zulu. I give now three letters in English from the same lad, verbatim
and literatim (the spelling not altered) as he wrote them. The reader
will judge whether there are signs here of any ‘progress,’ and any solid re
sult of my labours, observing that these letters indicate the present state of
things during my absence from the Colony, and that this lad was a little
naked savage when I first took him from the kraal. If a well-educated
Englishman finds it so difficult to write grammatical Zulu, how much more
difficult must it be for a native to write English !—when he has first to be
taught the very elements of grammar, and that by a teacher who can
scarcely explain his own meaning in the native tongue, and often knows
but little about grammar himself, or knows only the grammar of the English
tongue, which differs totally from that of the Zulu.
(iy)
‘Ekukanyeni, June 29, 1863.
‘ My dear Lord,—I have no time now to write all what I wish to say to
you, but I am very glad to see you writing, for I like very much to write
every word in English tongue, but I can’t do that, for I know not all the
sorts of English word.
‘ At this time I am very glad to my work, I have only Fani who help
me in the place of Mankentyane and Lingane. When Mankentyane was
just came here, he was with us only one month and half, when he hears
that the sickness of small pox will be at Natal he gone away, he left Fani
in his place, but I hope that Lingane will come to me if Fani go home.
‘ Jojo says that I better write and tell you that he is not at Ekukanyeni
now, he saw that his wife is very ill, and go to his friend to help him by
giving him. (Jojo) medicines to give his wife for she was very ill. But he
says that I tell you that he is not go away at Ekukanyeni, he only stay
for a few months for he fears that his wife will be ill again. He has a
child, her name is Unoziduli, I hope that she will grow very well by the
might of God. Jojo and his wife Nomvuzo says that I may salute you for
�APPENDIX.
89
them and Inkosikazi [and the children], as they hope that they will see
them again by the power of our Father.
‘ But, my Lord, the thing which I want to know about it, is this that I
want to know that, if I done all the copies of the book of New Testament,
what shall I do ? I say that for I don’t like to go away to some body, I
don’t like to leave Ekukanyeni. I say that for I see now I will done them
at April or May, 1864, I don’t know yet, only thinking. I want to know
if you will send some copies for me, for I want to work very much now I
am very oblige [desirous] to work my printing books in the printing-office.
‘ All the people salute you, my Lord, every person which know you salute
you. I hope to see you again, if God wills. Salute Inkosikazi for me,
please, and ask her that [whether] she will glad if I many? I think that
I will many for [in] few months, but I have no enough cows to give the
father of intombi yami [my girl]. Tell Inkosikazi that, if I marry, I will
ask something for my wife, for she is my mother indeed, and the intombi
says that I may salute for her to Inkosikazi her mother.
Salute Inkosikazi and children for me, tell them that I will write for them
all in next steamer. If God wills that we see you, we shall be glad.’
(v)
‘ Aug. 23, 1863.
‘ My dear Lord,—I am very glad this day that you send me this letter,
my heart is so fully rejoice to see it. At this time I know that you will
come back to us again, for if I take this your letter and look at it, I see
this to be sure that you wish for yourself to come again at Natal. ... I
have heard that Ngoza [a chief] want to bring here his boys. Now I am
only [alone] in the printing-office. Fani has go home at the end of last
July, and he left me alone, but though he is gone I am working comfortable,
and need nothing. I just print only [alone] like my doing when you was
here. You know that at that time I was only [alone] in the printingoffice. If God helps me I will do all that you told me to do. Now I
leave the New Testament, I want to [have] done the Book of Genesis be
fore [first]; when I done it, I shall go on the New Testament, and when
I done it, I will go on Exodus.
‘Salute Inkosikazi. . . . for me, and tell them that I will be very glad to
hear about them all right. All people who know you say ‘ Good bye.’ I
can’t count them for they are so many. If God of peace and love might
send our friends back to us, as it pleased Him, we shall be glad and rejoice,
through Christ Jesus, who is our Lord and Savior. Good by to every one.
I am your faithful servant.’
(V1)
‘ Bishopstowe [Ekukanyeni] : March 27, 1864.
‘ My dear Lord and Father,—I want to hear of your coming very much
at this time, for I heard not about your matter in England, only I know
that you shall come back again as you told me in last month’s, but I don't
�90
APPENDIX.
know which time you will be here. But, my Lord, my work in thislast month
goes very slowly, for I sent my proof to------ but he keep it for a long
time, and then I thought in my mind, I said, “it is better that (am do)=
[I do] for myself the jjroves which I printed,” and then I begin to print
Exodus, for
got my proof of the book of New Testament; but I
think to take that proof also to him, for it is right to me to do all which
is my business and finish it. For I can do the proves for myself, if there is
no man to take them. . . . But for myself I shall thank God if I see you
here in Natal again. But all our doings are in the hands of God our
Heavenly Father, to send our friends here again, that we may see one
another by God’s seeing [providence] and love. That is all now. I shall
be veiy glad to hear of your coming to us again. For we live here like as
children who have not their father and mother.
‘ This is the two sheets of the beginning of Exodus, which I had done
for myself, and try to do right, all the words, that they may [be] without
mistakes, as I try to do so.’
[In these two sheets, corrected by himself, there was only me small
printer’s error.]
The following is a literal translation of a letter, which I received from the
same youth by the last mail, reporting the proceedings of the Bishop of
Capetown, when he paid a visit to my residence.
(v^)
1 Ekukanyeni: May 29, 1864.
My Lord, I rejoiced greatly to hear your letter which you sent to
M illiam. I wish much that you would write to me also, that I may hear
clearly whether these people are speaking the truth, or no, about you. The
other day, May 10, there came the Bishop of Capetown along with Mr.
Robertson : they reached Ekukanyeni both together. And so Mr. Robert
son called William, saying he wished to see him. They came in both
together into the printing-office, and looked at my work. Afterwards we
went out together with them in the afternoon; and we talked with Mr.
Robertson, and asked “Where is the Bishop [of Capetown] going to?”
Said he, “Aha! that Bishop has come to put all things properly. For
Sobantu [the native name for the Bishop of Natal] has gone astray greatly;
I don t suppose that he will ever come back here.” Again he said, f<The
Bishop has come to tell the people to abandon the teaching of Sobantu;
for Sobantu has gone astray exceedingly; he has rebelled; he does not
believe in God our Father, and in Jesus Christ our Lord.” William and
I, however, contradicted, saying, “ As to Sobantu, we know that he, for
his part, is a man who believes exceedingly. When has that [which you
speak of] come upon him?” Said he, “When he was in England he
rebelled ; his book, too, speaks badly.”
11 wish, now, to hear plainly whether, indeed, they have spoken truth or
not, Mr. Robertson and others, to-wit, that you no longer believe. But I
�APPENDIX.
91
know that there is not a word of truth in what they say. Just the one
thing is, that we believe in God our Father, who knows everything.
‘As to my work, it is going on very well indeed. I should say that in
about another month I shall have finished this Book of Exodus which I am
now printing. But I have only a part of it here : I don’t know where the
rest of it is. I have here Ch. i-xxix. I don’t know anything about the
rest. LI did not translate the description of the details of the tabernacle, &c.].
After that I shall print the New Testament, beginning there at Luke [where
he had left off], and the others, until I have finished all that book of the
Histories, and the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul’s writings, and so on with
the others. After that I shall print the Book of Samuel ; when I have
finished that, there will be an end of the work which you set out for me.
But that will take some little time before I have finished those Books,
because I am working all alone. For my part I ask very much for monev,
that I may have a boy to help me, that I may work well.
‘Salute for me, &c.’
The following are literal translations of letters received from native
catechists, and will serve to show the tone of thought which I have en
deavoured to cherish among them, down to the last hour of my residence
in Natal.
(viii) ‘ 0 Nkosi [Sir] do you remember us here ? 0 Nkosi, I trust indeed
that v ou do 1 emember us. Ah I but, Nkosi, I am grieved because no tiding's
come to say when you will return. Bo not delay, Nkosi, lest it should seem
that you have gone away altogether. But, Nkosi, know this that there is a
longing, I cannot say how great, for you, ever since you went away. In
truth, there is a painful sense of desolation at your departure.
‘ Well, Nkosi, your people are living comfortably at present; but they are
looking for your return. It seems as if, when you shall have come, what
has now come short will be made to meet, what has bent down will be lifted
up, what is unfinished will be completed, yes, and what is sleeping by the
way will arrive.
But, Nkosi, as to the people in Maritzburg,—I mean, those who worship
in oui chapel [whom he taught],—they are doing well at all times; their
business goes steadily forward continually. There are also some of them
who are particularly attentive. There are five, too, who wish to be baptized.
But among those who wish to be baptized, one is very ill indeed in his
lungs.
‘ I salute all those of your house, yourself, and the Inkosikazi, and the boys
and the young ladies. All of my house salute; they look for your return;
and I, too, am looking for a word to say, “ I will return at such and such a
time.” ’
(ix) . . . Again, Nkosi, I hoped very much that, as soon as you reached
England, you would send a man at once, coming from you, to help me in
�92
APPENDIX.
Maritzburg, according to what we planned. And even now, Nkosi, if you
send him, I should be very glad.
Fuither, Nkosi, know that we all here desire to hear your word, that you
should send it among your people, and they may hear it, and rejoice at it.
By that they will think that you still remember them, and will rejoice at it,
just as that Paul did, you know, to his people. [The writer greatly admired
that Paul ; but he said that his epistles always made his headache,”
while helping me to translate them.] For there are many who worry us,
saying, 11 Sobantu will not return again ”; others say, “Sobantu—he is now
turned out”; others say, “ Sobantu—he is no longer a Bishop; he is no
longer a minister; he is just nobody. . . .”
1 Nkosi, farewell! May God, whom you serve, deal with you as He sees
good,—help you with His glorious might in all which you are doing,—be a
Father to you, and you be a child to Him, in the name of Jesus Christ our
Lord, who gives to us all! Amen.
‘'As to us here, we are living happily; but the one thing that we are
looking for is your coming. That is the one great thing above all others.
Farewell, my Lord.’
‘ Jan. 28, 1864.
(x) 1 May it please you, Nkosi, to answer a little to this which I am saying.
You know, however, that I would not urge you about answering if it cannot
be done. I desire to ask, “ When will you at length return ? Can you not
promise a little ? ” For you must know, Nkosi, from the time you went
away, people are talking continually, saying, “ Sobantu will never come
back.” But we, your flock, are looking for you with red [straining] eyes all
the days,—I say, all the months,—I say, all the years—of our life; we are
looking for your return, Nkosi Sobantu. However, Nkosi, supposing that
you will not return, say so, or supposing that you will return, say so, a
little. But Nkosi, do not think that I shall be satisfied to write to you
merely. No ! I don’t desire that at all. For the one thing, which I look
for more than anything else, is your coming—that alone, Nkosi. For, as to
this your departure, in you is the very sole excellence of our work, as to
which we had looked continually that it should go on and prosper,—I mean,
of course, the excellent great work, which is through our Lord Jesus
Christ.
So it is, Nkosi Sobantu., beloved by the baud of faith! I have no wish to
be [merely] writing to you continually. For I look for one thing, to be
brought about through the name of the Living God, which is looked for by
all the believers of ours—I mean, your return. For, Nkosi, it seems to me
that, if your return shall only be heard of as certain, it would be as if the
rain came, as if the sun shone, as if an eclipse happened, as if the earth were
overturned, as if the rivers had run dry, as if the sea had stilled its roaring,
as if all winds had ceased to blow, as if all were fair, as if all were clear-.
Foi, suiely, it is plain that it is right that one, who is a Bishop, should be
�APPENDIX.
93
here in the land; since he works for men, because that is his office, to
manage men. For some, truly, are trusted with the management of men :
others are trusted with the collecting of money. There are offices and
offices established in the workings of men. Farewell, my Lord ! I am still
alive, and I am one of yours at Ekukanyeni.’
This is the last letter of the same catechist, just arrived, which will show
the kind of work which the Bishop of Capetown has thought it right to
do among my poor native flock. Quid non relligio potuit!
1 Mav 29, 1864.
(xi) 11 have received your letter, Nkosi; I am very thankful for it. I
rejoice also because I find that you are well, both in body and soul. For
indeed, so it is, upon my word, that there is a great noise among all people
about you : some say, 11 Sobantu has rebelled ”; others say, u Sobantu goes
astray ” : ’tis so continually with them all.
‘But, Nkosi, see! do, I entreat, make a guess, and promise about your
return. For, you know, Nkosi, to expect and wait for you is but a short
matter: but, according to their talk, you will never more return at all.
‘Also the other day there arrived the Bishop of Capetown ; he just came
to have a look at Ekukanyeni, accompanied by Mr. Robertson. They went
also to the place of worship [St. Mary’s Native Chapel] in town, going to see
the people. We asked about Sobantu. But Mr. Robertson [by the Bishop’s
direction, of course, the latter not speaking Zulu] made a long discourse to
all the people : he said, “ Sobantu will never again come back : Sobantu
has rebelled entirely, he has gone astray. His going astray we white people
don’t wonder at; for it has been always so among the white people; there
are always arising people such as he.’’ Whereupon I asked, and said to
Mr. Robertson, “ What then ? do not you know Sobantu, that he is a
man who believes entirely in God?” He assented. Then said I, “Well
then, when did he begin to rebel, when he was in England, or here ? ” Said
he, “At the time he left this country, he had already begun to rebel; but,
when he arrived in England, be rebelled altogether.” I contradicted. But,
Nkosi, there was more which I cannot possibly write, the whole of it. ... .
‘Nkosi, I salute you very much. I remember you every day; I don’t
forget you for one single day. But to see a letter coming from you is quite
as if I were dreaming. Salute for me kindly to the Inkosikazi, salute for
me to the young ladies, salute for me to the boys, salute all those who love
us together with you. Oui’ Father, who is over all, preserve you, deliver
you from all, grant you that the wealth of the Holy Spirit may abound to
you.’
Here, lastly, is a note from another native catechist, who has been equally
disturbed by Bishop Gray’s proceedings.
(xii) ‘ My Lord,—It was pleasant to hear your words: for we were in a
�94
APPENDIX.
state of great excitement, not knowing what is the real state of the case. I
also said about you, Nkosi, it cannot possibly be true for us: for you had come
to bring light among those in darkness. I say, your doing was not like a
white-man ; it was like the words which say, 11 He sends forth His sun upon
evil and upon good,”—the way by which you came among us continually.
But before God our Father we may be comforted about you until we see
your face. . . . The sea is a great thing ; because, although we love you so
much, we cannot see you. Salute, &c.’
I venture to believe that the above letters give evidence of a solid and
permanent work, wrought by God’s grace, in preparing these natives for
future usefulness among their people. Their intellectual powers have been
cultivated, as well as their hearts : they have been taught to think about
religion, and not merely crammed with dogmatic formulae, although, in such
exercise of their reasoning powers, they have compelled me to give close
attention to difficulties, which in English teaching are too commonly passed
over or altogether ignored. But the reader will perceive that a tone of true
Christian feeling—of simple healthy piety—characterizes all these letters;
and the steady industry of the young printer, amidst all his difficulties and
discouragements, is to me most refreshing and hopeful, as a sign of real
‘ progress. ’
6. Proposed alteration of the Supreme Court of Appeal :
p.63.
The Bishop of Capetown says of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council, Charge, p.12:—‘ The Judgment, which it has just given, in oppo
sition to the Archbishops and the voice of Convocation, has convulsed the
Church of England, and is forcing her to repudiate its decision, and to
demand an alteration in the Court of Appeal
*
* The Bishop also says, Charge, p.12:—‘Is not the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council the final Court of Appeal for the Church of England ? In certain
cases it is so, with the presence of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and
the Bishop of London. For the last thirty years, by a mere oversight, as Lord
Brougham has stated publicly in the House of Lords, it has been so.’ It must,
have been, however, a happy oversight, even in the opinion of Lord Brougham, if
the following statement of Dr. Manning is correct, Letter, &e., p.7: ‘The late
Bishop Blomfiekd introduced into Parliament a Bill to amend the Appellate
Jurisdiction of the Crown in matters of Doctrine. By that Bill it was provided
that in all such questions the matter of Doctrine should be divided from the matter
of Law, and that the Doctrine should be adjudged by the Bishops, the Law by the
Judges of the Privy Council. . . . Lord Brougham spoke against the Bill. He
said, with plain English common sense, that the Bishops would constitute no
sufficient tribunal for questions of controverted Doctrine, because they might divide
in equal numbers, and give, therefore, no decision, or by a bare majority, which
�APPENDIX.
95
There is certainly & party in the Church which ‘demands’ such an altera
tion, and in no very mild terms. Thus Dr. Plsey writes in his recent
manifesto,, p. 18:—'■ Will the Church of England require that the Court,
which has shown itself so partial, so dishonest,—which, had it been a
matter of human property, would not have dared so openly to profane
justice,—should be reformed?’ But the following are the views of the
Bishop (Waldegrave) of Carlisle on this question, Charge, p.48 :—
1 A third party have—without avowing the purpose, though I can hardly
think without contemplating the result—availed themselves of the present
season of disquiet, for advocating a modification of the constitution of the
Court of Appeal, which would certainly issue, and that at no distant date,
in the dis-establishment—and, be it well remembered, in the dis-endow
ment also—of our National Church............. This would be nothing less than
to supersede the teaching of our written formularies, unmoved as they ever
are and must be by the tempests of party and passion, by the opinion of
living men, who cannot but be liable to be swayed by all the tumultuous gusts
of the fleeting hour. Would our Laity, think you, for one moment tolerate
the existence of such a tribunal ? . . . I, for one, can have no sympathy
with men, who had rather that all things should be brought to a standstill,
than that any the least alteration should be made which does not fully and
exactly tally with the day-dreams of their own ambitious imaginations.
And such men there still are at work amongst us. They were, until recently,
regarded with a just and an universal suspicion, as animated by that spirit of
sacerdotal absolutism, which, more than two centuries ago, involved our
Church and Kingdom in a common overthrow. The notable zeal with
which, all the while retaining a cordial dislike to the distinguishing
doctrines of the Reformation, they have thrown themselves into the antirationalistic movement, has caused too many to condone their errors, and
thus given them the opportunity, of which they have been by no means
backward to avail themselves, of silently urging onward their cherished
scheme of un-protestantizing the National Church. Of this scheme it is
difficult not to believe that this plan of ecclesiastical-law-reform is an inte
gral portion.’
Among those, who are most violent in ‘ demanding ’ this reform, is
the Ven. Archdeacon Denison, one who signed the famous Anglican
‘ Declaration,’ with reference to the ‘ Gorham Judgment,’ in common with
Dr. Ptjsey, Dr. Newman, Dr. Manning, and nine others, of whom, says Dr.
Manning,
to an Anglican Friend, p.l, ‘six afterwards submitted to
would carry no moral conviction to any one, or the majority, however great, would
not tell by number against a minority, in which were found the few of known
learning and influence, with whom public opinion would certainly go. The end of
the Bill might have been foreseen. It was rejected with an overwhelming rejection,
not only of opposition, but of arguments.’
�96
APPENDIX.
the Catholic [Boman] Church, four are no more, and five are still Angli
cans.’ By the ‘ Declaration ’ it was affirmed, that, if the Church of England
acquiesced in the Gorham Judgment, ‘by such conscious, wilful, and
deliberate act’ it would ‘become formally separated from the Catholic
Body, and could no longer assure to its members the Grace of the Sacraments
and the Demission of Sins.’ The Church of England has acquiesced in
that judgment: but both Dr. Pvsey and Archdeacon Denison still remain
as clergymen of the Church of England. It is to Archdeacon Denison,
however, that the Bishop of Capetown has applied, for six additional
clergy to be planted in my diocese : so at least I infer from a letter in the
Guardian of Aug.31, bearing, as signature, the motto of the Archdeacon’s
journal (Church and State Review), ‘ Pro Ecclesia Dei.’ At any rate, it
is plain that it is intended to take advantage of my absence, to force upon
my diocese, if possible, a number of clergy holding ‘extreme views of
Church and State,’ such as those which are held by Archdeacon Denison
and Dr. Prsey, as well as by Bishop Gray and the Natal correspondent of
the Guardian.
With reference to this point, I think it right to say that, it is my purpose,
with the Divine assistance, on my return to my diocese, both to maintain
inviolate, as far as shall lie in my power, all rights, spiritual or temporal,
belonging to me as its Bishop, and, at the same time, to consult for its
religious peace and quietness, by overlooking, wherever possible, all offences
against its ecclesiastical order, which may have been committed during my
absence. These offences have mainly arisen from the intrusion of another
Bishop into the affairs of my diocese.
The Bishop of Capetown, however, has no more authority over my
diocese, than I have over his, except so far as it shall have been lawfully
given him by the Crown, of which the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty’s
Privy Council will be the judges. Accordingly, his appointment of clergy
to minister in the diocese of Natal would, if illegal, give them no mission :
in pretending to give it, he would be the author of a Schism: his own clergy,
who might affect to support him, and any Society at home, which should
furnish stipends to persons so nominated, and exercising their functions
without my Licence, would be its abettors.
In many periods of ecclesiastical history we meet with examples of
Bishops charging each other with heresy, and defying each other with
mutual excommunications. I shall endeavour always to avoid following the
example of this unseemly kind of warfare. But I feel called upon to
caution some, who might, perhaps, otherwise be led away, against abetting
proceedings ecclesiastically irregular and schismatical,—politically seditious,
—injurious to the cause of religion and to the progress of Christianity,—
and hurtful individually to the religious life of all who promote them.
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., PRINTERS, NEW-STREET SQUARE, LONDON.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<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
Remarks upon the recent proceedings and charge of Robert Lord Bishop of Cape Town and Metropolitan at his primary metropolitan visitation of the diocese of Natal
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Colenso, John William [1814-1883]
Gray, Robert [Bishop of Cape Town]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: [4], 96 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Appendix 1: extracts from the Bishop of Natal's Books. 2: Opinions of Various Writers in the Church of England Respecting the Authorship of the Pentateuch. 3: Extracts from the Fathers and Others, Shewing their Views as to the Limitation of our Lord's Knowledge as the Son of Man. 4: Correspondence of the Bishop of Natal with the Bishop of Capetown. 5: Letters from Native Converts, received by the Bishop of Natal while in England. 6: Proposed Alteration of the Supreme Court of Appeal. Printed by Spottiswoode and Co., New Street Square, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1864
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5199
Subject
The topic of the resource
Heresy
Trials
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 (Remarks upon the recent proceedings and charge of Robert Lord Bishop of Cape Town and Metropolitan at his primary metropolitan visitation of the diocese of Natal), 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
Bible. O.T. Pentateuch
Robert Gray
Trials (Heresy)
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b939ad5e22d1ad14fa8c063033de056e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=nGDgChrcNfQrYEoNDXGwTgFmh5TZRidhW6lCH4wmZVJrs7O4QEVbT19z0v1tVjGVAdQomtq4ybzlSyi5BGIb80OTyGizq89LhkvZV6CUPYdmn%7EuWlAMhwZHdObpCz9i1pPO%7EMPU1tISNjE7lO0Jkr0wOPhrk-Mht-Ihfl4yLh0PL9twhraxGbssWEJGs5FPCLmBBbAyjA0biaS9dtFkuzCoNab8vt7ro11u%7Et6Td6O6ME7r4-v-oSscROjo%7Ez7WaUCGZhWVbor4s8DXxwoN5UKrlLZ1yHE45ps5B3kkitj3V2gO9iVQveYZqYU2gnTkYHYZAYaYlXIp1ojuod05u9w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
215241710e3c97bca3620495c3cb3060
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
of
BY
Robert G. Ingersoll.
THE DESTROYER OE WEEDS, THISTLES AND THORNS, IS A BENEFACTOR
WHETHER HE SOWETH GRAIN OR NOT
----------- 4----------The only Complete Edition published in England.
Reprinted Verbatim from Colonel Ingersoll's authorised American edition
WITH
AN
INTRODUCTION
By G. W. FOOTE.
---------4--------
LONDON:
THE PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY
28 Stonecutter Street.
1885.
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY RAilSEY AND FOOTE,
AT STONECUTTER STREET, E.O.
�CONTENTS.
CHAPTER.
I. Some Mistakes of Moses
...
...
•••
t
II. Free Schools ...
...
...
•••
••
III. The Politicians.............................................................
IV. Man and Woman
...
...
•••
•••
V. The Pentateuch...
...
...
...
•••
VI. Monday............................................................
VII. Tuesday........................................................................
VIII. Wednesday
...
...
•••
•••
•••
•••
IX. Thursday
.............................................................
X. “ He made the Stars also ”
XI. Friday.........................................................................
XII. Saturday
...
...
•••
•••
•••
XIII. “ Let Us Make Man ”................................................ ••
XIV. Sunday.........................................................................
XV. The Necessity for a Good Memory ...
...
••
XVI. The Garden
...........................................................
XVII. The Fall
............................................................
XVIII. Dampness
...
...
...
•••
•••
•••
XIX. Bacchus andBabel ...
...
•••
•••
•••
XX. Faith in Filth.............................................................
XXI. The Hebrews.............................................................
XXII. The Plagues .............................................................
XXIII. The Flight
.............................................................
XXIV. Confess and Avoid
...
...
• ••
XXV. “ Inspired ” Slavery ..............
•••
•••
••
XXVI. “Inspired’’Marriage.................................................
XXVII. “ Inspired ” War
..................................................
XXVIII. “ Inspired ” Religious Liberty
...........................
XXIX Conclusion
...........................
PAGE.
9
16
18
20
25
30
34
33
38
43
44
43
48
52
56
62
66
71
87
90
93
97
107
123
125
127
128
129
I32
�EDITOR’S PREFACE.
This edition of Ingersoll’s “ Mistakes of Moses ” is the only
complete one published on this side of the Atlantic. It is
reprinted verbatim from the author’s American edition.
The Bijou edition, published by Mr. Larner Sugden, at
Leek, avowedly omits large portions of the work, which the
editor considered uninteresting or unnecessary, or which,
perhaps, he found too much for the size of his volume.
Ingersoll’s admirers can hardly consider this amputation
just. If his work is published at all it should be published
as he wrote it; and this is what is now done.
There is also a lecture on the “ Mistakes of Moses ” pub
lished in England. It is, however, very different from the
present work, and less than a quarter of the size.
An addendum to the author’s edition of this work contains
the beautiful and touching speech he delivered at his
brother’s grave. This has been omitted. It has no con
nexion with the “ Mistakes of Moses,” and it has already
been published in England.
This being a reprint of the author’s volume, and not
a reproduction from the newspapers, the publishers will
remit Colonel Ingersoll a fair share of any profits;
although they are not strictly obliged to do so, as
the gallant author belongs to a nation which resolutely
declines to enact an international copyright with England.
Colonel Ingersoll is less a writer than an orator. The
methods of the platform and of the press are diverse, and
few men employ both with equal brilliancy. Yet the
“ Mistakes of Moses ” would attract and deserve attention
though its author were not a great popular speaker, and its
�Editor s Preface.
V.
merits would excite more admiration if they were not over
shadowed by his eloquence. This volume contains some
searching analysis of the science of the Pentateuch, if we
may dignify its blunders with such a name ; plenty of witty
banter of its absurdities ; and a powerful impeachment of
its barbarous ethics. The last portion is particularly good.
Humorous as Colonel Ingersoll is, he is never more admirable
and effective than when he is arraigning the brutalities of
religion at the bar of Humanity.
The author of “ Mistakes of Moses ” is not a scholar.
But he is more; he is a man of feeling, and a man of ideas.
His play of mind is stimulating, and his geniality is like a
breath of sea-air in summer. - He does not dwell among
books like a bug or a beetle, or devour them like a worm ;
but he visits them for nourishment, and his lusty nature, in
the liberal air of the world, turns it into healthy blood, with
which he thinks, feels and acts like an heroic man. The
touchstone of such a nature, so fortified, is better than all
the tests of scholarship. It is a vital criterion, like that
applied to substances by the roots and leaves of plants and
the stomach and lungs of animals. Ingersoll’s method is
not the archgeologist’s, the antiquary’s, or the professor’s;
it is that recommended by Walt Whitman in one of the
finest passages of his introduction to the Leaves of Grass—
“ dismiss whatever insults your own soul.” Those who
follow that rule are the salt of the earth ; and Ingersoll not
only follows it, but flames it over a continent.
July, 1885.
G. W. Foote.
�PREFA CE.
For many years I have regarded the Pentateuch simply
as a record of a barbarous people, in which are found
a great number of the ceremonies of savagery, many
absurd and unjust laws, and thousands of ideas incon
sistent with known and demonstrated facts. To me it
seemed almost a crime to teach that this record was
written by inspired men ; that slavery, polygamy, wars
of conquest and extermination were right, and that
there was a time when men could win the approbation
of infinite Intelligence, Justice and Mercy, by violating
maidens and by butchering babes. To me it seemed
more reasonable that savage men had made these laws ;
and I endeavored in a lecture, entitled, “ Some Mis
takes of Moses,” to point out some of the errors, con
tradictions, and impossibilities contained in the Penta
teuch. The lecture was never written, and consequently
never delivered twice the same. On several occasions
it was reported and published without consent, and
without revision. All these publications were grossly
and glaringly incorrect. As published, they have been
answered several hundred times, and many of the
clergy are still engaged in the great work. To keep
these reverend gentlemen from wasting their talents
on the mistakes of reporters and printers, I concluded
to publish the principal points in all my lectures on
this subject. And here it may be proper for me to say
that arguments cannot be answered by personal abuse ;
that there is no logic in slander, and that falsehood, in
the long run, defeats itself. People who love their
enemies should, at least, tell the truth about their
friends. Should it turn out that I am the worst man
in the whole world, the story of the flood will remain
�Preface.
vii.-
just as improbable as before, and the contradictions of
the Pentateuch will still demand an explanation.
There was a time when a falsehood, fulminated from
the pulpit, smote like a sword ; but, the supply having
greatly exceeded the demand, clerical misrepresentation
has at last become almost an innocent amusement.
Remembering that only a few years ago men, women,
and even children were imprisoned, tortured and
burned for having expressed, in an exceedingly mild
and gentle way, the ideas entertained by me, I congra
tulate myself that calumny is now the pulpit’s last re
sort. The old instruments of torture are kept only to
gratify curiosity ; the chains are rusting away, and the
demolition of time has allowed even the dungeons of
the Inquisition to be visited by light. The Church,
impotent and malicious, regrets, not the abuse, but the
loss of her power, and seeks to hold by falsehood what
she gained by cruelty and force, by fire and fear. Chris
tianity cannot live in peace with any other form of
faith. If that religion be true, there is but one savior,
one inspired book, and but one little narrow grassgrown path that leads to heaven. Such a religion is
necessarily uncompromising, unreasoning, aggressive
and insolent. Christianity has held all other creeds
and forms in infinite contempt, divided the world into
enemies and friends, and verified the awful declara
tion of its founder—a declaration that wet with blood
the sword he came to bring, and made the horizon of a
thousand years lurid with the fagots’ flames.
Too great praise challenges attention, and often
brings to light a thousand faults that otherwise the
general eye would never see. Were we allowed to read
the Bible as we do all other books, we would admire
its beauties, treasure its worthy thoughts, and account
for all its absurd, grotesque and cruel things, by saying
that its authors lived in rude, barbaric times. But we
are told that it was written by inspired men ; that it
contains the will of God ; that it is perfect, pure and
true in all its parts ; the source and standard of all
moral and religious truth ; that it is the star and an
chor of all human hope ; the only guide for man, the
only torch in Nature’s night. These claims are so at
�viii.
Preface.
variance with every known recorded fact, so palpably
absurd, that every free, unbiased soul is forced to raise
the standard of revolt.
We read the Pagan sacred books with profit and de
light. With myth and fable we are ever charmed, and
find a pleasure in the endless repetition of the beautiful,
poetic and absurd. We find, in all these records of the
past, philosophies and dreams, and efforts stained with
tears of great and tender souls, who tried to pierce the
mystery of life and death, to answer the eternal ques
tions of the Whence and Whither, and vainly sought
to make, with bits of shattered glass, a mirror that
would, in very truth, reflect the face and form of
Nature’s perfect self.
These myths were born of hopes, and fears, and
tears, and smiles, and they were touched and colored
by all there is of joy and grief between the rosy dawn
of birth and death’s sad night. They clothed even the
stars with passion, and gave to gods the faults and
frailties of the sons of men. In them the winds and
waves were music, and all the lakes, and streams, and
springs, the mountains, woods and perfumed dells
were haunted by a thousand fairy forms.
They
thrilled the veins of Spring with tremulous desire ;
made tawny Summer’s billowed breast the throne and
home of love ; filled Autumn’s arms with sun-kissed
grapes, and gathered sheaves ; and pictured Winter as
a weak old king, who felt, like Lear upon his withered
face, Cordelia’s tears. These myths, though false, are
beautiful, and have for many ages and in countless
ways enriched the heart and kindled the thought. But
if the world were taught that all these things are true
and all inspired of God, and that eternal punishment
will be the lot of him who dares deny or doubt, the
sweetest myth of all the Fable World would lose its
beauty, and become a scorned and hateful thing to
every brave and thoughtful man.
Robert G. Ingersoll.
Washington, D.C., Oct. 7 th, 1879.
�Some Mistakes
of
Moses.
HE WHO ENDEAVORS TO CONTROL THE MIND BY EORCE
IS A TYRANT, AND HE WHO SUBMITS IS A SLAVE.
I.
I WANT to do what little I can to make my country truly
free, to broaden the intellectual horizon of our people, to
destroy the prejudices born of ignorance and fear, to do
away with the blind worship of the ignoble past, with the
idea that all the great and good are dead, that the living
are totally depraved, that all pleasures are sins, that sighs
and groans are alone pleasing to God, that thought is dan
gerous, that intellectual courage is a crime, that cowardice
is a virtue, that a certain belief is necessary to secure
salvation, that to carry a cross in this world will give us a
palm in the next, and that we must allow some priest to
be the pilot of our souls.
Until every soul is freely permitted to investigate every
book and creed and dogma for itself, the world cannot be
free.
Mankind will be enslaved until there is mental
grandeur enough to allow each man to have his thought
and say. This earth will be a paradise when men can upon
all these questions differ, and yet grasp each other’s hands
as friends. It is amazing to me that a difference of
opinion upon subjects that we know nothing with certainty
about should make us hate, persecute, and despise each
B
�10
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
other. Why a difference of opinion upon predestination or
the Trinity should make people imprison and burn each
other seems beyond the comprehension of man; and yet, in all
countries where Christians have existed, they have destroyed
each other to the exact extent of their power. Why should
a believer in God hate an Atheist ? Surely the Atheist has
not injured God, and surely he is human, capable of joy and
pain, and entitled to all the rights of man. Would it not
be far better to treat this Atheist, at least, as well as he
treats us ?
Christians tell me that they love their enemies, and yet
all I ask is—not that they love their enemies, not that they
love their friends even, but that they treat those who differ
from them with simple fairness. We do not wish to be for
given, but we wish Christians to so act that we will not
have to forgive them.
If all will admit that all have an equal right to think,
then the question is for ever solved; but as long as
organised and powerful churches, pretending to hold the
keys of heaven and hell, denounce every person as an out
cast and criminal who thinks for himself and denies their
authority, the world will be filled with hatred and suffer
ing. To hate man and worship God seems to be the sum
of all the creeds.
That which has happened in most countries has hap
pened in ours. When a religion is founded, the educated,
the powerful—that is to say, the priests and nobles, tell the
ignorant and superstitious—that is to say, the people—that
the religion of their country was given to their fathers
by God himself; that it is the only true religion; that all
others were conceived in falsehood and brought forth in
fraud, and that all who believe in the true religion will
be happy for ever, while all others will burn in hell. For
the purpose of governing the people—that is to say, for
the purpose of being supported by the people—the priests
and nobles declare this religion to be sacred, and that who
ever adds to or takes from it will be burned here by man
and hereafter by God. The result of this is that the priests
and nobles will not allow the people to change ; and when,
after a time, the priests, having intellectually advanced,
wish to take a step in the direction of progress, the people
will not allow them to change. At first the rabble are
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
11
enslaved by the priests, and afterwards the rabble become
the masters.
One of the first things I wish to do is to free the
orthodox clergy. I am a great friend of theirs, and, in
spite of all they may say against me, I am going to do
them a great and lasting service. Upon their necks are
visible the marks of the collar, and upon their backs those
of the lash. They are not allowed to read and think for
themselves. They are taught like parrots, and the best are
those who repeat, with the fewest mistakes, the sentences
they have been taught. They sit like owls upon some
dead limb of the tree of knowledge, and hoot the same old
hoots that have been hooted for eighteen hundred years.
Their congregations are not grand enough nor sufficiently
civilised to be willing that the poor preachers shall think for
themselves. They are not employed for that purpose. In
vestigation is regarded as a dangerous experiment, and the
ministers are warned that none of that kind of work will be
tolerated. They are notified to stand by the old creed, and
to avoid all original thought as a mortal pestilence. Every
minister is employed like an attorney—either for plaintiff
or defendant—and he is expected to be true to his client.
If he changes his mind he is regarded as a deserter,
and denounced, hated and slandered accordingly. Every
orthodox clergyman agrees not to change. He contracts
not to find new facts, and makes a bargain that he will
deny them if he does. Such is the position of a Protestant
minister in this nineteenth century. His condition excites
my pity; and to better it, I am going to do what little
I can.
Some of the clergy have the independence to break away
and the intellect to maintain themselves as free men ; but the
most are compelled to submit to the dictation of the orthodox
and the dead. They are not employed to give their thoughts,
but simply to repeat the ideas of others. They are not expected
to give even the doubts that may suggest themselves, but
are required to walk in the narrow, verdureless path trodden
by the ignorance of the past. The forests and fields on
either side are nothing to them. They must not even look
at the purple hills, nor pause to hear the babble of the
brooks. They must remain in the dusty roads where the
guide-boards are. They must confine themselves to the
�12
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
“ fall of man,” the expulsion from the garden, the “scheme
of salvation,” the “second birth,” the atonement, the happi
ness of the redeemed, and the misery of the lost. They
must be careful not to express any new ideas upon these
great questions. It is much safer for them to quote from
the works of the dead. The more vividly they describe the
sufferings of the unregenerate, of those who attended
theatres and balls, and drank wine in summer gardens on
the sabbath-day, and laughed at priests, the better ministers
they are supposed to be. They must show that misery fits
the good for heaven, while happiness prepares the bad for
hell ; that the wicked get all their good things in this life,
and the good all their evil; that in this world God punishes
the people he loves, and in the next the ones he hates ;
that happiness makes us bad here, but not in heaven ; that
pain makes us good here, but not in hell. No matter
how absurd these things may appear to the carnal mind,
they must be preached and they must be believed. If they
were reasonable, there would be no virtue in believing.
Even the publicans and sinners believe reasonable things.
To believe without evidence, or in spite of it, is accounted
as righteousness to the sincere and humble Christian.
The ministers are in duty bound to denounce all intel
lectual pride, and show that we are never quite so dear to
God as when we admit that we are poor, corrupt and idiotic
worms ; that we never should have been born ; that we ought
to be damned without the least delay; that we are so in
famous that we like to enjoy ourselves; that we love our
wives and children better than our God; that we are
generous only because we are vile ; that we are honest
from the meanest motives, and that sometimes we have
fallen so low that we have had doubts about the inspiration
of the Jewish scriptures. In short, they are expected to
denounce all pleasant paths and rustling trees, to curse the
grass and flowers, and glorify the dust and weeds. They
are expected to malign the wicked people in the green and
happy fields, who sit and laugh beside the gurgling springs
or climb the hills and wander as they will. They are ex
pected to point out the dangers of freedom, the safety of
implicit obedience, and to show the wickedness of philo
sophy, the goodness of faith, the immorality of science and
the purity of ignorance.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
13
Now and then a few pious people discover some young
man of a religious turn of mind and a consumptive habit of
body, not quite sickly enough to die, nor healthy enough to
be wicked. The idea occurs to them that he would make a
good orthodox minister. They take up a contribution, and
send the young man to some theological school where he
can be taught to repeat a creed and despise reason. Should
it turn out that the young man had some mind of his own,
and, after graduating, should change his opinions and preach
a different doctrine from that taught in the school, every
man who contributed a dollar towards his education would
feel that he had been robbed, and would denounce him as a
dishonest and ungrateful wretch.
The pulpit should not be a pillory. Congregations should
allow the minister a little liberty. They should, at least,
permit him to tell the truth.
They have, in Massachusetts, at a place called Andover,
a kind of minister factory, where each professor takes an
oath once in five years—that time being considered the life
of an oath—that he has not, during the last five years, and
will not, during the next five years, intellectually advance.
There is probably no oath they could easier keep. Probably,
since the foundation-stone of that institution was laid there
has not been a single case of perjury. The old creed is
Still taught. They still insist that God is infinitely wise,
powerful and good, and that all men are totally depraved.
They insist that the best man God ever made deserved to
be damned the moment he was finished. Andover puts its
brand upon every minister it turns out, the same as Sheffield
and Birmingham brand their wares, and all who see the
brand know exactly what the minister believes, the books
he has read, the arguments he relies on, and just what he
intellectually is. They know just what he can be depended
On to preach, and that he will continue to shrink and shrivel,
and grow solemnly stupid day by day until he reaches the
Andover of the grave and becomes truly orthodox for ever.
I have not singled out the Andover factory because it is
worse than the others. They are all about the same. The
professors, for the most part, are ministers who failed in the
pulpit and were retired to the seminary on account of their
deficiency in reason and their excess of faith. As a rule,
they know nothing of this world, and far less of the next;
�14
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
but they have the power of stating- the most absurd propo
sitions with faces solemn as stupidity touched by fear.
Something- should be done for the liberation of these men.
They should be allowed to grow—to have sunlight and air.
They should no longer be chained and tied to confessions of
faith, to mouldy books and musty creeds. Thousands of
ministers are anxious to give their honest thoughts. The
hands of wives and babes now stop their mouths. They
must have bread, and so the husbands and fathers are forced
to preach a doctrine that they hold in scorn. For the sake
of shelter, food and clothes, they are obliged to defend the
childish miracles of the past, and denounce the sublime dis
coveries of to-day. They are compelled to attack all modern
thought, to point out the dangers of science, the wickedness
of investigation and the corrupting influence of logic. It
is for them to show that virtue rests upon ignorance and
faith, while vice impudently feeds and fattens upon fact and
demonstration. It is a part of their business to malign and
vilify the Voltaires, Humes, Paines, Humboldts, Tyndalls,
Hmckels, Darwins, Spencers and Drapers, and to bow with
uncovered heads before the murderers, adulterers and per
secutors of the world. They are, for the most part, engaged
in poisoning- the minds of the young, prejudicing children
against science, teaching the astronomy and geology of the
Bible, and inducing all to desert the sublime standard of
reason.
These orthodox ministers do not add to the sum of know
ledge. They produce nothing. They live upon alms. They
hate laughter and joy. They officiate at weddings, sprinkle
water upon babes, and utter meaningless words and barren
promises above the dead. They laugh at the agony of un
believers, mock at their tears, and of their sorrows make a
jest.. There are some noble exceptions. Now and then a
pulpit holds a brave and honest man. Their congregations
are willing that they should think—willing that their ministers
should have a little freedom.
As we become civilised, more and more liberty will be
accorded to these men, until finally ministers will give their
best and highest thoughts. The congregations will finally
get tired of hearing about the patriarchs and saints, the
miracles and wonders, and will insist upon knowing- some
thing about the men and women of our day, and the accom-
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
15
plishments and discoveries of our time. They will finally
insist upon knowing how to escape the evils of this world
instead of the next. They will ask light upon the enigmas
of this life. They will wish to know what we shall do with
our criminals instead of what God will do with his, how we
shall do away with beggary and want, with, crime and
misery, with prostitution, disease and famine, with tyranny
in all its cruel forms, with prisons and scaffolds, and how
we shall reward the honest workers and fill the world with
happy homes I These are the problems for the pulpits and
congregations of an enlightened future. If Science cannot
finally answer these questions, it is a vain and worthless
thing.
The clergy, however, will continue to answer them in
the old way, until their congregations are good enough to
set them free. They will still talk about believing in the
Lord Jesus Christ, as though that were the only remedy for
all human ills. They will still teach that retrogression is
the only path that leads to light—that we must go back;
that faith is the only sure guide, and that reason is a delu
sive glare, lighting only the road to eternal pain.
Until the clergy are free they cannot be intellectually
honest. We can never tell what they really believe until
they know that they can safely speak. They console them
selves now by a secret resolution to be as liberal as they
dare, with the hope that they can finally educate their con
gregations to the point of allowing them to think a little
for themselves. They hardly know what they ought to do.
The best part of their lives has been wasted in studyingsubjects of no possible value. Most of them are married,
have families and know but one way of making their living.
Some of them say that if they do not preach these foolish
dogmas, others will, and that they may through fear, after
all, restrain mankind. Besides, they hate publicly to admit
that they are mistaken, that the whole thing is a delusion,
that the “ scheme of salvation” is absurd, and that the
Bible is no better than some other books, and worse than
most.
You can hardly expect a bishop to leave his palace, or
the Pope to vacate the Vatican. As long as people want
Popes, plenty of hypocrites will be found to take the place.
And as long as labor fatigues, there will be found a
�16
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
good many men willing to preach once a week, if other
folks will work and give them bread. In other words,
while the demand lasts, the supply will never fail.
If the people were a little more ignorant, astrology would
flourish ; if a little more enlightened, religion would perish!
II—FREE SCHOOLS.
It is also my desire to free the schools. When a pro
fessor in a college finds a fact, he should make it known,
even if it is inconsistent with something Moses said. Public
opinion must not compel the professor to hide a fact, and,
‘‘like the base Indian, throw the pearl away.” With the
single exception of Cornell, there is not a college in the
United States where truth has ever been a welcome g’uest.
The moment one of the teachers denies the inspiration of the
Bible, he is discharged. If he discovers a fact inconsistent
with that book, so much the worse for the fact, and especially
for the discoverer of the fact. He must not corrupt the minds
of his pupils by demonstrations. He must beware of every
truth that cannot in some way be made to harmonise with the
superstitions of the Jews. Science has nothing in common
with religion. Facts and miracles never did, and never
will, agree. They are not in the least related. They are
deadly foes. What has religion to do with facts ? Nothing.
Can there be Methodist mathematics, Catholic astronomy,
Presbyterian geology, Baptist biology, or Episcopal botany?
Why, then, should a sectarian college exist? Only that
which somebody knows should be taught in our schools.
We should not collect taxes to pay people for guessing.
The common school is the bread of life for the people, and
it. should not be touched by the withering hand of super
stition.
Our country will never be filled with great institutions of
learning until there is an absolute divorce between Church
and School. As long as the mutilated records of a bar
barous people are placed by priests and professors above
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
17
the reason of mankind, we shall reap but little benefit from
church or school.
Instead of dismissing- professors for finding something
out, let us rather discharge those who do not. Let each
teacher understand that investigation is not dangerous for
him ; that his bread is safe, no matter how much truth he
may discover, and that his salary will not be reduced simply
because he finds that the ancient Jews did not know the
entire history of the world.
Besides, it is not fair to make the Catholic support the
Protestant school, nor is it just to collect taxes from infidels
and Atheists to support schools in which any system of
religion is taught.
The sciences are not sectarian. People do not persecute
each other on account of disagreements in mathematics.
Families are not divided about botany, and astronomy does
not even tend to make a man hate his father and mother. It
is what people do not know that they persecute each other
about. Science will bring, not a sword, but peace.
Just as long as religion has control of the schools,
science will be an outcast. Let us free our institutions of
learning. Let us dedicate them to the science of eternal
truth. Let us tell every teacher to ascertain all the facts
he can—to give us light, to follow Nature, no matter where
she leads ; to be infinitely true to himself and us ; to feel
that he is without a chain, except the obligation to be
honest; that he is bound by no books, by no creed, neither
by the sayings of the dead nor of the living ; that he is
asked to look with his own eyes, to reason for himself with
out fear, to investigate in every possible direction, and to
bring us the fruit of all his work.
At present, a good many men engaged in scientific pur
suits, and who have signally failed in gaining recognition
among their fellows, are endeavoring to make reputations
among the churches by delivering weak and vapid lectures
upon the “ Harmony of Genesis and Geology.” Like all
hypocrites, these men overstate the case to such a degree,
and so turn and pervert facts and words that they succeed
only in gaining the applause of other hypocrites like them
selves. Among the great scientists they are regarded as
generals regard sutlers who trade with both armies.
Surely the time must come when the wealth of the world
�18
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
will not be wasted in the propagation of ignorant creeds
and miraculous mistakes.
The time must come when
churches and cathedrals will be dedicated to the use of
man; when? minister and priest will deem the discoveries of
the living of more importance than the errors of the dead;
when the truths of Nature will outrank the “ sacred ” false
hoods of the past, and when a single fact will outweigh all
the miracles of Holy Writ.
Who can over-estimate the progress of the world if all
the money wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten,
elevate and civilise mankind ?
When every church becomes a school, every cathedral a
university, every clergyman a teacher, and all their hearers
brave and honest thinkers, then, and not until then, will the
dream of poet, patriot, philanthropist and philosopher, become
a real and blessed truth.
III.—THE POLITICIANS.
I WOULD like also to liberate the politician. At present the
successful office-seeker is a good deal like the centre of the
earth he weighs nothing himself, but draws everything
else to him. There are so many societies, so many churches,
so many isms, that it is almost impossible for an independent
man to succeed in a political career. Candidates are forced
to pretend that they are Catholics with Protestant procli
vities, or Christians with Liberal tendencies, or temperance
men who now and then take a glass of wine, or, that
although not members of any church their wives are, and
that they subscribe liberally to all. The result of all this is
that we reward hypocrisy and elect men entirely destitute
of real principle; and this will never change until the people
become grand enough to allow each other to do their own
thinking.
Our Government should be entirely and purely secular.
The religious views of a candidate should be kept entirely
out oi sight. He should not be compelled to give his
opinion as to the inspiration of the Bible, the propriety of
infant baptism, or the immaculate conception. All these
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
19
thing’s are private and personal. He should be allowed to
settle such things for himself, and should he decide contrary
to the law and will of God, let him settle the matter with
God. The people ought to be wise enough to select as their
officers men who know something of political affairs, who
comprehend the present greatness, and clearly perceive the
future grandeur of our country. If we were in a storm at
sea, with deck wave-washed and masts strained and bent
with storm, and it was necessary to reef the topsail, we cer
tainly would not ask the brave sailor who volunteered to go
aloft, what his opinion was on the five points of Calvinism.
Our Government has nothing to do with religion. It is
neither Christian nor pagan—it is secular. But as long as
the people persist in voting for or against men on account of
their religious views, just so long will hypocrisy hold
place and power. Just so long will the candidates crawl
in the dust—hide their opinions, flatter those with whom
they differ, pretend to agree with those whom they de
spise ; and just so long will honest men be trampled under
foot. Churches are becoming political organisations.
Nearly every Catholic is a Democrat; nearly every Metho
dist in the north is a Republican.
It probably will not be long until the churches will
divide as sharply upon political as upon theological ques
tions ; and when that day comes, if there are not Liberals
enough to hold the balance of power this government will
be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the
hands of any church. Wherever the Bible and sword are
in partnership man is a slave.
All laws for the purpose of making man worship God
are born of the same spirit that kindled the fires of the
*
auto-da-ft and lovingly built the dungeons of the
Inquisition. All laws defining and punishing blasphemy—
making it a crime to give your honest ideas about the
Bible or to laugh at the ignorance of the ancient Jews, or
to enjoy yourself on the Sabbath, or to give your opinion
of Jehovah, were passed by impudent bigots, and should be
at once repealed by honest men. An infinite God ought to
* Act of faith. A judicial act of the Inquisition, or the judgment it
gave in order to condemn those whom it thought worthy of punish
ment for having infringed religious laws.
�20
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
be able to protect himself, without going1 in partnership
with State Legislatures. Certainly he ought not so to act
that laws become necessary to keep him from being
laughed at. No one thinks of protecting Shakespeare
from ridicule by the threat of fine and imprisonment. It
strikes me that God might write a book that would not
necessarily excite the laughter of his children. In fact I
think it would be safe to say that a real God could produce
a work that would excite the admiration of mankind.
Surely politicians could be better employed than in passing
laws to protect the literary reputation of the Jewish God.
IV.—MAN AND WOMAN.
Let us forget that we are Baptists, Methodists, Catholics,
Presbyterians, or Freethinkers, and remember only that we
are men and women. After all man and woman are the
highest possible titles. All other names belittle us, and
show that we have, to a certain extent, given up our
individuality, and have consented to wear the collar of
authority—that we are followers. Throwing away these
names, let us examine these questions not as partisans, but
as human beings with hopes and fears in common.
We know that our opinions depend to a great degree
upon our surrounding—upon race, country and education.
We are all the result of numberless conditions and inherit
vices _ and virtues, truths and prejudices. If we had been
born in England, surrounded by wealth and clothed with
power, most of us would have been Episcopalians and
believed in Church and State. We should have in
sisted that the people needed a religion, and that not
having intellect enough to provide one for themselves
it was our duty to make one for them, and then compel
them to support it. We should have believed it in
decent to officiate in a pulpit without wearing a gown,
and that prayers should be read from a book. Had we
belonged to the lower classes we might have been Dis
senters and protested against the mummeries of the High
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
21
Church. Had we been born in Turkey, most of us would
have been Mohammedans and believed in the inspiration of
the Koran. We should have believed that Mohammed
actually visited heaven and became acquainted with an
angel by the name of Gabriel, who was so broad between
the eyes that it required three hundred days for a very
smart camel to travel the distance. If some man had
denied this story we should probably have denounced him
as a dangerous person, one who was endeavoring to under
mine the foundations of society, and to destroy all dis
tinction between virtue and vice. We should have said to
him, “ What do you propose to give us in place of that
angel ? We cannot afford to give up an angel of that
size for nothing.” We would have insisted that the best
and wisest men believed the Koran. We would have
quoted from the works and letters of philosophers, generals
and sultans to show that the Koran was the best of books,
and that Turkey was indebted to that book and to that
alone for its greatness and prosperity. We would have
asked that man whether he knew more than all the great
minds of his country, whether he was so much wiser than
his fathers ? We would have pointed out to him the fact
that thousands had been consoled in the hour of death by
passages from the Koran; that they had died with glazed
eyes brightened by visions of the heavenly harem, and
gladly left this world of grief and tears. We would have
regarded Christians as the vilest of men, and on all
occasions would have repeated “ There is but one God, and
Mohammed is his prophet1”
So, if we had been born in India, we should in all
probability have believed in the religion of that country.
We should have regarded the old records as true and
sacred, and looked upon a wandering priest as better than
the men from whom he begged and by whose labor he
lived.
We should have believed in a god with three
heads instead of three gods with one head, as we do now.
Now and then some one says that the religion of his
father and mother is good enough for him, and wonders why
anybody should desire a better. Surely we are. not bound
to follow our parents in religion any more than in politics,
science or art. China has been petrified by the worship
of ancestors. If our parents had been satisfied with the
�22
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
religion of theirs, we would be still less advanced than we
are. If we are in any way bound by the belief of our
fathers the doctrine will hold good back to the first people
who had a religion ; and if this doctrine is true, we ought
now to be believers in that first religion. In other words,
we would all be barbarians. You cannot show real respect
to your parents by perpetuating their errors. Good fathers
and mothers wish their children to advance, to overcome
obstacles which baffled them, and to correct the errors of
theh? education. If you wish to reflect credit upon your
parents, accomplish more than they did, solve problems
that they could not understand, and build better than they
knew. To sacrifice your manhood upon the grave of your
father is an honor to neither. Why should a son who has
examined a subject throw away his reason and adopt the
views of his mother ? Is not such a course dishonorable to
both ?
We must remember that this £< ancestor” argument is
as old at least as the second generation of men, that it has
served no purpose except to enslave mankind, and results
mostly from the fact that acquiesceence is easier than inves
tigation. This argument pushed to its logical conclusion
would prevent the advance of all people whose parents were
not Freethinkers.
It is hard for many people to give up the religion in
which they were born ; to admit that their fathers were
utterly mistaken, and the sacred records of their country
are but collections of myths and fables.
But when we look for a moment at the world we find
that each nation has its ‘ ‘ sacred records ”—its religion and
its ideas of worship. Certainly all cannot be right; and as
it would require a life time to investigate the claims of these
various systems, it is hardly fair to damn a man for ever
simply because he happens to believe the wrong one. All
these religions were produced by barbarians.
Civilised
nations have contented themselves with changing the
religions of their barbaric ancestors, but they have made none.
Nearly all these religions are intensely selfish.
Each
one was made by some contemptible little nation that
regarded itself as of almost infinite importance, and looked
upon the other nations as beneath the notice of their god.
In all these countries it was a crime to deny the sacred
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
23
records, to laugh at the priests, to speak disrespectfully of
the gods, to fail to divide your substance with the lazy
hypocrites who managed your affairs in the next world
upon condition that you would support them in this. In
the olden time these theological people who quartered them
selves upon the honest and industrious, were called sooth
sayers, seers, charmers, prophets, enchanters, sorcerers,
wizards, astrologers and impostors, but now they are known
as clergymen.
We are no exception to the general rule, and conse
quently have our sacred books as well as the rest. Of
course it is claimed by many of our people that our books
are the only true ones, the only ones that the real God ever
wrote, or had anything whatever to do with. They insist
that all other sacred books were written by hypocrites and
impostors; that the Jews were the only people that God
ever had any personal intercourse with, and that all other
prophets and seers were inspired only by impudence and
mendacity. True, it seems somewhat strange that God
should have chosen a barbarous and unknown people who
had little or nothing to do with the other nations of the
earth as his messengers to the rest of mankind.
It is not easy to account for an infinite God making
people so low in the scale of intellect as to require a revela
tion. Neither is it easy to perceive why, if a revelation was
necessary for all, it was made only to a few. Of course I
know that it is extremely wicked to suggest these thoughts,
and that ignorance is the only armor that can effectually
protect you from the wrath of God. I am aware that in
vestigators, with all their genius, never find the road to
heaven; that those who look where they are going are sure
to miss it, and that only those who voluntarily put out their
eyes and implicitly depend upon blindness can surely keep
the narrow path.
Whoever reads our sacred book is compelled to believe it
or suffer for ever the torments of the lost. We are told
that we have the privilege of examining it for ourselves;
but this privilege is only extended to us on the condition
that we believe it whether it appears reasonable or not. We
may disagree with others as much as we please upon the
meaning of all passages in the Bible, but we must not deny
the truth of a single word. We must believe that the book
�24
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
is inspired. If we obey its every precept without believing
in its inspiration, we will be damned just as certainly as
though we disobeyed its every word. We have no right
to weigh it in the scales of reason—to test it by the laws of
nature, or the facts of observation and experience. To do
this, we are told, is to put ourselves above the word of God,
and sit in judgment on the works of our creator.
For my part, I cannot admit that belief is a voluntary
thing. It seems to me that evidence, even in spite of our
selves, will have its weight, and that whatever our wish
may be, we are compelled to stand with fairness by the
scales, and give the exact result. It will not do to say that
we reject the Bible because we are wicked. Our wicked
ness must be ascertained, not from our belief, but from our
acts.
I am told by the clergy that I ought not to attack the
Bible; that I am leading thousands to perdition and render
ing certain the damnation of my own soul. They have had
the kindness to advise me that, if my object is to make con
verts, I am pursuing the wrong course. They tell me to
use gentler expressions and more cunning words. Do they
really wish me to make more converts ? If their advice is
honest, they are traitors to their trust. If their advice is
not honest, then they are unfair with me. Certainly they
should wish me to pursue the course that will make the
fewest converts, and yet they pretend to tell me how rny
influence could be increased. It may be that upon this
principle John Bright advises America to adopt Free Trade,
so that our country can become a successful rival of Great
Britain. Sometimes I think that even ministers are not
entirely candid.
Notwithstanding the advice of the clergy, I have con
cluded to pursue my own course, to tell my honest thoughts
and to have my freedom in this world whatever my fate
may be in the next.
The real oppressor, enslaver, and corrupter of the people
is the Bible. That book is the chain that binds, the dun
geon that holds the clergy. That book spreads the pall of
superstition over the colleges and schools. That book puts
out the eyes of science, and makes honest investigation a
crime. That book unmans the politician and degrades the
people. That book fills the world with bigotry, hypocrisy
�25
SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
and fear.
It plays the same part in our country that has
been played by “ sacred records” in all the nations of the
world.
A little while ago I saw one of the Bibles of the Middle
Ages. It was about two feet in length, and one and a half
in width. It had immense oaken covers with hasps and
clasps and hinges large enough almost for the doors of a
penitentiary. It was covered with pictures of winged
angels and aureoled saints. In my imagination I saw this
book carried to the cathedral altar in solemn pomp—heard
the chant of robed and kneeling priests, felt the strange
tremor of the organ’s peal; saw the colored light stream
ing through windows stained and touched by blood and
flame—the swinging censer with its perfumed incense
rising to the mighty roof, dim with height and rich with
legend carved in stone, while on the walls was hung, written
in light and shade, and all the colors that can tell of joy
and tears, the pictured history of the martyred Christ.
The people fell upon their knees. The book was opened,
and the priest read the messages from God to man. To
the multitude the book itself was evidence enough that it
was not the work of human hands. How could those
little marks and lines and dots contain, like tombs, the
thoughts of men, and how could they, touched by a ray of
light from human eyes, give up their dead ? How could
these characters span the vast chasm dividing the present
from the past, and make it possible for the living still to
hear the voices of the dead ?
V.—THE PENTATEUCH.
The first five books in our Bible are known as the Penta
teuch. For a long time it was supposed that Moses was
the author, and among the ignorant the supposition still
prevails. As a matter of fact, it seems to be well settled
that Moses had nothing to do with these books, and that
they were not written until he had been dust and ashes for
hundreds of years. But, as all the churches still insist that
c
�26
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
he was the author, that he wrote even an account of his
own death and burial, let us speak of him as though these
books were in fact written by him. As the Christians
maintain that God was the real author, it makes but little
difference whom he employed as his pen or clerk.
Nearly all authors of sacred books have given an account
of the creation of the universe, the origin of matter, and
the destiny of the human race. Nearly all have pointed
out the obligation that man is under to his Creator for
having placed him upon the earth, and allowed him to
live and suffer, and have taught that nothing short of the
most abject worship could possibly compensate God for his
trouble and labor suffered and done for the good of man.
They have nearly all insisted that we should thank God for
all that is good in life; but they have not all informed us
as to whom we should hold responsible for the evils we
endure.
Moses differed from most of the makers of sacred books
by his failure to say anything of a future life, by failing to
promise heaven and to threaten hell. Upon the subject of
a future state, there is not one word in the Pentateuch. Pro
bably at that early day God did not deem it important to make
a revelation as to the eternal destiny of man. He seems to
have thought that he could control the Jews, at least, by
rewards and punishments in this world, and so he kept the
frightful realities of eternal joy and torment a profound
secret from the people of his choice. ITe thought it far
more important to tell the Jews their origin than to en
lighten them as to their destiny.
We must remember that every tribe and nation has some
way in which the more striking phenomena of nature are
accounted for. These accounts are handed down by tra
dition, changed by numberless narrators as intelligence
increases, or to account for newly-discovered facts, or for
the purpose of satisfying the appetite for the marvellous.
The way in which a tribe or nation accounts for day and
night, the change of seasons, the fall of snow and rain, the
flight of birds, the origin of the rainbow, the peculiarities
of animals, the dreams of sleep, the visions of the insane,
the existence of earthquakes, volcanoes, storms, lightning
and the thousand things that attract the attention and
excite the wonder, fear or admiration of mankind, may be
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
27
called the philosophy of that tribe or nation. And as all
phenomena are, by savage and barbaric man accounted for
as the action of intelligent beings for the accomplishment
of certain objects and as these beings were supposed to
have the power to assist or injure man, certain thing’s were
supposed necessary for man to do in order to gain the
assistance and avoid the anger of these gods. Out of
this belief grew certain ceremonies, and these ceremonies
united with the belief formed religion ; and consequently
every religion has for its foundation a misconception of the
cause of phenomena.
All worship is necessarily based upon the belief that some
being exists who can, if he will, change the natural order
of events. The savage prays to a stone that he calls a
god, while the Christian prays to a god that he calls a
spirit, and the prayers of both are equally useful. The
savage and the Christian put behind the universe an intelli
gent cause, and this cause, whether represented by one god
or many, has been in all ages the object of all worship. To
carry a fetish, or utter a prayer, to count beads, to abstain
from food, to sacrifice a lamb, a child or an enemy, are
simply different ways by which the accomplishment of the
same object is sought, and are all the offspring of the same
error.
Many systems of religion must have existed many ages
before the art of writing was discovered, and must have
passed through many changes before the stories, miracles,
histories, prophecies and mistakes became fixed and pet rifled
in written words. After that, change was possible only by
giving new meanings to old words, a process rendered
necessary by the continual acquisition of facts somewhat
inconsistent with a literal interpretation of the “sacred
records.” In this way an honest faith often prolongs its
life by dishonest methods ; and in this way the Christians
of to-day are trying to harmonise the Mosaic account of
creation with the theories and discoveries of modern
science.
Admitting that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch,
or that he gave to the Jews a religion, the question arises
as to where he obtained his information. We are told by
the theologians that he received his knowledge from God,
and that every word he wrote was and is the exact truth.
�28
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
It is admitted at the same time that he was an adopted son
of Pharaoh’s daughter, and enjoyed the rank and privilege
of a prince. Under such circumstances, he must have been
well acquainted with the literature, philosophy and religion
of the Egyptians, and must have known what they believed
and taught as to the creation of the world.
Now, if the account of the origin of this earth as given
by Moses is substantially like that given by the Egyptians,
then we must conclude that he learned it from them,
Should we imagine that he was divinely inspired because
he gave to the Jews what the Egyptians had given him?
The Egyptian priests taught, first, that a god created
the original matter, leaving it in a state of chaos ; second,
that a god moulded it into form ; third, that the breath of
a god moved upon the face of the deep; fourth, that a god
created simply by saying “ Let it befifth, that a god
created light before the sun existed.
Nothing can be clearer than that Moses received from
the Egyptians the principal parts of his narrative, making
such changes and additions as were necessary to satisfy
the peculiar superstitions of his own people.
If some man at the present day should assert that he
had received from God the theories of evolution, the sur
vival of the fittest, and the law of heredity, and we should
afterwards find that he was not only an Englishman, but
had lived in the family of Charles Darwin, we certainly
should account for his having these theories in a natural
way. So if Darwin himself should pretend that he was
inspired, and had obtained his peculiar theories from God,
we should probably reply that his grandfather suggested
the same ideas, and that Lamarck published substantially
the same theories the same year that Mr. Darwin was
born.
Now, if we have sufficient courage, we will, by the
same course of reasoning, account for the story of creation
found in the Bible. We will say that it contains the belief
of Moses, and that he received his information from the
Egyptians, and not from God. If we take the account as
the absolute truth and use it for the purpose of determining
the value of modern thought, scientific advancement
becomes impossible.
And even if the account of the
creation as given by Moses should turn out to be true and
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
29
should be so admitted by all the scientific world, the claim
that he was inspired would still be without the least
particle of truth. We would be forced to admit that he
knew more than we had supposed. It certainly is no proof
that a man is inspired simply because he is right.
No one pretends that Shakespeare was inspired, and yet
all the writers of the books of the Old Testament put
together could not have produced “ Hamlet.”
Why should we, looking upon some rough and awkward
thing, or god in stone, say that it must have been produced
by some inspired sculptor, and with the same breath pro
nounce the Venus de Milo to be the work of man ? Why
should we, looking at some ancient daub of angel, saint or
virgin, say its painter must have been assisted by a god ?
Let us account for all we see by the facts we know.
If there are things for which we cannot account, let us
wait for light. To account for anything by supernatural
agencies is, in fact, to say that we do not know. Theo
logy is not what we know about God, but what we do
not know about Nature. In order to increase our respect
for the Bible, it became necessary for the priests to exalt
and extol that book, and at the same time to decry and
belitttle the reasoning powers of man. The whole power
of the pulpit has been used for hundreds of years to
destroy the confidence of man in himself—to induce him
to distrust his own powers of thought, to believe that he
was wholly unable to decide any question for himself, and
that all human virtue consists in faith and obedience. The
Church has said, “ Believe and obey ! If you reason, you
will become an unbeliever, and unbelievers will be lost.
If you disobey, you will do so through vain pride and
curiosity, and will, like Adam and Eve, be thrust from
paradise for ever 1”
For my part, I care nothing for what the Church says,
except in so far as it accords with my reason; and the
Bible is nothing to me, only in so far as it agrees with what
I think or know.
All books should be examined in the same spirit, and
truth should be welcomed and falsehood exposed, no matter
in what volume they may be found.
Let us in this spirit examine the Pentateuch, and if any
thing appears unreasonable, contradictory or absurd, let us
�30
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
have the honesty and courage to admit it. Certainly no
good can result either from deceiving ourselves or others.
Many millions have implicitly believed this book, and have
just as implicitly believed that polygamy was sanctioned by
God. Millions have regarded this book as the foundation
of all human progress, and at the same time looked upon
slavery as a divine institution. Millions have declared this
book to have been infinitely holy, and, to prove that they
were right, have imprisoned, robbed and burned their
fellow men. The inspiration of this book has been esta
blished by famine, sword and fire, by dungeon, chain and
whip, by dagger and by rack, by force and fear and fraud,
and generations have been bribed by threats of hell and
promises of heaven.
Let us examine a portion of this book, not in the darkness
of our fear, but in the light of reason.
And, first, let us examine the account given of the crea
tion of this world, commenced, according to the Bible, on
Monday morning, about five thousand eight hundred and
eighty-three years ago.
VI.—MONDAY.
Moses commences his story by telling us that in the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
If this means anything, it means that God produced,
caused to exist, called into being, the heaven and the earth.
It will not do to say that he formed the heaven and the
earth of previously existing matter. Moses conveys, and
intended to convey, the idea that the matter of which the
heaven and the earth are composed was created.
It is impossible for me to conceive of something being
created from nothing. Nothing, regarded in the light of a
raw material, is a decided failure. I cannot conceive of
matter apart from force. Neither is it possible to think of
force disconnected with matter. You cannot imagine
matter going back to absolute nothing. Neither can you
imagine nothing being changed into something. You may
be eternally damned if you do not say that you can con-
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
31
eeive these things, but you cannot conceive them. Such is
the constitution of the human mind that it cannot even
think of a commencement or an end of matter or force.
If God created the universe, there was a time when he
commenced to create. Back of that commencement there
must have been an eternity. In that eternity what was
this God doing? He certainly did not think. There was
nothing to think about. He did not remember. Nothing
had ever happened. What did he do ? Gan you imagine
anything more absurd than an infinite intelligence in infinite
nothing wasting an eternity ?
I do not pretend to tell how all these things really are ;
but I do insist that a statement that cannot possibly be
comprehended by any human being, and that appears utterly
impossible, repugnant to every fact of experience, and
contrary to everything that we .really know, must be
rejected by every honest man.
We can conceive of eternity, because we cannot conceive
of a cessation of time. We can conceive of infinite space
because we cannot conceive of so much matter that our
imagination will not stand upon the farthest star, and see
infinite space beyond. In other words, we cannot conceive
of a cessation of time ; therefore eternity is a necessity of
the mind. Eternity sustains the same relation to time that
space does to matter.
In the time of Moses it was perfectly safe for him to
write an account of the creation of the world. lie had
simply to put in form the crude notions of the people. At
that time no other Jew could have written a better account.
Upon that subject he felt at liberty to give his imagination
full play. There was no one who could authoritatively
contradict anything he might say. It was substantially the
same story that had been imprinted in curious characters
upon the clay records of Babylon, the gigantic monuments
of Egypt, and the gloomy temples of India. In those days
there was an almost infinite difference between the educated
and ignorant. The people were controlled almost entirely
by signs and wonders. By the lever of fear priests moved
the world. The sacred records were made and kept and
altered by them. The people could not read, and looked
upon one who could as almost a god. In our day it is
hard to conceive of the influence of an educated class in
�32
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
a barbarous age. It was only necessary to produce the
“sacred record,” and ignorance fell upon its face. The
people were taught that the record was inspired, and there
fore true.. They were not taught that it was true and
therefore inspired.
After all, the real question is not whether the Bible is
inspired, but whether it is true. If it is true, it does not
need to be inspired. If it is true, it makes no difference
whether it was written by a man or a god. The multipli
cation-table is just as useful, just as true, as though God
had arranged the figures himself. If the Bible is really
true, the claim of inspiration need not be urged ; and if it
is not true, its inspiration can hardly be established. As a
matter of fact, the truth does not need to be inspired.
Nothing needs inspiration except a falsehood or a mistake.
Where truth ends, where probability stops, inspiration
begins. A fact never went into partnership with a miracle.
Truth does not need the assistance of miracle. A fact will
fit every other fact in the universe, because it is the pro
duct of all other facts. A lie will fit nothing except another
lie made for the express purpose of fitting it. After a while
the man gets tired of lying, and then the last lie will not
fit the next fact, and then there is an opportunity to use a
miracle. Just at that point it is necessary to have a little
inspiration.
It seems to me that reason is the hig’hest attribute of
man, and that if there can be any communication from God
to man, it must be addressed to his reason. It does not
seem possible that in order to understand a message from
God it is absolutely essential to throw our reason away.
How could God make known his will to any being destitute
of reason ? How can any man accept as a revelation from
God that which is unreasonable to him ? God cannot make
a revelation to another man for me. He must make it to
me, and until he convinces my reason that it is true, I can
not receive it.
The statement that in the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth I cannot accept. It is contrary to
my reason, and I cannot believe it. It appears reasonable
to me that force has existed from eternity. Force cannot,
as it appears to me, exist apart from matter. Force, in
its nature, is for ever active, and without matter it could
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
33
not act; and so I think matter must have existed for
ever. To conceive of matter without force, or of force
without matter, or of a time when neither existed, or of a
being* who existed for an eternity without either, and who
out of nothing' created both, is to me utterly impossible.
I may be damned on this account, but I cannot help it. In
my judgment, Moses was mistaken.
It will not do to say that Moses merely intended to tell
what God did in making the heavens and the earth out
of matter then in existence.
He distinctly says that in
the beginning God created them. If this account i» true,
we must believe that God, existing in infinite space sur
rounded by eternal nothing, naught and void, created, pro
duced, called into being, willed into existence, this universe
of countless stars.
The next thing we are told by this inspired gentleman is
that God created light, and proceeded to divide it from the
dairkuGSS
Certainly the person who wrote this believed that dark
ness was a thing-, an entity, a material that could get mixed
and tangled up with light, and that these entities, light and
darkness, had to be separated. In his imagination he pro
bably saw God throwing pieces and chunks of darkness
on one side, and rays and beams of light on the other.
It is hard for a man who has been born but once to
understand these things. For my part I cannot understand
how light can be separated from darkness. I had always
supposed that darkness was simply the absence of light, and
that under no circumstances could it be necessary to take
the darkness away from the light. It is certain, however,
that Moses believed darkness to be a form of matter, be
cause I find that in another place he speaks of a dark
ness that could be felt. They used to have on exhibition
at Rome a bottle of the darkness that overspread Egypt.
You cannot divide light from darkness any more than
you can divide heat from cold. Cold is an absence of heat,
and darkness is an absence of light. I suppose that we
have no conception of absolute cold. We know only
degrees of heat. Twenty degrees below zero is just twenty
degrees warmer than forty degrees below zero. Neither
cold nor darkness are entities, and these words express
simply either the absolute or partial absence of heat or
�34
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
light. I cannot conceive how light can be divided from
darkness, but I can conceive how a barbarian several thou
sand years ago, writing upon a subject about which he
knew nothing, could make a mistake. The Creator of light
could not have written in this way. If such a being exists,
he must have known the nature of that “ mode of motion”
that paints the earth on every eye, and clothes in garments
seven-hued this universe of worlds.
VII.—TUESDAY.
We are next informed by Moses that “ God said, Let there
be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide
the waters from the waters;” and that “God made the
firmament, and divided the waters which were under the
firmament fiom the waters which were above the firma
ment.”
What did the writer mean by the word “firmament?”
Theologians now tell us that he meant an “ expanse.” This
will not do. How could an expanse divide the waters from
the waters, so that the waters above the expanse would not
fall into and mingle with the waters below the expanse ?
The truth is that Moses regarded the firmament as a solid
affair. It was where God lived, and where water was kept.
It was for this reason that they used to pray for rain. They
supposed that some angel could with a lever raise a gate
and let out the quantity of moisture desired. It was with
the water from this firmament that the world was drowned
when the windows of heaven were opened. It was in this
firmament that the sons of God lived—the sons who “saw
the daughters of men that they were fair and took them
wives of all which they chose?’ The issue of such mar
riages were giants, and “ the same became mighty men
which were of old, men of renown.”
Nothing is clearer than that Moses reg’arded the firma
ment as a vast material division that separated the waters
of the world, and upon whose floor God lived, surrounded
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
35
by his sons. In no other way could he account . for ram.
Where did the water come from ? He knew nothing about
the laws of evaporation. He did not know that the sun
wooed with amorous kisses the waves of the sea, and that
they, clad in glorified mist rising to meet their lover, were,
by disappointment, changed to tears and fell as rain.
The idea that the firmament was the abode of the Deity
must have been in the mind of Moses when he related the
dream of Jacob. “ 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. And, behold, the Lord stood above it and said, I am the
Lord God.”
.
So, when the people were building the tower of Babel
“ the Lord came down to see the city and the towei, which
the children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold,
the people is one, and they have all one language ; and this
they begin to do ; and now nothing will be restrained from
them which they imagined to do. Go to, let us go down and
there confound their language, that they may not under
stand one another’s speech.”
The man who wrote that absurd account must have
believed that God lived above the earth, in the firmament.
The same idea was in the mind of the Psalmist when he said
that God “ bowed the heavens and came down.”
Of course, God could easily remove any person bodily to
heaven, as it was but a little way above the earth.
Enoch
walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.”
The accounts in the Bible of the ascension of Elijah, Christ
and St. Paul, were born of the belief that the firmament
was the dwelling-place of God. It probably never occurred
to these writers that if the firmament was seventy or eighty
miles away, Enoch and the rest would have been frozen
perfectly stiff long before the journey could have been
completed. Possibly Elijah might have made the voyage,
as he was carried to heaven in a chariot of fire “ by a whirl
wind.”
The truth is that Moses was mistaken, and upon that
mistake the Christians located their heaven and their hell.
The telescope destroyed the firmament, did away with the
heaven of the New Testament, rendered the ascension of
our Lord and the assumption of his mother infinitely absurd,
�36
SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
crumbled to chaos the gates and palaces of the New
Jerusalem, and in their places gave to man a wilderness of
worlds.
VIII.—WEDNESDAY.
We are next informed by the historian of creation that
after God had finished making the firmament and had
succeeded in dividing the waters by means of an “ expanse,”
he proceeded to gather the waters on the earth together
in seas so that the dry land might appear.
Certainly the writer of this did not have any concep
tion of the real form of the earth. He could not have
known anything of the attraction of gravitation. He must
have regarded the earth as flat and supposed that it
required considerable force and power to induce the water
to leave the mountains and collect in the valleys. Just as
soon as the water was forced to run down hill the dry land
appeared, and the grass began to grow and the mantles
of green were thrown over the shoulders of the hills, and
the trees laug’hed into bud and blossom and the branches
were laden with fruit.
And all this happened before a
ray had left the quiver of the sun, before a glittering
beam had thrilled the bosom of a flower, and before the
dawn with trembling hands had drawn aside the curtains
of the east and welcomed to her arms the eager god of
Day.
It does not seem to me that grass and trees could grow
and ripen into seed and fruit without the sun. According
to the account this all happened on the third day. Now, if
as the Christians say, Moses did not mean by the word “ day”
a period of twenty-four hours, but an immense and almost
measureless space of time, and as God did not, according to
this view make any animals until the fifth day, that is, not
for millions of years after he made the grass and trees, for
what purpose did he cause the trees to bear fruit ?
Moses says that God said on the third day, “ Let the
earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the
fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in
itself upon the earth; and it was so. And the earth
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
87
brought forth grass and herb yielding seed after his kind,
and the tree yielding fruit whose seed was in itself after
his kind ; and God saw that it was good, and the evening
and the morning were the third day. .
There was nothing to eat this fruit; not an insect with
painted wings sought the honey of the flowers; not a
single living, breathing thing upon the earth, llenty
of grass, a great variety of herbs, an abundance of fruit>
but not a mouth in all the world. If Moses is right, this
state of things lasted only two days; but if the modern
theologians are correct, it continued for millions of ages.
u It is now well known that the organic history of the
earth can be properly divided into five epochs—-the Prim
ordial, Primary, Secondary, Tertiary and Quaternary.
Each of these epochs is characterised by animal and vege
table life peculiar to itself. In the FIRST will be found
Algie and Skull-less Vertebrates ; in the SECOND, Ferns
and Fishes; in the Third, Pine Forests and Reptiles ; m
the FOURTH, Foliaceous Forests and Mammals; and in the
Fifth, Man.”
,. . ,
.
How much more reasonable this is than the idea tnat
the earth was covered with grass and herbs and trees
loaded with fruit for millions of years before an animal
existed.
There is, in Nature, an even balance for ever kept
between the total amounts of animal and vegetable life.
44 In her wonderful economy she must form and bountifully
nourish her vegetable progeny—twin-brother life to her
with that of animals. The perfect balance between plant
existences and animal existences must always be maintained
while matter courses through the eternal circle, becoming
each in turn. If an animal be resolved into its ultimate
constituents in a period according to the surrounding
circumstances, say, of four hours, of four months, of four
years, or even of four thousand years—for it is impossible to
deny that there may be instances of all these periods during
which the process has continued—those elements which
assume the gaseous form mingle at once with the atmosphere
and are taken up from it without delay by the ever-open
mouths of vegetable life. By a thousand pores in every
leaf the carbonic acid which renders the atmosphere unfit
for animal life is absorbed, the carbon being separated and
�38
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
assimilated to form the vegetable fibre which, as wood,
makes and furnishes our houses and ships, is burned for our
warmth, or is stored up under pressure for coal. All this
carbon has played its part, and many parts in its time, as
animal existences from monad up to man. Our mahogany
of to-day has been many negroes in its turn, and before the
African existed, was integral portions of many a generation
■of extinct species.”
It seems reasonable to suppose that certain kinds of
vegetation and certain kinds of animals should exist
together, and that as the character of the vegetation
changed, a corresponding change would take place in the
animal world. It may be that I am led to these conclusions
by “ total depravity,” or that I lack the necessary humility
of spirit to satisfactorily harmonise Hseckel and Moses;
or that, I am carried away by pride, blinded by reason’
given over to hardness of heart that I might be damned,
but I never can believe that the earth was covered with
leaves, and buds, and flowers and fruits before the sun with
glittering spear had driven back the hosts of Night.
IX.—THURSDAY.
After the world was covered with vegetation it occurred
to Moses that it was about time to make a sun and moon;
and so we are told that on the fourth day God said, “ Let
there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day
from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons,
and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the
firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth ; and
it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater
light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night;
he made the stars also.”
Can we believe that, the inspired writer had anv idea of
the size.of the sun ? Draw a circle five inches in diameter,
and by its side thrust a pin through the paper. The whole
made by the pin will sustain about the same relation to the
circle that the earth does to the sun. Did he know that
the sun was eight hundred and sixty thousand miles in
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
39
diameter; that it was enveloped in an ocean of fire thou
sands of miles in depth, hotter even than the Christian’s
hell, over which sweep tempests of flame moving’ at the
rate of one hundred miles a second, compared with which
the wildest storm that ever wrecked the forests of this
world was but a calm ? Did he know that the sun, every
mom ent, of time, throws out as much heat as could be gene
rated by the combustion of eleven thousand millions of tons
of coal ? Did he know that the volume of the earth is less
than one-millionth of that of the sun ? Did he know of the
one hundred and four planets belonging to our solar system,
all children of the sun ? Did he know of Jupiter, eightyfive thousand miles in diameter, hundreds of times as large
as our earth, turning on his axis at the rate of twenty-five
thousand miles an hour, accompanied by four moons, making
the tour of his orbit in fifty years, a distance of three thou
sand million miles ? Did he know anything about Saturn,
his rings and his eight moons ? Did he have the faintest
idea that all these planets were once a part of the sun;
that the vast luminary was once thousands of millions of
miles in diameter ; that Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter
and Mars were all born before our earth, and that by no
posssibility could this world have existed three days, nor
three periods, nor three “ good whiles” before its source,
the sun ?
Moses supposed the sun to be about three or four feet in
diameter, and the moon about half that size. Compared
with the earth, they were but simple specks. This idea
seems to have been shared by all the “inspired ” men. We
find in the book of Joshua that the sun stood still, and the
moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon
their enemies. “ So the sun stood still in the midst of
heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.’
We are told that the sacred writer wrote in common
speech, as we do when we talk about the rising and setting
of the sun, and that all he intended to say was that
the earth ceased to turn on its axis “ for about a whole
day.”
My own opinion is that General Joshua knew no more
about the motions of the earth than he did about mercy and
justice. If he had known that the earth turned upon its
axis at the rate of a thousand miles an hour, and swept in
�40
SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
its course about the sun at the rate of sixty-eight thousand
miles an hour, he would have doubled the hailstones, spoken
of in the same chapter, that the Lord cast down from
heaven, and allowed the sun and moon to rise and set in
the usual way.
It is impossible to conceive of a more absurd story than
this about the stopping of the sun and moon, and yet
nothing so excites the malice of the orthodox preacher as to
call its truth in question. Some endeavor to account for
the phenomenon by natural causes, while others attempt to
show that God could by the refraction of light have made
the sun visible although actually shining on the opposite
side of the earth. The last hypothesis has been seriously
urged by ministers within the last few months. The Rev.
Henry M. Morey of South Bend, Indiana, says “ that the
phenomenon was simply optical. The rotary motion of the
earth was not disturbed, but the light of the sun was pro
longed by the same laws of refraction and reflection by
which the sun now appears to be above the horizon when it
is really below.
The medium through which the sun’s
rays passed may have been miraculously influenced so asto have caused the sun to linger above the horizon long
after its usual time for disappearance.”
This is the latest and ripest product of Christian scholar
ship upon this question no doubt, but still it is not entirely
satisfactory to me. According to the sacred account the
sun did not linger merely above the horizon, but stood still
in the midst of heaven for about a whole day,” that is to
say for about twelve hours. If the air was miraculously
changed so that it would refract the rays of the sun while
the earth turned over as usual for “about a whole day,”
then at the end of that time the sun must have been visible
in the east, that is, it must by that time have been the next
morning. According to this, that most wonderful day
must have been at least thirty-six hours in length. We
have first, the twelve hours of natural light, then twelve
hours of “refracted and reflected” light. By that time it
would again be morning, and the sun would shine for
twelve hours more in the natural way, making thirty-six
hours in all.
If the Rev. Morey would depend a little less on “ re
fraction ” and a little more on “ reflection,” he would con-
�41
SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
elude that the whole story is simply a barbaric myth and
fable.
It hardly seems reasonable that God, if there is one,
would either stop the globe, change the constitution of the
atmosphere or the nature of light simply to afford Joshua
an opportunity to kill people on that day, when he could
just as easily have waited until the next morning.
It
certainly cannot be very gratifying to God for us to believe
such childish things.
It has been demonstrated that force is eternal; that it is
for ever active, and eludes destruction by change of form.
Motion is a form of force, and all arrested motion changes
instantly to heat. The earth turns upon its axis at about
one thousand miles an hour. Let it be stopped, and a
force beyond our imagination is changed to heat. It has
been calculated that to stop the world would produce as
much heat as the burning of a solid piece of coal three
times the size of the earth.
And yet we are asked to
believe that this was done in order that one barbarian
might defeat another.
Such stories never would have
been written, had not the belief been general that the
heavenly bodies were as nothing compared with the earth.
The view of Moses was acquiesced in by the Jewish
people and by the Christian world for thousands of years.
It is supposed that Moses lived about fifteen hundred
years before Christ, and although he was “ inspired,” and
obtained his information directly from God, he did not know
as much about our solar system as the Chinese did a thou
sand years before he was born. “ The Emperor Chwenhio adopted as an epoch a conjunction of the planets
Mercury, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, which has been shown
by M. Bailly to have occurred no less than 2,449 years
before Christ.” The ancient Chinese knew not only the
motions of the planets, but they could calculate eclipses.
“In the reign of the Emperor Chow-Kang, the chief astro
nomers, Ho and Hi were condemned to death for neglecting
to announce a solar eclipse which took place 2,169 B.O., a
clear proof that the prediction of eclipses was a part of the
duty of the imperial astronomers.”
Is it not strange that a Chinaman should find out by his
own exertions more about the material universe than Moses
could when assisted by its creator ?
u
�42
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
About eight hundred years after God gave Moses the
principal facts about the creation of the “ heaven and the
earth ” he performed another miracle far more wonderful
than stopping the world. On this occasion he not only
stopped the earth, but actually caused it to turn the other
way. A Jewish king was sick, and God, in order to con
vince him that he would ultimately recover, offered to make
the shadow on the dial go forward or backward ten degrees.
The king thought it was too easy a thing to make the shadow
go forward, and asked that it be turned back. Thereupon,
“ Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord, and he brought
the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone
down in-the dial of Ahaz.” I hardly see how this miracle
could be accounted for even by “ refraction ” and “ reflec
tion.”
It seems, from the account, that this stupendous miracle
was performed after the king' had been cured. The account
of the shadow going backward is given in the eleventh
verse of the twentieth chapter of Second Kings, while the
cure is given in the seventh verse of the same chapter.
“ And Isaiah said, Take a lump of figs. And they took
and laid it on the boil, and he recovered.”
Stopping the world and causing it to turn back ten
degrees after that, seems to have been, as the boil was
already cured by the figs, a useless display of power.
The easiest way to account for all these wonders is to
say that the “ inspired ” writers were mistaken. In this
way a fearful burden is lifted from the credulity of man,
and he is left free to believe the evidences of his own
senses and the demonstrations of science. In this way he
can emancipate himself from the slavery of superstition,
the control of the barbaric dead, and the despotism of the
Church.
Only about a hundred years ago, Buffon, the naturalist,
was compelled by the faculty of theology at Paris to
publicly renounce fourteen “errors” in his work on Natural
History because they were at variance with the Mosaic
account of creation. The Pentateuch is still the scientific
standard of the Church, and ig-norant priests, armed with
that, pronounce sentence upon the vast accomplishments of
modern thought.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
43
X.—“TIE MADE THE STARS ALSO.”
Moses came very near forgetting about the stars, and only
gave five words to all the hosts of heaven. Gan it be possible
that he knew anything about the stars beyond the mere fact
that he saw them shining above him ?
Did he know that the nearest star, the one we ought to
be the best acquainted with, is twenty-one billion of miles
away, and that it is a sun shining by its own light ? Did he
know of the next, that is thirty-seven billion miles distant ?
Is it possible that he was acquainted with Sirius, a sun two
thousand six hundred and eighty-eight times larger than
our own, surrounded by a system of heavenly bodies, several
of which are already known, and distant from us eighty-two
billion miles ? Did he know that the Polar star that tells the
mariner his course and guided slaves to liberty and joy, is
distant from this little world two hundred and ninety-two
billion miles, and that Capella wheels and shines one hundred
and thirty-three billion miles beyond? Did he know that it
would require about seventy-two years for light to reach us
from this star ? Did he know that light travels one hundred
and eighty-five thousand miles a second ? Did he know that
some stars are so far away in the infinite abysses that five
millions of years are required for their light to reach this
globe ?
If this is true, and if, as the Bible tells us, the stars were
made after the earth, then this world has been wheeling in
its orbit for at least five million years.
It may be replied that it was not the intention of God to
teach geology and astronomy. Then why did he say any
thing upon these subjects ? and if he did say anything,
why did he not give the facts ?
According to the sacred records, God created, on the first
day, the heaven and the earth, “ moved upon the face of
the waters,” and made the light. On the second day he
made the firmament or the “ expanse ” and divided the
waters. On the third day he gathered the waters into
seas, let the dry land appear, and caused the earth to bring
forth grass, herbs and fruit trees, and on the fourth day he
�44
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
made the sun, moon and stars, and set them in the firma
ment of heaven to give light upon the earth. This division
of labor is very striking. The work of the other days is
as nothing when compared with that of the fourth. Is it
possible that it required the same time and labor to make
the grass, herbs and fruit trees, that it did to fill with count
less constellations the infinite expanse of space ?
XI.—FRIDAY.
We are then told that on the next day “ God said, Let the
waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that
hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open
firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and
every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought
forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl
after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God
blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the
waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.”
Is it true that while the dry land was covered with grass,
and herbs, and trees bearing fruit, the ocean was absolutely
devoid of life, and so remained for millions of years ?
If Moses meant twenty-four hours by the word day, then
it would make but little difference on which of the six days
animals were made ; but if the word day was used to express
millions of ages, during which life was slowly evolved from
monad up to man, then the account becomes infinitely absurd,
puerile and foolish. There is not a scientist of hig'h standing
who will say that in his judgment the earth was covered
with fruit-bearing trees before the monera, the ancestor it
may be of the human race, felt in Laurentian seas the first
faint throb of life. Nor is there one who will declare that
there was a single spire of grass before the sun had poured
upon the world his flood of gold.
Why should men in the name of religion try to harmonise
the contradictions that exist between Nature and a book ?
Why should philosophers be denounced for placing more
reliance upon what they know than upon what they have
been told ? If there is a God, it is reasonably certain that
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
45
he made the world, but it is by no means certain that he is
the author of the Bible. Why then should we not place
greater confidence in Nature than in a book ? And even if
this God made not only the world but the book besides, it
does not follow that the book is the best part of creation,
and the only part that we shall be eternally punished for
denying. It seems to me that it is quite as important to
know something of the solar system, something of the
physical history of this globe, as it is to know the adven
tures of Jonah or the diet of Ezekiel. For my part, I
would infinitely prefer to know all the results of scientific
investigation, than to be inspired as Moses was. Supposing
the Bible to be true, why is it any worse or more wicked
for Freethinkers to deny it than for priests to deny the
doctrine of Evolution or the dynamic theory of heat ? Why
should we be damned for laughing at Samson and his foxes,
while others, holding the Nebular Hypothesis in utter con
tempt, go straight to heaven ? It seems to me that a belief
in the great truths of science is fully as essential to salva
tion as the creed of any Church. We are taught that a
man may be perfectly acceptable to God even if he denies
the rotundity of the earth, the Copernican system, the three
laws of Kepler, the indestructibility of matter and the
attraction of gravitation. And we are also taught that a
man may be right upon all these questions, and yet, for
failing to believe in the “ scheme of salvation,” be eternally
lost.
XII.—SATURDAY.
On this, the last day of creation, God said:—“ Let the earth
bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and
creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind : and it
was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind,
and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth
upon the earth after his kind; and God saw that it was
good.”
Now, is it true that the seas were filled with fish, the sky
with fowls, and the earth covered with grass, and herbs,
�46
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
and fruit-bearing trees, millions of ages before there was a
creeping thing in existence ? Must we admit that plants and
animals were the result of the fiat of some incomprehensible
intelligence independent of the operation of what are known
as natural causes ? Why is a miracle any more necessary to
account for yesterday than for to-day or for to-morrow ?
If there is an infinite Power, nothing can be more certain
than that this Power works in accordance with what we call
law, that is, by and through natural causes. If anything
can be found without a pedigree of natural antecedents, it
will then be time enough to talk about the fiat of creation.
There must have been a time when plants and animals did
not exist upon this globe. The question, and the only
question is, whether they were naturally produced. If the
account given by Moses is true, then the vegetable and
animal existences are the result of certain special fiats of
creation entirely independent of the operation of natural
causes. This is so grossly improbable, so at variance with
the experience and observation of mankind, that it cannot
be adopted without abandoning forever the basis of scientific
thought and action.
It may be urged that we do not understand the sacred
record correctly. To this it may be replied that for thou
sands of years the account of the creation has, by the
J ewish and Christian world, been regarded as literally true.
If it was inspired, of course God must have known just
how it would be understood, and consequently must have
intended that it should be understood just as he knew it
would be. One man writing to another may mean one
thing, and yet be understood as meaning something else.
Now, if the writer knew that he would be misunderstood,
and also knew that he could use other words that would
convey his real meaning, but did not, we would say that
he used words on purpose to mislead, and was not an honest
man.
If a being of infinite wisdom wrote the Bible, or caused
it to be written, he must have known exactly how his
words would be interpreted by all the world, and he must
have intended to convey the very meaning that was con
veyed. He must have known that by reading that book
man would form erroneous views as to the shape, antiquity
and size of this world ; that he would be misled as to the
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
47
time and oi’der of creation; that he would have the most
childish and contemptible views of the Creator ; that the
“sacred word” would be used to support slavery and
polygamy; that it would build dungeons for the good and
light fagots to consume the brave, and therefore he must
have intended that these results should follow. He also
must have known that thousands and millions of men and
women never could believe his Bible, and that the number
of unbelievers would increase in the exact ratio of civilisa
tion, and therefore he must have intended that result.
Let us understand this. An honest finite being uses the
best words, in his judgment, to convey his meaning. This
is the best he can do, because he cannot certainly know the
exact effect of his words on others. But an infinite being
must know not only the real meaning of the words, but
the exact meaning they will convey to every reader and
hearer. He must know every meaning that they are capable
of conveying to every mind. He must also know what
explanations must be made to prevent misconception. If
an infinite being cannot, in making a revelation to man, use
such words that every person to whom revelation is essential
will understand distinctly what that revelation is, then a
revelation from God through the instrumentality of lan
guage is impossible, or it is not essential that all should
understand it correctly. It may be urged that millions
have not the capacity to understand a revelation, although
expressed in the plainest words. To this it seems a sufficient
reply to ask why a being of infinite power should create
men so devoid of intelligence that he cannot by any means
make known to them his will ? We are told that it is ex
ceedingly plain, and that a wayfaring man, though a fool,
need not err therein. This statement is refuted by the
religious history of the Christian world. Every sect is a
certificate that God has not plainly revealed his will to man.
To each reader the Bible conveys a different meaning.
About the meaning of this book, called a revelation, there
have been ages of war, and centuries of sword and flame.
If written by an infinite God, he must have known that these
results mustfollow; and thus knowing, he must be responsible
for all.
Is it not infinitely more reasonable to say that this book
the work of man, that it is filled with mingled truth and
�48
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
error, with mistakes and facts, and reflects, too faithfully
perhaps, the “ very form and pressure ” of its time ?
If there are mistakes in the Bible, certainly they were
made by man. If there is anything contrary to nature, it
was written by man. If there is anything immoral, cruel,
heartless or infamous, it certainly was never written by a
being worthy of the adoration of mankind.
XIII.—LET US MAKE MAN.
We are next informed by the author of the Pentateuch
that God said “ Let us make man in our image, after
our likeness,” and that “ God created man in his own
image, in the image'of God created he him; male and
female created he them.”
If this account means anything, it means that man was
created in the physical image and likeness of God. Moses,
while he speaks of man as having been made in the image
of God, never speaks of God except as having the form of
a man. He speaks of God as “ walking in the garden in
the cool of the dayand says that Adam and Eve “ heard his
voice.” He is constantly telling what God said, and in a
thousand passages he refers to him as not only having the
human form, but as performing actions such as man per
forms. The God of Moses was a God with hands, with
feet, with the organs of speech—a God of passion, of
hatred, of revenge, of affection, of repentance—a God who
made mistakes—in other words, an immense and powerful
man.
It will not do to say that Moses meant to convey the
idea that God made man in his mental or moral image.
Some have insisted that man was made in the moral image
of God because he was made pure. Purity cannot be manu
factured. A moral character cannot be made for man by a
god. Every man must make his own moral character.
Consequently, if God is infinitely pure, Adam and Eve were
not made in his image in that respect. Others say that
Adam and Eve were made in the mental image of God. If
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
49
it is meant by that, that they were created with reasoning
powers like, but not to the extent of, those possessed by a
god, then this may be admitted. But certainly this idea
was not in the mind of Moses. He regarded the human
form as being in the image of God, and for that reason
always spoke of God as having that form. No one can read
the Pentateuch without coming to the conclusion that the
author supposed that man was created in the physical likeness
of Deity. God said “ Go to, let us godown.” God “ smelled
asweetsavor
God “ repented ” him that he had made man;
“and God said,” and “walked,” and “ talked,” and “rested.”
All these expressions are inconsistent with any other idea
than that the person using them regarded God as having
the form of man.
As a matter of fact, it is impossible for a man to conceive
of a personal God, other than as a being having the human
form. No one can think of an infinite being having the
form of a horse, or of a bird, or of any animal beneath man.
It is one of the necessities of the mind to associate forms
with intellectual capacities. The highest form of which we
have any conception is man’s, and consequently, his is the
only form that we can find in imagination to give to a
personal God, because all other forms are, in our minds,
connected with lower intelligences.
It is impossible to think of a personal God as a spirit
without form. We can use these words, but they do not
convey to the mind any real and tangible meaning. Every
one who thinks of a personal God at all, thinks of him as
having the human form. Take from God the idea of form ;
speak of him simply as an all-pervading spirit—-which means
an all-pervading something about which we know nothing
—and Pantheism is the result.
We are told that God made man ; and the question
naturally arises, How was this done? Was it by a process
of “ evolution,” “ development,” the “ transmission of
acquired habits,” the “ survival of the fittest,” or was the
necessary amount of clay kneaded to the proper consis
tency, and then by the hands of God moulded into form ?
Modern science tells us that man has been evolved, through
countless epochs, from the lowest forms ; that he is the
result of almost an infinite number of actions, reactions,
experiences, states, forms, wants and adaptations. Did
�50
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
Moses intend to convey such a meaning, or did he believe
that God took a sufficient amount of dust, made it the
proper shape, and breathed into it the breath of life ? Can
any believer in the Bible give any reasonable account of
this process of creation ? Is it possible to imagine what
was really done ? Is there any theologian who will contend
that man was created directly from the earth ? Will he say
that man was made substantially as he now is, with all his
muscles properly developed for walking and speaking, and
performing every variety of human action—that all his
bones were formed as they now are, and all the relations of
nerve, ligament, brain and motion as they are to-day ?
Looking back over the history of animal life from the
lowest to the highest forms, we find that there has been a
slow and gradual development; a certain but constant
relation between want and production; between use and
form. The monera is said to be the simplest form of animal
life that has yet been found. It has been described as “an
organism without organs.” It is a kind of structureless
structure; a little mass of transparent jelly that can
flatten itself out, and can expand and contract around its
food. It can feed without a mouth, digest without a
stomach, walk without feet, and reproduce itself by simple
division. By taking this monera as the commencement of
animal life, or rather as the first animal, it is easy to follow
the development of the organic structure through all the
forms of life to man himself. In this way finally every
muscle, bone and joint, every organ, form and function
may be accounted for. In this way, and in this way only, *
can the existence of rudimentary organs be explained.
Blot from the human mind the ideas of evolution, heredity,
adaptation, and “the survival of the fittest,” with which it
has been enriched by Lamarck, Goethe, Darwin, II seek el
and Spencer, and all the facts in the history of animal life
become utterly disconnected and meaningless. Shall we
throw away all that has been discovered with regard to
organic life, and in its place take the statements of one who
lived in the rude morning of a barbaric day ? Will any
body now contend that man was a direct and independent
creation, and sustains and bears no relation to the animals
below him ? Belief upon this subject must be governed
at last by evidence. Man cannot believe as he pleases.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
51
He can control his speech, and can say that he believes or
disbelieves; but after all, his will cannot depress or raise
the scales with which his reason finds the worth and weight
of facts. If this is not so, investigation, evidence, judgment
and reason are but empty words.
I ask again, how were Adam and Eve created ? In one
account they are created male and female, and apparently
at the same time. In the next account, Adam is made first,
and Eve a long time afterwards, and from a part of the man.
Did God simply by his creative fiat cause a rib slowly to
expand, grow and divide into nerve, ligament, cartilage and
flesh ? How was the woman created from a rib ? How
was man created simply from dust? For my part, I can
not believe this statement. I may suffer for this in the world
to come ; and may, millions of years hence, sincerely wish
that I had never investigated the subject but had been
content to take the ideas of the dead. I do not believe
that any Deity works in that way. So far as my experience
goes, there is an unbroken procession of cause and effect.
Each thing is a necessary link in an infinite chain; and I
cannot conceive of this chain being broken even for one
instant. Back of the simplest monera there is a cause, and
back of that another, and so on, it seems to me, forever.
In my philosophy I postulate neither beginning nor ending.
If the Mosaic account is true, we know how long man
has been upon this earth. If that account can be relied on,
the first man was made about five thousand eight hundred
and eighty-three years ago. Sixteen hundred and fiftysix years after the making of the first man, the inhabitants
of the world, with the exception of eight people, were des
troyed by a flood. This flood occurred only about four
thousand two hundred and twenty-seven years ago. If
this account is correct, at that time only one kind of men
existed. Noah and his family were certainly of the same
blood. It therefore follows that all the differences we see
between the various races of men have been caused in about
four thousand years. If the account of the deluge is true,
then since that event all the ancient kingdoms of the earth
were founded, and their inhabitants passed through all the
stages of savage, nomadic, barbaric and semi-civilised life ;
through the epochs of Stone, Bronze and Iron; established
commerce, cultivated the arts, built cities, filled them with
�52
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
palaces and temples, invented writing, produced a literature,
and slowly fell to shapeless ruin. We must believe that all
this has happened within a period of four thousand years.
From representations found upon Egptian granite made
more than three thousand years ago, we know that the
negro was as black, his lips as full, and his hair as closely
curled then as now. If we know anything, we know that
there was at that time substantially the same difference
between the Egyptian and the Negro as now. If we know
anything, we know that magnificent statues were made in
Egypt four thousand years before our era—that is to say,
about six thousand years ago. There was at the World’s
Exposition, in the Egyptian department, a statue of King
Cephren, known to have been chiselled more than six thousand
years ago. In other words, if the Mosaic account must be
believed, this statue was made before the world. We also
know,.if we know anything, that men lived in Europe with
the hairy mammoth, the cave bear, the rhinoceros, and the
hyena. Among the bones of these animals have been found
the stone hatchets and flint arrows of our ancestors. In the
caves where they lived have been discovered the remains
of these animals that had been conquered, killed and de
voured as food, hundreds of thousands of years ago.
If these facts are true, Moses was mistaken. For my
part, I have infinitely more confidence in the discoveries of
to-day, than in the records of a barbarous people. It will
not now do to say that man has existed upon this earth for
only about six thousand years. One can hardly compute
in his imagination the time necessary for man to emerge
from the barbarous state, naked and helpless, surrounded
by animals far more powerful than he, to progress and
finally create the civilisations of India, Egypt and Athens.
The distance from savagery to Shakespeare must be
measured not by hundreds, but by millions of years.
XIV.—SUNDAY.
££ And on the seventh day God ended his work which he
had made ; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work
which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
53
sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his
work which God created and made.”
The great work had been accomplished, the world, the
sun, and moon, and all the hosts of heaven were finished;
the earth was clothed in green, the seas were filled with
life, the cattle wandered by the brooks, insects with painted
wings were in the happy air, Adam and Eve were making
each other’s acquaintance, and God was resting from his work.
He was contemplating the achievements of a week.
Because he rested on that day he sanctified it, and for
that reason and for that alone, it was by the Jews con
sidered a holy day. If he only rested on that day, there
ought to be some account of what he did the following
Monday. Did he rest on that day ? What did he do after
he got rested ? Has he done anything in the way of creation
since Saturday evening of the first week ?
It is now claimed by the “scientific ” Christians that the
“ days ” of creation were not ordinary days of twenty-four
hours each, but immensely long periods of time. If they
are right, then how long was the seventh day ? Was that,
too, a geologic period covering thousands of ages ? That
cannot be, because Adam and Eve were created the Saturday
evening before, and according to the Bible that was about
five thousand eight hundred and eighty-three years ago.
I cannot state the time exactly, because there have been as
many as one hundred and forty different opinions given by
learned biblical students as to the time between the creation
of the world and the birth of Christ. We are quite certain,
however, that according to the Bible, it is not more than
six thousand years since the creation of Adam. From this
it would appear that the seventh day was not a geologic
epoch, but was in fact a period of less than six thousand
years, and probably of only twenty-four hours.
The theologians who “ answer ” these things may take
their choice. If they take the ground that the “ days ” were
periods of twenty-four hours, then geology will force them
to throw away the whole account. If, on the other hand,
they admit that the days were vast “periods,” then the
sacredness of the Sabbath must be given up. •
There is found in the Bible no intimation that there was
the least difference in the days. They are all spoken of in
the same way. It may be replied that our translation is
�54
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
incorrect. If this is so, then only those who understand
Hebrew have had a revelation from God, and all the rest
have been deceived.
How is it possible to sanctify a space of time ? Is rest
holier than labor ? If there is any difference between days,
ought not that to be considered best in which the most use
ful labor has been performed ?
Of all the superstitions of mankind, this insanity about
the “ sacred Sabbath ” is the most absurd. The idea of
feeling it a duty to be solemn and sad one-seventh of the
time! To think that we can please an infinite being- by
staying in some dark and sombre room, instead of walking
in the perfumed fields! Why should God hate to see a
man happy ? Why should it excite his wrath to see a
family in the woods, by some babbling stream, talking,
laughing and loving? Nature works on that “sacred”
day. The earth turns, the rivers run, the trees grow, the
buds burst into flower, and birds fill the air with song.
Why should we look sad, and think about death, and hear
about hell ? Why should that day be filled with gloom
instead of joy ?
A poor mechanic, working all the week in dust and noise,
needs a day of rest and joy, a day to visit stream and wood,
a day to live with wife and child; a day in which to
laugh at care, and g’ather hope and strength for toils to
come. And his weary wife needs a breath of sunny air,
away from street and wall, amid the hill, or by the margin
of the sea, where she can sit and prattle with her babe, and
fill with happy dreams the long, glad day.
The “ Sabbath ” was born of asceticism, hatred of human
joy, fanaticism, ignorance, egotism of priests and the
cowardice of the people. This day, for thousands of years,
has been dedicated to superstition, to the dissemination of
mistakes, and the establishment of falsehoods. Every Free
thinker, as a matter of duty, should violate this day. He
should assert his independence, and do all within his power
to wrest the Sabbath from the gloomy church and give it
back to liberty and joy. Freethinkers should make the
Sabbath a day of mirth and music—a day to spend with
wife and child—a day of games, and books, and dreams—a
day to put fresh flowers above our sleeping dead, a day of
memory and hope, of love and rest.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
55
Why should we in this age of the world be dominated by
the dead? Why should barbarian Jews, who went down
to death and dust three thousand years ago, control the
living world ? Why should we care for the superstition of
men who began the Sabbath by paring their nails, “ begin
ning at the fourth finger, then going to the second, then to
the fifth, then to the third, and ending with the thumb ?”
How pleasing to God this must have been. The Jews were
very careful of these nail parings. They who threw them
upon the ground were wicked, because Satan used them to
work evil upon the earth. They believed that upon the
Sabbath, souls were allowed to leave purgatory and cool
their burning souls in water. Fires were neither allowed
to be kindled nor extinguished, and upon that day it was a
sin to bind up wounds. “ The lame might use a staff, but
the blind could not.” So strict was the Sabbath kept, that
at one time “ if a Jew on a journey was overtaken by the
‘ sacred day ’ in a wood, or on the highway, no matter
where, nor under what circumstances, he must sit down,”
and there remain until the day was gone, ‘‘ If he fell down
in the dirt, there he was compelled to stay until the day was
done.” For violating the Sabbath, the punishment was
death, for nothing short of the offender’s blood could satisfy
the wrath of God. There are, in the Old Testament, two
reasons given for abstaining from labor on the Sabbath—
the resting of God, and the redemption of the Jews from
the bondage of Egypt.
Since the establishment of the Christian religion, the day
has been changed, and Christians do not regard the day as
holy upon which God actually rested, and which he
sanctified. The Christian Sabbath, or the “ Lord’s day,”
was legally established by the murderer Constantine,
because upon that day Christ was supposed to have risen
from the dead.
It is not easy to see where Christians got the right to
disregard the direct command of God, to labor on the day
he sanctified, and keep as sacred a day upon which he com
manded men to labor. The Sabbath of God is Saturday,
and if any day is to be kept holy, that is the one, and not
the Sunday of the Christian.
Let us throw away these superstitions and take the
higher, nobler ground, that every day should be rendered
�56
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
sacred by some loving act, by increasing the happiness of
man, giving birth to noble thoughts, putting in the path of
toil some flower of joy, helping the unfortunate, lifting the
fallen, dispelling gloom, destroying prejudice, defending
the helpless and filling homes with light and love.
XV.—THE NECESSITY FOR A GOOD MEMORY.
It must not be forgotten that there are two accounts of the
creation in Genesis. The first acccount stops with the
third verse of the second chapter. The chapters have been
improperly divided. In the original Hebrew the Pentateuch
was neither divided into chapters nor verses. There was
not even any system of punctuation. It was written
wholly with consonants, without vowels, and without any
marks, dots, or lines to indicate them.
These accounts are materially different, and both cannot
be true. Let us see wherein they differ.
The second account of the creation begins with the fourth
verse of the second chapter, and is as follows.
“ These are the generations of the heavens and of the
earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God
made the earth and the heavens,
“ And every plant of the field before it was in the earth,
and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord
God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was
not a man to till the ground.
“ But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered
the whole face of the ground.
“ And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man
became a living soul.
“ And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden ;
and there he put the man whom he had formed.
“ And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow
every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food;
the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree
of knowledge of good and evil.
�SOME MISTAKES OK MOSES.
57
li And a river went out of Eden to water the garden;
and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
“ The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold:
11 And the gold of that land is good : there is bdellium
and the onyx stone.
“ And the name of the second river is Gihon : the same
is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
“ And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it
which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth
river is Euphrates.
“ And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the
garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
“ And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of
every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
“ But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
shall not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die.
“ And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man
should be alone ; I will make him an help meet for him.
“ And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast
of the field, and every fowl of the air ; and brought them
unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatso
ever Adam called every living creature, that was the name
thereof.
“ And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of
the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there
was not found an help meet for him.
“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon
Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed
up the flesh instead thereof ;
“ And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man,
made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
“ And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh : she shall be called Woman, because she
was taken out of man.
“ Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife : and they shall be one flesh. ’
“And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and
were not ashamed.”
ORDER OF CREATION IN THE FIRST ACCOUNT :
1. The heaven and the earth, and light were made.
�58
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
2. The firmament was constructed and the waters divided.
3. The waters were gathered into seas—and then came
dry land, grass, herbs and fruit trees.
4. The sun and the moon. He made the stars also.
5. Fishes, fowls, and great whales.
6. Beasts, cattle, every creeping thing, man and woman.
ORDER OF CREATION IN THE SECOND ACCOUNT :
1. The heavens and the earth.
2. A mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole
face of the ground.
3. Created a man out of dust, by the name of Adam.
4. Planted a garden eastward in Eden, and put the man
in it.
5. Created the beasts and fowls.
6. Created a woman out of one of the man’s ribs.
In the second account, man was made before the beasts
and fowls. If this is true, the first account is false. And
if the theologians of our time are correct in their view that
the Mosaic day means thousands of ages, then, according to
the second account, Adam existed millions of years before
Eve was formed. lie must have lived one Mosaic day
before there were any trees, and another Mosaic day before
the beasts and fowls were created. Will some kind clergy
man tell us upon what kind of food Adam subsisted during
these immense periods ?
In the second account a man is made, and the fact that
he was without a helpmeet did not occur to the Lord God
until a couple of a vast periods ” afterwards. The Lord God
suddenly coming to an appreciation of the situation said,
“ It is not good that the man should be alone ; I will make
him an help meet for him.”
Now, after concluding to make “ an help meet ” for Adam,
what did the Lord God do ? Did he at once proceed to make
a woman ? No. What did he do ? He made the beasts,
and tried to induce Adam to take one of them for “ an help
meet.” If I am incorrect, read the following account, and
tell me what it means :
“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man
should be alone ; I will make him an help meet for him.
“ And out of the ground the Lord God formed every
beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
59
■ them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and
whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the
name thereof.
“ And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of
the air, and to every beast of the field ; but for Adam there
was not found an help meet for him.”
Unless the Lord God was looking for an helpmeet for
Adam, why did he cause the animals to pass before him ?
And why did he, after the menagerie had passed by,
pathetically exclaim, “ But for Adam there was not found
an help meet for him ?”
It seems that Adam saw nothing that struck his fancy.
The fairest ape, the sprightliest chimpanzee, the loveliest
baboon, the most bewitching orang-outang, the most fascin
ating gorilla failed to touch with love’s sweet pain, poor
Adam’s lonely heart. Let us rejoice that this was so. Had
he fallen in love then, there never would have been a Free
thinker in this world.
Dr. Adam Clarke, speaking of this remarkable proceeding
says :—“ God caused the animals to pass before Adam to
show him that no creature yet formed could make him a
suitable companion; that Adam was convinced that none
of these animals could be a suitable companion for him, and
that therefore he must continue in a state that was not
good (celibacy) unless he became a further debtor to the
bounty of his maker, for among all the animals which he
had formed, there was not a helpmeet for Adam.”
Upon this same subject. Dr. Scott informs us “that-it
was not conducive to the happiness of the man to remain
without the consoling society and endearment of tender
friendship, nor consistent with the end of his creation to be
without marriage by which the earth might be replenished
and worshippers and servants raised up to render him praise
and glory. Adam seems to have been vastly better
acquainted by intuition or revelation with the distinct pro
perties of every creature than the most sagacious observer
since the fall of man.
“ Upon this review of the animals, not one was found in
outward form his counterpart, nor one suited to engage his
affections, participate in his enjoyments, or associate with
him in the worship of God.”
Dr. Matthew Henry admits that God brought all the
�60
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
animals together to see if there was a suitable match for
Adam in any of the numerous families of the inferior creatures,
but there was none. They were all looked over, but Adam
could not be matched among them all. Therefore God
created a new thing to be a helpmeet for him.”
Failing to satisfy Adam with any of the inferior animals,
the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon him, and
while in this sleep took out one of Adam’s ribs and “ closed
up the flesh instead thereof.” And out of this rib the Lord
Grod made a woman, and brought her to the man.
Was the Lord God compelled to take a part of the man
because he had used up all the original “ nothing ” out of
which the universe was made ? Is it possible for any sane
and intelligent man to believe this story ? Must a man be
born a second time before this account seems reasonable ?
Imagine the Lord God with a bone in his hand with which
to start a woman, trying to make up his mind whether to
make a blonde or a brunette !
Just at this point it may be proper for me to warn all
persons from laug’hing at, or making light of, any stories
found in the “ Holy Bible.” When you come to die, every
laugh will be a thorn in your pillow. At that solemn
moment, as you look back upon the records of your life, no
matter how many men you may have wrecked and ruined;
no matter how many women you have deceived and de
serted, all that can be forgiven ; but if you remember then
that you have laughed at even one story in God’s “ sacred
book,” you will see through the gathering shadows of death
the forked tongues of devils and the leering eyes of fiends.
These stories must be believed, or the work of regenera
tion can never be commenced. No matter how well you
act your part—live as honestly as you may, clothe the
naked, feed the hungry, divide your last farthing with the
poor—and you are simply travelling the broad road that
leads inevitably to eternal death, unless at the same time
you implicitly believe the Bible to be the inspired word of
God.
Let me show you the result of unbelief. Let us suppose,
for a moment, that we are at the Day of Judgment, listen
ing to the trial of souls as they arrive. The Recording
Secretary, or whoever does the cross-examining, says to a
soul:
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
61
Where are you from ?—I am from the Earth.
What kind of a man were, you ?—Well, I don’t like to
talk about myself. I suppose you can tell by looking at
your books.
No sir. You must tell what kind of a man you were.—
Well, I was what you might call a first-rate fellow. I
loved my wife and children. My home was my heaven.
My fireside was a paradise to me. To sit there and see
the lights and shadows fall upon the faces of those I loved,
was to me a perfect joy.
How did you treat your family ?—I never said an unkind
word. I never caused my wife, nor one of my children, a
moment’s pain.
Did you pay your debts ?—I did not owe a dollar when I
died, and left enough to pay my funeral expenses, and to
keep the fierce wolf of want from the door of those I loved.
Did you belong to any church ?—No, sir. They were
too narrow, pinched and bigoted for me; I never thought
that I could be very happy if other folks were damned.
Did you believe in eternal punishment?—Well, no. I
always thought that God could get his revenge in far less
time.
Did you believe the rib story ?—Do you mean the Adam
and Eve business ?
Yes. Did you believe that?—To tell you the God’s
truth, that was just a little more than I could swallow.
Away with him to hell 1 Next.
Where are you from ?—I am from the world too.
Did you belong to any church?—Yes, sir, and to the Young
Men’s Christian Association besides.
What was your business ?—Cashier in a Savings Bank.
Did you ever run away with any money ?—Where I came
from, a witness could not be compelled to criminate him
self.
The law is different here. Answer the question. Did
you run away with any money ?—Yes, sir.
How much ?—One hundred thousand dollars.
Did you take anything else with you ?—Yes, sir.
W ell, what else ?—I took my neighbor’s wife—we sang
together in the choir.
Did you have a wife and children of your own ?—Yes,
sir.
�62
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
And you deserted them ?—Yes, sir ; but such was my
confidence in God, that I believed he would take care of
them.
Have you heard of them since ?—No, sir.
Did you believe in the rib story ?—Bless your soul, of
course I did. A thousand times I regretted that there were
no harder stories in the Bible, so that I could have shown
my wealth of faith.
Do you believe the rib story yet ?—Yes, with all my
heart.
Give him a harp.
Well, as I was saying, God made a woman from Adam’s
rib. Of course, I do not know exactly how this was done,
but when he got the woman finished, he presented her to
Adam. He liked her, and they commenced house-keeping
in the celebrated Garden of Eden.
Must we, in order to be good, gentle and loving in our
lives, believe that the creation of woman was a second
thought ? That Jehovah really endeavored to induce Adam
to take one of the lower animals as an helpmeet for him ?
After all, is it not possible to live honest and courageous
lives without believing these fables ? It is said that from
Mount Sinai God gave, amid thunderings and lightnings,
ten commandments for the guidance of mankind; and yet
among them is not found—“ Thou shalt believe the Bible.”
XVI.—THE GARDEN.
In the first account we are told that God made man, male
and female, and said to them, “ Be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the earth, and subdue it.”
In the second account only the man is made, and he is
put in a garden “ to dress it and to keep it.” He is not
told to subdue the earth, but to dress and keep a garden.
In the first account man is given every herb bearing seed
upon the face of the earth and the fruit of every tree for
food, and in the second, he is given only the fruit of all the
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
63
trees in the garden with the exception “ of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil,” which was a deadly poison.
There was issuing from this garden a river that was ,
parted into four heads. The first of these, Pison, compassed
the whole land of Haviiah; the second, Gihon, compassed
the whole land of Ethiopia ; the third, Hiddekel, flowed
toward the east of Assyria, and the fourth was the Euphrates.
Where are these four rivers now ? The brave prow of dis
covery has visited every sea; the traveller has pressed with
weary feet the soil of every clime ; and yet there has been
found no place from which four rivers sprang. The Eu
phrates still journeys to the gulf, but where are Pison,
Gihon and the mighty Hiddekel ? Surely by going to the
source of the Euphrates we ought to find either these three
rivers or their ancient beds. Will some minister, when he
answers the “ Mistakes of Moses,” tell us where these rivers
are or were ? The maps of the world are incomplete without
these mighty streams. We have discovered the sources
of the Nile; the North Pole will soon be touched by an
American; but these three rivers still rise in unknown
hills, still flow through unknown lands, and empty still in
unknown seas.
The account of these four rivers is what the Rev. David
Swing would call “ a geographical poem.” The orthodox
clergy cover the whole affair with the blanket of allegory,
while the “ scientific” Christian folks talk about cataclysms,
upheavals, earthquakes, and vast displacements of the
earth’s crust.
The question then arises, whether within the last six
thousand years there have been such upheavals and dis
placements? Talk as you will about the vast “ creative
periods ” that preceded the appearance of man; it is, accord
ing to the Bible, only about six thousand years since man
was created. Moses gives us the generations of men from
Adam until his day, and his account cannot be explained
away by calling centuries days.
According to the second account of creation, these four
rivers were made after the creation of man, and conse
quently they must have been obliterated by convulsions of
Nature within six thousand years.
Can we not account for these contradictions, absurdities
and falsehoods by simply saying that although the writer
�64
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
may have clone his level best, he failed because he was
limited in knowledge, led away by tradition, and depended
too implicitly upon the correctness of his imagination ? Is
not such a course far more reasonable than to insist that.
all these things are true, and must stand though every
science shall fall to mental dust ?
Can any reason be given for not allowing man to eat of
the fruit of the tree of knowledge ?■ What kind of tree
was that ? If it is all an allegory, what truth is sought to
be conveyed ? Why should God object to that fruit being
eaten by man ? Why did he put it in the midst of the
garden ? There was certainly plenty of room outside. If
he wished to keep man and this tree apart, why did he put
them together ? And why, after he had eaten, was he
thrust out ? The only answer that we have a right to give
is the one given in the Bible. “ And the Lord God said, Be
hold, the man is become as one of us. to know good and
evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of
the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever : Therefore the
Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till
the ground from whence he was taken.”
Will some minister, some graduate of Andover, tell us
what this means ? Are we bound to believe it without
knowing what the meaning is ? If ibis' a revelation, what
does it reveal? Did God object to education then, and
does that account for the hostile attitude still assumed by
theologians towards all scientific truth ? Was there in the
garden a tree of life, the eating of which would have ren-clered Adam and Eve immortal ? Is it true, that after the
Lord God drove them from the garden that he placed upon
its Eastern side “ Cherubinis, and a flaming sword which
turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life ?”
Are the Cherubinis and the flaming sword guarding that
tree yet, or was it destroyed, or did its rotting trunk, as
the Rev. Robert Collyer suggests, “ nourish a bank of
violets ?”
What objection could God have had to the immortality
of man ? You see that after all this sacred record, instead
of assuring us of immortality, shows us only how we lost
it. In this there is assuredly but little consolation.
According to this story we have lost one Eden, but no
where in the Mosaic books are we told how we may gain
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
65
■another. I know that the Christians tell us there is another,
in which all true believers will finally be gathered, and
enjoy the unspeakable happiness of seeing- the unbelievers
in hell; but they do not tell us where it is.
Some commentators say that the Garden of Eden was in
the third heaven, some in the fourth, others have located
it in the moon, some in the air beyond the attraction of the
earth, some on the earth, some under the earth, some inside
the earth, some at the North Pole, others at the South, some
in Tartary, some in China, some on the borders of the Ganges
some in the island of Ceylon, some in Armenia, some in
Africa, some under the equator, others in Mesopotamia, in
Syria, Persia, Arabia, Babylon, Assyria, Palestine and
Europe. Others have contended that it was invisible, that
it was an allegory, and must be spiritually understood.
But whether you understand these things or not, you
must believe them. You may be laughed at in this world
for insisting that God put Adam into a deep sleep and made
a woman out of one of his ribs, but you will be crowned
and glorified in the next. You will also have the pleasure
of hearing the gentlemen howl there who laughed at you
here. While you will not be permitted to take any revenge,
you will be allowed to smilingly express your entire acqui
escence in the will of God. But where is the new Eden ?
No one knows. The one was lost, and the other has not
been found.
Is it true that man was once perfectly pure and innocent,
and that he became degenerate by disobedience ? No. The
real truth is, and the history of man shows, that he has ad
vanced. Events, like the pendulum of a clock, have swung
forward and backward, but after all, man, like the hands,
has gone steadily on. Man is growing grander. He is not
degenerating. Nations and individuals fail and die, and
make room for higher forms. The intellectual horizon of
the world widens as the centuries pass. Ideals grow
grander and purer; the difference between justice and
mercy becomes less and less ; liberty enlarges, and love in
tensifies as the years sweep on. The ages of force and
fear, of cruelty and wrong, are behind us, and the real Eden
is beyond. It is said that a desire for knowledge lost us
the Eden of the past; but whether that is true or not, it
will certainly give us the Eden of the future.
�66
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
XVII.—THE FALL.
WE are told that the serpent was more subtle than any
beast of the Held ; that he had a conversation with Eve, in
which he gave his opinion about the effect of eating certain
fruit; that he assured her it was good to eat, that it
was pleasant to the eve, that it would make her wise ; that
she was induced to take some ; that she persuaded her
husband to try it; that God found it out, that he then
cursed the snake ; condemning it to crawl and eat the dust;
that he multiplied the sorrows of Eve, cursed the ground
for Adam’s sake, started thistles and thorns, condemned
man to eat the herb of the field in the sweat of his face,
pronounced the curse of death, “ Dust thou art, and unto
dust shalt thou return,” made coats of skins for Adam and
Eve, and drove them out of Eden.
Who and what was this serpent ? Dr. Adam Clark says :
“ The serpent must have walked erect, for this is necessarily
implied in his punishment. That he was endued with the
gift of speech, also with reason. That these things were
given to this creature. The woman no doubt having often
seen him walking erect, and talking and reasoning, there
fore she testifies no sort of surprise when he accosts her in
' the language related in the text. It therefore appears to
me that a creature of the ape or orang-outang kind is
here intended, and that Satan made use of this creature as
the most proper instrument for the accomplishment of his
murderous purposes against the life of the soul of man.
Under this creature he lay hid, and by this creature he
seduced our first parents. Such a creature answers to
every part of the description in the text. It is evident
from the structure of its limbs and its muscles that it might
have been originally designed to walk erect, and that nothing
else than the sovereign controlling power could induce it to
put down hands—in every respect formed like those of man
—and walk like those creatures whose claw-armed parts
prove them to have been designed to walk on all fours.
The stealthy cunning- and endless variety of the pranks and
tricks of these creatures, show them even now to be wiser
and more intelligent than any other creature, man alone ex-
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
67
cepted. Being obliged to walk on all fours and gather
their food from the ground, they are literally obliged to eat
the dust; and though exceeding cunning, and careful in a
variety of instances to separate that part which is whole
some and proper for food from that which is not so, in the
article of cleanliness they are lost to all sense of propriety.
Add to this their utter aversion to walk upright. It requires
the utmost discipline to bring them to it, and scarcely any
thing offends or irritates them more than to be obliged to
do it. Long observation of these animals enables me to>
state these facts. For earnest, attentive watching, and for
chattering and babbling, they (the apes) have no fellows in the
animal world. Indeed, the ability and propensity to chatter is
all they have left of their original gift of speech, of which
they appear to have been deprived at the fall as a part of
their punishment.”
Here then is the “ connecting link ” between man and
the lower creation. The serpent was simply an orangoutangthat spoke Hebrew with the greatest ease, and had the
outward appearance of a perfect gentleman, seductive in
manner, plausible, polite, and most admirably calculated to
deceive. It never did seem reasonable to me that a long,
cold and disgusting snake, with an apple in his mouth,
could deceive anybody; and I am glad, even at this late
date, to know that the something that persuaded Eve to
taste the forbidden fruit was, at least, in the shape of a
man.
Dr. Henry does not agree with the zoological explanation
of Mr. Clark, but insists that “ it is certain that the Devil
that beg’uiled Eve is the old serpent, a malignant by creation,
an angel of light, an immediate attendant upon God’s throne,
but. by sin an apostate from his first state, and a rebel
against God’s crown and dignity. He who attacked our
first parents was surely the prince of devils, the ring leader
in rebellion. The Devil chose to act his part in a serpent,
because it is a specious creature, has a spotted, dappled
skin and then went erect. Perhaps it was a flying serpent
which seemed to come from on high, as a messenger from
the upper world, one of the seraphim ; because the serpent
is a subtile creature. What Eve thought of this serpent
speaking to her, we are not likely to tell, and, I believe,
she herself did not know what to think of it. At first, per-
�68
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
haps, she supposed it might be a good angel, and yet after
warcis might suspect something amiss. The person tempted
was a woman, now alone, and at a distance from her husband,
but near the forbidden tree. It was the Devil’s subtlety to
assault the weaker vessel with his temptations, as we may
suppose her inferior to Adam in knowledge, strength and
presence of mind. Some think that Eve received the com
mand not immediately from God, but at second hand from
her husband, and might, therefore, be the more easily
pursuaded to discredit it. It was the policy of the Devil to
■enter into discussion with her when she was alone. He
took advantage by finding her near the forbidden tree.
God permitted Satan to prevail over Eve, for wise and
holy ends. Satan teaches men first to doubt, and then to
deny. He makes sceptics first, and by degrees makes them
Atheists.”
We are compelled to admit that nothing could be more
attractive to a woman than a snake walking erect, with a
“ spotted, dappled skin,” unless it were a serpent with
wings. Is it not humiliating to know that our ancestors
believed these things ? Why should we object to the
Darwinian doctrine of descent after this ?
Our fathers thought it their duty to believe, thought it a
sin to entertain the slightest doubt, and really supposed
that their credulity was exceedingly gratifying to God. To
them the story was entirely real. They could see the
.garden, hear the babble of waters, smell the perfume of
flowers. They believed there was a tree where knowledge
grew like plums or pears ; and they could plainly see the
serpent coiled amid its rustling leaves, coaxing Eve to
violate the laws of God.
Where did the serpent come from? On which of the
six days was he created ? Who made him ? Is it possible
that God would make a successful rival ? He must have
known that Adam and Eve would fall He knew what a
snake with a “spotted, dappled skin” could do with an
inexperienced woman. Why did he not defend his chil
dren ? He knew that if the serpent got into the garden,
Adam and Eve would sin, that he would have to drive them
■out, that afterwards the world would be destroyed, and
that he himself would die upon the cross.
Again, I ask what and who was this serpent ? lie was
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
69
not a man, for only one man had been made. He was not
a woman. He was not a beast of the field, because “ he
was more subtile than any beast of the field which the Lord
God had made.” He was neither fish nor fowl, nor snake,,
because he had the power of speech, and did not crawl
upon his belly until after he was cursed. Where did this
serpent come from ? Why was he not kept out of the
garden ? Why did not the Lord God take him by the tail
and snap his head off ? Why did he not put Adam and
Eve on their guard about this serpent ? They, of course,
were not acquainted in the neighborhood, and knew nothing
. about, the serpent’s reputation for truth and veracity among
his neighbors. Probably Adam saw him when he was
looking for “ an helpmeet,” and gave him a name, but Eve
had never met him before. She was not surprised to hear
a serpent talk, as that was the first one she had ever met..
Everything being new to her, and her husband not being
with her just at that moment, it need hardly excite our
wonder that she tasted the fruit by way of experiment.
Neither should we be surprised that when she saw it wasgood and pleasant to the eye, and a fruit to be desired to
make one wise, she had the generosity to divide with her
husband.
Theologians have filled thousands of volumes with abuse
of this serpent, but it seems that he told the exact truth.
We are told that this serpent was, in fact, Satan, the great
est enemy of mankind, and that he entered the serpent,
appearing to our first parents in its body. If this is so, why
should the serpent have been cursed ? Why should God
curse the serpent for what had really been done by the
Devil ? Did Satan remain in the body of the serpent, and
in some mysterious manner share his punishment ? Is it
true that when we kill a snake we also destroy an evil
spirit, or is there but one Devil, and did he perish at the
death of the first serpent ? Is it on account of that trans
action in the garden of Eden, that all the descendants of
Adam and Eve known as Jews and Christians hate
serpents ?
Do you account for the snake-worship in Mexico, Africa
and India in the same way ?
What was the form of the serpent when he entered the
garden, and in what way did he move from place to place ?
�70
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
Did lie walk or fly? Certainly he did not crawl, because
that mode of locomotion was pronounced upon him as a
■curse. Upon what food did he subsist before his conversa
tion with Eve ? We know that after that he lived upon dust,
but what did he eat before ? It may be that this is all
poetic; and the truest poetry is, according to Touchstone,
“the most feigning.”
In this same chapter we are informed that “ unto Adam
also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins
and clothed them.” Where did the Lord God get those
.skins ? He must have taken them from the animals ; he
was a butcher. Then he had to prepare them ; he was a
tanner. Then he made them into coats; he was a tailor.
How did it happen that they needed coats of skins, when
they had been perfectly comfortable in a nude condition ?
Did the “fall” produce a change in the climate ?
Is it really necessary to believe this account in order to
be happy here, or hereafter ? Does it tend to the elevation
•of the human race to speak of “ God” as a butcher, tanner
and tailor ?
And here, let me say once for all, that when I speak of
God, I mean the being described by Moses: the Jehovah
of the Jews. There may be for aught I know, somewhere
in the unknown shoreless vast, some being whose dreams
are constellations and within whose thought the infinite
exists. About this being, if such an one exists, I have
nothing to say. He has written no books, inspired no
barbarians, required no worship, and has prepared no hell
in which to burn the honest seeker after truth.
When I speak of God, I mean that God who prevented
man from putting forth his hand and taking also of the fruit
of the tree of life that he might live for ever ; of that god
who multiplied the agonies of woman, increased the weary
toil of man, and in his anger drowned a world—of that God
whose altars reeked with human blood, who butchered
babes, violated maidens, enslaved men and filled the earth
with cruelty and crime; of that God who made heaven for
the few, hell for the many, and who will gloat for ever and
ever upon the writhings of the lost and damned.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
71
XVIII. —DAMPNESS.
4£ And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the
face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
“ That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that
they were fair ; and they took them wives of all which they
chose.
£< And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive
with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an
hundred and twenty years.
“ There were giants in the earth in those days ; and also
after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters
of men, and they bare children to them, the same became
mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
“ And God saw that the wickedness of man was great m
the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of
his heart was only evil continually.
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the
earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
“ And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have
■created from the face of the earth ; both man, and beast
and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air ; for it
repenteth me that I have made them.”
from this account it seems that driving Adam and Eve
out of Eden did not have the effect of improving them or their
children. On the contrary, the world grew "worse and
worse. They were under the immediate control and gov
ernment of God, and he from time to time made known his
will ; but in spite of this, man continued to increase in
■crime.
Nothing in particular seems to have been done. Not a
school was established. There was no written language.
There was not a bible in the world. The “ scheme ^of
salvation ” was kept a profound secret. The five points of Cal
vinism had not been taught. Sunday schools had not been
opened. In short, nothing had been done for the- reformation
•of the world. God did not even keep his own sons at home,
but allowed them to leave their abode in the firmament, and
make love to the daughters of men. As a result of’ this
the world was filled with wickedness and giants to such an
�72
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
extent that God regretted “ that he had made man on theearth, and it grieved him at his heart.”
Of course God knew when he made man, that he would
afterwards regret it. Ide knew that the people would grow
worse and worse until destruction would be the only remedy.
He knew that he would have to kill all except Noah and
his family, and it is hard to see why he did not make Noah
and his family in the first place, and leave Adam and Eve
in the original dust. He knew that they would be tempted,
that he would have to drive them out of the garden to keep
them from eating of the tree of life; that the whole thing
would be a failure; that Satan would defeat his plan ; that
he could not reform the people; that his own sons would
corrupt them, and that at last he would have to drown them
all except Noah and his family. Why was the garden of
Eden planted? Why was the experiment made? Why
were Adam and Eve exposed to the seductive arts of the
serpent ? Why did God wait until the cool of the day
before looking after his children? Why was he not on
hand in the morning ? Why did he fill the world with his
own children, knowing- that he would have to destroy
them ? And why does this same God tell me how to raise
my children when he had to drown his. .
It is a little curious that when God wished to reform the
antediluvian world he said nothing about hell; that he
had no revivals, no camp-meetings, no tracts, no outpourings
of the Holy Ghost, no baptisms, no noon prayer meetings,
and never mentioned the great doctrine of salvation by
faith. If the orthodox creeds of the world are true, all
those people went to hell without ever having heard that
such a place existed. If eternal torment is a fact, surely
these miserable wretches ought to have been warned.
They were threatened only with water when they were in
fact doomed to eternal fire I
Is it not strange that God said nothing to Adam and Eve
about a future life ; that he should have kept these “
verities ” to himself and allowed millions to live and die
without the hope of heaven, or the fear of hell ?
It may be that hell was not made at that time. In the
six days of creation nothing is said about the construction
of a bottomless pit, and the serpent himself did not make
his appearance until after the creation of man and woman.
�73
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
Perhaps he was made on the first Sunday, and from that
fact came, it may be, the old couplet,
“ And Satan still some mischief finds
For idle hands to do.” .
The sacred historian failed also to tell us when tl e
cherubim and the flaming’ swcrd were made, and said
nothing- about two of the-persons composing- the trinity.
It certainly would have been an easy thing- to enlighten
Noah and his immediate descendants. The world was then
only about fifteen hundred and thirty-six years old, and
only about three or four generations of men had lived.
Adam had been dead only about six hundred and six years,
and some of his grandchildren must, at that time, have
been alive and well.
It is hard to see why God did not civilise these people..
He certainly had the power to use, and the wisdom to
devise the proper means. What right has a god to fill a
world with fiends ? Can there be goodness in this ? Why
should he make experiments that he knows must fail ? Is
there wisdom in this ? And what right has a man to charge
an infinite being with wickedness and folly ?
According to Moses, God made up his mind not only to
destroy the people, but the beasts and the creeping things.,
and the fowls of the air. What had the beasts, and the
creeping things, and the birds done to excite the anger of
God ? Why did he repent having made them ? Will some
Christian give us an explanation of this matter ? No good
man will inflict unnecessary pain upon a beast; how, then,
can we worship a god who cares nothing for the agonies
of the dumb creatures that he made ?
Why did he make animals that he knew he would des
troy ? Dees God delight in causing pain ? He had the
power to make the beasts, and fowls, and creeping things
in his own good time and way, and it is to be presumed
that he made them according to his wish. Why should he
destroy them ? They had committed no sin. They had
eaten no forbidden fruit, made no aprons, nor tried to reach
the tree of life. Yet this God, in blind unreasoning wrath
destroyed “ all flesh wherein was the breath of life, and
every living thing beneath the sky, and every substance
wherein was life that he had made.”
F
�74
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
Jehovah, having made up his mind to drown the world,
told Noah to make an Ark of gopher wood three hundred
cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. A
cubit is twenty-two inches; so that the ark was five hundred
and fifty feet long, ninety-one feet and eight inches wide and
fifty-five feet high. This ark was divided into three stories,
and had, on top, one window twenty-two inches square,
Ventilation must have been one of Jehovah’s hobbies. Think
of a ship larger than the Great Eastern with only one
window, and that but twenty-two inches square !
The ark also had one door set in the side thereof that
shut from the outside. As soon as this ship was finished,
and properly victualed, Noah received seven days’ notice to
get the animals in the ark.
It is claimed by some of the scientific theologians that
the flood was partial, that the waters covered only a small
portion of the world, and that consequently only a few
animals were in the ark. It is impossible to conceive of
language that can more clearly convey the idea of a uni
versal flood than that found in the inspired account. If the
flood was only partial, why did God say he would
“ destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life from under
heaven, and that every thing that is in the earth shall die ?”
Why did he say, “ I w'ill destroy man whom I have created
from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the
creeping thing and the fowls of the air ?” Why did he say,
“ And every living substance that I have made will I de
stroy from off the face of the earth?” Would a partial,
local flood have fulfilled these threats ?
Nothing can be clearer than that the writer of this account
intended to convey, and did convey the idea that the flood
was universal. Why should Christians try to deprive God
of the glory of having wrought the most stupendous of
miracles ? Is it possible that the infinite could not over
whelm with waves this atom called the earth ? Do you
doubt his power, his wisdom, or his justice ?
Believers in miracles should not endeavor to explain them.
There is but one way to explain anything, and that is to
account for it by natural agencies. The moment you ex
plain a miracle, it disappears. You should depend not upon
explanation, but assertion. You should not be driven from
the field because the miracle is shown to be unreasonable.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
75
You should reply that all miracles are unreasonable. Neither
should you be in the least disheartened if it is shown to be
impossible. The possible is not miraculous. You should
take the ground that if miracles were reasonable and pos
sible, there would be no reward paid for believing them.
The Christian has the goodness to believe, while the sinner
asks for evidence. It is enough for God to work miracles
without being called upon to substantiate them for the bene
fit of unbelievers.
Only a few years ago the Christians believed implicitly
in the literal truth of every miracle recorded in the Bible.
Whoever tried to explain them in some natural way, was
looked upon as an infidel in disguise, but now he is regarded
as a benefactor. The credulity of the Church is decreasing,
and the most marvellous miracles are now either “explained,”
or allowed to take refuge behind the mistakes of the trans
lators, or hide in the drapery of allegory.
In the sixth chapter (v. 19), Noah is ordered to take “ of
•every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort ” into the
ark—“ male and female.” In the seventh chapter (v. 2) the
order is changed, and Noah is commanded, according to the
Protestant Bible, as follows: “ Of every clean beast thou shalt
take to thee by sevens, the male and his female : and of
beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female.”
According to the Catholic Bible, Noah was commanded—
“ Of all clean beasts take seven and seven, the male and the
female. But of the beasts that are unclean two and two,
the male and the female. Of the fowls also of the air seven
and seven, the male and the female.”
For the purpose of belittling this miracle, many commen
tators have taken the ground that Noah was not ordered to
take seven males and seven females of each kind of clean
beasts, but seven in all. Many Christians contend that
only seven clean beasts of each kind were taken into the
ark—three and a half of each sex.
If the account in the seventh chapter means anything, it
means first, that of each kind of clean beasts, fourteen were
to be taken, seven males and seven females; second, that of
unclean beasts should be taken two of each kind, one of
each sex ; and third, that he should take of every kind of
fowls, seven of each sex.
�76
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
It is equally clear that the command in the 19th and 20th
verses of the 6th chapter is to take two of each sort, one
male and one female. And this agrees exactly with the
account in the Sth, 9th, 14th, loth and 16th verses of
the seventh chapter.
The next question is, How many beasts, fowls and creeping
things did Noah take into the ark ?
There are now known and classified at least twelve thou
sand five hundred species of birds. There are still vast
territories in China, South America, and Africa unknown to
the ornithologist.
Of the birds, Noah took fourteen of each species, accord
ing to the third verse of the seventh chapter, “ Of fowls
also of the air by sevens, the male and the female,” making
a total of 175,000 birds.
And right here allow me to ask a question. If the flood
was simply a partial flood, why were the birds taken into
the ark ? It seems to me that most birds, attending strictly
to business, might avoid a partial flood.
There are at least sixteen hundred and fifty-eight kinds
of beasts. Let us suppose that twenty-five of these are
clean. Of the clean, fourteen of each kind—seven of each
sex_ were taken. These amount to 350. Of the unclean,
two of each kind, amounting to 3,266. There are some six
hundred and fifty species of reptiles. Two of each kind
amount to 1,300. And lastly, there are of insects, including
the creeping things, at least one million species, so that
Noah and his folks had to get of these into the ark about
2,000,000.
Animalculm have not been taken into consideration.
There are probably many hundreds of thousands of species,
many of them invisible, and yet Noah had to pick them out
by pairs. Very few people have any just conception of the
trouble Noah had.
We know that there are many animals on this continent
not found in the Old World. These must have been carried
from here to the ark, and then brought back afterwards.
Were the peccary, armadillo, ant-eater, sloth, agouti,
vampire-bat, marmoset, howling and prehensile-tailed
monkey, the racoon and musk-rat carried by the angels
from America to Asia ? How did they get there ? Did the
polar bear leave his field of ice and journey toward the
�SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
77
tropics ? How did he know where the ark was ? Did the
kangaroo swim or jump from Australia to Asia ? Did the
giraffe, hippopotamus, antelope and orang-outang journey
from Africa in search of the ark ? Can absurdities go
farther than this ?
What had these animals to eat while on the journey ?
What did they eat while in the ark ? What did they drink ?
When the rain came, of course the rivers ran to the seas,
and these seas rose and finally covered the world. The
waters of the seas, mingled with those of the flood, would
make all salt. It has been calculated that it required, to
drown the world, about eight times as much water as was
in all the seas. To find how salt the waters of the flood
must have been, take eight quarts of fresh water, and
add one quart from the sea. Such water would create
instead of allaying thirst. Noah had to take in his ark
fresh water for all his beasts, birds and living things. He
had to take the proper food for all. How long was he in
the ark ? Three hundred and seventy-seven days 1 Think
of the food necessary for the monsters of the antediluvian
world !
Eight persons did all the work. They attended to the
wants of 175,000 birds, 3,616 beasts, 1,300 reptiles, and
2,000,000 insects, saying nothing of countless animalculm.
Well, after they all got in, Noah pulled down the window,
God shut the door, and the rain commenced.
How long did it rain ?—Forty days.
How deep did the water get ?—About five miles and a
half.
How much did it rain a day ?—Enough to cover the
whole world to a depth of about seven hundred and fortytwo feet.
Some Christians say that the fountains of the great deep
were broken up. Will they be kind enough to tell us what
the fountains of the great deep are ? Others say that God
had vast stores of water in the centre of the earth that he
used on that occasion. How did these waters happen to
run up hill ?
Gentlemen, allow me to tell you once more that you must
not try to explain these things. Your efforts in that direc
tion do no good, because your explanations are harder to
�78
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
believe than the miracle itself. Take my advice—stick to
assertion, and let explanation alone.
Then, as now, Dhawalagiri lifted its crown of snow
twenty-nine thousand feet above the level of the sea, and
on the cloudless cliffs of Chimborazo then, as now, sat the
condor; and yet the waters, rising seven hundred and
twenty-six feet a day—thirty feet an hour, six inches a
minute—rose over the hills, over the volcanoes, filled the
vast craters, extinguished all the fires, rose above every
mountain peak until the vast world was but one shoreless
sea covered with the innumerable dead.
Was this the work of the most merciful God, the father
of us all ? If there is a God, can there be the slightest
danger of incurring his displeasure by doubting even in a
reverential way, the truth of such a cruel lie ? If we think
that God is kinder than he really is, will our poor souls be
burned for that ?
How many trees can live under miles of water for a year ?
What became of the soil washed, scattered, dissolved, and
covered with the debris of a world ? How were the tender
plants and herbs preserved ? How were the animals pre
served after leaving the ark ? There was no grass except
such as had been submerged for a year. There were no
animals to be devoured by the carnivorous beasts. What
became of the birds that fed on worms and insects ? What
became of the birds that devoured other birds ?
It must be remembered that the pressure of the water
when at the highest point—say twenty-nine thousand feet
—would have been about eight hundred tons on each square
foot. Such a pressure certainly would have destroyed
nearly every vestige of vegetable life, so that when the
animals came out of the ark there was not a mouthful of
food in the wide world. How were they supported until
the world was again clothed with grass ? How were those
animals taken care of that subsisted on others ? Where did
the bees get honey, and the ants seed ? There was not a
creeping thing upon the whole earth; not a breathing
creature beneath the whole heavens ; not a living substance.
Where did the tenants of the ark get food ?
There is but one answer, if the story is true. The food
necessary not only during the year of the flood, but suffi-
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
79
cient for many months afterwards, must have been stored
in the ark.
There is probably not an animal in the world that will
not, in a year, eat and drink ten times its weight. Noah
must have provided food and water for a year while in the
ark, and food for at least six months after they got ashore.
It must have required for a pair of elephants, about one
hundred and fifty tons of food and water. A couple of
mammoths would have required about twice that amount.
Of course there were other monsters that lived on trees
and in a year would have devoured quite a forest.
How could eight persons have distributed this food, even
if the ark had been large enough to hold it ? How was the
ark kept clean? We know how it was ventilated; but
what was done with the filth ? How were the animals
watered ? How were some portions of the ark heated for
animals from the tropics, and others kept cool for the polar
bears ? How did the animals get back to their respective
countries ? Some had to creep back about six thousand
miles, and they could only go a few feet a day. Some of
the creeping things must have started for the ark just as
soon as they were made, and kept up a steady jog for sixteen
hundred years. Think of a couple of the slowest snails
leaving a point opposite the ark and starting for the plains
of Shinar, a distance of twelve thousand miles. Going at
the rate of a mile a month, it would take them a thousand
years. How did they get there ? Polar bears must have
gone several thousand miles, and so sudden a change in
climate must have been exceedingly trying upon their
health. How did they know the way to go ? Of course,
all the polar bears did not go. Only two were required.
Who selected these ?
Two sloths had to make the journey from South America.
These creatures cannot travel to exceed three rods a day. At
this rate they would make a mile in about a hundred days.
They must have gone about six thousand five hundred
miles to reach the ark. Supposing them to have travelled
by a reasonably direct route, in order to complete the jour
ney before Noah hauled in the plank, they must have started
several years before the world was created. We must also
consider that these sloths had to board themselves on the
way, and that most of their time had to he taken up getting
�80
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
food and water.
It is exceedingly doubtful whether a
sloth could travel six thousand miles and board himself in
less than three thousand years.
Volumes might be written upon the infinite absurdity of
this most incredible, wicked and foolish of all the fables con
tained in that repository of the impossible, called the Bible.
To me it is a matter of amazement that it ever was for a
moment believed by any intelligent human being.
Dr. Adam Clark says that “ the animals were brought to
the ark by the power of God, and their enmities were so
removed or suspended, that the lion could dwell peaceably
with the lamb, and the wolf sleep happily by the side of the
kid. There is no positive evidence that animal food was
ever used before the flood. Noah had the first grant of
this kind.”
Dr. Scott remarks : “There seems to have been a very
extraordinary miracle, perhaps by the ministration of angels,
in bringing two of every species to Noah, and rendering
them submissive and peaceful with each other. Yet it
seems not to have made any impression upon the hardened
spectators. The suspension of the ferocity of the savage
beasts during their continuance in the ark is generally con
sidered as an apt figure of the change that takes place in
the disposition of sinners when they enter the true church
of Christ.”
He believed the deluge to have been universal. In his
day science had not demonstrated the absurdity of this
belief, and he was not compelled to resort to some theory
not found in the Bible. He insisted that “by some vast
convulsion, the very bowels of the earth were forced up
wards, and rain poured down in cataracts and water-spouts,
with no intermission for forty days and nights, and until
in every place a universal deluge was effected.
“ The presence of God was the only comfort of Noah in his
dreary confinement, and in witnessing the dire devastation of the
earth and its inhabitants, and especially of the human species
—of his companions, his neighbors, his relatives—all those
to whom he had preached, for whom he had prayed, and
over whom he had wept, and even of many who had helped
to build the ark.
“ It seems that, by a peculiar providential interposition,
no animal of any sort died, although they had been shut
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
81
up in the ark above a year ; and it does not appear that
there had been any increase of them during- that time.
“ The ark was flat-bottomed—square at each end—roofed
like a house, so that it terminated at the top in the breadth
of a cubit. It was divided into many little cabins for its
intended inhabitants. Pitched within and without to keep
it tight and sweet, and lighted from the upper part. But
it must, at first sight, be evident that so large a vessel, thus
constructed, with so few persons on board, was utterly un
fitted to weather out the deluge, except it was under the
immediate guidance and protection of the Almighty.”
Dr. Henry furnished the Christian world with the fol
lowing :—
“ As our bodies have in them the humors which, when
God pleases, becomes the springs and seeds of mortal dis
ease, so that the earth had, in its bowels, those waters
which, at God’s command, sprung up and flooded it.
“ God made the world in six days, but he was forty days
in destroying it, because he is slow to anger.
“ The hostilities between the animals in the ark ceased,
and ravenous creatures became mild and manageable, so
that the wolf lay down with the lamb, and the lion ate straw
like an ox.
“ God shut the door of the ark to secure Noah and to
keep him safe, and because it was necessary that the door
should be shut very close lest the water should break in
and sink the ark, and very fast lest others might break it
down.
“ The waters rose so high that not only the low, flat
countries were deluged, but to make sure work, and that
none might escape, the tops of the highest mountains were
overflowed fifteen cubits. That is, seven and a half yards,
so that salvation was not hoped for from hills or moun
tains.
“ Perhaps some of the people got to the top of the ark,
and hoped to shift for themselves there. But either they
perished there for want of food, or the dashing rain washed
them off the top. Others, it may be, hoped to prevail with
Noah for admission into the ark, and plead old acquain
tance.
“ ‘ Have we not eaten and drank in thy presence ? Hast
thou not preached in our streets?’ ‘Yea,’ said Noah,
�82
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
many a time, but to little purpose. I called but ye refused;
and now it is not in my power to help you. God has
shut the door and I cannot open it.’
“We may suppose that some of those who perished in
the deluge had themselves assisted Noah, or were employed
by him in building the ark.
“ Hitherto, man had been confined to feed only upon the
products of the earth. Fruits, herbs and roots, and all
sorts of greens, and milk, which was the first grant; but
the flood having perhaps washed away much of the fruits
of the earth, and rendered them much less pleasant and
nourishing, God enlarged the grant and allowed him to eat
flesh, which perhaps man never thought of until now that
God directed him to it. Nor had he any more desire to it
than the sheep has to suck blood like the wolf. But now
man is allowed to feed upon flesh as freely and safely as
upon the green herb.”
Such was the debasing influence of a belief in the literal
truth of the Bible upon these men, that their commentaries
are filled with passages utterly devoid of common sense.
Dr. Clark, speaking of the mammoth, says :
“ This animal, an astonishing proof of God’s power, he
seems to have produced merely to show what he could do.
And after suffering a few of them to propagate, he extin
guished the race by a merciful providence, that they might
not destroy both man and beast.
“We are told that it would have been much easier for
God to destroy all the people and make new ones, but he
would not want to waste anything, and no power or skill
should be lavished where no necessity exists.
“ The animals were brought to the ark by the power of
God.”
Again, gentlemen, let me warn you of the danger of
trying to explain a miracle. Let it alone. Say that you
do not understand it, and do not expect to until taught in
the schools of the New Jerusalem. The more reasons you
give, the more unreasonable the miracle will appear.
Through what you say in defence people are led to think,
and as soon as they really think, the miracle is thrown
away.
Among the most ignorant nations you will find the most
wonders, among the most enlightened, the least. It is with
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
83.
individuals the same as with nations. Ignorance believes,.
Intelligence examines and explains.
For about seven months the ark, with its cargo of men,
animals and insects, tossed and wandered without rudder
or sail upon a boundless sea. At last it grounded on the
mountains of Ararat; and about three months afterwards
the tops of the mountains became visible. It must not be
forgotten that the mountain where the ark is supposed tohave first touched bottom, was about seventeen thousand
feet high. Flow were the animals from the tropics kept
warm ? When the waters were abated it would be in
tensely cold at a point seventeen thousand feet above the
level of the sea. May be there were stoves, furnaces, fire
places and steam coils in the ark ; but they are not men
tioned in the inspired narrative. How wore the animals
kept from freezing ? It will not do to say that Ararat wasnot very high after all.
If you will read the fourth and fifth verses of the eight
chapter you will see that although “ the ark rested in the
seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon
the mountains of Ararat,” it was not until the first day of'
the tenth month that “ the tops of the mountains ” could be
seen. From this it would seem that the ark must have
rested upon about the highest peak in that country. Noah
waited forty days more, and then for the first time opened
the window and took a breath of fresh air.
He then
sent out a raven that did not return, then a dove that
returned.
He then waited seven days and sent forth a
dove that returned not. From this he knew that the waters
were abated.
Is it possible that he could not see whether
the waters had gone ? Is it possible to conceive of a more
perfectly childish way of ascertaining whether the earth
was dry ?
At last Noah “ removed the covering of the ark, and looked,
and, behold, the face of the ground was dry,” and thereupon
God told him to disembark. In his gratitude Noah built
an altar and took of every clean beast and of every clean
fowl, and offered burnt offerings. And the Lord smelled a
sweet savor and said in his heart that he would not any
more curse the ground for man’s sake. For saying this in
his heart the Lord gives as a reason, not that man is, or
will be good, but because “ the imagination of man’s heart
�84
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
is evil from his youth.” God destroyed man because “ the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and because every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil con
tinually.” And he promised for the same reason not to
destroy him again. Will some gentleman skilled in theology
give us an explanation ?
After God had smelled the sweet savor of sacrifice, he
seems to have changed his idea as to the proper diet
for man. When Adam and Eve were created they were
allowed to eat herbs bearing seed, and the fruit of
trees. When they were turned out of Eden, God said to
them “Thou shalt eat the herb of the field.” In the first
chapter of Genesis the “ green herb ” was given for food to
the beasts, fowls and creeping things. Upon being expelled
from the garden, Adam and Eve, as to their food, were
put upon an equality with the lower animals. According
to this, the antediluvians were vegetarians. This may
account for their wickedness and longevity.
After Noah sacrificed, and God smelled the sweet savor,
he said—“ Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat
for you ; even as the green herb have I given you all things.”
Afterwards this same God changed his mind again, and
divided the beasts and birds into clean and unclean, and
made it a crime for man to eat the unclean. Probably food
was so scarce when Noah was let out of the ark that
Jehovah generously allowed him to eat anything and every
thing he could find.
According to the account, God then made a covenant
with Noah to the effect that he would not again destroy
the world with a flood, and, as the attesting- witness of this
■contract, a rainbow was set in the cloud. This bow was
placed in the sky so that it might perpetually remind God
of his promise and covenant. Without this visible witness
and reminder, it would seem that Jehovah was liable to for
get the contract, and drown the world again. Did the
rainbow originate in this way ?
Did God put it in the
cloud simply to keep his agreement in his memory ?
For me it is impossible to believe the story of the deluge.
It seems so cruel, so barbaric, so crude in detail, so absurd
in all its parts, and so contrary to all we know of law, that
■even credulity itself is shocked.
Many nations have preserved accounts of a deluge in
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
85
which all people, except a family or two, were destroyed.
Babylon was certainly a city before Jerusalem was.
founded. Egypt was in the height of her power when
there were only seventy Jews in the world, and India had
a literature before the name of Jehovah had passed the
lips of superstition. An account of a general deluge “was
discovered by George Smith, translated from another
account that was written about two thousand years before
Christ.” Of course it is impossible to tell how long the
story had lived in the memory of tradition before it was
reduced to writing by the Babylonians. According to this
account, which is, without doubt, much older than the one
given by Moses, Tamzi built a ship at the command of the
god Hea, and put in it his family and the beasts of the field.
He pitched the ship inside and outside with bitumen, and
as soon as it was finished, there came a flood of rain and
“ destroyed all life from the face of the whole earth. On
the seventh day there was a calm, and the ship stranded on
the mountain Nizir.” Tamzi waited for seven days more, and
then let out a dove. Afterwards, he let out a swallow, and
that, as well as the dove, returned. Then he let out a
raven, and as that did not return, he concluded that the
water had dried away, and thereupon left the ship. Then
he made an offering to God, or the gods, and “ Hea inter
ceded with Bel,” so that the earth might never again be
drowned.
This is the Babylonian story, told without the contra
dictions of the original. For in that it seems, there are two
accounts, as well as in the Bible. Is it not a strange
coincidence that there should be contradictory accounts
mingled in both the Babylonian and Jewish stories ?
In the Bible there are two accounts. In one account,
Noah was to take two of all beasts, birds and creeping
things into the ark, while in the other, he was commanded
to take of clean beasts and all birds by sevens of each kind.
According to one account, the flood only lasted one hundred
and fifty days—as related in the third verse of the eight
chapter ; while the other account fixes the time at three
hundred and seventy-seven days. Both of these accounts
cannot be true. Yet in order to be saved, it is not suffi
cient to believe one of them—you must believe both.
Among the Egyptians there was a story to the effect
�86
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
that the great god Ra became utterly maddened with the
people, and deliberately made up his mind that he would
exterminate mankind. Thereupon he began to destroy,
and continued in the terrible work until blood flowed in
streams, when suddenly he ceased, and took an oath that
he would not again destroy the human race. This myth
was probably thousands of years old when Moses was
born.
So, in India, there was a fable about the flood. A fish
warned Manu that a flood was coming. Manu built a
“ box,” and the fish towed it to a mountain and saved all
hands.
Stories of the same kind were told in Greece, and among
•our own Indian tribes. At one time the Christian pointed
to the fact that many nations told of a flood, as evidence of
the truth of the Mosaic account; but now, it having been
shown that other accounts are much older, and equally
reasonable, that argument has ceased to be of any great
value.
It is probable that all these accounts had a common
•origin. They were likely born of something in nature
visible to all nations. The idea of a universal flood, pro
duced by a God to drown the world on account of the sins
•of the people, is infinitely absurd. The solution of all these
stories has been supposed to be, the existence of partial
floods in most countries ; and for a long time this solution
was satisfactory. But the fact that these stories are greatly
.alike, that only one man is warned, that only one family is
saved, that a boat is built, that birds are sent out to find if
the water had abated, tend to show that they had a common
origin. Admitting that there were severe floods in all
countries ; it certainly cannot follow that in each instance
only one family would be saved, or that the same story
would in each instance be told. It may be urged that the
natural tendency of man to exaggerate calamities, might
account for this agreement in all the accounts, and it must
be admitted that there is some force in the suggestion. I
believe, though, that the real origin of all these myths is
the same, and that it was originally an effort to account for
the sun, moon and stars. The sun and moon were the man
and wife, or the god and goddess, and the stars were their
children. From a celestial myth, it became a terrestial
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
87
one; the air, or ether-ocean became a flood, produced by
rain, and the sun, moon and stars became man, women and
children.
In the original story, the mountain was the place where
in the far east the sky was supposed to touch the earth, and
it was there that the ship containing the celestial passengers
finally rested from its voyage. But whatever may be the
origin of the stories of the flood, whether told first by Hindu,
Babylonian or Hebrew, we may rest perfectly assured that
they are all equally false.
XIX.—BACCHUS AND BABEL.
As soon as Noah had disembarked, he proceeded to plant
a vineyard, and began to be a husbandman ; and when the
grapes were ripe he made wine and drank of it to excess ;
cursed his grandson, blessed Shem and Japheth, and after
that lived for three hundred and fifty years. What he did
■during these three hundred and fifty years, we are not
told. We never hear of him again. For three hundred
and fifty years he lived among his sons, and daughters, and
their descendants. He must have been a venerable man.
He was the man to whom Cod had made known his intention
of drowning the world. By his efforts, the human race
had been saved. He must have been acquainted with
Methuselah for six hundred years, and Methuselah was
about two hundred and forty years old when Adam died.
Noah must himself have known the history of mankind,
and must have been an object of almost infinite interest;
and yet for three hundred and fifty years he is neither
directly or indirectly mentioned. When Noah died, Abraham
must have been more than fifty years old; and Shem the
son of Noah, lived for several hundred years after the death
of Abraham; and yet he is never mentioned. Noah when
he died, was the oldest man in the whole world by about
five hundred years ; and everybody living at the time of his
death knew that they were indebted to him, and yet no
account is given of his burial. No monument was raised
to mark the spot. This, however, is no more wonderful
�88
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
than the fact that no account is given of the death of Adam
or of Eve, nor of the place of their burial. This may all beaccounted for by the fact that the language of man was
confounded at the building of the Tower of Babel, whereby
all tradition may have been lost, so that even the sons of
Noah could not give an account of their voyage in the
ark; and consequently some one had to be directly inspired
to tell the story, after new languages had been formed.
It has always been a mystery to me how Adam, Eve, and
the serpent were taught the same language. Where did
they get it ? We know now, that it requires a great number
of years to form a language ; that it is of excedingly slow
growth. We also know that by language, man conveys to
his fellows the impressions made upon him by what he
sees, hears, smells and touches. We know that the language
of the savage consists of a few sounds, capable of express
ing only a few ideas or states of the mind, such as love,
desire, fear, hatred, aversion and contempt.
Many
centuries are required to produce a language capable
of expressing complex ideas. It does not seem to me that
ideas can be manufactured by a deity and put in the brain
of man. These ideas must be the result of observation and
experience.
Does anybody believe that God directly taught a
language to Adam and Eve, or that he so made them that
they by intuition spoke Hebrew, or some language capable
of conveying to each other their thoughts ? How did the
.serpent learn the same language ? Did God teach it to him,
or did he happen to overhear God, when he was teaching
Adam and Eve? We are told in the second chapter of
Genesis that God caused all the animals to pass before Adam
to see what he would call them. We cannot infer from
this that God named the animals and informed Adam what
to call them. Adam named them himself. Where did he
get his words ? We cannot imagine a man just made out of
dust, without the experience of a moment, having the power
to put his thoughts in language. In the first place, we
cannot conceive of his having any thoughts until he has
combined, through experience and observation, the im
pressions that nature had made upon him through the
medium of his senses. We cannot imagine of his knowing
anything, in the first iistance, about different degrees of
�89
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
heat, nor about darkness, if he was made in the day-time,
nor about light, if created at night, until the next morning.
Before a man can have what we call thoughts, he must have
had a little experience. Something must have happened
to him before he can have a thought, and before he can
express himself in language. Language is a growth, not a
gift. We account now for the diversity of language by
the fact that tribes and nations have had different experiences
different wants, different surroundings, and, one result of
all these differences is, among other things, a difference in
language. Nothing can be more absurd than to account
for the different languages of the world by saying that the
original language was confounded at the Tower of Babel.
According to the Bible, up to the time of the building of
that tower, the whole earth was of one language and of one
speech, and would have so remained until the present time
had not an effort been made to build a tower whose top
should reach into heaven. Can anyone imagine what
objection God would have to the building of such a tower ?
And how could the confusion of tongues prevent its con
struction ? How could language be confounded ? It could
be confounded only by the destruction of memory. Did
God destroy the memory of mankind at that time, and if so,
how ? Did he paralyze that portion of the brain presiding
over the organs of articulation, so that they could not speak
the words, although they remembered them clearly, or did
he so touch the brain that they could not hear ? Will some
theologian, versed in the machinery of the miraculous, tell
us in what way God confounded the language of mankind ?
Why should the confounding of the language make them
separate ? Why should they not stay together until they
could understand each other ? People will not separate
from weakness. When in trouble they come together and
desire the assistance of each other. Why, in this instance,
did they separate ? What particular ones would naturally
come together if nobody understood the language of any
other person ? Would it not have been just as hard to
agree when and where to go, without any language to
express the agreement, as to go on with the building of the
tower ?
Is it possible that any one now believes that the whole
world would have been of one speech had the language not
G
�90
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
been confounded at Babel ? Do we not know that every
word was suggested in some way by the experience of men?
Do we not know that words are continually dying, and
continually being born; that every language has its cradle
and its cemetery—its buds, its blossoms, its fruits and its
withered leaves ? Man has loved, enjoyed, hated, suffered
and hoped, and all words have been born of these
experiences.
Why did “ the Lord come down to see the city and the
tower ?” Could he not see them from where he lived or
from where he was? Where did he come down from?
Did he come in the day-time, or in the night? We are
taught now that God is everywhere; that he inhabits im
mensity ; that he is in every atom, and in every star. If
this is true, why did he “ come down to see the city and
the tower ?” Will some theologian explain this ?
After all, is it not much easier and altogether more
reasonable to say that Moses was mistaken, that he knew
little of the science of language, and that he guessed a
great deal more than he investigated ?
XX.—FAITH IN FILTH.
No light whatever is shed upon what passed in the world
after the confounding of language at Babel, until the birth
of Abraham. But, before speaking of the history of the
Jewish people, it may be proper for me to say that
many things are recounted in Genesis, and other books
attributed to Moses, of which I do not wish to speak.
There are many pages of these books unfit to read, many
stories not calculated, in my judgment, to improve the
morals of mankind. I do not wish even to call the attention
of my readers to these thing's, except in a general way. It
is to be hoped that the time will come when such chapters
and passages as cannot be read without leaving the blush
of shame upon the cheek of modesty, will be left out, and
not published as a part of the Bible. If there is a God, it
certainly is blasphemous to attribute to him the authorship
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
91
of pages too obscene, beastly and vulgar to be read in the
presence of men and women.
The believers in the Bible are loud in their denunciation
of what they are pleased to call the immoral literature of
the world; and yet few books have been published con
taining more moral filth than this inspired word of God
These stories are not redeemed by a single flash of wit or
humor. They never rise above the dull details of stupid
vice. For one, I cannot afford to soil my pages with
extracts from them ; and all such portions of the Scriptures
I leave to be examined, written upon and explained by the
clergy. Clergymen may know some way by which they
can extract honey from these flowers. Until these passages
are expunged from the Old Testament, it is not a fit book
to be read by either old or young. It contains pages that
no minister in the United States would read to his congre
gation for any reward whatever. There are chapters that
no gentleman would read in the presence of a lady. There
are chapters that no father would read to his child. There
are narratives utterly unfit to be told; and the time will
come when mankind will wonder that such a book was
ever called inspired.
I know that in many books besides the Bible there are
immodest lines. Some of the greatest writers have soiled
their pages with indecent words. We account for this by
saying that the authors were human; that they catered to
the taste and spirit of their times. We make excuses, but
at the same time regret that in their works they left an
impure word. But what shall we say of God ? Is it
possible that a being of infinite purity—the author of
modesty—would smirch the pages of his book with stories
lewd, licentious and obscene ? If God is the author of the
Bible, it is, of course, the standard by which all other books
can and should be measured. If the Bible is not obscene,
what book is ? Why should men be imprisoned simply for
imitating God ? The Christian world should never say
another word against immoral books until it makes the
inspired volume clean. These vile and filthy things were
not written for the purpose of conveying and enforcing
moral truth, but seem to have been written because the
author loved an unclean thing. There is no moral depth
below that occupied by the writer or publisher of obscene
�92
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
books, that stain with lust the loving heart of youth. Such
men should be imprisoned and their books destroyed. The
literature of the world should be rendered decent, and no
book should be published that cannot be read by and in the
hearing of the best and purest people. But as long as the
Bible is considered as the Word of God, it will be hard to
make all men too good and pure to imitate it; and as long
as it is imitated there will be vile and filthy books. The
literature of our country will not be sweet and clean until
the Bible ceases to be regarded as the production of a god.
We are continually told that the Bible is the very foun
dation of modesty and morality ; while many of its pages
are so immodest and immoral that a minister, for reading
them in the pulpit, would be instantly denounced as an un
clean wretch. Every woman would leave the church, and
if the men stayed, it would be for the purpose of chastising
the minister.
Is there any saving grace in hypocrisy ? Will men be
come clean in speech by believing that God is unclean ?
Would it not be far better to admit that the Bible was
written by barbarians in a barbarous, course and vulgar
age ? Would it not be safer to charge Moses with vul
garity instead of God ? Is it not altogether more probable
that some ignorant Hebrew would write the vulgar words ?
The Christians tell me that God is the author of these vile
and stupid things. I have examined the question to the
best of my ability, and as to God my verdict is—Not
Guilty. Faith should not rest in filth.
Every foolish and immodest thing should be expunged
from the Bible. Let us keep the good. Let us preserve
every great and splendid thought, every wise and prudent
maxim, every just law, every elevated idea, and every word
calculated to make man nobler and purer, and let us. have
the courage to throw the rest away. The souls of children
should not be stained and soiled. The charming instincts
of youth should not he corrupted and defiled. The girls
and boys should not be taught that unclean words were
uttered by “ inspired ” lips. Teach them that these words
were born of savagery and lust. Teach them that the un
clean is the unholy, and that only the pure is sacred.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
..
XXI.-THE
03
HEBREWS.
After language had been confounded and the people
scattered, there appeared. in the land of Canaan a tribe of
Hebrews ruled by a chief or sheik called Abraham. They
had a few cattle, lived in tents, practised polygamy,
wandered from place to place, and were the only folks in
the whole world to whom God paid the slightest attention.
At this time there were hundreds of cities in India filled
with temples and palaces. Millions of Egyptians wor
shipped Isis and Osiris, and had covered their land with
marvellous monuments of industry, power and skill. But
these civilisations were entirely neglected by the deity, his
whole attention being taken up with Abraham and his
family.
It seems, from the account, that God and Abraham were
intimately acquainted, and conversed frequently upon a
great variety of subjects. By the twelfth chapter of
Genesis it appears that he made the following promises to
Abraham : “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.”
After receiving this communication from the Almighty,
Abraham went into the land of Canaan, and again God
appeared to him and told him to take a heifer three years
old, a g’oat of the same age, a sheep of equal antiquity, a
turtle dove and a young’ pigeon. Whereupon Abraham
killed the animals “ and divided them in the midst, and laid
each piece one against another.” And it came to pass that
when the sun went down and it was dark, behold a smoking
furnace and a burning lamp that passed between the raw
and bleeding meat. The killing of these animals was a
preparation for receiving a visit from God. Should an
American missionary in Central Africa find a negro chief
surrounded by a butchered heifer, a goat and a sheep, with
which to receive a communication from the infinite God, my
opinion is that the missionary would regard the proceedings
as the direct result of savagery. And if the chief insisted
that he had seen a smoking furnace and a burning lamp
�94
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
going up and down between the pieces of meat, the mis
sionary would certainly conclude that the chief was not
altogether right in his mind.
If the Bible is true, this same God told Abraham to take
and sacrifice his only son, or rather the only son of his wife,
and a murder would have been committed had not God,
just at the right moment, directed him to stay his hand and
take a sheep instead.
God made a great number of promises to Abraham, but
few of them were ever kept. He agreed to make him the
father of a great nation, but he did not. He solemnly
promised to give him a great country, including all the
land between the river of Egypt and the Euphrates, but he
did not.
In due time Abraham passed away, and his son Isaac
took his place at the head of the tribe. Then came Jacob,
who “ watered stock ” and enriched himself with the spoil
of Laban. Joseph was sold into Egypt by his jealous
brethren, where he became one of the chief men of the
kingdom, and in a few years his father and brothers left
their own country and settled in Egypt. At this time there
were seventy Hebrews in the world, counting Joseph and
his children. They remained in Egypt two hundred and
fifteen years. It is claimed by some that they were in that
coitntry for four hundred and thirty years. This is a mis
take. Josephus says they were in Egypt two hundred and
fifteen years, and this statement is sustained by the best
biblical scholars of all denominations. According to Gal.
iii., 17, it was four hundred and thirty years from the time
the promise was made to Abraham to the giving of the law,
and as the Hebrews did not go to Egypt for two hundred
and fifteen years after the making of the promise to Abra
ham, they could in no event have been in Egypt more than
two hundred and fifteen years. In our Bible Exodus xii., 40
is as follows:—“ Now the sojourning of the children of
Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty
years.”
This passage does not say that the sojourning was all
done in Egypt; neither does it say that the children of
Israel dwelt in Egypt four hundred and thirty years ; but
it does say that the sojourning of the children of Israel who
dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. The
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
93
Vatican copy of the Septuagint renders the same passage as
follows :—“ The sojourning of the children of Israel, which
they sojourned in Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was
four hundred and thirty years.”
The Alexandrian Version says : “ The sojourning of the
children of Israel, which they and their fathers sojourned
in Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and
thirty years.”
And in the Samaritan Bible we have : “ The sojourning
of the children of Israel and of their fathers, which they
sojourned in the land of Canaan, and in the land of Egypt,
was four hundred and thirty years.”
There were seventy souls when they went down into
Egypt, and they remained two hundred and fifteen years,
and at the end of that time they had increased to about
three million. How do we know that there were three
million at the end of two hundred and fifteen years ? We
know it because we are informed by Moses that “ there
were six hundred thousand men of war.” Now, to each
man of war, there must have been at least five other people.
In every State in this Union there will be to each voter five
other persons at least, and we all know that there are always
more voters than' men of war. If there were six hundred
thousand men of war, there must have been a population of
at least three million. Is it possible that seventy people
could increase to that extent in two hundred and fifteen
years ? You may say that it was a miracle; but what need
was there of working a miracle ? Why should God mira
culously increase the number of slaves ?
If he wished
miraculously to increase the population, why did he not
wait until the people were free ?
In 1776, we had in the American Colonies about three
million of people. In one hundred years we doubled four
times: that is to say, six, twelve, twenty-four, forty-eight
million—our present population.
We must not forget that during all these years there has
been pouring into our country a vast stream of emigration,
and that this, taken in connection with the fact that our
country is productive beyond all others, gave us only four
doubles in one hundred years. Admitting that the Hebrews
increased as rapidly without emigration as we in this
country have with it, we will give to them four doubles
�96
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
each century, commencing with seventy people, and they
would have, at the end of two hundred years, a population
of seventeen thousand nine hundred and twenty. Giving
them another double for the odd fifteen years and there
would be, provided no deaths had occurred, thirty-five
thousand eight hundred and forty people. And yet we are
told that instead of having this number, they had increased
to such an extent that they had six hundred thousand men
of war—that is to say, a population of more than three
million I
Every sensible man knows that this account is not and
cannot be true. We know that seventy people could not
increase to three million in two hundred and fifteen years.
About this time the Hebrews took a census and found
that there were twenty-two thousand, two hundred-and
seventy-three first-born males. It is reasonable to suppose
that there were about as many first-born females. This
would make forty-four thousand, five hundred and fortysix first-born children. Now, there must have been about
as many mothers as there were first-born children.
If
there were only about forty-five thousand mothers and three
million of people, the mothers must have had on an average
about sixty-six children apiece.
At this time the Hebrews were slaves, and had been for
two hundred and fifteen years. A little while before, an
order had been made by the Egyptians that all the male
children of the Hebrews should be killed. One, contrary
to this order, was saved in an ark made of bulrushes
daubed with slime. This child was found by the daughter
of Pharaoh, and was adopted, it seems, as her own, and,
maybe, was. He grew to be a man, sided with the Hebrews,
killed an Egyptian that was smiting a slave, hid the body
in the sand, and fled from Egypt to the land of Midian, be
came acquainted with a priest who had seven daughters,
took the side of the daughters against the ill-mannered
shepherds of that country, and married Zipporah, one of
the girls, and became a shepherd for her father. After
wards, while tending his flock, the Lord appeared to him in
a burning bush, and commanded him to go to the king of
Egypt and demand from him the liberation of the Hebrews.
In order to convince him that the something burning in the
bush was actually God, the rod in his hand was changed
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
into a serpent, which, upon being caught by the tail, became
again a rod. Moses was also told to put his hand in his
bosom, and when he took it out it was as leprous as snow.
Quite a number of strange things were performed, and
others promised. Moses then agreed to go back to Egypt
provided his brother could go with him. Whereupon the
Lord appeared to Aaron, and directed him to meet Moses
in the wilderness. They met at the mount of God, went
to Egypt, gathered together all the elders of the children
of Israel, spake all the words which God had spoken unto
Moses, and did all the signs in the sight of the people. The
Israelites believed, bowed their heads and worshipped ; and
Moses and Aaron went in and told their message to Pharaoh
the king.
,>
XXII.—THE PLAGUES.
Three million of people were in slavery. They were
treated with the utmost rigor, and so fearful were their
masters that they might, in time, increase in numbers suffi
cient to avenge themselves, that they took from the arms of
mothers all the male children and destroyed them. If the
account given is true, the Egyptians were the most cruel,
heartless and infamous people of which history gives any
record. God finally made up his mind to free the Hebrews ;
and for the accomplishment of this purpose he sent, as his
agents, Moses and Aaron to the king of Egypt. In order
that the king might know that these men had a divine
mission, God gave Moses the power of changing a stick
into a serpent, and water into blood. Moses and Aaron
went before the king, stating that the Lord God of Israel
ordered the king of Egypt to let the Hebrews go, that
they might hold a feast with God in the wilderness. There
upon Pharaoh, the king, inquired who the Lord was, at the
same time stating that he had never made his acquaintance,
and knew nothing about him. To this they replied that the
God of the Hebrews had met with them, and they asked
to go a three days’ journey into the desert and sacrifice
unto this God, fearing that if they did not he would fall
�*98
SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
upon them with pestilence or the sword. This interview
seems to have hardened Pharaoh, for he ordered the tasks
•of the children of Israel to be increased; so that the only
■effect of the first appeal was to render still worse the con
dition of the Hebrews. Thereupon, Moses returned unto
the Lord and said, “ Lord, wherefore hast thou so evil
entreated this people ? Why is it that thou hast sent me ?
For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy name he hath
■■done evil to his people; neither hast thou delivered thy
people at all.”
Apparently stung- by this reproach, God answered:—
■“ Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh; for
with a strong hand shall he let them go; and with a strong
hand shall he drive them out of his land.”
God then recounts the fact that he had appeared unto
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that he had established a
■covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, that he
had heard the groanings of the children of Israel in Egyptian
bondage; that their groanings had put him in mind of his
covenant, and that he had made up his mind to redeem the
children of Israel with a stretched-out arm and with great
judgments. Moses then spoke to the children of Israel
■again, but they would listen to him no more. His first
■effort in their behalf had simply doubled their trouble, and
they seemed to have lost confidence in his power. There
upon Jehovah promised Moses that he would make him a
.god unto Pharaoh, and that Aaron should be his prophet,
but at the same time informed him that his message would
be of no avail ; that he would harden the heart of Pharaoh
so that he would not listen; that he would so harden his
•heart that he might have an excuse for destroying the
Egyptians. Accordingly, Moses and Aaron again went
before Pharaoh. Moses said to Aaron : “ Cast down your
rod before Pharaoh ”—which he did, and it became a serpent.
Then Pharaoh, not in the least surprised, called for his
wise men and his sorcerers, and they threw down their rods
■and changed them into serpents. The serpent that had
been changed from Aaron’s rod was, at this time crawling
upon the' floor, and it proceeded to swallow up the serpents
that had been produced by the magicians of Egypt. What
became of these serpents that were swallowed, and whether
they turned back into sticks again, is not stated. Can we
�SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
99
believe that the stick was changed into a real living serpent,
or did it assume simply the appearance of a serpent ? If it
bore only the appearance of a serpent it was a deception,
■and could not rise above the dignity of legerdemain. Is it
necessary to believe that God is a kind of prestidigitateur—a
sleight-of-hand performer, a magician or sorcerer ? Can it
be possible that an infinite being would endeavor to secure
the liberation of a race by performing a miracle that could
be equally performed by the sorcerers and magicians of a
barbarian king ?
Not one word was said by Moses or Aaron as to the
wickedness of depriving a human being of his liberty. Not
a word was said in favor of liberty. Not the slightest in
timation that a human being was justly entitled to the
product of his own labor. Not a word about the cruelty of
masters who wTould destroy even the babes of slave mothers.
It seems to me wonderful that this God did not tell the
king cf Egypt that no nation could enslave another, with
out also enslaving itself; that -it was impossible to put
a chain around the limbs of a slave, without putting manacles
upon the brain of the master. Why did he not tell him
that a nation founded upon slavery could not stand ? Instead
of declaring these things, instead of appealing to justice,
to mercy and to liberty, he resorted to feats of jugglery.
Suppose we wished to make a treaty with a barbarous
nation, and the President should employ a sleight-of-hand
performer as envoy extraordinary, and instruct him, that
when he came into the presence of the savage monarch, he
should cast down an umbrella or a walking stick, which
would change into a lizard or a turtle; what should we
think ? Should we not regard such a performance as beneath
the dignity even of a President ? And what would be our
feelings if the savage king sent for his sorcerers and had
them perform the same feat ? If such things would appear
puerile and foolish in the President of a great republic, what
shall be said when they were resorted to by the Creator of
all worlds ? How small, how contemptible such a God
appears ! Pharaoh it seems, took about this view of the
matter, and he would not lie persuaded that such tricks
were performed by an infinite being.
Again, Moses and Aaron came before Pharaoh as he was
going to the river’s bank, and the same rod which had
�100
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
changed to a serpent, and, by this time changed back, was
taken by Aaron, who, in the presence of Pharaoh, smote
the water of the river, which was immediately turned to
blood, as well as all the water in all the streams, ponds and
pools, as well as all water in vessels of wood and vessels of
stone in the entire land of Egypt. As soon as all the
waters in Egypt had been turned into blood, the magicians
of that country did the same with their enchantments.
We are not informed where they got the water to turn into
blood, since all the water in Egypt had already been sochanged. It seems from the account that the fish in the
Nile died, and the river emitted a stench, and there was not
a drop of water in the land of Egypt that had not been
changed into blood. In consequence of this, the Egyptians
digged “ around about the river ” for water to drink. Can
we believe this story ? Is it necessary to salvation to
admit that all the rivers, pools, ponds and lakes of a country
were changed into blood, in order that a king might be
induced to allowed the children of Israel the privilege of
going a three days’ journey into the wilderness to make
sacrifices to their God ?
It seems from the account that Pharaoh was told that
the God of the Hebrews would, if he refused to let the
Israelites go, change all the waters of Egypt into blood,
and that, upon his refusal, they were so changed. This
had, however, no influence upon him, for the reason that
his own magicians did the same. It does not appear that
Moses and Aaron expressed the least surprise at the success
of the Egyptian sorcerers. At that time it was believed
that each nation had its own god. The only claim that
Moses and Aaron made for their God was, that he was the
greatest and most powerful of all the gods, and that with
anything like an equal chance he could vanquish the deity
of any other nation.
After the waters were changed to blood Moses and Aaron
waited for seven days. At the end of that time God told
Moses to again go to Pharaoh and demand the release of
his people, and to inform him that, if he refused, God would
strike all the borders of Egypt with frogs—that he would
make frogs so plentiful that they would go into the houses
of Pharaoh, into his bedchamber, upon his bed, into the
houses of his servants, upon his people, into their ovens,
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
101
and even into their kneading- troughs. This threat had no
effect whatever upon Pharaoh; and thereupon Aaron
stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt, and the
frogs came up and covered the land. The magicians of
Egypt did the same, and with their enchantments brought
more frogs upon the land of Egypt.
These magicians do not seem to have been original in their
ideas, but so far as imitation was concerned, were perfect
masters of their art. The frogs seem to have made such
an impression upon Pharaoh that he sent for Moses and
asked him to entreat the Lord that he would take away
the frogs. Moses agreed to remove them from the houses
and the land, and allow them to remain only in the rivers.
Accordingly the frogs died out of the houses, and out of
the villages, and out of the fields, and the people gathered
them together in heaps. As soon as the frogs had left the
houses and fields, the heart of Pharaoh became again
hardened, and he refused to let the people go.
Aaron then, according to the command of God, stretched
out his hand, holding the rod, and smote the dust of the
earth, and it became lice in man and in beast, and all the
dust became lice throughout the land of Egypt. Pharaoh
again sent for his magicians, and they sought to do the
same with their enchantments, but they could not. Where
upon the sorcerers said unto Pharaoh : “ This is the finger
of God.”
Notwithstanding this, however, Pharaoh refused to let
the Hebrews go. God then caused a grievous swarm of
flies to come into the house of Pharaoh and into his servants’
houses, and into all the land of Egypt, to such an extent
that the whole land was corrupted by reason of the flies.
But into that part of the country occupied by the children
of Israel there came no flies Thereupon Pharaoh sent for
Moses and Aaron and said to them : “ Go, and sacrifice to
your God in this land.” They were not willing to sacrifice
in Egypt, and asked permission to go on a journey of three
days into the wilderness. To this Pharaoh acceded, and in
consideration of this Moses agreed to use his influence with
the Lord to induce him to send the flies out of the country.
He accordingly told the Lord of the bargain he had made
with Pharaoh, and the Lord agreed to the compromise, and
removed the flies from Pharaoh and from his servants and
�102
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
from his people, and there remained not a single fly in th©
land of Egypt. As soon as the flies were gone, Pharaoh
again changed his mind, and concluded not to permit the
children of Israel to depart. The Lord then directed Moses
to go to Pharaoh and tell him that if he did not allow the
children of Israel to depart, he would destroy his cattle,
his horses, his camels and his sheep ; that these animals
would be afflicted with a grievous disease, but that theanimals belonging to the Hebrews should not be so afflicted.
Moses did as he was bid. On the next day all the cattle of
Egypt died ; that is to say, all the horses, all the asses, allcamels, all the oxen and all the sheep ; but of the animals
owned by the Israelites, not one perished. This disaster
had no effect upon Pharaoh, and he still refused to let the
children of Israel go. The Lord then told Moses and Aaron
to take some ashes out of a furnace, and told Moses to
sprinkle them toward the heavens in the sight of Pharaoh ;
saying that the ashes should become small dust in all the
land of Egypt, and should be a boil breaking forth with
blains upon man and upon beast thoughout all the land.
How these boils breaking out with blains, upon cattle
that were already dead, should affect Pharaoh, is a little
hard to understand. It must not be forgotten that all the
cattle and all beasts had died with the murrain before the
boils had broken out.
This was a most decisive victory for Moses and Aaron.
The boils were upon the magicians to that extent that they
could not stand before Moses. But it had no effect upon
Pharaoh, who seems to have been a man of great firmness,
The Lord then instructed Moses to get up early in the
morning and tell Pharaoh that he would stretch out his hand
and smite his people with a pestilence, and would, on the
morrow, cause it to rain a very grievous hail, such as had
never been known in the land of Egypt, He also told
Moses to give notice, so that they might get all the cattle
that were in the fields under cover.
It must be re
membered that all these cattle had recently died of the
murrain,' and their bodies had been covered with boils and
blains. This, however, had no effect, and Moses stretched
forth his hand toward heaven, and the Lord sent thunder
and hail and lightning, and fire that ran along the ground,
and the hail fell upon all the land of Egypt, and all that
�■ SOME MISTAKES OK MOSES.
103
were in the fields, both man and beast, were smitten, and
the hail smote every herb of the field, and broke every treeof the country except that portion inhabited by the children
of Israel; there, there was no hail.
During- this hail-storm Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron
and admitted that he had sinned, that the Lord was
righteous, and that the Egyptians were wicked, and
requested them to ask the Lord that there be no more
thunderings and hail, and that he would let the Hebrews
go. Moses agreed that as soon as he got out of the city
he would stretch forth his hands unto the Lord, and that
the thunderings should cease and the hail should stop..
But, when the rain and hail and the thundering ceased,
Pharaoh concluded that he would not let the children
of Israel go.
Again, God sent Moses and Aaron, instructing them totell Pharaoh that if he refused to let the people go, the face
of the earth would be covered with locusts, so that man
would not be able to see the ground, and that these locusts
would eat the residue of that which escaped from the hail;
that they would eat every tree out of the field; that they
would fill the houses of Pharaoh and the houses of all his ser
vants, and the houses of all the Egyptians. Moses delivered
his message, and went out from Pharaoh. Some of Pharaoh’s
servants entreated their master to let the children of Israel
go. Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron and asked them,,
who wished to go into the wilderness to sacrifice. They
replied that they wished to go with the young and old ;
with their sons and daughters, with flocks and herds.
Pharaoh would not consent to this but agreed that the men.
might go. Thereupon Pharaoh drove Moses and Aaron out
of his sight. Then God told Moses to stretch forth hishand upon the land of Egypt for the locusts, that they
might come up and eat every herb, even all that the hail
had left. “ And Moses stretched out his rod over the land,
of Egypt, and the Lord brought an east wind all that day
and all that night; and when it was morning the east
wind brought the locusts; and they came up over all theland of Egypt and rested upon all the coasts covering the
face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened ;.
and they ate every herb and all the fruit of the trees which
the hail had left, and there remained not any green thing
�104
SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
■on the trees or in the herbs of the field throughout the
land of Egypt.” Pharaoh then called for Moses and Aaron
in great haste, admitted that he had sinned against the
Lord their God and against them, asked their forgiveness
and requested them to intercede with God that he might
take away the locusts. They went out from his presence
and asked the Lord to drive the locusts away, “And the
Lord made a strong west wind which took away the
. locusts, and cast them into the Red Sea, so that there
remained not one locust in all the coasts of Egypt.”
As soon as the locusts were gone, Pharaoh changed his
mind, and, in the language of the sacred text, “ the Lord
hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he would not let the
children of Israel go.”
The Lord then told Moses to stretch out his hand toward
heaven that there might be darkness over the land of Egypt,
“ even darkness which might be felt.” “ And Moses
stretched forth his hand toward heaven, and there was a
thick darkness over the land of Egypt for three days
during which time they saw not each other, neither arose
any of the people from their places for three days; but the
children of Israel had light in their dwellings.”
It strikes me that when the land of Egypt was covered
with thick darkness—so thick that it could be felt, and
when light was in the dwellings of the Israelites, there
could have been no better time for the Hebrews to have
left the country.
Pharaoh again called for Moses, and told him that his
people could go and serve the Lord, provided they would
leave their flocks and herds. Moses would not agree to
this, for the reason that they needed the flocks and herds
for sacrifices and burnt-offerings, and he did not know how
many of the animals God might require, and for that reason
he could not leave a single hoof. Upon the question of the
cattle, they divided, and Pharaoh again refused to let the
people go. God then commanded Moses to tell the Hebrews
to borrow, each of his neighbor, jewels of silver and gold.
By a miraculous interposition the Hebrews found favor in
the sight of the Egyptians so that they loaned the articles
asked for. After this, Moses again went to Pharaoh and
told him that all the first-born in the land of Egyyt, from
the first-born of Pharaoh upon the throne, unto the first-
�105»
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
born of the maid-servant who was behind the mill, as well
as the first-born of beasts, should die.
As all the beasts had been destroyed by disease and hail,,
it is troublesome to understand the meaning- of the threat
as to their first-born.
Preparations were accordingly made for carrying this,
frightful threat into execution. Blood was put on the
door-posts of all houses inhabited by Hebrews, so that God,,
as he passed through that land, might not be mistaken and
destroy the first-born of the Jews. “And it came to pass,
that at midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the
land of Egypt, the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on the
throne, and the first-born of the captive who was in the
dungeon. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, and all his.
servants, and all the Egyptians, and there was a great cry
in Egypt, for there was not a house where there was not
one dead.”
What had these children done ? Why should the babes,
in the cradle be destroyed on account of the crime of
Pharaoh? Why should the cattle be destroyed because
man had enslaved his brother ? In those days women and
children and cattle were put upon an exact equality, and wereall considered as the property of the men ; and when man,
in some way excited the wrath of God, he punished them
by destroying all their cattle, their wives and their little
ones. Where can words be found bitter enough to describe
a god who would kill wives and babes because husbands
and fathers had failed to keep his law ? Every good man
and every good woman must hate and despise such a.
deity.
Upon the death of all the first-born Pharaoh sent for
Moses and Aaron, and not only gave his consent that they
might go with the Hebrews into the wilderness, but be
sought them to go at once.
Is it possible that an infinite God, creator of all worlds
and sustainer of all life, said to Pharaoh : “ If you do not
let my people go, I will turn all the water of your country
into blood,” and that, upon the refusal of Pharaoh to release
the people, God did turn all the waters into blood ? Doi
you believe this ?
Do you believe that Pharaoh, even after all the water
was turned to blood, refused to let the Hebrews go, and,
H
�106
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
that thereupon God told him he would cover his land with
frogs ? Do you believe this ?
Do you believe that after the land was covered with
frogs Pharaoh still refused to let the people go, and that
God then said to him, “ I will cover you and all your people
with lice ?” Do you believe God would make this threat ?
Do you also believe that God told Pharaoh—“ If you do
not let these people go, I will fill all your houses and cover
your country with flies ?” Do you believe God makes such
threats as this ?
Of course God must have known that turning the waters
into blood, covering the country with frogs, infesting all
flesh with lice, and filling all houses with flies, would not
accomplish his object, and that all these plagues would have
no effect whatever upon the Egyptian king.
Do you believe that, failing to accomplish anything by
flies, God told Pharaoh that, if he did not let the people go,
he would kill his cattle with murrain ? Does such a threat
sound God-like ?
Do you believe that, failing to effect anything by killing
the cattle, this same God then threatened to afflict all the
people with boils, including the magicians who had been
rivaling him in the matter of miracles; and failing to do
anything by boils, that he resorted to hail ? Does this sound
reasonable ? The hail experiment having accomplished
nothing, do you believe that God murdered the first-born
of animals and men ? Is it possible to conceive of anything
more utterly absurd, stupid, revolting, cruel and senseless,
than the miracles said to have been wrought by the
Almighty for the purpose of inducing Pharaoh to liberate
the children of Israel ?
Is it not altogether more reasonable to say that the
Jewish people, being in slavery, accounted for the misfor
tunes and calamities, suffered by the Egyptians, by saying
that they were the judgments of God ?
When the Armada of Spain was wrecked and scattered
by the storm, the English people believed that God had
interposed in their behalf, and publicly gave thanks. When
the battle of Lepanto was won, it was believed by the
Catholic world that the victory was given in answer to
prayer. So, our forefathers in their revolutionary struggle
saw, or thought they saw, the hand of God, and most
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
107
firmly believed that, they achieved their independence by
the interposition of the most high.
Now, it may be that while the Hebrews were enslaved
•by the Egyptians, there were plagues of locusts and flies.
It may be that there were some diseases by which many of
the cattle perished. It may be that a pestilence visited that
■country so that in nearly every house there was some one
dead. If so, it was but natural for the enslaved and super
stitious Jews to account for these calamities by saying that
they were punishments sent by their God. Such ideas will
■be found in the history of every country.
For a long time the Jews held these opinions, and they
were handed from father to son simply by tradition. By
the time a written language had been produced, thousands
of additions had been made, and numberless details
invented; so that we have not only an account of the
plagues suffered by the Egyptians, but the whole woven
into a connected story, containing the threats made by
Moses and Aaron, the miracles wrought by them, the pro
mises of Pharaoh, and finally the release of the Hebrews,
•as a result of the marvellous things performed in their
behalf by Jehovah.
In any event it is infinitely more probable that the author
was misinformed, than that the God of this universe was
guilty of these childish, heartless and infamous things.
‘The solution of the whole matter is this :—Moses was
mistaken.
XXIII.—THE FLIGHT.
Three millions of people, with their flocks and herds, with
borrowed jewellery and raiment, with unleavened dough
in kneading troughs bound in their clothes upon their
shoulders, in one night commenced their journey for the
land of promise. We are not told how they were informed
of the precise time to start. With all the modern appliances,
it would require months of time to inform three millions of
people of any fact.
In this vast assemblage there were six hundred thousand
men of war, and with them were the old, the young, the
�108
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
diseased and helpless. Where were those people going ?
They were going to the desert of Sinai, compared with
which Sahara is a garden. Imagine an ocean of lava torn
by storm and vexed by tempest, suddenly gazed at by a
Gorgon and changed instantly to stone ! Such was the
desert of Sinai.
All of the civilized nations of the world could not feed
and support three millions of people on the desert of Sinai
for forty years. It would cost more than one hundred
thousand millions of dollars, and would bankrupt Chris
tendom. They had with them their flocks and herds, and
the sheep were so numerous that the Israelites sacrificed,
at one time, more than one hundred and fifty thousand first
born lambs. How were these flocks supported? What
did they eat ? Where were meadows and pastures forthem ?
There was no grass, no forests—nothing! There is no
account of its having rained baled hay, nor is it even
claimed that they were miraculously fed. To support these
flocks, millions of acres of pastures would have been
required. God did not take the Israelites through the land
of the Philistines, for fear that when they saw the people
of that country they would return to Egypt, but he took
them by the way of the wilderness to the Red Sea, going
before them by day in a pillar of cloud, and by night in a
pillar of fire.
When it was told Pharaoh that the people had fled, he
made ready and took six hundred chosen chariots of Egypt,
and pursued after the children of Israel, overtaking them
by the sea. As all the animals had long before that time
been destroyed, we are not informed where Pharaoh obtained
the horses for his chariots. The moment the children of
Israel saw the hosts of Pharaoh, although they had six
hundred thousand men of war, they immediately cried unto
the Lord for protection. It is wonderful to me that a land
that had been ravaged by the plagues described in the
Bible, still had the power to put in the field an army that
would carry terror to the hearts of six hundred thousand
men of war. Even with the help of God, it seems, they
were not strong enough to meet the Egyptians in the open
field, but resorted to strategy. Moses again stretched forth
his wonderful rod over the waters of the Red Sea, and
they were divided, and the Hebrews passed through on dry
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
109
Zand, the waters standing up like a wall on either side.
The Egyptians pursued them ; “ and in the morning watch
the Lord looked into the hosts of the Egyptians through the
pillar of fire,” and proceeded to take the wheels off their
chariots. As soon as the wheels were off, God told Moses
to stretch out his hand over the sea. Moses did so, and
immediately “ the waters returned and covered the chariots
and horsemen and all the hosts of Pharaoh that came into
the sea, and there remained not so much as one of them.”
This account may be true, but still it hardly looks reason
able that God would take the wheels off the chariots. How
did he do it ? Did he pull out the linch-pins, or did he just
take them off by main force ?
What a picture this presents to the mind ! God the
creator of the universe, maker of every shining, glittering
star, engaged in pulling off the wheels of wagons, that he
might convince Pharaoh of his greatness and power.
Where were these people going ? They were going to
the promised land. How large a country was that ? About
twelve thousand square miles. About one-fifth the size of
the State of Illinois. It was a frightful country, covered
with rocks and desolation. How many people were in the
promised land already ? Moses tells us there were seven
nations in that country mightier than the Jews. As there
were at least three millions of Jews, there must have been
at least twenty-one millions of people already in that country.
These had to be driven out in order that room might be made
for the chosen people of God. It seems, however, that God
was not willing to take the children of Israel into the
promised land immediately. They were not fit to inhabit
the land of Canaan; so he made up his mind to allow them
to wander in the desert until all who had left Egypt,
except two, should perish. Of all the slaves released from
Egyptian bondage, only two were allowed to reach the
promised land.
As soon as the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea, they found
Themselves without food, and with water unfit to drink by
reason of its bitterness, and they began to murmur against
Moses, who cried unto the Lord, and “ the Lord showed
him a tree.” Moses cast this tree into the waters, and
they became sweet. “ And it came to pass in the morning
the dew lay around about the camp; and when the dew
�110
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
that lay was gone, behold, upon the face of the wildernesslay a small round thing, small as the hoar-frost upon theground. And Moses said unto them, this is the bread
which the Lord hath given you to eat.” This manna was
a very peculiar thing. It would melt in the sun, and yet
they could cook it by seething and baking. One would
as soon think of frying snow or of broiling icicles. But
this manna had another remarkable quality. No matterhow much or little any person gathered, he would have an
exact omer ; if he gathered more, it would shrink to that
amount, and if he gathered less, it would swell exactly to
that amount. What a magnificent substance manna would
be with which to make a currency—shrinking and swelling
according to the great laws of supply and demand I
“ Epon this manna the children of Israel lived for forty
years, until they came to a habitable land. With this meat
. were they fed until they reached the borders of the land of
Canaan.”
We are told in the twenty-first chapter of
Numbers that the people at last became tired of the manna,,
complained of God, and asked Moses why he brought them
out of the land of Egypt to die in the wilderness. And
they said :—“ There is no bread, nor have we any water.
Our soul loatheth this light food.”
We are told by some commentators that the Jews lived
on manna for forty years ; by others that lived upon it for
only a short time. As a matter of fact the accounts differ,
and this difference is the opportunity for commentators. It
also allows us to exercise faith in believing that both
accounts are true.
If the accounts agreed, and were
reasonable, they would be believed by the wicked and un
regenerated. But as they are different and unreasonable,,
they are believed only by the good. Whenever a state
ment in the Bible is unreasonable, and you believe it, you
are considered quite a good Christian. If the statement is
grossly absurd and infinitely impossible, and you still believeit, you are a saint.
The children of Israel were in the desert, and they wereout of water. They had nothing to eat but manna, and
this ihey had had so long that the soul of every person
abhorred it. Under these circumstances they complained
to Moses. Now, as God is infinite, he could just as well
have furnished them with an abundance of the purest and
�SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
Ill
coolest of water, and could, without the slightest trouble
to himself, have given them three excellent meals a day,
with a generous variety of meats and vegetables. It is
■ very hard to see why he did not do so. It is still harder
to conceive why he fell into a rage when the people mildly
suggested that they would like a change of diet. Day after
day, week after week, month after month, year after
year, nothing but manna. No doubt they did the best they
could by cooking it in different ways, but in spite of them
selves they began to loathe its sight and taste, and so they
asked Moses to use his influence to secure a change in the
bill of fare.
Now, I ask whether it was unreasonable for the Jews to
suggest that a little meat would be very gratefully received ?
It seems, however, that as soon as the request was made,
this God of infinite mercy became infinitely enraged, and
instead of granting it, went into partnership with serpents,
for the purpose of punishing the hungry wretches to whom
he had promised a land flowing with milk and honey.
Where did these serpents come from ? How did God
convey the information to the serpents, that he wished
them to go to the desert of Sinai and bite some Jews ? It
may be urged that these serpents were created for the
express purpose of punishing the children of Israel for
having had the presumption, like Oliver Twist, to ask for
more.
There is another account in the eleventh chapter of
Numbers, of the people murmuring because of their food.
They remembered the fish, the cucumbers, the melons, the
leeks, the onions and the garlic of Egypt, and they asked
for meat. The people went to the tent of Moses and asked
him for flesh. Moses cried unto the Lord and asked him
why he did not take care of the multitude. God thereupon
agreed that they should have meat, not for a day or two,
but for a month, until the meat should come out of their nostrils
and become loathsome to them. He then caused a wind to
bring quails from beyond the sea, and cast them into the
camp, on every side of the camp around about for the space
of a day’s journey. And the people gathered them, and
while the flesh was yet between their teeth the wrath of
God being provokecl against them, struck them with an
exceeding great plague. Serpents, also, were sent among
�112
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
them, and thousands perished for the crime of having been
hungry.
The Rev. Alexander Cruden, commenting upon this
account, says:
“ God caused a wind to rise that drove the quails within
•and about the camp of the Israelites ; and it is in this that
the miracle consists, that they were brought so seasonably
to this place, and in so great numbers as to suffice above a
^million of persons above a month. Some authors affirm,
that in those eastern and southern countries, quails are
innumerable, so that in one part of Italy within the com
pass of five miles, there were taken about a hundred thou
sand of them every day for a month together ; and that
•sometimes they fly so thick over the sea, that being weary
they fall into ships, sometimes in such numbers that they
sink them with their weight.”
No wonder Mr. Cruden believed the Mosaic account.
Must we believe that God made an arrangement with
hornets for the purpose of securing their services in driving
the Canaanites from the land of promise ? Is this belief
necessary unto salvation ? Must we believe that God said
to the Jews that he would send hornets before them to
drive out the Canaanites, as related in the twenty-third
chapter of Exodus, and the seventh chapter of Deutoronomy?
How would the hornets know a Canaanite ? In what way
would God put it in the mind of a hornet to attack a
Canaanite ? Did God create hornets for that especial pur
pose, implanting an instinct to attack a Canaanite, but not
a Hebrew ? Can we conceive of the Almighty granting
letters of marque and reprisal to hornets ? Of course it is
not admitted that nothing in the world would be better
calculated to make a man leave his native land than a few
hornets. Is it possible for us to believe that an infinite
being would resort to such expedients in order to drive the
Canaanites from their country ? He could just as easily
have spoken the Canaanites out of existence as to have
spoken the hornets in. In this way a vast amount of
trouble, pain and suffering would have been saved. Is it
possible that there is in this country an intelligent clergy
man who will insist that these stories are true; that we
must believe them in order to be good people in this world,
and glorified souls in the next ?
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
118
We are also told that God instructed the Hebrews to kill
the Canaanites slowly, giving as a reason that the beasts of
the field might increase upon his chosen people. When we
take into consideration the fact the Holy Land contained
•only about eleven or twelve thousand square miles, and was
■at that time inhabited by at least twenty-one millions of
people, it does not seem reasonable that the wild beasts
could have been numerous enough to cause any great alarm.
The same ratio of population would give to the State of
Illinois at least one hundred and twenty millions of inhibitants.
Can anybody believe that, under such circumstances, the
danger from wild beasts could be very great ? What
would we think of a general, invading such a state, if he
•should order his soldiers to kill the people slowly lest the
wild beasts might increase upon them ? Is it possible that
a God capable of doing the miracles recounted in the Old
Testament could not, in some way, have disposed of the
wild beasts ? After the Canaanites were driven out, could
he not have employed the hornets to drive out the wild
beasts ? Think of a God that could drive twenty-one
millions of people out of the promised land, could raise up
innumerable stinging flies, and could cover the earth with
fiery serpents, and yet seems to have been perfectly power
less against the wild beasts of the land of Canaan !
Speaking of these hornets, one of the good old commen
tators, whose viewshave long been considered of great value
by the believers in the inspiration of the Bible, uses the
following language :—
“ Hornets are a sort of strong flies, which the Lord
used as instruments to plague the enemies of his
people. ■ They are of themselves very troublesome and
mischievous, and those the Lord made use of were, it
is thought, of an extraordinary bigness and perniciousness.
It is said they live as the wasps, and that they have a king
or captain, and pestilent stings as bees, and that, if twenty
seven of them sting man or beast, it is certain death to
either. Nor is it strange that such creatures did drive out
the Canaanites from their habitations; for many heathen
writers give instances of some people driven from their
seats by frogs, others by mice, others by bees and wasps
And it is said that a Christian city, being besieged by Sapores,
king of Persia, was delivered by hornets; for the elephants
�114
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
and beasts being stung by them, waxed unruly, and so the
whole army fled.”
Only a few years ago all such stories were believed by
the Christian world ; and it is an historical fact that Voltaire
was the third man of any note in Europe who took the
ground that the mythologies of Greece and Rome were
without foundation. Until his time, most Christians believed
as thoroughly in the miracles ascribed to the Greek and
Roman gods as in those of Christ and Jehovah. The
Christian world cultivated credulity, not only as one of the
virtues but as the greatest of them all. But when Luther
and his followers left the Church of Rome, they were com
pelled to deny the power of the Catholic church at that
time to suspend the laws of nature, but took the ground
that such power ceased with the apostolic age. They
insisted that all things now happened in accordance with
the laws of nature with the exception of a few special
interferences in favor of the Protestant Church in answer
to prayer. They taught their children a double philosophy :
by one, they were to show the impossibility of Catholic
miracles, because opposed to the laws of nature; by the
other, the probability' of the miracles of the apostolic age,
because they were in conformity with the statement of the
scriptures. They had two foundations: one, the law of
nature, and the other, the word of God. The Protestants
have endeavored to carry on this double process of reason
ing, and the result has been a gradual increase of confidence
in the law of nature, and a gradual decrease of confidence
in the word of God.
We are told, in this inspired account, that the clothing
of the Jewish people did not wax old, and that their shoes
refused to wear out. Some commentators have insisted
that angels attended to the wardrobes of the Hebrews,,
patched their garments, and mended their shoes. Certain it
is, however, that the same clothes lasted them for forty
years during the entire journey from Egypt to the Holy
Land. Little boys starting out with their first pantaloons,,
grew as they travelled, and their clothes grew with them.
Can it be necessary to believe a story like this ? Will
men make better husbands, fathers, neighbors and citizens,,
simply by giving credence to these childish and impossible
things ? Certainly an infinite God could have transported
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
115
the Jews to the Holy Land in a moment, and could as easily
have removed the Canaanites to some other country.
Surely there was no necessity for doing- thousands and thou
sands of petty miracles, day after day for forty years, looking
after the clothes of three millions of people, changing the
nature of wool, and linen, and leather, so they would not
“ wax old.” Every step, every motion, would wear away
some part of the clothing, some part of the shoes. Were
these parts, so worn away, perpetually renewed, or was
the nature of things so changed that they could, not wear
away ? We know that whenever matter comes in contact
with matter certain atoms, by abrasion, are lost. Were
these atoms gathered up every night by angels, and replaced
on the soles of the shoes, on the elbows of coats, and on the
knees of pantaloons, so that the next morning they would be
precisely in the condition they were on the morning before ?
There must be a mistake somewhere.
Can we believe that the real God, if there is one,. ever
ordered a man to be killed simply for making hair oil, or
ointment ? We are told in the thirtieth chapter of Exodus,
that the Lord commanded Moses to take myrrh, cinnamon,
sweet calamus, cassia and olive oil, and make a holy
ointment for the purpose of anointing the tabernacle, tables,
candlesticks and other utensils, as well as Aaron and his
sons; saying, at the same time that whosoever compounded
any like it, or whoever put any of it on a stranger, should
be put to death. In the same chapter, the Lord furnishes
Moses with a recipe for making a perfume, saying, that
whoever should make any which smelled like it, should be
cut off from his people. This, to me, sounds so unreason
able that I cannot believe it. Why should an infinite God
care whether mankind made ointments and perfumes like
his or not ? Why should the Creator of all things threaten
to kill a priest who approached his altar without having
washed his hands and feet ? These commandments and
these penalties would disgrace the vainest tyrant that ever
sat by chance upon a throne. There must be some mistake.
I cannot believe that an infinite intelligence appeared to
Moses upon Mount Sinai having with him a variety of
patterns for making a tabernacle, tongs, snuffers and dishes.
Neither can I believe that God told Moses how to cut and
trim a coat for a priest. Why should a God care about
�1116
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
such things ? Why should he insist on having buttons
sewed in certain rows, and fringes of a certain color?
Suppose an intelligent civilised man was to overhear, on
bmai, the following- instructions from God to Moses:__
“
mUSt consecrate my priests as follows:—You must
kill a bullock for a sin offering, and have Aaron and his
■sons lay their hands upon the head of the bullock. Then
you must take the blood and put it upon the horns of the
■altar round about with your finger, and pour some at the
■bottom of the altar to make a reconciliation ; and of the fat
.that is upon the inwards, the caul above the liver and two
kidneys, and their fat, and burn them upon the altar. You
must get a ram for a burnt-offering, and Aaron and his
sons must lay their hands upon the head of the ram. Then
you must kill it and sprinkle the blood upon the altar, and
CU^ k ram
Pieces’ and burn the head, and the pieces,
and
an(t was^ the inwards and the lungs in water,
and then burn the whole ram upon the altar for a sweet
savor unto me. Then you must get another ram, and have
Aaron and his sons lay their hands upon the head of that,
then kill it and take of its blood, and put it on the top of
.Aaron s right ear, and on the thumb of his right hand, and
■on the great toe of his right foot. And you must also put
a little of the blood upon the top of the right ears of Aaron’s
sons, and on the thumbs of their right hands, and on the
great toes of their right feet. And then you must take of
the fat that is on the inwards, and the caul above the liver
and the two kidneys, and their fat, and the right shoulder,
and out of a basket of unleavened bread you must take
•One unleavened cake and another of oil bread, and one wafer,
and put them on the fat of the right shoulder. And you
must take of the anointing oil, and of the blood, and sprinkle
it on Aaron, and on his garments, and on his sons’ garments,
and sanctify them and all their clothes.”—Do you believe
"that he would have even suspected that the Creator of the
universe was talking ?
Can any one now tell why God commanded the Jews,
"when they were upon the desert of Sinai, to plant trees,
telling them at the same time that they must not eat any
•of the fruit of such trees until after the fourth year ? Trees
■could not have been planted in that desert, and if they had
•been they could not have lived. Why did God tell Moses.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
117
while in the desert, to make curtains of fine linen ? Where
could he have obtained his flax ? There was no land upon
which it could have been produced. Why did he tell him
to make things of gold, and silver, and precious stones,
when they could not have been in possession of thesethings ? There is but one answer, and that is, the Penta
tench was written hundreds of years after the Jews had
settled in the Holy Land, and hundreds of years after
Moses was dust and ashes.
When the Jews had a written language, and that must
have been long after their flight from Egypt, they wrote
out their history and their laws. Tradition had filled the
infancy of the nation with miracles and special interpositions
in their behalf by Jehovah. Patriotism would not allow
these wonders to grow small, and priestcraft never denied
a miracle. There were traditions to the effect that God
had spoken face to face with Moses; that he had given
him the tables of the law, and had, in a thousand ways,,
made known his will; and whenever the priests wished to
make new laws, or amend old ones, they pretended to have
found something more that God said to Moses at Sinai. In
this way obedience was more easily secured. Only a very
few of the people could read, and, as a consequence, addi
tions, interpolations and erasures esaped detection. In
this way we account for the fact that Moses is made to
speak of things that did not exist in his day, and were
unknown for hundreds of years after his death.
In the thirtieth chapter of Exodus we are told that the
people when numbered must give each one a half shekel
after the shekel of the sanctuary. At that time no such
money existed, and consequently the account could not, by
any possibility, have been written until after there was a
shekel of the sanctuary, and there was no such thing until
long after the death of Moses. If we should read that
Caesar paid his troops in pounds, shillings and pence, we
would certainly know that the account was not written by
Caasar, nor in his time, but we would know that it was
written after the English had given these names to certain
coins.
So we find that when the Jews were upon the desert it
was commanded that every mother should bring, as a sinoffering, a couple of doves to the priests, and the priests
�118
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
were compelled to eat these doves in the most holy place.
At the time this law appears to have been given, there
were three million people, and only three priests : Aaron,
Eleazer and Ithamar. Among three million people there
would be, at least, three hundred births a day. Certainly
we are not expected to believe that these three priests
devoured six hundred pigeons every twenty-four hours.
Why should a woman ask pardon of God for having been
a mother ? Why should that be considered a crime in
Exodus which is commanded as a duty in Genesis ? Why
should a mother be declared unclean ? Why should giving
birth to a daughter be regarded as twice as criminal as
giving birth to a son ? Can we believe that such laws and
ceremonies were made and instituted by a merciful and
intelligent God ? If there is anything in this poor world
suggestive of, and standing for, all that is sweet, loving
and pure, it is a mother holding in her thrilled and happy
arms her prattling babe. Read the twelfth chapter of
Leviticus, and you will see that when a woman became the
mother of a boy she was so unclean that she was not allowed
to touch a hallowed thing, nor to enter the sanctuary for
forty days. If the babe was a girl, then the mother was
unfit for eighty days to enter the house of God, or to touch
the sacred tongs and snuffers. These laws, born of bar
barism, are unworthy of our day, and should be regarded
simply as the mistakes of savages.
Just as low in the scale of intelligence are the directions
given in the fifth chapter of Numbers, for the trial of a wife
■of whom the husband was jealous. This foolish chaptei
bas been the foundation of all appeals to God for the ascer
tainment cf facts, such as the corsned, trial by battle, by
water and by fire ; the last of which is our judicial oath. It
is very easy to believe that in those days a guilty woman
would be afraid to drink the water of jealousy and take the
oath, and that, through fear, she might be made to confess.
Admitting that the deception tended not only to prevent
crime, but to discover it when committed, still, we cannot
admit that an honest god would, for any purpose, resort to
dishonest means. In all countries fear is employed as a
means of getting at the truth, and in this there is nothing
dishonest, provided falsehood is not resorted to for the pur
pose of producing the fear. Protestants laugh at Catholics
�ROME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
119
(because of their belief in the efficacy of holy water, and
yet they teach their children that a little holy water, in
which had been thrown some dust from the floor of the
sanctuary, would work a miracle in a woman s flesh. For
hundreds of years our fathers believed that a perjurer could
not swallow a piece of sacramental bread. Such stories
belong to the childhood of our race, and are now believed
only by mental infants and intellectual babes.
I cannot believe that Moses had in his hands a couple of
tables of stone, upon which God had written the ten com
mandments, and that when he saw the golden calf and the
dancing he dashed the tables to the earth, and broke
them in pieces. Neither do I believe that Moses took a
golden calf, burnt it, ground it to powder, and made the
people drink it with water, as related in the thirty-second
chapter of Exodus.
There is another account of the giving of the ten com
mandments to Moses, in the nineteenth and twentieth
chapters of Exodus. In this account not one word is said
about the people having made a golden calf, nor about the
breaking of the tables of stone. In the thirty-fourth chap
ter of Exodus there is an account of the renewal of the
broken tables of the law, and the commandments are given,
but they are not the same commandments mentioned in the
twentieth chapter. There are two accounts of the same
transaction. Both of these stories cannot be true, and yet
both must be believed.
Anyone who will take the trouble
to read the nineteenth and twentieth chapters, and the last
verse of the thirty-first chapter, the thirty-second, thirtythird and thirty-fourth chapters of Exodus, will be com
pelled to admit that both accounts cannot be true.
From the last account it appears that while Moses was
upon Mount Sinai receiving the commandments from God,
tne people brought their jewellery to Aaron, and he cast
for them a golden calf. This happened before any com
mandment against idolatry had been given A'god ought,
certainly to publish his laws before inflicting penalties for
their violation. To inflict punishment for breaking unknown
and unpublished laws is, in the last degree, cruel and un
just. It may be replied that the Jews knew better than to
worship idols before the law was given. If this is so, why
should the law have been given ? In all civilised countries
�120
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
laws are made and promulgated, not simply for the purpose
of informing the people as to what is right and wrong, but
to inform them of the penalties to be visited upon those
who violate the laws. When the ten commandments were
given, no penalties were attached. Not one word was
written on the tables of stone as to the punishments that
would be inflicted for breaking any or all of the inspired
laws. The people should not have been punished for vio
lating a commandment before it was given. And yet, in
this case, Moses commanded the sons of Levi to take their
swords and slay every man his brother, his companion and
his neighbor. The brutal order was obeyed, and three
thousand men were butchered. The Levites consecrated
themselves unto the Lord by murdering their sons and their
brothers for having violated a commandment before it had
been given.
It has been contended for many years that the ten com
mandments are the foundation of all ideas of justice and
of law. Eminent jurists have bowed to popular prejudice,
and deformed their works by statements to the effect that
the Mosaic laws are the fountains from which sprang all
ideas of right and wrong. Nothing can be more stupidly
false than such assertions.
Thousands of years before
Moses was born the Egyptians had a code of laws. They
had laws against blasphemy, murder, adultery, larceny,
perjury ; laws for the collection of debts, the enforcement
of contracts, the ascertainment of damag-es, the redemption
of property pawned, and upon nearly every subject of
human interest. The Egyptian code was far better than theMosaic.
Laws spring from the instinct of self-preservation. In
dustry objected to supporting idleness, and laws were made
against theft. Laws were made against murder, becausea very large majority of the people have always objected
to being murdered. All fundamental laws were born simply
of the instinct of self-defence. Long before the Jewish
savages assembled at the foot of Sinai, laws had been madeand enforced, not only in Egypt and India, but by every
tribe that ever existed.
It is impossible for human beings to exist together with
out certain rules of conduct, certain ideas of the proper and
improper, of the right and wrong, growing out of the rela-
�121
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
tion. Certain rules must be made, and must be enfoiced.
This implies law, trial and punishment. Whoever produces
anything- by weary labor does not need a lev elation fiom
heaven to teach him that he has a right to the thing P10~
duced. Not one of the learned gentlemen who pretend
that the Mosaic laws are filled with justice and intelligence,
would live, for a moment, in any country where such laws
were not in force.
Nothing can be more wonderful than the medical ideas ot
Jehovah. He had the strangest notions about the cause
and cure of disease. With him everything was. miracle and
wonder. In the fourteenth chapter of Leviticus, we find
the law for cleansing a leper :—“ Then shall the priest take
for him that is to be cleansed two birds, alive and clean,
and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop. And the priest
shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen
vessel, over running water. As for the living bird, he shall
take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop,
and shall dip them, and the living bird, in the blood of the
bird that was killed over the running water. And he shall
sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy,
seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let
the living bird loose into the open field.
We are told that God himself gave these directions. to
Moses. Does anybody believe this ? Why should the bird
be killed in an earthern vessel ? Would the charm be broken
if the vessel was of wood ? Why over running water ?
What would be thought of a physician now who would give
a prescription like that ?
Is it not strange that God, although he gave hundreds of
directions for the purpose of discovering the presence of
leprosy, and for cleansing the leper after he was healed,
forgot to tell how that disease could be cured ? Is it not
wonderful that, while God told his people what animals
were fit for food, he failed to give a list of plants that man
might eat ? Why did he leave his children to find out the
hurtful and the poisonous by experiment, knowing that ex
periment, in millions of cases, must be death ?
When reading the history of the Jewish people, of their
flight from slavery to death, of their exchange of tyrants, I
must confess that my sympathies are all aroused in their
behalf. They were cheated, deceived and abused. Their
I
�122
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
God was quick-tempered, unreasonable, cruel, revengeful
and dishonest. He was always promising, but never per
formed. He wasted time in ceremony and childish detail,
and in the exaggeration of what he had done. It is impos
sible for me to conceive of a character more utterly detest
able than that of the Hebrew God. He had solemnly pro
mised the Jews, that he would take them from Egypt to a
land flowing with milk and honey. He had led them to
believe that in a little while their troubles would be over,
and that soon, in the land of Canaan, surrounded by their
wives and little ones, they would forget the stripes and
tears of Egypt. After promising the poor wanderers again
and again that he would lead them in safety to the pro
mised land of joy and plenty, this God, forgetting every
promise, said to the wretches in his power :—“Your car
cases shall fall in this wilderness and your children shall
wander until your carcases be wasted.” This curse was the
conclusion of the whole matter. Into this dust of death and
night faded all the promises of God. Into this rottenness
of wandering despair fell all the dreams of liberty and home.
Millions of corpses were left to rot in the desert, and each
one certified to the dishonesty of Jehovah. I cannot believe
these things. They are so cruel and heartless, that my
blood is chilled and my sense of justice shocked. A book
that is equally abhorrent to my head and heart cannot be
accepted as a revelation from God.
When we think of the poor Jews destroyed, murdered,
bitten by serpents, visited by plagues, decimated by famine,
butchered by each other, swallowed by the earth, frightened
cursed, starved, deceived, robbed and outraged, how thank
ful we should be that we are not the chosen people of God.
No wonder that they longed for the slavery of Egypt, and
remembered with sorrow the unhappy day when they ex
changed masters. Compared with Jehovah, Pharaoh was
a benefactor, and the tyranny of Egypt was freedom to
those who suffered the despotism of God.
While reading the Pentateuch, I am filled with indigna
tion, pity and horror. Nothing can be sadder than the
history of the starved and frightened wretches who wan
dered over the desolate crags and sands of wilderness and
desert, the prey of famine, sword and plague. Ignorant
and superstitious to the last degree, governed by falsehood,
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES. .
123
plundered by hypocrisy, they were the sport of priests and
the victims of fear. God was their greatest enemy, and death
their only friend.
It is impossible to conceive of a more thoroughly despic
able, hateful and arrogant being than the Jewish God. He
is without a redeeming feature. In the mythology of the
world he has no parallel. He only is never touched by
agony and tears. He .delights only in blood and pain.
Human affections are nought to him. He cares neither for
love nor music, beauty nor joy. A false friend, an unjust
judge, a braggart, hypocrite and tyrant; sincere in hatred,
'jealous, vain and revengeful; false in promise, honest in
curse ; suspicious, ignorant and changeable, infamous and
hideous—such is the God of the Pentateuch.
XXIV.—CONFESS AND AVOID.
The scientific Christians now admit that the Bible is not in
spired in its astronomy, geology, botany, zoology, nor in
any science. In other words, they admit that on these
subjects the Bible cannot be depended upon. If all the
statements in the Scriptures were true there would be no
necessity for admitting that some of them are not inspired.
A Christian will not admit that a passage in the Bible is un
inspired until he is satisfied that it is untrue. Orthodoxy
itself has at last been compelled to say that, while a passage
may be true and uninspired, it cannot be inspired if false.
If the people of Europe had known as much of astronomy
and geology when the Bible was introduced among them
as they do now, there never could have been one believer
in the doctrine of inspiration. If the writers of the various
parts of the Bible had known as much about the sciences as
is now known by every intelligent man, the book never
could have been written. It was produced by ignorance,
and has been believed and defended by its author. It has
lost power in the proportion that man has gained knowledge.
A few years ago this book was appealed to in the settle
ment of all scientific questions ; but now, even the clergy
confess that in such matters it has ceased to speak with the
�124
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
voice of authority.
For the establishment of facts the
word of man is now considered far better than the word of
God. In the world of science, Jehovah was superseded by
Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. All that God told Moses,
admitting the entire account to be true, is dust and ashes
compared to the discoveries of Descartes, La Place and
Humbolt. In matters of fact, the Bible has ceased to be
regarded as a standard. Science has succeeded in breaking
the chains of theology.
A few years ago science en
deavored to show that it was not inconsistent with the Bible.
The tables have been turned, and now religion is endeavor
ing to prove that the Bible is not inconsistent with science.
The standard has been changed.
For many ages the Christians contended that the Bible,
viewed simply as a literary performance, was beyond all
other books, and that man, without the assistance of God,
could not produce its equal. This claim was made when
but few books existed, and the Bible, being the only book
generally known, had no rival. But this claim, like the
other, has been abandoned by many, and soon will be by
all. Compared with Shakespeare’s “ book and volume of
the brain,” the “ sacred ” Bible shrinks, and seems as feebly
impotent and vain as would a pipe of Pan, when some great
organ, voiced with every tone, from the hoarse thunder of
the sea to the winged warble of a mated bird, floods and
fills cathedral aisles with all the wealth of sound.
It is now maintained—and this appears to be the last
fortification behind which the doctrine of inspiration skulks
and crouches—that the Bible, although false and mistaken
in its astronomy, geology, geography, history and philo
sophy, is inspired in its morality. It is now claimed that
had it not been for this book the world would have been
inhabited only by savages, and that had it not been for the
holy Scriptures, man never would have even dreamed of
the unity of God. It is claimed that belief in one God is a
dogma of almost infinite importance—that without this
belief civilisation is impossible, and that this fact is the sun
around which all the virtues revolve. For my part, I think
it infinitely more important to believe in man. Theology
is a superstition—humanity a religion.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
125
XXV—“ INSPIRED ” SLAVERY.
PERHAPS the Bible was inspired upon the subject of human
slavery. Is there in the civilised world to-day a clergyman
who believes in the divinity of slavery ? Does the Bible
teach man to enslave his brother ? If it does, is it not blas
phemous to say that it is inspired of God ? If you find the
institution of slavery upheld in a book said to have been
written by God, what would you expect to find in a book
inspired by the Devil ? Would you expect to find that book
in favor of liberty ? Modern Christians, ashamed of the
God of the Old Testament, endeavor now to show that
slavery was neither commanded nor opposed by Jehovah.
Nothing can be plainer than the following passages from
Leviticus xxv.:—“ Moreover, of the children of the strangers
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of
their families that are with you, which they begat in your
land : and they shall be your possession. And ye shall
take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to
inherit them for a possession. They shall be your bond
men for ever.
Both thy bond-men 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
bond-maids.”
Can we believe in this, the nineteenth century, that these
infamous passages were inspired by God ?
That God
approved not only of human slavery, but instructed his
chosen people to buy the women, children and babes of the
heathen round about them ? If it was right for the Hebrews
to buy, it was also right for the heathen to sell. This God,
by commanding the Hebrews to buy, approved of the selling
of sons and daughters. The Canaanites who, tempted by
gold, lured by avarice, sold from the arms of his wife the
dimpled babe, simply made it possible for the Hebrews to
obey the orders of their God. If God is the author of the
Bible, the reading of these passages ought to cover his
cheeks with shame. I ask the Christian world to-day, Was
it right for the heathen to sell their children ? Was it
right for God not only to uphold, but to command the in
famous traffic in human flesh ? Could the most revengeful
fiend, the most malicious vagrant in the gloom of hell, sink
to a lower moral depth than this ?
�126
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
According to this God, his chosen people were not only
commanded to buy of the heathen round about them, but
were also permitted to buy each other for a term of years.
The law governing the purchase of Jews is laid down
in the twenty-first chapter of Exodus. li If thou buy a
Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve : and in the
seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by
himself, he shall go out by himself; if he were married,
then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have
given him a wife, and she have born him sons, or daughters,
the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall
go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I
love my master, my wife and my children ; I will not go
out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges ;
he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door-post;
and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl: and
he shall serve him for ever.”
Do you believe that God was the author of this infamous
law ? Do you believe that the loving father of us all, turned
the dimpled arms of babes into manacles of iron ? Do you
believe that he baited the dungeon of servitude with wife
and child ? Is it possible to love a God who would make
such laws ? Is it possible not to hate and despise him ?
The heathen are not spoken of as human beings. Their
rights are never mentioned. They were the rightful food of
the sword, and their bodies were made for stripes and chains.
In the same chapter of the same inspired book, we are
told that, “ if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a
rod, and he dies under his hand, he shall be surely punished.
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two he shall not
be punished, for he is his money.”
Must we believe that God called some of his children the
money of others ? Can we believe that God made lashes
upon the naked back a legal tender for labor performed ?
Must we regard the auction block as an altar ? Were
blood-hounds apostles ? Was the slave-pen a temple ?
M ere the stealers and whippers of babes and women the
justified children of God ?
It is now contended that while the Old Testament is
touched with the barbarism of its times, the New Testa
ment is morally perfect, and that on its pages can be found
no blot or stain. As a matter of fact, the New Testament
�SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
127
is more decidedly in favor of human slavery than the
°ldFor my part, I never will, I never can, worship a God
who upholds the institution of slavery. Such a God I hate
and defy. I neither want his heaven nor fear his hell.
XXVI.—“ INSPIRED ”
MARRIAGE.
Is there an orthodox clergyman in the world who will now
declare that he believes the institution of polygamy to be
right ? Is there one who will publicly declare that, in his
judgment, that institution was ever right ? Was there ever
a time in the history of the world when it was right to
treat women simply as property ? Do not attempt to answer
these questions by saying that the Bible is an exceedingly
good book, that we are indebted for our civilisation to the
sacred volume, and that without it man would lapse into
savagery and mental night. This is no answer. Was
there a time when the institution of polygamy was the
highest expression of human virtue ? Is there a Chris
tian woman, civilised, intelligent and free, who believes
in the institution of polygamy ? Are we better, purer,
and more intelligent than God was four thousand years
ago ? Why should we imprison Mormons. and worship
God ? Polygamy is just as pure in Utah as it could have
been in the promised land. Love and virtue are the same
the whole world round, and justice is the same in every star.
All the languages of the world are not sufficient to express
the filth of polygamy. It makes of man a beast, of woman
a trembling slave. It destroys the fireside, makes viitue
an outcast, takes from human speech its sweetest words,
• and leaves the heart a den, where crawl and. hiss the slimy
serpents of most loathsome lust. Civilisation rests upon
the family. The good family is the unit of good govern
ment. The virtues grow about the holy hearth of home
thev cluster, bloom, and shed their perfume round the fire
side where the one man loves the one woman. Lover
husband—wife—mother— father—child—home ! without
these sacred words the world is but a lair, and men and
women merely beasts.
�128
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
Why should the innocent maiden and the loving mother
worship the heartless J ewish God ? Why should they, with
pure and stainless lips, read the vile record of inspired lust ?
The marriage of the one man to the one woman is the
citadel and fortress of civilisation. Without this woman
becomes the prey and slave of lust and power, and man
goes back to savagery and crime. From the bottom of my
heart I hate, abhor and execrate all theories of life of which
the pure and sacred home is not the corner-stone. Take
from the world the family, the fireside, the children born of
wedded love, and there is nothing left. The home where
virtue, dwells with love is like a lily with a heart of fire—
the fairest flower in all the world.
XXVII.—“INSPIRED ” WAR.
If the Bible be true, God commanded his chosen people to
destroy men simply for the crime of defending their native
land. They were not allowed to spare trembling and whitehaired age, nor dimpled babes clasped in the mother’s arms.
They were ordered to kill women, and to pierce, with the
sword of war, the unborn child. ‘‘Our heavenly father”
commanded the Hebrews to kill the men and women, the
fathers, sons and brothers, but to preserve the girls alive.
Why were not the maidens also killed ? Why were they
spared ? Read the thirty-first chapter of Numbers, and
you will find that the maidens were given to the soldiers
and the priests. Is there, in all the history of war, a more
infamous thing than this ? Is it possible that God permitted
the violets of modesty, that grow and shed their perfume
in the maiden’s heart, to be trampled beneath the brutal
feet of lust ? If this was the order of God, what, under
the same circumstances, would have been the command of
a Devil ? When, in this age of the world, a woman, a wife,
a mother, reads this record, she should, with scorn and
loathing, throw the book away. A general, who now
should make such an order, giving over to massacre and.
rapine a conquered people, would be held in execration by
the whole civilised world. Yet, if the Bible be true, the
supreme and infinite God was once a savage.
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
129
A little while ago, out upon the western plains, in a little
path leading to a cabin, were found the bodies of two
children and their mother. Her breast was filled with
wounds received in the defence of her darlings. They had
been murdered by the savages. Suppose, when looking at
their lifeless forms, some one had said, “ This was done by
the command of God I” In Canaan there were countless
scenes like this. There was no pity in inspired war. God
raised the black flag, and commanded his soldiers to kill
even the smiling infant in its mother’s arms. Who is the
blasphemer : The man who denies the existence of God, or
he who covers the robes of the infinite with innocent blood ?
We are told in the Pentateuch that God, the father of us
all, gave thousands of maidens, after having killed their
fathers, their mothers and their brothers, to satisfy the
brutal lusts of savage men. If there be a God, I pray him
to write in his book opposite my name that I denied this
lie for him.
XXVIII.—“ INSPIRED ” RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
According to the Bible, God selected the Jewish people,
through whom to make known the great fact that he was
the only true and living God. For this purpose he appeared
on several occasions to Moses—came down from Sinai’s
top clothed in cloud and fire, and wrought a thousand
miracles for the preservation and education of the Jewish
people. In their presence he opened the waters of the sea.
For them he caused bread to rain from heaven. To quench
their thirst, water leaped from the dry and barren rock.
Their enemies were miraculously destroyed ; and for forty
years at least this God took upon himself the government
of the Jews. But after all this many of the people had
less confidence in him than in gods of wood and stone.
In moments of trouble, in periods of disaster, in the dark
ness of doubt, in the hunger and thirst of famine, instead
of asking this God for aid they turned and sought the help
of senseless things. This God, with all his power and wis
dom, could not even convince a few wandering and wretched
savages that he was more potent than the idols of Egypt.
This God was not willing that the Jews should think and
�130
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
investigate for themselves. For heresy the penalty was
death. Where this God reigned, intellectual liberty was
unknown. He appealed only to brute force ; he collected
taxes by threatening plagues; he demanded worship on
pain of sword and fire. He acted as a spy, inquisitor, judge
and executioner.
In Deuteronomy xiii. we have the ideas of God as to
mental freedom : “If thy brother, the son of thy mother,
or thy son, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend which
is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go
and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou nor
thy fathers—namely, of the gods of the people which are
round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from
the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the
earth, thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto
him. Neither shall thine eye pity him ; neither shalt thou
spare him; neither shalt thou conceal him. But thou shalt
surely kill him. Thine hand shall be first upon him to put
him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.
And thou shalt stone him with stones that he die.”
This is the religious liberty of God—the toleration of
Jehovah. If I had lived in Palestine at that time, and my
wife, the mother of my children, had said to me: “ I am
tired of Jehovah. He is always asking for blood; he is
never weary of killing ; he is always telling of his might
and strength; always telling what he has done for the
Jews ; always asking for sacrifices, for doves and lambs—
blood, nothing but blood.
Let us worship the sun.
Jehovah is too revengeful, too malignant, too exacting.
Let us worship the sun. The sun has clothed the world in
beauty; it has covered the earth with flowers. By its
divine light I first saw your face and my beautiful babe.”
If I had obeyed the command of God, I should have killed
her. My hand would have been first upon her, and after
that the hands of all the people ; and she would have been
stoned with stones until she died. For my part, I would
never kill my wife, even if commanded so to do by the real
God of this universe. Think of taking up some ragged
rock and hurling it against the white bosom filled with love
for you ; and when you saw oozing from the bruised lips
ef the death-wound the red current of her sweet life, think
of looking up to heaven and receiving the congratula-
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
131
tions of the infinite fiend whose commandment you had
obeyed!
Can we believe that any such command was ever given
by a merciful and intelligent God?
Suppose, however,
that God did give this law to the Jews, and did tell them
that whenever a man preached a heresy, or proposed to
worship any other god, that they should kill him ; and
suppose that afterward this same God took upon himself
flesh, and came to this very chosen people and taught a
different religion, and that thereupon the Jews crucified
him. I ask you, did he not reap exactly what he had sown ?
What right would this God have to complain of a cruci
fixion suffered in accordance with his own command ?
Nothing can be more infamous than intellectual tyranny.
To put chains upon the body is as nothing compared with
putting shackles on the brain. No god is entitled to the
worship or the respect of man who does not give, even to
the meanest of his children, every right that he claims for
himself.
If the Pentateuch be true, religious persecution is a duty.
The dungeons of the Inquisition were temples, and the
clank of every chain upon the limbs of heresy was music in
the ear of God. If the Pentateuch was inspired, every
heretic should be destroyed ; and every man who advocates
a fact inconsistent with the sacred book, should be con
sumed by sword and flame.
In the Old Testament no one is told to reason with a
heretic, and not one word is said about relying upon
argument, upon education, or upon intellectual development
—nothing except simple brute force. Is there to-day a
Christian who will say that four thousand years ago it was
the duty of a husband to kill his wife if she differed from
him upon the subject of religion ? Is there one who will
now say that, under such circumstances, the wife ought to
have been killed ? Why should God be so jealous of the
wooden idols of the heathen ? Could he not compete with
Baal ? Was he envious of the success of the Egyptian
magicians ? Was it not possible for him to make such a
convincing display of his power as to silence forever the
voice of unbelief ? Did this God have to resort to force to
make converts ? Was he so ignorant of the structure of
the human mind as to believe all honest doubt a crime ? If
�132
SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
he wished to do away with the idolatry of the Canaanites,
why did he not appear to them ? Why did he not give
them the tables of the law ? Why did he only make known
his will to a few wandering savages in the desert of Sinai ?
Will some theologian have the kindness to answer these
questions ? Will some minister who now believes in
religious liberty, and eloquently denounces the intolerance
of Catholicism, explain these things; will he tell us why he
worships an intolerant God ? Is a God who burns a soul
forever in another world better than a Christian who burns
the body for a few hours in this ? Is there no intellectual
liberty in heaven ? Do the angels all discuss questions on
the same side ? Are all the investigators in perdition?
Will the penitent thief, winged and crowned, laugh at the
honest folks in hell ? Will the agony of the damned increase
or decrease the happiness of God ? Will there be in the
universe an eternal auto da fe?
XXXIV.—CONCLUSION.
If the Pentateuch is not inspired in its astronomy, geology,
geography, history or philosophy, if it is not inspired con
cerning slavery, polygamy, war, law, religious or political
liberty, or the rights of men, women and children, what is
it inspired in, or about ? The unity of God ?—that was
believed long before Moses was born. Special providence ?
—that has been the doctrine of ignorance in all ages. The
rights of property ?—theft was always a crime. The
sacrifice of animals ?—that was a custom thousands of years
before a Jew existed. The sacredness of life ?—there have
always been laws against murder. The wickedness of per
jury ?—truthfulness has always been a virtue. The beauty
of chastity ?—the Pentateuch does not teach it. Thou
shalt worship no other God ?—that has been the burden of
all religions.
Is it possible that the Pentateuch could not have been
written by uninspired men ? that the assistance of God was
necessary to produce these books ? Is it possible that
Galileo ascertained the mechanical principles of “ Virtual
Velocity,” the laws of falling bodies and of all motion ; that
Copernicus ascertained the true position of the earth and
�SOME MISTAKES OE MOSES.
133
accounted for all celestial phenomena; that Kepler dis
covered his three laws—discoveries of such importance that
the 8th of May, 1618, may be called the birth-day of modern
science: that Newton gave to the world the Method of
Fluxions, the Theory of Universal Gravitation, and the
Decomposition of Light; that Euclid, Cavalieri, Descartes
and Leibnitz almost completed the science of mathematics ;
that all the discoveries in optics, hydrostatics, pneumatics
and chemistry, the experiments, discoveries, and inventions
of Galvani, Volta, Franklin and Morse, of Trevethick, Watt
andTulton and of all the pioneers of progress—that all this was
accomplished by uninspired men, while the writer of the
Pentateuch was directed and inspired by an infinite God ?
Is it possible that the codes of China, India, Egypt, Greece
and Rome were made by man, and that the laws recorded
in the Pentateuch were alone given by God ? Is it possible
that JEschylus and Shakespeare, Burns and Beranger,
Goethe and Schiller, and all the poets of the 'world, and all
their wondrous tragedies and songs, are but the work of
men, while no intelligence except the infinite God could be
the author of the Pentateuch ? Is it possible that of all
the books that crowd the libraries of the world, the books
of science, fiction, history and song, that all save only one,
have been produced by man ? Is it possible that of all
these the Bible only is the work of God ?
If the Pentateuch is inspired, the civilisation of our day
is a mistake and a crime. There should be no political liberty.
Heresy should be trodden out beneath the bigot’s brutal
feet. Husbands should divorce their wives at will, and
make the mothers of their children houseless and weeping
wanderers. Polygamy ought to be practised; women
should become slaves; we should buy the sons and
daughters of the heathen and make them bondmen and
bondwomen forever. We should sell our own flesh and
blood, and have the right to kill our slaves. Men and
women should be stoned to death for laboring on the seventh
day. “ Mediums,” such as have familiar spirits, should be
burned with fire. Every vestige of mental liberty should
be destroyed, and reason’s holy torch extinguished in the
martyr’s blood.
Is it not far better and wiser to say that the Pentateuch
while containing some good laws, some truths, some wise
�134
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
and useful things is, after all, deformed and blackened by
the savagery of its time ? Is it not far better and wiser
to take the good and throw the bad away ?
Let us admit what we know to be true; that Moses was
mistaken about a thousand things; that the story of creation
is not true ; that the garden of Eden is a myth ; that the
serpent and the tree of knowledge, and the fall of man are
but fragments of old mythologies lost and dead; that
woman was not made out of a rib ; that serpents never had
the power of speech ; that the sons of God did not marry
the daughters of men; that the story of the flood and ark
is not exactly true ; that the tower of Babel is a mistake ;
that the confusion of tongues is a childish thing; that the
origin of the rainbow is a foolish fancy ; that Melthuselah
did not live nine hundred and sixty-nine years ; that Enoch
did not leave this world, taking with him his flesh and
bones ; that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is somewhat
improbable ; that burning brimstone never fell like rain; that
Lot’s wife was not changed into chloride of sodium ; that
Jacob did not, in fact, put his hip out of joint wrestling
with God; that the history of Tamar might just as well
have been left out; that a belief in Pharaoh’s dreams is not
essential to salvation; that it makes but little difference
whether the rod of Aaron was changed to a serpent or not;
that of all the wonders said to have been performed in
Egypt, the greatest is that anybody ever believed the
absurd account; that God did not torment the innocent
cattle on account of the sins of their owners ; that he did
not kill the first-born of the poor maid behind the mill
because of Pharaoh’s crimes ; that flies and frogs were not
ministers of God’s wrath; that lice and locusts were not
the executors of his will; that seventy people did not, in
two hundred and fifteen years, increase to three millions ;
that three priests could not eat six hundred pigeons in a
day ; that gazing at a brass serpent could not extract poison
from the blood; that God did not go in partnership with
hornets ; that he did not murder people simply because they
asked for something to eat; that he did not declare the
making of hair-oil and ointment an offence to be punished
with death; that he did not miraculously preserve cloth
and leather ; that he was not afraid of wild beasts ; that he
did not punish heresy with sword and fire ; that he was not
�SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
135
jealous, revengeful, and unjust; that he knew all about the
sun, moon and stars; that he did not threaten to kill people
for eating the fat of an ox; that he never told Aaron to
draw cuts to see which of two goats should be killed ; that
he never objected to clothes made of woollen mixed with
linen ; that if he objected to dwarfs, people with flat noses
and too many fingers, he ought not to have created such
folks ; that he did not demand human sacrifice as set forth
in the last chapter of Leviticus; that he did not object to
the raising of horses ; that he never commanded widows to
spit in the faces of their brothers-in-law; that several con
tradictory accounts of the same transaction cannot all be
true ; that God did not talk to Abraham as one man talks
to another; that angels were not in the habit of walking
about the earth eating veal dressed with milk and butter,
and making bargains about the destruction of cities ; that
God never turned himself into a flame of fire, and lived in a
bush ; that he never met Moses in an hotel and tried to kill
him ; that it was absurd to perform miracles to induce a
king to act in a certain way and then harden his heart so
that he would refuse; that God was not kept from killing
the Jews by the fear that the Egyptians would laugh at
him ; that he did not secretly bury a man and then allow
the corpse to write an account of the funeral; that he never
believed the firmament to be solid ; that he knew slavery
was and always would be a frightful crime ; that polygamy
is but stench and filth ; that the brave soldier will always
spare an unarmed foe ; that only cruel cowards slay the
conquered and the helpless ; that no language can describe
the murderer of a smiling babe ; that God did not want the
blood of doves and lambs ; that he did not love the smell
of burning flesh; that he did not want his altars daubed
with blood ; that he did not pretend that the sins of a
people could be transferred to a goat; that he did not
believe in witches, wizards, spooks and devils ; that he did
not test the virtue of woman with dirty water ; that he did
not suppose that rabbits chewed the cud ; that he never
thought there were any four-footed birds ; that he did not
boast for several hundred years that he had vanquished an
Egyptian king; that a dry stick did not bud, blossom, and
bear almonds in one night; that manna did not shrink and
swell, so that each man could gather only just one omer ;
�136
SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES.
that it was never wrong to “ countenance the poor man in
his cause
that God never told a people not to live in
peace with their neighbors ; that he did not spend forty
days with Moses on Mount Sinai giving him patterns for
making clothes, tongs, basons, and snuffers ; that maternity
is not a sin ; that physical deformity is not a crime ; that an
atonement cannot be made for the soul by shedding innocent
blood ; that killing a dove over running water will not
make its blood a medicine ; that a god who demands love
knows nothing of the human heart ; that one who frightens
savages with loud noises is unworthy the love of civilised
men ; that one who destroys children on account of the sins
of their fathers is a monster ; that an infinite god never
threatened to give people the itch ; that he never sent wild
beasts to devour babes ; that he never ordered the violation
of maidens ; that he never regarded patriotism as a crime ;
that he never ordered the destruction of unborn children ;
that he never opened the earth and swallowed wives and
babes because husbands had displeased him ; that he never
demanded that men should kill their sons and brothers for the
purpose of sanctifying themselves ; that we cannot please God
by believing the improbable ; that credulity is not a virtue ;
that investigation is not a crime ; that every mind should
be free ; that all religious persecution is infamous in God
as well as man ; that without liberty virtue is impossible ;
that without freedom even love cannot exist : that every
man should be allowed to think and to express his thoughts ;
that woman is the equal of man ; that children should be
governed by love and reason ; that the family relation is
sacred ; that war is a hideous crime ; that all intolerance is
born of ignorance and hate ; that the freedom of to-day is
the hope of to-morrow : that the enlightened present ought
not to fall upon its knees and blindly worship the barbaric
past; and that every free, brave and enlightened man
should publicly declare that all the ignorant, infamous,
heartless, hideous things recorded in the “ inspired ” Penta
teuch are not the words of God, but simply “ Some Mistakes
of Moses.”
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
Some mistakes of Moses, by Robert G. Ingersoll, the destroyer of weeds, thistles and thorns, is a benefactor whether he soweth grain or not
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1916]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: viii, [9]-136 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. "The only complete edition published in England. Reprinted verbatim from Colonel Ingersoll's authorized American edition" [Title page]. First published, Washington DC: Farrell, 1879. Printed and published by Ramsey and Foote. Signature on front page: 'A. [Arthur] Bonner'. No. 69c in Stein checklist.
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
1885
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N398
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 (Some mistakes of Moses, by Robert G. Ingersoll, the destroyer of weeds, thistles and thorns, is a benefactor whether he soweth grain or not), 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
Bible. O.T. Pentateuch
Moses (Biblical Leader)
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0d1f80f50da8174e5a892ac40e29c2dc.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=fQVFjrVp0SZj0CJzBdQLkdU6-m9EE35RWN4SD9ZU70OzA2IqCkDuRWpt8aUNieHqz31Pd%7E460LFfI%7Et5kyObN97d3Ptr3wx42vC3-jEFDpJ7w7gi6cBzCaEIiKUOKU30097FPiJGQOpNro%7E2mkfHdFCpv6P0clrWVOSoEgN1vfx4jY%7EDabgYIb%7EwXhRxROYaBTNHVAv9l8GbrRQVmlaesbf69qs%7E4qOPMnFbyNKNYg0Y8QBbxY5OTiV2GzU-lQCfm1zdCPbd1BDS454EZI-3RJKUccKqDKVaofhXAFONVvndSOvb%7EpB4sQ3Ly2yHmR7ULKmHpPLuE2SSweLt%7EiWwOg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5bd47b31e33df2ff1bd91a5425c9db8c
PDF Text
Text
Reprinted {for wide and gratuitous distribution) from
“ The Scotsman" of Tuesday, November 28, 1871.
The Holy Bible : with an Explanatory and
Critical Commentary. By Bishops and other
Clergy of the Anglican Church. Edited by F.
C. Cook, M.A., Canon of Exeter. Vol. I. The
Pentateuch. London : John Murray.
This is the first instalment of a work which, under
the name of the Speaker’s Bible, has been expected by
the public for the last seven years. The idea of it
originated during the excitement created in religious
circles by the appearance of “ Essays and Reviews ” and
the critical performances of such writers as Bishop
Colenso and Dr Samuel Davidson. The principles
maintained in such productions were calculated to shake
the popular faith in those ideas of Inspiration and
Biblical Infallibility which, however much questioned
or even denied on the Continent, had long held undis
puted sway in the average English mind. By many
persons of the highest respectability the prospect of a
change in this respect was viewed with disapprobation
�2
and apprehension, and many pamphlets and treatises
appeared, intended to guard the public mind against
what were believed to be the dangerous doctrines of the
innovating critics. Among others, the present Speaker
of the House of Commons interested himself in the
maintenance of the traditional views, and suggested to
the Archbishop of York the advantages that would
accrue to orthodox opinions by the publication of a
comprehensive Commentary on the Scriptures, in which
the latest results of Biblical learning should be pre
sented in such a manner that a layman of ordinary
education might have no difficulty in seeing the ground
lessness of the objections raised against the opinions in
which he had been reared. The Archbishop adopted
the suggestion, and got together a number of coadjutors,
expressly confined to the clergy of th e Church of Eng
land, the first-fruits of whose labours, after various
delays and the cogitations of several years, are now
before the public.
In judging of such a work, it is only fair to bear in
mind to whom it is addressed, by whom it is executed,
and what object it has in view. It is intended for the
laity, is meant to reconcile them to the ordinary evan
gelical view of the authority of Scripture, and is the
production of persons who regard themselves bound in
honour to maintain that view. In such circumstances
we cannot expect the exhibition of scholarly processes,
or much in the way of bold or even independent re
search or speculation. It would not have been too
much, however, to expect that so extensive and wealthy
a corporation as the Church of England might have
given proof of the possession of a fair amount of ripe
Old Testament learning, and of skill and decision in
the defence of whatever critical positions were assumed.
This expectation, however, is to a large extent disap
pointed. The Commentary, so far as it has gone, does
not exhibit great or original Hebrew scholarship, or
mature acquaintance with criticism. It is tiie work of
�3
men who are intelligent rather than learned in the
subject with which they deal. It would be unfair to
deny that a very great deal of information, historical
and exegetical, has been collected and judiciously
arranged for the purpose of a popular elucidation of the
text; but it is mainly a transference from Continental
sources, and the one or two authorities whom we have
at home. The lay reader will be saved the drudgery
of hunting through Smith and Kitto for the explana
tions suitable to different passages and subjects, but
that is really about the most that can be said of by far
the larger portion of the notes and excursuses. This
is no doubt a very useful work to have done, but it is
work of a decidedly humble order. Perhaps the most
original contribution to the volume is an Egyptological
essay by Canon Cook, which is well done both as a
rtsumt of existing materials and as an independent
criticism of their import. But even of this production,
meritorious though it be of its kind, it must be observed
that it is very doubtful how far it is likely to impress
the mind of an ordinary reader with the views which
the Commentary was designed and executed to promote.
Its main object is to confirm and illustrate the narra
tive of the Pentateuch from the Egyptian monuments,
and from these sources it is undoubted that strong evi
dence is adduced in support of the authenticity of many
statements in the Sacred Record. But it will not
escape the notice of a vigilant reader of this kind
of evidence (and Canon Cook’s essay is only one of
many such), that it fails to authenticate that class of
statements for which authentication is most needed.
It produces confirmation of the ordinary and natural
events of history, but none whatever of those super
natural events which are the main or only stumblingblock to many readers, and the great object of modern
scepticism. It is interesting to find side-light thrown
in from the monuments upon the history of Abraham
and Joseph, Pharaoh and Moses, and to see that the
�4
current of ordinary events there narrated is in harmony
with the actual conditions of Egyptian history and
society at the period; hut it is very remarkable that
no similar corroboration can be produced from those
monuments of any of the miraculous and more extra
ordinary narratives which are the real sources of religious
perplexity in connection with the Biblical record. On
such events as the messages'from Heaven to Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, and others, the predictions of Joseph, the
swallowing up of Moses’ and Aaron’s rods by those of
the magicians, the plagues, the dividing of the Red
Sea, and the like, the monuments are dumb. In
matters where there are no difficulties of faith, this
kind of apologetic is profuse in confirmation ; it begins
to fail only at the point where faith needs to be
assisted. It may well be questioned whether such a
system of defence as this does any good to the cause
which it is designed to support. Canon Cook’s essay,
moreover, illustrates another mistake which is not
seldom committed by apologetic writers in the excess
of their eagerness to maintain what they believe to be
important positions. They often seek to defend their
position too well, and in their zeal, use means of pro
tection which have the effect of throwing open to
attack, or even surrendering other parts of the general
scheme which it may be equally essential to their pur
pose to maintain. For instance, Canon Cook, in his
anxiety to establish an early authorship for the Penta
teuch, makes it extremely difficult to establish a
similar early authorship for the Book of Judges.
He finds it necessary for his argument to show that
during the time of the Judges, Judea was con
tinually traversed or occupied by the Egyptian or
Assyrian hosts in their strategical movements in search
of each other. Had the Book of Judges been a con
temporary record, it is not conceivable that it should
have contained no reference to such transactions, any
more than it is possible to imagine a history of Belgium
�5
■written without an allusion to the battle of Waterloo
or those inarchings, counter-marchings, and conflicts
which made it the cockpit of Europe. Of course, if
the Book of Judges is made out or conceded to be
comparatively modern, the case is to that extent
strengthened for those who contend for a later author
ship of the whole Old Testament Scriptures.
If the Anglican clergy could not have produced, or
were not, in terms of their undertaking, hound to pro
duce, a great work of original scholarship and criticism,
they might at least have been expected to perform with
dexterity and resolution the special task which they
avowedly took in hand—the reconciliation of the
average popular mind to the traditional views. It
cannot, however, be said that they have been very suc
cessful here. The people on whom the book will tell
most powerfully in the interests of orthodoxy are those
who, for want of intelligent interest in critical ques
tions, will never read it. The fact of the book, and its
size, will produce a favourable impression on them. It
will set them at rest to know that the Bishops have
demolished Colenso and Davidson, for is not here the
confutation in a dozen volumes to be triumphantly
pointed to 1 Must not the Bishops be right when
they have so much to say for themselves 1 People,
however, who will read the book with a desire pos
sibly to have apprehensions allayed, and who will
moreover read it, not with open mouth, but with some
little degree of discrimination, are likely to experience
considerable disappointment. In not a few instances
they may find themselves constrained to ask in un
pleasant surprise, as they notice the forced character of
many of the arguments employed, “ Is this all that the
clergy have to say for themselves 1” And the general
impression left upon their minds seems likely enough
to be that, while Colenso and Davidson, and what is
vaguely called the Rationalising school, may be assail
able on various points of detail, there is more to be
�6
said for many of their positions than they had imagined
possible. They will he dissatisfied and staggered by
the haziness and hesitation with which many important
topics are treated in the Commentary, and, instead of
the simple, well-defined, thorough-going views of Scrip
ture in which they had been trained, and which they
may have expected to find vindicated out-and-out, they
will find themselves introduced to concessions and
compromises, and to a degree of uncertainty and in
definiteness of view, which is in effect a kind of help
less scepticism.
To take one or two examples. It is not unusual for
the commentators to assume that the divergencies
among critics opposed to themselves are a sufficient
proof of the unreasonableness of their opposition to the
view which they themselves uphold. For instance, in
dealing with the authorship of the Book of Leviticus,
we are told that “ the theories which are counter to its
Mosaic origin are so much at variance with each other
—no two of them being in anything like substantial
agreement—that it does not seem worth while to notice
them in this place.” Accordingly, there is no special
argument of any kind advanced in support of the
Mosaic authorship of this book. This can hardly but
be unsatisfactory to a reader of average discernment.
He will not fail to notice, that however much the anti
Mosaic theorists may differ in their positive opinions,
there is “substantial agreement” among them in the
negative opinion that, whoever wrote the book, Moses
did not; and he will scarcely be able to avoid feeling
that it would have been well to explain how so many
people who have learnedly investigated the matter,
have unanimously gone astray, and that the matter is
not properly disposed of by a mere assertion that the
opinions of such persons are of no consequence.
It appears to be considered a matter of great im
portance to show that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
No doubt this is part of the traditional faith, but if it
�7
be an essential part of it, the readers of this Com
mentary are not likely to be greatly reassured upon the
point. The writers seem to be affected with consideraable diffidence as to the power of their arguments, and.
when all is done, to be prepared for making indefinite
deductions from the breadth of their conclusion. Two
kinds of arguments are used. The first is, that Christ
has recognised Moses as the author of the Pentateuch.
To doubt the Mosaic authorship is accordingly repre
sented as “ impeaching the perfection and sinlessness
of Christ’s nature, and seeming thus to gainsay the
first principles of Christianity.” If such an argument
be good at all, it requires no confirmation. But the
commentators proceed to fortify the impregnable, by
endeavouring to show from historical and internal
testimony that Moses might have written the Pen
tateuch, and that he probably did so. It will be diffi
cult for a reader of ordinary shrewdness to avoid ask
ing why, if Christ’s word on the matter is so con
clusive as it is alleged to be, it should be necessary to
back it up by what must be at the best delicate and
questionable inference. If the iron bridge is safe, why
should it be buttressed with pasteboard ? And then,
wrhen all is done, it is found that the Mosaic author
ship is only asserted in a modified manner. It is
admitted that Moses may have incorporated into his
work documents by other hands, and that in later
generations, particularly after the Babylonish captivity,
ten or eleven centuries subsequent to Moses, there was
probably a recension, comprising various unknown re
arrangements, explanations, and assertions ; so that
the view with which the reader is left is, that perhaps
Moses wrote a great deal of the Pentateuch, but which
parts are his, and which are his predecessors’ or editors’,
we have not now the means of determining. If the
Mosaic authorship is of the religious importance which
seems to be ascribed to it, surely this is not a satisfac
tory position in which to leave the subject.
�8
This perplexity is apt to be increased by the way in
which it is proposed to reconcile the existing Biblical
text with various parts of the testimony of modern
science. The commentators admit the difficulty that
is presented by the very great antiquity which they
concede to the origin of man in view of the limited
duration of human history as given in the genealogies
which occupy the early chapters of Genesis, even with
the extraordinary length of life there ascribed to the
Patriarchs. In explanation, they resort to the supposi
tion that the genealogies are not complete ; and in
answer to the objection, that they present every ap
pearance of completeness, they tell us that we must
“ consider all that may have happened in the trans
mission of the text from Moses to Ezra, and from Ezra
to the destruction of Jerusalem.” But if the text
could be tampered with in the way here indicated in
one important matter, why not in many others 1 and
what criterion have we by which to single out what is
really original and what has been interpolated, or alto
gether transformed, between the dates of Moses and
Ezra, or Ezra and the destruction of Jerusalem ? And
it is not only the text which grows uncertain in the
hands of the commentators; the interpretation of it
appears to become equally precarious. It is certainly
the popular and traditional view, that whatever the
Bible says is true, and that it says what the natural
meaning of its language conveys. The commentators,
however, introduce two principles which appear fitted
to create very great confusion in the minds of persons
who have been accustomed to read the Scriptures with
the old simple theory respecting their authority and
significance. They affirm it to be “ plain that a
miraculous revelation of scientific truths was never de
signed by God for man,” and leave us to understand
that we are to look for revealed guidance only to those
parts of the Scriptures which contain their “ testimony
to Divine and spiritual truth.” They do not, however,
�9
furnish any directions for drawing the line between
what is “ scientific truth ” and what is “ Divine truth.”
There are various historical statements and metaphysi
cal doctrines contained in the Scriptures, and it may
easily be conceived that the plain reader, having got
over his first surprise of learning, that he must not take
Scripture as his rule of faith in everything, should be
anxious to know whether and when seeming affirma
tions on such matters are to be accepted as revelation.
This anxiety cannot fail to be increased by the second
principle laid down by the commentators, which is,
that although the Bible does not give revelations upon
scientific matters, yet anything it does say upon such
things must be true, and therefore wherever the appa
rent meaning of Scripture is contradicted by undoubted
science, we must conclude that the apparent meaning
of Scripture is not the real meaning, and must be con
tent to believe that the real meaning of Scripture would
be recognised as true, if we could only know what the
real meaning is.
A good illustration of the working of this method of
interpretation is afforded by the mode in which the
commentators treat the history of creation in the first
chapter of Genesis, which they appear to regard as
dealing with 11 scientific ” as distinguished from “ divine
and spiritual” truth. The traditional interpretation
of this passage, as is well known is, that the universe
was made in six days, and in the manner and order
which are suggested by the natural meaning of the
words. The commentators, it need hardly be said,
allow that this interpretation cannot stand in the pre
sent day, but hold that, nevertheless, the conclusion
must not be drawn that the narrative is mythical, or in
any way erroneous. It is quite correct, only we do not
know fully what it means; but in so far as we do
know, we see that it accords with science. We fear,
however, that the difficulties against which this con
clusion is pressed will leave a disconcerting impression
�10
on the mind of the reader who has been accustomed to
the old and thoroughly unhesitating view of Biblical
infallibility. To show that, so far as understood, the
narrative in Genesis is in agreement with science, the
commentator, leaving aside minute discrepancies, alleges
that the order in which organised beings have succes
sively appeared on the earth is represented in Scripture
in substantially the same manner as by science.”
“ The chief difference,” it is said, “ if any, of the two
witnesses would seem to be, that the rocks speak of
(1) marine plants, (2) marine animals, (3) land plants,
(4) land animals ; whereas Moses speaks of (1) plants
[it should be land plants], (2) marine animals, ( 3) land
animals; a difference not amounting to divergence.
As physiology must have been nearly, and geology
wholly, unknown to the Semitic nations of antiquity,
such a general correspondence of sacred history, with
modern science, is surely more striking and important
than any difference in details.” But surely there is
an amount of begging the question here that is quite
impermissible. Even supposing it were of no conse
quence that the Mosaic account omits the “ marine
plants ” altogether, and that other differences in
“ details ” could be fairly left out of the account, is
it to be said that where the order is restricted to three
things—marine animals, land plants, land animals—
there is no discrepancy worth mentioning between the
history which places the marine animals before the
land plants, and that which places the land plants
before the marine animals ? If this is not a substantial
difference on the question of order, what is likely to be
held as a difference ? Manifestly, if the scientific order
is adhered to, it is necessary to fall back upon the pre
sent unintelligibility of Genesis, as is done with the
rest of the narrative in question. Perhaps the word
unintelligibility does not best describe the view of the
commentators in this matter. They seem not so much
to hold that the words mean nothing, as that they
�11
may mean anything, and that the Hebrew language in
such places as this has no ascertainable fixed signifi
cance. Thus they maintain that the word “ created,”
as applied to the “heavens and the earth,” means
“ formed out of nothingbut that same word
“ created,” as applied to the marine animals, they
affirm to mean merely “ made ” out of pre-existing
materials. But this word “ made,” applied in the sense
just mentioned to the land animals, has, in their view,
a totally different meaning from what it has when
applied to the sun, moon, and stars, which are appa
rently represented as formed after the creation of light.
In this case, to “ make ” the sun, moon, and stars,
means merely to “make them appear ” by rolling away
the clouds and vapours which had previously concealed
them. It will certainly alarm not a few of the laity to
learn that Hebrew lexicography is in so very uncertain
a condition.
There are various other cases in which the tradi
tional and apparent sense of the Biblical narrative is
departed from, not for any assigned lexical or gram
matical reasons, but because otherwise it appears difficult
to face modern scientific habits of thought. The his
tory of the Ball is substantially given up as an alle
gory, although the confusion of tongues at the Tower
of Babel is taken as simple history in tlie„. apparent
sense of the words. The Deluge, however, is treated
with more effort. It is explained as only partial,
confined to the district of Mesopotamia, where the
hills are very low, and beyond which- the human race,
notwithstanding the long antiquity already conceded
to it, and the powers of rapid multiplication claimed
for it in the commentary on Exodus in connection
with the Israelites, is not supposed to have spread.
The height of the water, apparently alleged in Scrip
ture to be fifteen cubits above the highest mountains in
the world, is thus to be calculated in relation to nothing
loftier than the elevations of Babylonia. “ The in
�12
habitants of the ark,” it is said, “ probably tried the
depth of the Deluge by a plumb-line, an invention
surely not unknown to those who had acquired the
arts of working in brass and iron, and they found a
depth of fifteen cubits.” The ark is rested “ perhaps to
the south of Armenia, perhaps in the north of Pales
tine, perhaps somewhere in Persia, or in India, or
elsewhere.” It appears to be forgotten, that extend
ing the area of the Deluge to India, not to speak of
“ elsewhere,” interferes with its proposed limitation to
Mesopotamia, and that the proximity to India of the
Himalayan range, rather tends to take from the em
ployment of heaving the lead, somewhat grotesquely
ascribed to Noah and his family, any air of proba
bility which it may be supposed to possess.
The endeavour to tone down the miraculous cha
racter of certain of the narratives from their apparent
meaning, which is illustrated in the instance now
quoted, is also shown otherwise. The plagues of
Egypt are laboriously described as mainly a mere in- ,
tensification of the natural calamities and distresses
of the country. Balaam and his ass are treated as
follows: — “ God may have brought it about that
sounds uttered by the creature after its kind became
to the prophet’s intelligence as though it addressed
him in rational speech. Indeed, to an augur, priding
himslf on his skill in interpreting the cries and move
ments of animals, no more startling warning could be
given than one so real as this, yet conveyed through
the medium of his own art; and to a seer pretending
to superhuman wisdom, no more humiliating rebuke
can be imagined than to teach him by the mouth of
his own ass. The opinion that the ass actually uttered
with the mouth articulate words of human speech, or
even that the utterance of the ass was so formed in
the air as to fall with the accents of man’s voice on
Balaam’s ears, seems irreconcilable with Balaam’s be
haviour.” We shall give but one other instance in
�13
which popular surprise will probably be created vv
the departure of the commentators from the apparent
and traditionally accepted interpretation of the text.
The seeming discrepancy between the Exodus and the
Deuteronomy versions of the Fourth Commandment,
in respect of the conflicting reasons assigned for its
enactment, is well known. The commentary, however,
explains that these “ reasons annexed ” formed no part
of the command as issued, however much the narra
tives appear to assert it, and that the First Table of
the Decalogue, as originally given, probably ran thus :
—1. Thou shalt have no other God before me. 2.
Thou shalt not make to thee any graven image. 3.
Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in
vain. 4. Thou shalt remember the Sabbath-day to
keep it holy. 5. Thou shalt honour thy father and
thy mother. This abbreviated Decalogue, we should
suppose, will be exceedingly welcome to schoolboys.
The parts omitted are accounted for as expositions and
comments dictated oil separate occasions from the
issuing of the original decrees. Still, with all the
deductions, it will be observed that “ Remember the
Sabbath ” of Exodus, and “ keep the Sabbath ’’ of
Deuteronomy, remain unreconciled, and the question
between an original command or the resuscitation of
an ancient one is left undecided.
From such illustrations, which might have been
multiplied, it will be plain that in the view of the com
mentators the Bible may very clearly seem to mean a
certain thing, and yet may mean something very
different; nay, its apparent meaning may look as if it
were unmistakeably distinct and indisputable, and yet
its real meaning may be undiscoverable by human
sagacity. The effect of such teaching, so utterly op
posed to thejjerspicuzYus claimed for Scripture by the
Reformers, must be to produce great perplexity in the
minds of those for the re-establishment of whose faith
this Commentary is professedly constructed. They will
be irresistibly urged to ask, “ What part of Scripture
�14
can we ever be sure that we really understand ? Here
are certain parts of it which we and the generations
before us thought were as clear as noonday, and on
the strength of that conviction were endeavouring most
dutifully to believe, and even condemning or persecut
ing other people for disbelieving ; and yet it turns
out that they mean something totally different, or that
their meaning is absolutely undiscoverable. Where is
this to stop ? If the account of creation does not
mean what it seems to mean, how can we be sure
that the account of Justification means what it seems
to mean ? It is true the commentators wish it to be
understood that this dubiety attaches only to “scientific’
statements, and not to those that affect “ divine or
spiritual truth ? ” But who is to tell which is which ?
On the whole, we cannot grant that the aim of the
Commentary seems likely to be much advanced by its
publication. People who have no difficulties, and want
to have none, may be helped by its appearance to
hector the perplexed, if possible, a little more loudly.
But waverers, if we may use the expression, are in
danger of being confirmed in their wavering. Yet we
would not like to say that it is a useless, or that it is
not a respectable work. It will form a good intro
duction to the subject for those who want to get a
compendious glimpse of the latest state of the questions.
We are bound also to say that it is free from acrimony
and abusiveness, and if not written always with scientific
impartiality, is invariably pervaded by a gentlemanly
tone. It promises to be the most notable work pro
duced by the conjoint labours of English divines since
the Thirty-nine Articles and the Westminster Confes
sion, and the future Church historian will probably
point to it as an important landmark in the history of
British theology, as showing how many important
positions had come, since the formation of those
memorable documents, to be regarded as very uncertain,
or even untenable, towards the last quarter of the
nineteenth century.
�
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 Holy Bible: with an explanatory and critical commentary
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 14 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: "Reprinted (for wide and gratuitous circulation) from 'The Scotsman' of Tuesday November 28 1871". From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. A critique of 'The Holy Bible' by Bishops and other Clergy of the Anglican Church. Edited by F.C. Cook.... Vol. 1: The Pentateuch. London: John Murray. Date of publication from KVK.
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
G5476
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Holy Bible: with an explanatory and critical commentary), 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
Bible-Commentaries
Bible. O.T. Pentateuch
Book Reviews
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9f3fb80035515f0a2b7119f6abd71dff.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=TQomnRzZOBmVdW-qLA9HrnCBU9JdEvYXZXpbPF7XA12xjIb8uP59BofCrW86Dv1pKKQnMLEMLMqqB-n%7EX6Cws0DK80oFwxRjpU-dIDnYbx4nxpDPPTUe5TtA-itmG8zQGMoK2ZvGJfpAp1I9n%7EOVDIg6pym7DPFtoXMXPNCACTgGSbjCvapP4gnk8so5-C1tpbHOV118wEgkOw4s2TumAlhr16dkQMcovFC5lvgwyoDwXJjxMUAujBK9wPIwzWXrz1eRp6cJarjjNPa9miagby3z5nN6KnYYAY6S7bscSdpT1LuHcR44SaBQ1oke1k2p7qjj9ezJyAJs%7EVf6qUoJww__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d18969656e067df8f250a55c16d3cca1
PDF Text
Text
THE PENTATEUCH
AND BOOK OF
JOSHUA
IN FACE OF
THE SCIENCE AND MORAL SENSE
OF OUR AGE.
By a PHYSICIAN.
“ Zufallige Geschichtswahrheiten konnen der Beweis von nothwendigen
Vernunftswahrheiten nie werden.”—“ Contingent historical statements can
never be vouchers for necessary intellectual truths.”—Lessing.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1875.
Price. Sixpence.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET, W.
�THE
PENTATEUCH
AND BOOK OP
JOSHUA.
INTRODUCTION.
ITH every wish to find the Bible all it is
commonly said to be, against the per
suasions of earlier years, and near the end of a
long life, the writer feels bound to own that a
somewhat careful study of so much of the Hebrew
Scriptures as falls within the limits of the Penta
teuch and Book of Joshua leaves him with the
conviction that this portion of the Bible, at least,
is not any Word of God, gives no true account of
God’s dealings with the world, and enjoins little
or nothing that is calculated to edify or to raise
man in the scale of his proper humanity. On
the contrary, and passing for the moment the
incongruities, contradictions, and impossibilities
in which it abounds, Ideas of the Supreme are
everywhere encountered that were derogatory to
man, and averments made that gainsay know
ledge and reason, whilst misdeeds are commanded
and condoned that outrage humanity, and shock
�vi
Introduction.
the moral sense of our age. The Bible, however,,
is scarcely read without a foregone conclusion in
respect of its origin and import; still more
rarely is it perused with the amount of general,
scientific, historical, and archaeological lore that
are indispensable to a right understanding of its
text—truths which have led a late lamented great
biblical critic to ask: How many even of the
educated Laity understand the Bible—how many
of the Clergy understand—how many of them are
willing to understand it ?
*
I.
It is long, however, since it was definitely
shown that the Pentateuch, so persistently as
cribed to Moses, could neither have been written
by him nor by any one of his presumed age, but
must be the work of men who lived long—very
long—after the great mythical leader and legisla
tor;! and it maybe confidently maintained that all
subsequent critical inquiry by the competent and
candid, has not only substantiated, but has greatly
enlarged the scope and significance of this con
clusion. Writing, in the proper sense of the
word, appears not to have been practised by the
Jews in times so relatively recent as the days of
David. The Hebrew word for ink is of Persian
derivation, and the art of writing on prepared
sheep and goat skins among them dates from no
more remote an age than that of the Babylonian
captivity. The very character in which all the
Hebrew writing we possess has reached us, is
* Strauss, Der alte und der neue Glaube.
f Spinoza, Tract. Theologico-Politicus, 4to, Hamb., 16/0.
Eng. version, 8vo, Lond., 1868.
�Introduction.
vii
Chaldsean, and only came into use after the Exile.
A few slabs and pillars rudely cut in Intaglio,
and in a more ancient character, are all we possess
from which an idea can be formed of the kind of
writing that was practised in the earlier ages of
their existence by the Semitic tribes inhabiting
Western Asia.
How long the legends, which enter so largely
into the constitution of the Hebrew writings
proper, floated among the people before they
were reduced to writing, it is impossible to say ;
but the date at which they acquired the shape in
which they have reached us, is now hardly doubt
ful. These writings have, in fact, been brought
ever near and nearer to times concerning which
we have something like reliable records, whilst
the events of which theyspeak and the personages
who figure in them, so long regarded as historical
realities, are seen in the same measure to resolve
themselves into phantoms, with no more of sub
stance or reality than the dreams of the poet or
the visions of the Seer.
II.
Every addition of late years made to our know
ledge of the early history of mankind seems to
make it more and more certain that though we
seem to have so much, yet have we in reality
less of reliable information about the Hebrews in
the earlier periods of their existence than of
many others among the nations of antiquity.
The pious people who in person or by delegate
are at the present moment so busy excavating in
Palestine and Babylonia with a view to demon
strate the divine origin and historical truth of
�Vlll
Introduction.
the Hebrew Scriptures, seem verily to be pur
suing their work to their own discomfiture. It
is the reverse of the picture they would show
that mostly appears. All the evidences of cul
ture and civilisation brought to light of late from
the ruined cities of Asia Minor prove their
inhabitants to have been well advanced in polity,
and the arts of life, in mechanics, engineering,
and the rudiments of astronomical science, whilst
the Israelites were still wandering Nomads in
search of settled homes; nor, save in music, have
they yet distinguished themselves otherwise
than as petty traders and magnificent money
dealers. Some parts of the Hebrew Scriptures,
the most important of all in their far-reaching
after influence, lose their presumed character of
Revelations from God entirely, and appear to be
derived from the same source as the mythical
tales of the Babylonians;—source whence, in
the days of the Captivity, the sons of Israel
obtained the whole of the narratives that figure
in the earlier parts of the Book of Genesis.
The Garden in Eden, the Tree of Life, the Ser
pent, the Flood and the Ark, and much besides,
turn out to be neither history nor original
Revelation from Jehovah to the Jews, but stories
found among neighbours, their superiors in war
at all times as they were also in letters, until,
after contact with their conquerors and teachers,
the great lyrical and rhapsodical writers called
prophets,—the Isaiahs, Jeremiahs, Micahs, and
others,—appeared in the late days of the Kings.
�Introduction.
ix
III.
The Individuals, again, the personages with
whom through their names we are made so
familiar in the Bible story of patriarchal times,
turn out, under the light supplied by critical
inquiry, to be nothing more than mythical per
sonifications. Abraham, who comes from Ur of the
Chaldees, is discovered to be a NAME never borne
by any individual, but a generic Title applicable,
if applicable at all, to God, the Universal Father.
He is the Rock, as Sarah his wife is the Cavern,
whence the Hebrew people sprang. Abraham is,
in fact, a word of like significance with the
Dyaus, Zeus, and Deus of the Aryan race. He is
the Heaven-God, the active principle in nature,
as Sarah is the Heaven-Goddess, the passive
principle; the pair being parents of the laughing
Isaac (Istzack the laugher), wedded to Rebekah
(Fruitfulness), counterparts of the ’'HeXtos and
Ika of the Greeks.
Jacob, the Son of Isaac, so distinguished a
figure in the Hebrew story, like Abraham, is also
the embodiment of a name, fitted with a character
in correspondence with its import. Jacob is the
heel-holder, the tripper up, as he is made the
deceiver of his blind old father, the filcher of the
blessing and superseder of his brother. He is
another, yet a counterpart of Abraham, “ the
friend of God; ” nay, he is more than Abraham ;
for after a wrestling bout with his Deity he is
complimented with his name, and instead of Jacob
is called Israel, being thereafter always spoken of
as the Father of the Israelites.
Moses and Aaron, in like manner, are personi
fications of names in consonance with incidents
�X
Introduction.
attached to their legendary history ;—that of
Moses, which is believed to be old, being plainly
enough connected with his fabled rescue from the
water, that of Aaron, which is certainly modern,
' from the office assigned him about the Altar and
Ark of the Covenant (pns Ahrun.) The very
latest researches, however, have given us a Baby
lonian Moses, Sargon by name, who may very
possibly be the original of the Hebrew leader.
Sargon, it is said, was by his mother placed in a
cradle of rushes daubed with bitumen, and
launched on the Euphrates, but was rescued
by a water-carrier, and by him brought up as
his son.
*
IV.
What the absolute age of these names and the
personages they are assumed to represent, may
be, is questionable; but of this we are well
assured, that of the Jacob-legend there is not a
trace to be found until we come down to postDavidic times ; the latest researches of a critical
kind seeming to show that the whole series of
legends in which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
figure, are products of days posterior to the
secession of Israel from Judah. It was after this
disastrous event, and when the States were waging
an internecine war, that the scribes of the two
great religious as well as political parties into
which the country had split—the Elohists and
Jehovists—took to tampering with each other’s re
cords, and their poets to producing those wonderful
lyrics laudatory of their God and themselves, on
the one hand, and those libellous tales of rape
* Smith, ‘ Assyrian Discoveries,’p. 224, 8vo, Load., 1875.
I
�Introduction.
xi
snurder, and arson, in disparagement of their
■enemies on the other.
*
Then it was that El, Bel, Baal, or Isra-El—
other forms of El, chief God of the Hebrews in
the olden time—was set up under the form of the
Bull by the Israelites at Shechem and Dan, in
the kingdom of Ephraim, and Jehovah, the latest
■conception of Deity by the Jewish priesthood,
was established as Supreme God, with his sole
lawful shrine at Jerusalem, the capital of Judah.
Under what material form Jehovah was repre
sented we are left in doubt; everything that
would have satisfactorily informed us on the
subject having been expunged from the record,
although enough remains incidentally scattered
through the Scriptures, to satisfy us that neither
was this God without his similitude, and that
the interdict against making an image of their
Deity must therefore be one of the latest pro
ducts of the Jewish legislation.
V.
The exodus from Egypt under the conditions
and in the proportions specified we have shown
to be physically impossible; and, recognising no
interruption of the laws of nature, which we hold
to be the laws of God, we have referred all the
miracles in which Jehovah is made to glorify him
self, and to show how far he exceeds the Gods of
Egypt in power, together with the dramatic pas
sages between Moses and Pharaoh as prologues to
that event, to the realm of legendary myth.
* Vide Bernstein on the Origin of the Legends of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob ; one of Mr. Scott’s Series of Papers ; a
striking production, but held by competent judges to push
matters to excess. •
�xii
Introduction.
VI.
The Decalogue, still so persistently assigned to
the remote age of Moses, even by advanced
Biblical critics, we have spoken of as an eclectic
summary, the product of much more modern
times, emanating as surely from Mount Zion in
the City of Jerusalem, in the peaceful days of
Hezekiah in all likelihood, as it most certainly
did not come viva voce from God on Mount Sinai
“ all on a quake.” The accompaniments of the
assumed delivery thence, as described, suffice of
themselves to relegate the story to the limbo of
the mythical.
VII.
That the conquest and settlement of the Land
of Canaan, to conclude, were not effected at the
time and in the manner set forth in some parts of
the Book of Joshua, appears plainly enough on
the face of that incongruous and contradictory
document itself; and more and more persuaded
as we are of the relatively modern composition
of the Pentateuch, we grow more and more sus
picious that the accounts we have of the feats
of Joshua are after models found in the history
of the Babylonian Empire. The chronicles lately
deciphered of the doings of more than one of the
Kings of Babylon and Assyria; the vast numbers
slain; the extraordinary amount of the booty
collected; the tale of the woman made captive,
&c.; may very well have served as prototypes
from which the writer of Joshua drew, having
made himself master during his captivity of the
cuneiform inscriptions that still abound.
*
* Vide Smith, Op. cit.
�Introduction.
xiii
VIII.
The history of the Children of Israel, therefore,
as it is delivered in the Pentateuch, is, in truth,
nothing more than the mythical tale of a barba
rous people, steeped in sensuality, superstition,
ignorance, and cruelty; their God a demon delight
ing in blood, requiring the first-born of man and
beast to be sent to him in the smoke of the altar
as his most acceptable oblation, and having a lamb
supplied him night and morning throughout the
year by way of food ! Among a people with such
conceptions of Deity and such a Cult, with ances
tors like Abraham and Isaac, Jacob and Rebekah,
and with heroes and heroines having the stamp of
the Eleazars and Deborahs, the Samsons, Judiths,
Jaels, Jephthas, and, coming down to the really
historical times of David and Solomon, what
could have been the character of the religious,
moral and social usages and principles that pre
vailed ? The question suggests the only possible
reply. Yet, strange to say, the blood-stained
annals and barbarous lives of this extraordinary
people have been taken by the modern world as
the foundation of its religious ideas, and as fit
introduction to its moral conceptions.
IX.
But shall we, living in this nineteenth century
of the era from which we date, continue to look
to a source of the kind for such knowledge of the
Being and Attributes of God as may be attained
by man; for guidance in the service that might
be acceptable to the Supreme, and in the conduct
that were becoming in our dealings with one
another? Shall we, who think of God as All
�XIV
Introduction.
Pervading Cause, persist in viewing the Book as
his revealed word and will, which tells of the
Earth created in six days, and of its fashioner,
like a foredone workman, “resting on the seventh
day and hallowing it,” when we know most posi
tively that the Earth was not created in six days,
necessarily conclude that God never rests, and
believe that to him all days must be hallowed
alike ? Shall we, with the better knowledge
we possess, go on putting into the hands of our
children the book that narrates how God came
down from heaven to walk in his Garden in the cool
of the Evening, and at sundry other times, to ascer
tain how things were going on below; how he
cursed the creatures he had made in his own
image, as said; repented him of what he had
done in creating man at all, and brought a flood
of water on the Earth to drown all that breathed ?
Shall we, who measure our distance from the Sun
and the fixed Stars, calculate their masses, weigh
them as in a balance, analyse their light, and
thereby learn that they all are Units in One
Stupendous Whole, continue to look with respect
on tales that tell of the arrest of the Sun and
Moon in their apparent path through heaven, to
the end that a barbarous horde may have light
effectually to exterminate the unoffending people,
they have come—by God’s command, too, as said
-—to plunder and to murder ? It were surely time
to quit us of such worse than childish folly.
Reflection and candour alike compel us to say
that the teachings of the Pentateuch, in almost
every particular, have to be set aside if we would
escape erroneous conceptions of nature and of
almost all that civilised man associates with the
�Introduction.
xv
name of God and Religion. If the Bible is to be
continued as one of the instruments available in
the education of our children, it should be care
fully weeded of so much that is false and offen
sive, and be used in a negative rather than a
positive sense as a means of instruction; the un
worthy behaviour of Abraham and Isaac with
their wives, and of Jacob and Rebekah with the
father and husband, among other instances, being
pointed out as examples religiously to be shunned;
the recommendation we find in the New Tes
tament, “ Not to give heed to Jewish fables ”
(Titus i. 14), being at all times steadily kept
in view.
X.
As hitherto apprehended, Religion can be said
to have brought nothing but misery on the
world at large. Deeds of a dye that shock
humanity have been committed from first to last
in its name, and unreason has still been seen in
the seat of reason so often as aught presumed to
be due to God has come into question. Of old
it said:—“ If thy brother, thy son, or thy
daughter, the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend
that is as thine own soul, entice thee saying ;—
Let us go and serve other Gods [t.e., differ from
thee in thy creed and would have thee follow
their’s], thou shalt not consent to him nor
hearken to him; neither shalt thou spare him,
but thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall
be first upon him, afterwards the hands of all
the people, and thou shalt stone him with stones
that he die.” In later days it has excavated the
dungeon, built the torture-chamber and furnished
�xvi
Introduction.
it with the rack, lighted the slow fire about the
stake to consume, drenched the battle-field with
blood, and driven into exile from their home and
country the best and noblest of their kind.
XI.
Yet is the Religious Sense as certainly an
element in the constitution of man as his bodily
frame. But emotional in its nature it is Blind,
and requires association with those other emo
tional and intellectual faculties proper to man
from which it has hitherto been dissevered,
before it can conduce to good and advantageous
issues. Happily the world is slowly emerging
from its dream about the Jews being the chosen
people of God and the medium of his oracles to
mankind. The Hebrew Scriptures are now
known to be but one among many other books
to which a divine original, and sacred character
is ascribed by the peoples among whom they
took shape. The Sole Revelation which God
ever made he still makes to man; and this the
truly educated have at length begun to see lies
open for perusal by all of cultured mind in the
Book of Nature, from which alone can we, with
out fear of being led astray, know aught of what
God is, of that wherein the Providential order
of the world consists, and of that which is
required of us as agents responsible to God
through our fellow-men for our deeds. “ Ancient
creeds and time-honoured formulas,” says a great
writer, “ are yielding as much to internal pres
sure as to external assault. The expansion of
knowledge is loosening the very earth clutched
by the roots of creeds and churches. Science is
�Introduction.
xvii
penetrating everywhere, and slowly changing
men’s conceptions of the world and of man’s
destiny. Some considerable thinkers are there
fore of opinion that Religion has played its part
in the evolution of humanity, whilst others—
and I hold with these—believe that it has still a
part to play, and will continue to regulate the
evolution. To do so, however, it must express
the highest thought of the time. It must not
attempt to imprison the mind, nor force on our
acceptance, as explanations of the Universe,
dogmas which were originally the childish
guesses at truth by barbarous tribes. It must
no longer put forward principles which are
unintelligible and incredible, nor make their
unintelligibility a source of glory, and a belief
in them a higher virtue than belief in demon
stration. Instead of proclaiming the nothing
ness of this life, the worthlessness of human
love, and the impotence of the human mind, it
will proclaim the supreme importance of this
life, the supreme value of human love, and the
grandeur of the human intellect.”*
With every word of this who in the present
day will not sympathise ? But the Religious
Sense, as we have but just said, is blind, and
cannot be trusted to regulate, the evolution of
humanity. On the contrary, Religion, as com
monly understood, must itself consent to regula
tion, and descend to a lower place than it has
hitherto held in our Western civilisation. As
represented in the most powerful of all the
formulated systems in which it has yet been
G-. H. Lewes’s ‘.Problems of Life and Mind.’ Vol. I.
�xviii
Introduction.
seen, religion shows itself at the present
moment antagonistic to the peace of the State
and the Family, as well as to all Evolution—it
gives Discord a seat at the home-hearth, and
would stem the tide of human progress if it
could ; and it is more than questionable whether
there exists any other system that would not be
disposed to do as much, and to lead the evolu
tion on to some devious or narrow way ending
in a preserve of its own. But Religion is not,
in fact, as in these later ages it has been made,
the prime factor in the moral life of man.
Justice, mercy, truthfulness, integrity, reverence,
and steadfastness—the moral element in human
nature, in a word, outcome of the higher emo
tional powers in blended action with enlightened
understanding, are of far more moment in the
aggregate life of humanity than any conceivable
form of religious belief and observance. The
Idea of God is the GOAL, not the starting point,
in the evolution of mankind, and only presents
itself in a guise that can be held worthy of its
object in societies the most advanced in moral
and intellectual development. Then, but not till
then, comes the conclusion that the sole yet all
sufficing service that can be rendered to God by
man is study of his laws, which are the laws of
Nature; as obedience to their behests is the sum
of man’s duties to God, to himself, and to his
kind. It would indeed be well could an end now
be made of the folly men commit when they
personify God, endow him with feelings and
passions after the pattern of their own, and
attach significance and a literal meaning to
Eastern tales, the product of rude and ignorant
�Introduction.
xix
ages of the world. It were surely good did men
now acknowledge that God, ubiquitous essence,
in and over all, never spoke in human speech to
man ; was never jealous of other Gods, for there
be none such; never cursed the creature who had
come into being in conformity with his laws, nor
the ground that fed him ; never repented of
aught that was as it was through him, and never,
in abnegation of his universal fatherhood, elected
one among the nations that people the earth to
be his own and the medium of his oracles to the
rest of mankind.
XII.
The works of De Wette, Vatke, Von Bohlen,
Kuenen, Colenso, Davidson, and Kalisch, to name
a few among a number we have read, following
in the wake of Spinoza, Astruc, Simon, Eichhorn,
and others, have gone far to exhaust what may
be spoken of as the criticism of the letter and
structure of the Bible. That several hands have
had part in the composition of this wonderful
book ; that the text as it stands is the product
of dissimiliar minds; was written at various
times in different ages, and has been derived
from different and often discrepant sources—
mythical, legendary, and documentary,—is no
longer doubtful, but a demonstrated fact. Bern
stein, moreover, if his conclusions stand the test
of criticism, will have farther shown the very
free play the writers of the Pentateuch have
sometimes given to their inventive faculties.
In suggesting grounds for some of the tales,
and pointing to historical personages poorly
disguised under slightly altered names, he will
�XX
Introduction.
also have fixed beyond the possibility of question,
as it seems, the date at which certain parts of the
Bible commonly believed to be among the oldest,
were actually written; and this, it may almost be
needless to say, is not the mythical age of the
Patriarchs and Moses, of which so little or rather
nothing is known, but the really historical times
of Solomon and the Kings. Bernstein might
thus in a sense be said to have done for the part
of the Old Testament, to which we refer, what
F. C. Baur and the Tubingen School have done
for the New. In his hands Jehovist and Elohist
present themselves as Judahite and Ephraimite;
and even as in the Synoptic Gospels and the Acts
of the New Testament we find records of the
differences between Petrinists and Paulinists, so,
in the Old, instead of the word of God, we have
but evidence of the conflicting views and hostile
feelings of the followers of El-Elijon, Belitan or
Baal, and Jahveh.
XIII.
Among ourselves Biblical criticism, in any
acceptable sense of the term, can scarcely be said
to have existed until the present day. We had
Commentaries and Expositions of the Scrip
tures, indeed, in almost endless succession from
after the middle of the last to the middle of
the present century; but these were all more
or less alike, and after the same rigidly orthodox
and uncritical pattern : the Jews were the chosen
people of God, the vessels of his word and will
to the world; the Pentateuch was the work of
Moses, who had the Ten Commandments direct
from the mouth of God, and written besides with
�xxi
Introduction.
his finger on two tables of stone—and there an
End; Doubt was sin; Question was Atheism;
and as for criticism there was, there could be
none. But the Spirit of Time and of Progress
Sitzend am sausenden Webstuhl der Zeit
Wirkend der Gottheit lebendiges Kleid,
*
had been at work all the while, and found a voice
at length from an unexpected quarter in the able
Textual Criticism of the Pentateuch and Book
of Joshua by no less a personage than a dignitary
in the Church, the Bishop of Natal.
XIV.
Though not without something like a herald
of its coming, in the volume entitled ‘ Essays and
Reviews/ Dr. Colenso’s book fell like a thunder
bolt from a clear sky among his clerical brethren,
and took the laity at large, aroused to something
like an interest in the matters discussed, not a
little by surprise. “ Replies ” to the criticisms
of the Bishop by clergymen were not wanting, as
matter of course. But these were found less satis
factory to the more intelligent of the laity than
their authors imagined they would prove. This
element in the outside world had outgrown its
relish for the old style of Scriptural Exposition,
and was not satisfied with the assurance that the
Bishop of Natal’s objections were not new and
had all been answered long ago. They desired
to see something like a demonstration of the truth
* Sitting at Time’s murmuring loom,
Weaving the living garb of God.
C
�xxii
Introduction.
that this was so, and were minded that a work
so ably and conscientiously composed should be
met by arguments of a bettter kind than unsup
ported assertion, evasion, and abuse.
Accordingly, at the suggestion of alate Speaker
of the House of Commons, the Right Hon. J. E.
Denison, and after consultation with the Arch
bishop of York, a Committee of gentlemen,
Dignitaries and others of scholarly attainments
in the Church, was formed for the purpose of inves
tigating and satisfactorily replying to the matters
called in question,—and these amounted to
nothing less, in fact, than the Inspiration and
Historical Truth of the Sacred Scriptures of the
Old and New Testament, and their consonance
as formulated Word of God with the Word of
God as announced in the truths of Science and
the religious and moral consciousness of educated
man. Such, at all events, was the great and
worthy object which it was understood Mr.
Denison had in view when he broached the sub
ject of an exhaustive Commentary to the Clergy
of his Church. “ It seemed to him,” says Mr.
Cook, the writer of the Preface to the first
volume of ‘The Speaker’s Commentary,’ when
at length it made its appearance, “ that in the
midst of much controversy about the Bible, there
was a want of some Commentary in which the
latest information might be made accessible to
men of ordinary culture. It seemed desirable
that every educated man should have access to
some work which might enable him to under
stand what the original Scriptures really say and
mean, and in which he might find an explanation
of any difficulties which his own mind might
�Introduction.
xxiii
suggest, as well as of any new objections raised
against a particular book or passage.
“ Although the difficulties of such an under
taking were very great, it seemed right to make
the attempt to meet a want which all confessed
to exist, and the Archbishop accordingly under
took to form a Company of Divines, who, by a
judicious distribution of labour amongst them,
might expound, each, the portion of Scripture
for which his studies might best have fitted him.”
XV.
This is all clear and to the point: we were to
be furnished with a simple, truthful interpreta
tion of the Bible by able men, from the point of
view supplied by the latest and most advanced
critics and scholars of the day, in consonance with
the science and moral sense of the age. But wherein
the great difficulties hinted at, though not more
particularly specified, consisted, and whence the
long delay of seven years (!) that intervened
between the conception and the execution of the
project, the writer of the preface does not say.
A Company of learned Divines had been formed,
•ample funds had been subscribed, an eminent
publisher had been engaged, and by him carte
blanche was given to the foreign bookseller in
particular to supply the parties engaged, “ to
expound the portion of Scripture for which their
studies might best have fitted them,” with all
they required in the shape of literature. How
can we doubt that these gentlemen went to work
with a will ? They were to have liberal pay,
they had been furnished with books in abun
dance, and the opportunity to distinguish them
�xxiv
Introduction.
selves in the interesting field of Biblical criticism
lay before them. But time flew by—a year, two
years, four, six, seven years ! elapsed, and all this
while the public at large had no intimation,
through their work, of what the learned men
were about. Not a line in the shape of Note or
Comment to help men of “ ordinary culture ” to
understand the Scriptures of the Jews had seen
the light in all that time. But rumours were
rife of great and even unsurmountable difficul
ties having arisen in the course of the projected
enterprise. Nor was the nature of these kept
altogether from the public ear. The workers
specially engaged had discovered, one after
another, as was said, that the task they had
undertaken could not conscientiously be carried
out to the issue they had believed possible when
they undertook it. They had been led by the
hands of their Dutch, and German, and English
brethren, to “ the tree that grew in the midst of
the garden,” they had seen that the fruit it bore
“ was pleasant to the sight,” and was “ fruit to be
desired to make men wise.” They had “ put forth
them hands, taken of the fruit, and eaten,” and
lo ! “ their eyes were opened and they knew that
they were naked.”
When they now met one another and the “ Com
pany,” their superiors, in conclave, it was not as
Marcus Tullius tells us he thought the Haruspices
of his day could only meet, to laugh, but with
grave looks and bated breath. Colenso and
the free critics were not after all the men of straw
they had been supposed to be, and not to be slain
with lathen swords and pointless spears; they
were rather found like the “ well-greaved Greeks ”
�Introduction.
xxv
in panoply of proof, their line compact and as
little assailable as it seemed on the flanks as in
front. For awhile—a long while, therefore, there
must have appeared nothing for it but retreat
from an untenable position,—or, could it have
been the bolder and nobler alternative that pre
sented itself, and gave the pause—“ to speak
truth and shame the Devil,” as the saying goes ?
If this were ever contemplated it certainly has
not been followed. And yet there was a great
opportunity for the Clergy of the Anglican
Church to show themselves as exponents of the
Bible on at least as high a level as their con
tinental Protestant brethren. Mr. Cook in his
preface acknowledges the want of a real Commen
tary ; but he and his colleagues have not given
it. Retreat from the position forced on them,
perchance, rather than willingly assumed, must
have been the contemplated course. Silence
breaks no bones, it is said?, and the “ Speaker and
his Commentary” would perhaps pass out of
mind and be relegated to the limbo of things for
gotten. But the thought of retreat—if it ever
were a thought—was vain. The outside world
grew clamorous for its 1 Commentary,’ and some
thing must be done to satisfy it. The “ conscience
that makes cowards of us all ” had procured a
respite of seven years, indeed, but the business
must be faced at last. If the workers first en
gaged had disqualified themselves through the
pains they had taken to execute their task in the
best possible way, the way, too, that was held
desirable ; and as they in entering on it had be
lieved it could be done, but as they had been
brought to see that it could not truthfully and
�x±vi
Introduction,
without reservation be accomplished, others might
be found who took a different view of the matter.
There were orthodox as well as heterodox com
mentators in plenty—there were Hengstenbergs
as well as Hupfelds, Delitzsches as wellasColensos.
Why not take them for guides? Or if even the
least liberal of these were too outspoken for our in
sular orthodoxy, why not fall back on the good
old-fashioned English style of the Browns and
Henrys, the Doyleys and Mants, and give expla
nations by simple iteration of the text, discover
harmony amid discord, and congruity in discre
pancy ; to say nothing of so much that could
safely be referred to the inscrutable will of God7
and that passed the power of human comprehen
sion ? The workers first selected could not be
suffered to make victims of themselves, and have
their names enrolled beside those:—.
Die thoricht g’nug ihr voiles Herz nicht wahrten,—
Dem Pobel ihr Gefiihl, ihr Schauen offenbarten,
[Und die] man hat von je gekreutzigt und verbrannt.
*
They would too obviously be acting under the
segis of Hierarchs of the Church who would be
compromised with them, of Dignitaries who
had no taste for martyrdom, and who doubtless
thought “of the fish, and the leeks and the
onions, the cucumbers, the melons, and the garlick, which they did eat freely in Egypt.” Of
others, also, conscientious enough in their ortho
* Who have been fools enough not to keep their minds tc>
themselves, but to the people have revealed their hearts,
their thoughts, and for their pains have hitherto been crucified,
and burned.
�Introduction.
xxvii
doxy, having minds cast in a believing mould,
unfamiliar with the fruit of the tree that grew
in the midst of the garden, who did not see why
the sworn and salaried officers of a system should
be held bound to say aught in disparagement of
the grounds on which it rested, and who could
not be persuaded that there was not a perfectly
legitimate and even proper way of escaping from
the dilemma in which they had become involved
by the strike among their workmen.
Many and anxious, we must conceive, were the
consultations that now were held, deep and long
the discussions as to what had best be done, that
followed. It was even thought, as reported, that
Escape from the dead-lock might be found through
Counsel out of doors, as there was none within ;
a suggestion which led to an interview with a
late lamented Dean, not one of “ The Company
for he having eaten of the fruit of the marvellous
tree in years gone by, and spoken somewhat freely
of the Patriarchs, was held too /ar acZ-van ecZ for
such Society. But from this liberal writer came
little comfort. He is said rather to have en
joyed the difficulty in which his learned brethren
had become involved, he even chuckled over their
distress; but assured them he could help them
with no advice; it was their business, not his,
and they must get through the work they had
undertaken as they best could.
To proceed, indeed, was matter of necessity :
a Commentary and Exposition must be forth
coming ; but why need it be of the kind that
was contemplated by the Speaker ? It might be
of a sort that would satisfy the many and such
as had no misgivings ; and the few—the doubters
�xxviii
Introduction.
and such as were dissatisfied—might be left to
their doubts and dissatisfaction. A dangerous
course as concerns the future, though meeting
the most pressing want of the hour; for reac
tion inevitably follows, and the recoil is not
always comparable to the gentle lapping of the
summer sea, but sometimes comes like the up
heaval wave laden with destruction.
XVI.
The work, then, had to be gone on with, and
a fresh staff of workers to be found; and this,
not without difficulty nor without a second
secession in more than one instance, by report at
the time, was at length got together. But such
must have been the obstacles still encountered,
we must needs surmise, that before any real
progress could be made, seven years had passed
away! for it was at the end only of this long
period of incubation that the first instalment of
the ‘ Speaker’s Commentary ’ saw the light.
XVII.
And here we avail ourselves of the appre
ciation of the work by a distinguished conti
nental Biblical critic and scholar, Dr. A. Kuenen,
Professor of Theology in the University of
*
Leyden.
After premising that much is to be
learned from the work, especially by laymen, for
whose benefit it was written; that the composers
of it are learned men, and farther—yet hardly
•in keeping with what he goes on to say—that
* See Three Notices of the ‘Speaker’s Commentary’ from
the Dutch of A. Kuenen, by J. Muir, D.C.L., one of Mr.
Scott’s Series of Papers.
�Introduction.
xxix
they have shown an able apprehension of what
they had to do, he continues : “ But they lack
one thing; and this vitiates the whole. They
are not free. The apologetic aim of the work is
never lost sight of, and constantly operates to
disturb the course of the enquiry. It is, in one
word, Science such as serves a purpose that is
here put before us. The writers place them
selves in opposition to the Critics of the Penta
teuch, depreciate their arguments, make sport
in the well-known childish manner of their
mutual differences, and try to refute them with
reasonings which they themselves in any other
case would reject as utterly insufficient or regard
as unworthy of notice. None of them sins in
this respect so navvely and grossly (sterk) as Dr.
Harold Browne, the Bishop of Ely. But they
are miserable, far-fetched, and unnatural suppo
sitions to which he treats us...............Dogmatical
considerations have clouded the understanding
and exegetical perception of this apologist, and on
fitting occasions his fellow-labourers do not fall
short of him in this respect. If I am not deceived,
this ‘Commentary,’ entirely against the inten
tions of those who planned it, will, before all
things, have powerfully contributed to make
Biblical criticism indigenous in England.”
With the work of so thorough a critic and
accomplished scholar as Dr. Colenso, and the
excellent Introduction to the Study of the Old
Testament of such a Hebraist as Dr. Samuel
Davidson (to name but two among several others),
at command, it cannot fairly be said that Bibli
cal criticism had not already become indigenous
among us. It was, indeed, well established, though
�XXX
Introduction.
rare, but all the more firmly rooted from having
grown in the light of freedom, truthfulness, and
competence; and though ignored by the Clergy
at large, who shut their eyes to it themselves and
denounce it from their pulpits as impiety, it is by
no means without its influence among us.
“ When, after reading the Introductions to the
several Books and the Notes to the ‘Speaker’s
Commentary,’ ” continues Dr. Kuenen, “ I reflect
how much time, labour, and money have been
expended on the writing and printing of this
work, I receive a painful impression. Here
learned theologians, and such, too, as are high
dignitaries in the Church, come forward as instructors of the participators in their religious belief,
and all that these learn from them they must
afterwards unlearn. Many faults in the autho
rised version, indeed, are amended, and points of
an archaeological and geographical nature are
illustrated. But such is not the question here.
The point of importance is this : Do the contri
butors to the work make their learning subser
vient to the diffusion of a sound [i.e., a truthful
and reasonable] method of estimating the Bible ?
The reverse is the fact. They regard it as their
duty to maintain that which appears to them to
be the sound [i.e., the orthodox] view, and to reject
all more reasonable conceptions as unbelieving
and sacrilegious. Now and then, indeed, the
truth is too powerful for them, and they find
themselves forced to give up the correctness of
the Biblical narrative, but the concessions form
the exception. As a rule, the traditional view is
maintained, even in cases where it may be said
to be absolutely untenable ; and then the diffi-
�Introduction.
xxxi
culti.es are either passed over in silence or are not
recognised in their real force, or are answered
with childish arguments. But it will one day
become manifest that that which the adverse
critics already know must before long become
known to all, and that it is fearless criticism
alone which opens up the access to Israel’s sanc
tuaries. Magna est veritas et prcevalebit.”
XVIII.
So far Dr. Kuenen, the studied moderation of
whose adverse criticism is conspicuous. But the
Doctor is still a theologian, although a Liberal
one, It is habit and the prospect he enjoys from
his Professor’s Chair that enable him to speak of
fearless criticism of the Record the Israelites have
left of themselves in their Pentateuch and his
torical books as opening up the access to any
sanctuary. We who write here as Physician,
as Naturalist, cannot see the matter in the same
light as Dr. Kuenen; and do not scruple to avow
that the purpose of the Exposition which followsis to aid, in so far as this is possible, in disabusing
the public mind of the false conceptions it enter
tains of so much of the Bible as falls within the
Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua; to which
portions of the Hebrew Scriptures, we would
have it understood, is our criticism intended to
apply. We are behind none in our apprecia
tion of the beauties that abound in many
parts of the writings of the Lyrists and Rhapsodists of Israel'—though neither are we blind to
their blemishes—but we deny in toto that we have
either in these, in the so-called Five Books of
Moses, or in the historical writings that precede
�xxxii
Introduction.
the Psalms, any true account of God’s govern
ment of the world. We are even bold enough
to believe that he who accompanies us through
our exposition will scarcely fail, however reluc
tantly, to arrive at the same conclusion.
XIX.
The laity of this country, we believe, were
really looking for a perfectly truthful and autho
ritative exposition of the Bible, of the Hebrew
Scriptures especially; and a great opportunity
undoubtedly presented itself for the production of
such a work; but it has not only been neglected :
it may even be said to have been abused. The
most cursory perusal of so much of the ‘ Speaker’s
Commentary ’ as applies to the Pentateuch and
Book of Joshua, will enable any one possessed of
the mere Alphabet of Biblical criticism to see that
the writers do but “ keep their promise to the
ear and break it to the hope.” The intelligent
inquirer will gain from them none but the most
unsatisfactory responses to his most pressing
questions,—if perchance he finds response at all
—and the ignorant be only confirmed in his
ignorance, his errors, and his superstitions. The
views of the great liberal enlightened critics of
the Continent and our own country, men of
unblemished lives, the purest piety and ripest
scholarship, are scarcely noticed, the conclusions
of science ignored, and the moral blemishes
passed by unheeded, whilst nothing absolutely is
ever said that will help men of “ ordinary cul
ture ” to know more of what the “ original Scrip
tures really say and mean ” than the text itself
supplies. Iteration of a proposition in other
�Introduction.
xxxiii
terms is no demonstration of its meaning or its
truth; and where the exposition is not simply of
the old-fashioned orthodox and now untenable
character, it is hardly ever of a kind that will
enable the reader to see the matter referred to
in any more reasonable and acceptable light.
XX.
Dr. Kuenen in this notice of the first and
second volumes of the ‘New Commentary’ gives
a few examples of the perfunctory way in which
the Speaker’s Exegetes proceed in their work ;
*
and we, too, had got together some samples of the
chaff they present so carefully sifted from the grain
of truth and common sense, for illustration in this
direction. But they would be out of place here.
We, however, add below, the very First and One
among the Last of Bishop Harold Browne’s com
ments to Genesis, by way of justification of aught
we have said that seems disrespectful.f
* Vide Three Criticisms, &c., already quoted.
t Gen. i. 1. In the beginning. ‘Not “ first in order,” but
“ in the beginning of all things,” says the Bishop. ‘ The
same expression is used in John i. 1, of the existence of
the “ Word of God :” “In the beginning was the Word.”
The one passage illustrates the other, though it is partly
by the contrast of thoughts. The Word was when the
world was created.’ The reader may be left to make what
he can out of such a style of exposition ; for how the
mystical assertion of the Neo-platonic author of the Fourth
Gospel that “ In the beginning was the Word,” should be
brought in to throw light on the simple statement of the
writer of Genesis, that God in the beginning created the
heaven and the earth, passes our faculty of understanding.
Was the note introduced for any end but to give Dr.
�xxxiv
Introduction.
XXI.
The Exposition of the Pentateuch and Book of
Joshua that follows, it may be needless to say, is
conceived in a totally different spirit from that
which has guided the writers of the ‘ Speaker’s
Commentary.’ Holding that “ suppression of the
truth is near akin to assertion of the false]’ and
that truth can never be dangerous save to error,
Harold Browne an opportunity of showing at the very
cutset the out-and-out orthodox flag under which he was
enlisted I
Gen. xlvii. 8, 9. “ And Pharaoh said unto Jacob :
How old art thou? And Jacob said unto Pharaoh : The
days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and
thirty years.” To the words
Pilgrimage, the Bishop
appends this gloss, 1 Literally my sojournings.’ ‘Pharaoh
asked of the days of the years of his life ; he replies by
speaking of the days of the years of his pilgrimage. Some
have thought that he called his life a pilgrimage because
he was a nomad, a wanderer in lands not his own ; but in
reality the patriarchs spoke of life as a pilgrimage or
sojourning, because they sought another country, that is
a heavenly. Earth was not their home, but their journey
homewards.’ Now the Bishop of Ely—when he wrote, the
Bishop of Winchester now (for orthodoxy unflinching
brings preferment)—knows full well that the patriarchs
never spoke of their lives in any such sense. They had
no idea of any state of existence after the present life ;
and when in later days the children of Israel, after con
tact as slaves with a people entertaining an idea of the
kind, did attain to it, the place to which they went
after death was not thought of as a heavenly home
of light and love and joy, but a dark and dismal pit
under the earth, called Scheol, whence the Hell of the
modern world, peopled by Satan and his angels, and fur
nished with its burning lake of brimstone and other
appliances as a place of punishment for the wicked. Was
it not in some sort the Bishop’s duty to inform his readers
of so much ?
�Introduction.
xxxv
we have not hesitated to give expression to the
views that are most adverse to the idea of the
Divine Original of the Hebrew Scriptures, and
of the Israelites, in the earlier periods of their
history at all events, as worthy recipients of the
oracles of God. So much progress had been
made in Comparative Mythology and the Science
of Religion of late years, that it did not appear
so difficult to us to discover what “ the original
Scriptures really say and mean,” as it seems to
have done to the writer of the Preface to the
‘ Speaker’s Commentary.’ Unfettered by foregone
conclusions, having subscribed no Articles, and
sworn allegiance to no system of doctrine, but
under the guidance of such lights as the somewhat
miscellaneous reading we have indulged in has
supplied, we have striven to give -a thoroughly
truthful exposition of so much of the Bible as
has come under our scrutiny ; the result being, as
the tenor of this Introduction will already have
made manifest, that this extraordinary Book is
but one among a number of other Books held
sacred by the followers of the several religious
systems of which they are the exponents; that
though its literary merits may be more, it has no
higher title to be held a Revelation from God
than any one of these; that its contents are not
always of a kind calculated to raise our estimate
of the people among whom it took its rise, or to
prove beneficial to ourselves, and that it enun
ciates no such Ideas of God and his providential
government of the world as can be accepted by
civilised man.
�xxxvi
Introduction.
XXII.
The world of to-day does, in truth, stand in
need of more than the ablest and most outspoken
exposition of any Book expressing the Religious
Ideas, the Social Usages, and the Guesses at
Scientific Truth of a bygone age. It is waiting for
a Bible of its Own Day,—a great Intellectual
Survey of Nature, Nature’s Laws and Nature’s
God, as Revealed in the Universe of things
apprehended by the Mind of Man. Veniat, veniat,
cito veniatI
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY-STREET, HAYMARKET, V>'.
�
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 Pentateuch and Book of Joshua in face of the science and moral sense of our age
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Willis, Robert
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: xxxvi p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. This is the Introduction of a work originally published in several parts. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT143
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 Pentateuch and Book of Joshua in face of the science and moral sense of our age), 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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Bible. O.T. Joshua
Bible. O.T. Pentateuch
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e776a7eebf8855f8268fc4b723ff10c9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=YnUaSWpU%7EA8oL0UB-2cr-T%7EvtGz5eVub8MoJZuASpjfmG2wBM8XbSmJ9e%7Em1P%7ErgbyZiVwJQf2Q6gmVkSZF2B2PN4lGwoWV%7E-bK1%7E3Jymugi-mt%7EEO2-0-MrkzBFj9ekoRVXzrky8wuE6ovh%7Emxt6fSOBkKQnOhbz%7ElPsZutq3grxnkdKU%7EXBe93PciDUWZyKJxLDHcECyMgGO1vC3IXBARJOO34mF%7EjHbBZyLEGsIjh4jUWYZP-C8IEyrRfISOBpNSJnEdlatcHxzMjC-Oa%7EIhEYt8uFZl02MbakLiiVoH%7EaXvaVnx0WAsmr3U1f9-M1CiaLsQCjh1A99AT6xgGFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
22e3ff9bf979eff6486b8f71203f1a30
PDF Text
Text
CT ftg
THE PENTATEUCH
AND BOOK OF
JOSHUA
IN FACE OF
THE SCIENCE AND MORAL SENSE
OF OUR AGE.
By a PHYSICIAN.
PART VI.
“Zufallige Geschichtswahrheiten konnen der Beweis von nothwendigen
Vemunftswahrheiten nie werden ’’—Contingent historical truths can never be
demonstration of necessary rational truths.—Lessing.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS
SCOTT,
NO. II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1875.
Price Sixpence.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET, W.
�THE BOOK OF JOSHUA.
ECAUSE of the sins of the people, or because he
has failed to sanctify Jehovah in some signal
way at Meribah, Moses, as we have seen, is not only
refused permission to enter the promised land, but is
even informed that he is to die on this (the east) side
of Jordan. The death of Moses follows hard on the
intimation given, and Jehovah then, according to our
text, addresses Joshua, saying:—“Moses my servant
is dead; now therefore arise; go over this Jordan,
thou, and all the people, unto the land which I do
give them, from the wilderness unto Lebanon, the
great river Euphrates, and the great sea toward the
going down of the sun. Be strong and of good
courage, for Jehovah thy God is with thee whither
soever thou goest.” Encouraging words as well as
commands, which, we may presume, Joshua will not
be slack to obey ?
He forthwith orders his officers to bid the people
get ready for an advance by preparing victuals ; for
*
within three days, says he, ye are to pass the Jordan
and go in to possess the land that was promised to
your fathers. He then reminds the Reubenites,
Gadites, and half-tribe of Manasseh of their engage
ment to aid in the war, until their brethren were
settled in the territories beyond, as they themselves
had been put in possession of lands on this (the east)
side of Jordan. As a preliminary to entering on the
great enterprise before him, however, Joshua, not
relying entirely on Jehovah’s promises, as it might
* Th.e writer forgets that manna is still the only food of the
people, and that it stank forthwith if more was gathered than
sufficed for each day’s consumption.
�442
Joshua.
seem, is anxious to have some information of his own
as to the state of preparedness for resistance or other
wise of the people about to be invaded ?
He sends two men across the river to spy and view
the land, “ even Jericho,” the walled town that blocks
the way, and must be taken before further advance
into the country can be made. Stealing into the
town, but not unobserved, as it by and by appears, the
spies take up their quarters with a certain Rahab, a
harlot, probably surmising that from such as she
they might obtain information of the kind they
sought. They are soon inquired after by the King
of Jericho, however, who sends to Rahab, desiring her
to bring forth the men who had entered her house,
they having come, as was believed, to spy out the
land.
Joshua’s men must have been in great peril of their
lives, needlessly exposed, surely, had Jehovah’s
assurance to Joshua, that he and his were to have
the land, been trusted home. But, engaged in the
godly business of smoothing the way for the con
quest, they will be duly cared for by Rahab the
harlot ?
By who but she; for what was to be expected of
a harlot ? Traitress to her people, as she had already
proved false to all that best becomes her sex, instead
of delivering up the spies to the ruler, like a true
woman, she makes terms with them for herself and
her kindred in case she conceals them, and favours
their escape, having given them the information they
sought, as we shall see. She therefore hides the spies
until nightfall, pledges her word to the King’s mes
sengers that the men had left her house, and putting
the searchers on a false scent as to the way they had
taken, she enables them to get back to the camp in
safety.
The writer of the story before us is at the pains to
find something like an apology for Rahab’s treason to
her townsfolk in the words he puts into her mouth ?
�Israel passes Jordan.
443
He shows her familiar with the history of the invaders,
even from the time of their Egyptian bondage, and
makes her tell the spies of the “ terror because of
these things” that had fallen on her people, “ the
hearts of all melting within them, and nothing more
of courage remaining in any man, for Jehovah your
God,” she continues, “is God in heaven above and in
earth beneath.” The writer, it would seem, could
not resist an occasion, even through the mouth of an
idolatrous harlot, to glorify Jehovah his God ; of whom,
nevertheless, the woman Rahab could never have
heard, for the all-sufficient reason that he was not
known among the Israelites themselves by the name
now used until ages after the reputed days of
Joshua.
Rahab, then, has made terms with the spies in
return for their safety and the intelligence she has
given them. Her house is to be known by a certain
sign when the invaders have become masters of
the town, and all belonging to her are to be safe
whilst the indiscriminate slaughter in preparation for
the other inhabitants is proceeding ?
As the houses of the Israelites in Egypt were to be
known to the destroying angel by the blood on the
lintels and door-posts, so is the house of Rahab to be
distinguished by a scarlet cord hung from a window,
red being a colour with which a certain mystical and
sanctifying influence was connected by many of the
peoples of antiquity. The images of their gods—
those of Dionysus in particular, as we know—were
painted red; the figures of the Chaldsean deities on the
wall were “ portrayed in vermilion ” (Ezek. xxiii. 14) ;
and we have seen a scarlet string cast into the fire as
part of the rite in preparing the water of purification
from the ashes of the red heifer.
Breaking up from Shittim, in Moab, where they
were encamped, the Israelites come to the banks of
the Jordan, the priests, the Levites, as said (—but
ages before the existence of a levitical priesthood—),
�444
Joshua.
bearing the Ark of the Covenant, leading the way.
“ And now,” says Jehovah to Joshua, “ will I begin to
magnify thee in the sight of Israel, that they may
know that as I was with Moses so I will be with thee.”
Prom such a preamble we may be prepared for some
miraculous interposition of the tutelary God ?
Which follows forthwith, and is of the same sort
as that vouchsafed to Moses, when he and his fugi
tives had the Red Sea before them, and were enabled
to pass dry-shod through its bed. Joshua and the Is
raelites are now said to cross the swollen Jordan with
out wetting their feet! “ And it came to pass,” says
the narrator, ignoringthe statical law, pre-ordained of
the true God, which makes the thing impossible, “ that
as soon as the feet of the priests which bare the Ark
were dipped in the brim of the water—for Jordan
overfloweth his banks all the time of harvest—that
the waters which came down from above stood and
rose up upon an heap, and those that went down
towards the sea of the plain, even the salt sea, failed
and were cut off, and the people passed over right
against Jericho.”
Joshua would have this remarkable incident re
corded by a memorial monument ?
He orders a man of each of the twelve tribes to
shoulder a stone from the midst of Jordan, to be “ a
memorial to the children of Israel for ever.” As to
the way in which these stones are to be disposed of,
however, there is, unhappily, discrepancy in the record.
By one text (iv. 3), they are ordered to be carried to
Gilgal, the place where the people pitched for the
night, after passing the river; by another (iv. 9),
they are to be set up in the midst of Jordan where
the feet of the priests stood that bare the Ark ; “ and
they are there,” says the record, “unto this day.”
'The stones, however, would have proved no very
•conspicuous monument plunged in the waters of the
Jordan. Set up in Gilgal, they would certainly have
better served the end proposed. Anyhow, the stones
�Records of the Passage,
445
are presumed to be visible, for the text goes on to
say : “ When your children shall ask their fathers in
time to come, saying: What mean these stones ?
Then ye shall say : Israel came over this Jordan on
dry land; for Jehovah your God dried up the waters
of Jordan, as he did the waters of the Red Sea, until
we were gone over; that all the people of the earth
might know the hand of Jehovah that it is mighty.”
Miracles—in other words, contraventions of the
order or laws of Nature—were to the Jews of old, as
they have still been to the ignorant among other
peoples, the great vouchers for the Being and Power
of God. To the man of science and liberal culture, on
the contrary, a miracle, defined as above, would now
prove an insurmountable obstacle instead of a help
to belief in the existence of God. God, to him, is
Order and Law—not discord and disarray. The tales
of miracles met with in all the writings held sacred or
inspired, whether of Jew or Gentile, are certain de
monstrations of their source in the mind of man in
his stake of ignorance and non-age : AS putting God
IN CONTRADICTION WITH HIMSELF, MIRACLES ARE AT ONCE
IMPOSSIBLE AND ABSURD.
The stones, set up in Gilgal, were “ to serve for a
memorial to the children of Israel for ever ” ?
Alas for the eternity implied in the words ! There
is now no trace of the stones, any more than there is
of the people who set them up, save as scattered rem
nants in far-away countries—the people to whom the
promise of possession in perpetuity of a land that
flowed with milk and honey was so emphatically and
so repeatedly made.
Facts from which we conclude ?
That the statements are neither from God nor from
any of the far-seeing among men, his only oracles,
but from presumptuous, short-sighted, and mistaken
priests, who lived in relatively recent times compared
with those about which they write.
More than this ?
�446
Joshua.
That the repetitions, contradictions, and confusion
so conspicuous in the Book of Joshua make it plain
that its compiler had a variety of documents before
him, from which, and doubtless also from floating
myth and oral tradition, with small amount of critical
or editorial tact, he put together the disjointed nar
rative that engages us.
Yet more ?
That the constant recurrence of the phrase, unto
this day, assures us that the writer is discoursing of
events reputed to have happened in ages long gone
by. To refer to one, and perchance to dispose of the
first of the miracles brought in to . magnify Joshua
and show the might of Jehovah’s hand, we by and
by come upon a few words which show us that the
Israelites might have crossed the Jordan without any
arrest or drying up of its waters, though not without
wetting their feet; for we learn that when the spies
escape from Jericho they take their way “to Jordan
unto the fordsand we have notices besides, in other
parts of the Hebrew history, of the river having been
repeatedly crossed in after-times in the ordinary way
by fording.
Safely over Jordan, the Israelites will, of course,
leave the enemy no time to prepare for resistance ?
So might we have imagined ; but instead of ad
vancing at once, and laying siege to Jericho, we are
told that “ at this time ” Joshua receives orders from
Jehovah to make him sharp knives, or knives of
flint, and circumcise the children of Israel—“ the
second time,” says the text—a needless and not very
feasible procedure, if the words be taken as they
stand. But they cannot be so understood. The rite
of initiation which is said to have been practised
during the Egyptian bondage—a more than question
able statement—it is now said has been utterly neg
lected since the epoch of the Exodus. All the men
born during the forty years’ wandering in the wilder
ness are therefore without the distinguishing sign of
�Orders to Joshua.
447
their election, and must by all means be furnished
with it before the business of despoiling, driving out,
and slaying the enemies of Jehovah, now in posses
sion of the promised land, can be begun. The time
chosen for the ceremony, however, seems as little
opportune as the speed with which it is accomplished
is extraordinary.
How may this be ?
The invaders are but just entered into the enemy’s
country, and have a walled town before and a deep
and swollen river behind them—a dangerous strate
gical position, which Joshua, we must presume, was
too good a soldier not to understand. He will, there
fore, we may expect, like Moses on various occasions,
remonstrate with Jehovah; show the danger to which
he is exposed by the order, and beg him to recall
it. But Joshua seems never to have felt himself on
the same familiar footing with his God as Moses, and
offers no remonstrance. Having crossed the Jordan
on the 10th of Nisan, he proceeds immediately,
according to the record, to circumcise the males
among the children of Israel who had been born
within the last forty years.
The number of able-bodied men having been found
nearly the same as when the census took place at
Sinai, the time required to do so must have been
considerable ?
The operation in question is one of some nicety,
not to be done off-hand in a hurry ; and were the
amputation the affair of a moment the subsequent
dressing would take time. A simple arithmetical
calculation shows conclusively that it could not have
been accomplished between the 10th and the 14th of
the month Nisan, when the Feast of the Passover
is said to have been kept, and the people, therefore,
are presumed to be healed, and able to move about.
Were five minutes allowed in each case, and the
operator tasked to work twelve hours every day
during six days of the week, the time required to
�448
Joshua.
operate on something over 600,000 men would be
thirteen years and more ! By miraculous interposi
tion only, therefore, could the business have been
got through in the three days between the 10th and
14th Nisan ; and even then, another miracle would
have been wanted to heal the people in so short a
space of time. The circumcising done somehow,
however, as said, Jehovah speaks to Joshua, and
says :—
“ This day have I rolled away the reproach of
Egypt from off you.”
Can we as reasonable men believe that such words
ever came from God ?
We have already had occasion to say that God
cannot be conceived as speaking save through the
mouth of man. He, therefore, we conclude, was
mistaken who said that God spoke ; as he too erred
who imagined that the Egyptians bore about them a
badge of reproach in that which has now been cut off
in Israel, or that God’s handiwork can be amended
fey any interference of man. Bar from symbolising
their superiority over other peoples, the initiatory rite
of the Jews is persistent testimony to the essentially
sensual character of the religious system they inherit
from their forefathers; worshippers as they were of
the nature God under a certain symbol, frequently
characterised as the abomination in their writings, and
against the display of which, as we apprehend it, in
the Temple, we find several of the more modern
prophets loud in their denunciations.
We have practices analogous in some sort to the
Jewish rite, though with less of meaning, among
races we characterise as savage, whilst we are wont
to think of the ancient Israelites as the elect of God,
and continue to take them for our masters in religion ?
Setting the religious aspect of circumcision aside,
we see savages in some quarters of the globe knock
ing out a front tooth or two, cutting off a joint from
one of their fingers, or slitting their nether lip, and
�Apparition to 'Joshua.
449
distending it with a bung, by way of improving them
selves, doubtless, and “ rolling away the reproach ”
of a neighbouring tribe who have no such notable
mode of showing their superiority to the rest of
barbarous humanity.
The flint knife, enjoined in the marginal reading of
our English version, is remarkable ?
And not uninteresting from an arch geological point
of view, as pointing to times when tools of bronze and
iron were still unknown; to times when a certain sanc
tity was attached to stones; when they were set up
under trees as emblems of the Generative Power, when
they were thought to be possessed of sense, and were
even worshipped as Gods, and when the only
*
cutting instruments owned by man were flints and
agates chipped or ground to an edge. The early God
of Israel would not have his altar built of dressed
stones ; it must be of unhewn blocks : “ If ye lift up
a tool upon it, ye have polluted it.”
Here we encounter another of those strange and
meaningless interruptions of the narrative, of which
we have had more than one instance already ?
Having been informed that the Passover was
observed on the 14th of Nisan, and that the manna
ceased as soon as the children of Israel began to eat
of the fruits of the land of Canaan, we are told
that “ it came to pass when Joshua was by Jericho,
that he lifted up his eyes, and behold there stood a
man over against him, with his sword drawn in his
hand; and Joshua said to him: Art thou for us or
for our adversaries ? And he said: Nay; but as
Captain of the host of Jehovah am I now come.
And Joshua fell on his face on the earth and did wor
ship, and said : What saith my Lord unto his servant ?
And the Captain of Jehovah’s host said unto Joshua :
* “And Joshua took a great stone and set it up under an
oak, and said to the people : Behold, this stone shall be a
witness unto us, for it hath heard all the words of the Lord
which he spake unto us.”—Joshua, xxiv. 26, 27.
�450
Joshua.
Loose thy shoe from off thy foot, for the place
whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did
so.”
This on the face of it is no very important informa
tion ; neither is the act required of such significance
as to have needed so august a presence as the Captain
of Jehovah’s host to make it ?
Surely it is not; for one foot’s breadth of earth is
as holy as another ; and the only difference between
the shod and unshod foot is that one rests on dressed
and the other on undressed hide. The mere intima
tion that the speaker was the “ Captain of Jehovah’s
host,” moreover, must have left Joshua in the dark
as to the purport of the visit paid him ; the indefinite
“ Nay ” of the visitor to his challenge leaving it
open to question which side the Captain of the host
was to take in the impending engagement before
Jericho. Gilgal, however, was one of the oldest and
for long among the most renowned of their holy places
to the children of Israel. The apparition and intima
tion may therefore have been contrived by the writer
to illustrate the antiquity and peculiar sanctity of
the site; or it may have been introduced as a parallel
to the vision vouchsafed to Moses in the burning
bush on Mount Horeb when he was ordered to take
off his shoes, the ground on which he stood being
holy. The Captain of Jehovah’s host, to conclude,
bears a highly suspicious likeness to one of the
Amschaspands of the Zoroastrian system, and may
help to confirm us in our persuasion that the writing
before us must be referred to times posterior to the
Babylonian captivity.
Resuming the thread of the story, we are informed
that Jericho is at length laid siege to and closely shut
up—none coming out, none going in—and that
Jehovah himself condescends to give certain new
and hitherto unheard-of orders for the conduct of
the siege. For six successive days the besiegers are
to compass the city once on each day, the priests bear-
�Jericho taken and Cherem.
451
ing the Ark and blowing on the sacred trumpets of
rams’ horns as they march; but on the seventh
day—violation of the Sabbath, by the way, and
giving us to know that the Commandment to keep
it holy could not yet have been known—on the
seventh day they are to compass it as many as seven
times, and the blasts on the ram’s horn trumpets are
to be louder than ever. At the proper moment
Joshua is to stretch out his hand with his spear, the
priests are to blow their best, and the people are to
shout with a loud voice, on which the walls will fall
down and the city will be won !
Such a mode of taking Jericho could hardly have
been contemplated by Joshua when he sent out the
spies and confirmed the compact made with Rahab ;
any information he may have had from her through
them being turned to no account. All, however, is
done according to superior orders ?
And the result follows: The rams’ horns are
lustily blown ; Joshua raises his spear; the people
shout; the walls tumble down; and the Israelites
walk into Jericho without striking a blow.
The inhabitants, innocent of all offence, thus
miraculously thrown on the mercy of the invaders,
will, we may presume, be ordered by Jehovah to be
mercifully dealt with ?
Coming commissioned by their God, as they im
agined, to spoil and to slay, mercy in the early
Israelitish wars was a thing unknown. On the con
trary, the city had been proclaimed Cherem to Jehovah,
and we know what that implies : Every living thing
within it must be put to death, and every lifeless
thing consumed by fire. “ The city,” says the leader,
“ shall be devoted, even it and all that are therein, to
Jehovah; only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and
those that are with her in the house, because she hid
the messengers that we sent.” “ And,” proceeds
the story, “ they utterly destroyed all that was in the
city, both men and women, young and old ; ox, sheep,
�452
'Joshua.
and ass.” All that breathed were put to the sword,
and the city, with all it contained, was burned to the
ground ; “ only the silver and the gold, and the vessels
of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the
house of Jehovah.”
Not content with burning Jericho to the ground,
Joshua, for no conceivable reason, would never have
it rise from its ruins. “ Cursed be the man before
Jehovah,” says he, “ that riseth up and buildeth
Jericho ; be shall lay the foundation thereof in his
first-born, and in his youngest shall he set up the
gates of it.”
But Jericho, had it ever been ruined, must by
and by have been rebuilt, notwithstanding Joshua’s
curse; for David desires the messengers he had sent
to congratulate Nahum on his accession to the throne
of Ammon, but who having been mistaken for spies
had been ill-used by the Ammonites, to tarry at
Jericho until the signs of the disgrace put upon them
had disappeared. 11 Tarry at Jericho until your
beards be grown, and then return,” are the words of
King David (II. Samuel, x. 5). At a much later
period in the history of Israel, indeed, and to make
matters tally with Joshua’s denunciation, it may be
supposed, we learn that in the reign of Ahab, more
than five centuries after the age of Joshua, “ Hiel
built Jericho, and laid the foundation thereof in
Aborim, his first-born, and set up the gate thereof
in his youngest son, Segub (I. Kings, xvi. 34).
The interdict assigned to Joshua is, therefore, from
one who lived during or after the reign of King Ahab.
Jericho is ruined, then, but faith is kept with
Rahab ?
She, her father’s household, and all that she had,
it is said, were saved alive, “because she hid the
messengers which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho; and
she dwelleth in Israel unto this day.”
Were the text to be taken quite literally, Rahab
would appear to have been very long lived ?
�Achan Transgresses.
453
Rahab may possibly be here used in a generic
sense :—Rahab and her daughters dwell among our
selves even unto tTiis- day !
When a town was declared to be Cherem, or
devoted, it was of course unlawful for individuals to
appropriate any part of the spoil ?
All then belonged exclusively to Jehovah ; in other
words, what was not put to death and burnt came to
the priesthood; and, that no one might trespass
through ignorance, Joshua has been particular in
warning the people against theft—the unpardonable
sin, in such a case :—“ Keep ye in anywise from the
thing that is devoted, lest ye make yourselves
devoted,” says he, and so implicate the camp of
Israel and trouble it. But Achan, the son of Carmi,
has been imprudent enough to take of the devoted
thing, and the anger of Jehovah is kindled against
Israel.
Achan’s transgression of the law of Cherem be
comes known in rather a roundabout way ?
Proceeding with his work of conquest, not witting
that aught has been done amiss, Joshua sends out
spies to take the measure of the next town that lay in
the way—Ai by name. The spies return and report
the place of little strength, and its defenders few ; a
body of two or three thousand men, say they, would
suffice to smite it. So a corps of three thousand is
told off for the duty. But they behave ill; they flee
before the men of Ai, six-and-thirty of them are slain,
and the rest are chased from before the gate of the
town unto Shibarim; “ wherefore the hearts of the
people melted and became as water.”
Joshua takes this much to heart ?
He rends his clothes, falls on his face before the
Ark, with the Elders of Israel puts dust upon his
head, and says :—“Alas, 0 Jehovah God ! wherefore
hast thou at all brought this people over Jordan to
deliver us into the hand of the Amorites to destroy
us ? Would to God we bad been content and dwelt
�454
'Joshua.
on the other side Jordan ! 0 Jehovah ! what shall I
say when Israel turneth their backs before their
enemies? For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants
of the land shall hear of it, and shall environ us
round and cut off our name from the earth; and what
wilt thou do for thy name, the mighty ?” (De Wette.)
This is surely not a becoming address on the part
of Joshua; reproachful as it is to Jehovah and
unworthy of himself as leader of the host. Instead of
owning that his men had been seized with a panic
fear, or that he had erred in sending an inadequate
force against Ai, he throws the blame of the defeat
upon his God, and even threatens him with the evil
constructions of the Canaanites for having led his
elect into difficulties. But Jehovah comes to the
foolish mortal’s aid, though addressing him in terms
more brusque than we have been wont to find applied
to Moses when he has ventured to ask his God what
the Egyptians would think of him did he not carry
his people triumphantly through their troubles:—
“ Get thee up,” says Jehovah ; “ wherefore liest thou
thus upon thy face ? Israel hath sinned ; they have
taken of the accursed [devoted] thing, and have also
stolen and put it among their own stuff.”
Jehovah is made by the writer to look sharply
after his interests—he will have nothing that should
be his appropriated by another; he even knows
where the things purloined have been bestowed. So
he is reported as saying farther to Joshua:—“Up,
sanctify the people; for thus saith Jehovah, the God
of Israel: There is an accursed [devoted] thing in
the midst of thee, O Israel; therefore the children of
Israel could not stand before their enemies, because
they were accursed ; neither will I be with you any
more except ye destroy the accursed from among
you. And it shall be that he that is taken with the
accursed thing shall be burned with fire, he and all
that he hath.”
A little leaven leavens the lump, indeed ; but were
�Achats Punishment.
455
one thief among thousands to make cowards of the
rest, there would, we trow, be little courage in any
army that ever took the field, whether in ancient or
modern times. The virtuous Israelites, however, who
had never, in a body, borrowed silver and gold, and
fine raiment from the Egyptians, at the instigation of
their God, as they say, must now be purged of the
offender who had taken to himself of the devoted
thing. But why Jehovah, who is cognisant of the
theft, should not also have instantly pointed out the
thief, does not appear. Lots are the means adopted
for finding him out; and though we know that the
lot is as likely to fall on the innocent as on the guilty,
inasmuch as a miracle was now required, so is it forth
coming, and Achan the son of Carmi, the delinquent,
is taken.
His guilt divulged, Joshua addresses the culprit ?
In a speech that begins in a fine fatherly spirit, but
does not so end assuredly: “My son,” says Joshua,
“ give, I pray thee, glory to Jehovah, God of Israel I
Make confession unto Him, and tell me now what
thou hast done ?” To which the unhappy Achan
replies most penitently now that he is known for the
thief: “ Indeed I have sinned, and thus have I done.
When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonian
garment and two hundred shekels of silver and a
wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I took
them, and they are hid in the earth in the midst of my
tent.” And there, sure enough, as Jehovah had indi
cated, the stolen things are found “ among the other
stuff.” “And Joshua and all Israel with him,” continues
the record, “ took Achan and the gold, and the silver,
and the garment, and his sons and his daughters, and
his oxen and his asses and his sheep, and his tent,
and all that he had, and they brought them to the
Valley of Achor, and all Israel stoned them with
stones, and burned them with fire after they had
stoned them with stones. So Jehovah turned from
the fierceness of his anger.”
�45 6
Joshua.
The story here must surely be apocryphal,—in
vented for a purpose ?
It has every appearance of being so at all events ;
yet may it have an old tradition for its root. The
God of the early Israelites was by no means the God
of their later descendants, the Jews. He was a
jealous, revengeful, partial being, never to be ap
proached empty-handed, only to be appeased by the
sacrifice of life through the shedding of blood, and
not to be defrauded of his share of the spoil. The
tale, however, may have been invented as a pendant
to the story of Phinehas, when he slew Zimri and
Cozbi at a blow, and so stayed the pestilence that was
making such havoc in the camp. Or it may have
been devised to terrify the people against all privy
appropriation of aught especially that was held by
prescriptive right to belong to the priesthood.
Achan is the sole offender; but we find that he
alone is not made to suffer for his crime ?
In old and barbarous times, as among some savage
or half-civilised communities in the present day, all
that belonged to the house were held answerable for
the act of its head—wives, sons, daughters, cattle,
goods and chattels—all that breathed died, and all
that had value was burned or confiscated, in case the
penalty for the deed done were death.
And wholesale sacrifices of the kind were required
by Jehovah, God of Israel ?
So says the record : “ Joshua and all Israel took
Achan and all that belonged to him unto the valley of
Achor, and the leader addressing the offender, said to
him: Why hast thou troubled us ? Jehovah shall
trouble thee this day. And Israel stoned him with
stones and burned them with fire ; so Jehovah turned
from the fierceness of his anger.”
What are we in these days to think of the tales of
such horrors ?
We are to see them for what they are: libels on
humanity, blasphemies against the Supreme. Their
�Ai to be Taken.
457
writers may have thought that their God Jehovah re
quired silver and gold, and brass and iron, and the
blood of the innocent as well as the guilty to appease
his anger; but we who live in this 19th century of
the Christian era know that God, the Ineffable
Supreme, requires nothing of us but love of him and
love of our neighbour, in other words, obedience to
his laws and deed towards our neighbour as we would
have deed from him to us. Let the writings before
us therefore be seen for what they are—records of a
barbarous age, delivered by unenlightened men, and
unworthy longer to be looked on as the word of God
or as means available for the education and improve
ment of the world. The mention of the Babylo
nian garment might assure us that so much of the
tale as refers to it, must at all events be of modern
date ; for a horde escaped from slavery and but just
setting foot on the southern confines of Palestine,
after long wandering in the wilderness, could have
known nothing of Babylonian garments ; and we
may be well assured that the tents and hamlets of
the Amorites were as little familiar with shekels of
silver and wedges of gold in the days of Joshua as he
and his warriors could possibly have been. These
are all particulars added to colour a tale of late in
vention that most certainly can form no part of the
true word of God to man.
The town of Ai, however, stands in the way, and
must be taken; and Jehovah, not trusting as yet en
tirely to the military genius of Joshua, though the
Captain of his own choice, proceeds to give him par
ticular instructions as to how he is to set about the
business :—“Take all the people ofwar with thee,” says
Jehovah, “ and arise; go up to Ai; see, I have given
into thy hand the King and his people, the city and
the land; and thou shalt do to Ai and her King
as thou didst to Jericho and her King; only the
spoil thereof and the cattle thereof shall ye take for
a prey to yourselves. Lay thee an ambush for the city
�45 8
Joshua.
behind it.” And this Joshua proceeds to do; he sends
30,000 mighty men of valour away by night to lie
in ambush and attack the city from behind, whilst he
himself with 5,000 more will make a feint of attack
ing it in front. “And it shall come to pass,” says he,
“ that when they come out against us we will flee before
them, and they will follow after usseeing which
the 30,000 men in ambush are to show themselves and
seize on the city; “for Jehovah your God,” continues
the tale, “ will deliver it into your hand ; and when ye
have taken the city, ye shall set it on fire: according
to the commandment of Jehovah shall ye do.”
Jehovah, portrayed ruthless as ever, appears even
to have been on the field in person upon this occasion ?
Like the Gods of other ancient peoples, he of the
Israelites is presumed to be there to help his friends
and discomfit their enemies. Venus, in the Iliad,
shields Paris when in danger, and favours the Tro
jans ; Pallas has Achilles and the Greeks under her
protection ; and so in the Jahvehiad is Jehovah with
the Israelites in the fight before Ai. The men of the
feint on this side the city take to flight when attacked ;
the defenders pursue; and now, says Jehovah to
Joshua, “ Stretch out the spear that is in thy hand
toward Ai, and I will give it into thy hand.” Joshua
brandishes his spear, the ambush of 30,000 arise (an
ambuscade of 30,000 men !), march into Ai, set it
on fire as commanded, smite the inhabitants from
behind, as its defenders are now smitten by Joshua
and his party in front, and the day is won. “ They
let none of them escape ; Joshua drew not his hand
back wherewith he stretched out the spear until he
had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. And
all that fell on that day, both of men and women,
were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai, but
they took the King alive, and brought him to Joshua.”
The cattle and spoil are appropriated by Israel, and
the town is burnt and made “ a heap of desolation
unto this day.” The unoffending Chief of Ai, to con-
�Ai Destroyed.
4-59
elude the bloody business, is hanged on a tree until
sun-down (in other words, he is crucified as a sacri
fice to the sun-god), when his body is cast before the
gate of what was the city of his people, and a heap of
stones is raised over it that “ remaineth unto this
day.”
So much for Ai, its King, and its people, thus
dealt with in furtherance of Jehovah’s promise to the
forefathers of Israel to give them a laud that flowed
with milk and honey. Would not Blood and Tears, to
judge from the tales before us, have been better
■chosen words ? Let the reader refer to the sieges of
Jericho and Ai as first acts in the drama of getting
possession of the covenanted land, and answer
bravely to his own conscience whether they would or
not.
And what are we as reasonable, merciful, and
responsible men, with the details of such atrocities
before us, to think of those theologians of the present
age who persist in forcing the writings of a barbarous
people upon us as the source—sole source, moreover
—whence passably becoming ideas of God and his
dealings with the world are to be derived ?
As reasonable and not utterly benighted men we
are to think and feel assured that they are altogether
unreasonable, and are living in a state either of wilful
or unconscious blindness,
*
. After his triumphs at Jericho and Ai, Joshua builds
an altar of whole stones, as said, to Jehovah, God
of Israel—Jahveh-Elohe-Israel—on which burnt-offer
ings and peace-offerings are presented, and on the
stones of which it is composed a copy of the Law of
Moses is engraved, not a word of all that Moses com
manded being omitted in the writing, or in the reading
aloud to the people which followed ?
* Well may Strauss have said: “How many of the laity
understand the Bible ?—how many of the clergy understand
it 1—how many of them are willing to understand it ?”
�460
J
’ oshua.
This, in part at least, is somewhat extraordinaryintelligence—circumstance, matter, time, and place
considered; for the altar is set up on Mount Ebal,
and all that passes by the name of Law of Moses could
scarcely have been engraved on its twelve unhewn
stones. But Mount Ebal is in Samaria, some days
march away for an army operating in Canaan with its
base at Gilgal; and it is now quite certain that no
thing was known among the Israelites under the title
of Law of Moses until the reign of Hezekiah, seven
hundred years after the days of Joshua, according to
the usual reckoning.
Seeing the difficulty of engraving the whole of the
Pentateuch or Thora on twelve rough stones, Bible
harmonists have said that it was the abstract of theLaw comprised in the book of Deuteronomy which
Joshua carved on the stones ?
An assumption, however, by which the difficulty isnot got over ; for every competent and candid critic
now knows that Deuteronomy is among the most
modern of the five so-called books of Moses, and that
the bulk of the book, with the exception of a few
verses met with here and there copied from Exodus,
Leviticus, and Numbers, does not date from days
farther back than the reign of Josiah.
Others of the inhabitants of Canaan are now said
to take alarm at the terrible doings of the Israelites ?
The Kings of the Amorites, Hittites, Canaanites,
and other septs dwelling on this or the western side
of Jordan, hearing of what has been done to Jericho
and Ai, band themselves together and prepare to resist
the invaders. But the people of Gibeon, nearer the
scene of action, stricken with a panic fear, as it seems,
and despairing of any effectual resistance, go otherwise
to work, and succeed by guile in binding Joshua and
the princes of Israel by an oath to spare their lives.
A deputation present themselves in the camp, and
make show of having come from afar: the sacks and
wine-skins they have with them being old and rent,
�The Gibeonites.
461
their clothes patched, their shoes clouted, and the
bread they still possess, “ though taken hot from the
oven when they set out,” as they say, being now
“ dry and mouldy.” Joshua inquires of them who
they are, and from whence they come ? From a far
country, say they in reply; and having, like Rahab
the harlot, heard of the great fame of Jehovah the
<3 od of Israel, and all he had done for his people in
Egypt, against Sihon, King of Heshbon, and Og,
King of Bashan, against the Amorites beyond Jordan,
and doubtless also against the people of Jericho and
Ai, they had come their long journey to entreat the
leader of the dreaded host to enter into a league of
amity with them.
Joshua falls into the snare F
“ Because he had not asked counsel at the mouth
of Jehovah,” says the text, “ he made peace with them
and let them live, all the princes of the congregation
swearing to the league.” Had he but taken counsel
of the mouth of Jehovah, as he ought to have done,
he would have been better advised: instead of en
gaging to let them live, he would doubtless have
found himself authorised to deal with them in another
fashion. Commanded to hold them Cherem, as in
other instances, he would have been enjoined to slay
and despoil, instead of simply enslaving and putting
them to tribute. All that breathed—men and women,
old and young—would then have been put to death,
and the silver and gold, the brass and iron they pos
sessed been paid into the treasury of the God !
Joshua and the Israelites, of course, soon discover
that they have been imposed upon—that the footsore
and ragged deputation came from no far-off country,
but verily from the cities of Gibeon, Cephirah,
Beeroth, and Kirjath-Jearim, all close at hand ?
The people, therefore, murmur against Joshua and.
their chiefs : they would much have preferred putting
the Gibeonites to the sword, and appropriating their
spoil; “ but they smote them not, because of the oath
�462
'Joshua.
of the princes,” and are pacified by having them made
hewers of wood and drawers of water to the congre
gation of Israel. Joshua, we need not doubt, rates
the deputation soundly for having deceived him, thev
pleading in excuse the rumour gone abroad that
Jehovah the God of Israel had commanded his ser
vant Moses to give his people all the land for a pos
session, and to destroy all its native inhabitants from
before them. Joshua therefore keeps the hands of
the children of Israel from the throats of the Gibeonites ; but, as the story says, “ he made them hewers
of wood and drawers of water for the congregation
and for the altar of Jehovah in the place which he
should choose, even unto this day.”
How may this be interpreted ?
The hierodouli or slaves of the Temple, built by
King Solomon—if it were not perchance of the second
Temple, built by the remnant that returned from
their captivity in Babylon—on Mount Moriah, in the
city of Jerusalem, are turned by the writer into
Gibeonites subdued by Joshua.
The Gibeonites have made peace with Joshua then,
but the Kings or chiefs of the cantons, their neigh
bours, threaten them for having come to terms with
the invader ?
Five of these Kings gather their fighting men
together, and make war on Gibeon for its selfish
desertion of the common cause. But Gibeon sends
to Joshua at Gilgal, entreating for speedy succour and
assistance ; all the Kings of the Amorites that dwell
on the mountains being now gathered, as they say,
against them. Joshua is not slow to obey the
summons of his new allies. He moves at once from
Gilgal in the night; falls suddenly on the host of the
five confederates, discomfits them, and slays them
with a great slaughter. But he has not been
without a powerful ally of another kind than the
dastardly Gibeonites to aid in the work of destruc
tion, for “ Jehovah,” as we learn, “ cast down great
�Still-stand of the Sun.
463'
stones from Heaven upon them, so that there were
more that died with hail-stones than the children
of Israel slew with the sword.” More than this,
and still more marvellous, it is here we read that
Joshua, addressing Jehovah, says, in the sight of
Israel, “ Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and
thou moon in the Valley of Ajalon. And the sun
stood still in the midst of Heaven, and hasted not
his going down a whole day.” The moon, too,
although her light could not have been wanted in face
of the sun, paused, it is said, in her course, whilst the
chosen seed avenged themselves on their enemies.
“ And there was no day like that before or after it,
that Jehovah hearkened to the voice of a man ; for
Jehovah fought for Israel.” We have so often had
occasion to differ from the writer that for once we
rejoice to find ourselves in accord with him : there
certainly never was, and never will, “ until chaos come
again,” be a day like that which saw the sun stand
still in Heaven, and haste not his going down for a
whole day at the word of a man !
Had the writer been content with his hail-stones of
Jehovah—in other words, his great hail-stones—it
would not have been difficult to admit that such a
contingency as a hail-storm occurring in the course of
a skirmish in Judea was well within the limits of
possibility, but the standing still of the sun and moon
in Heaven, in other words, the arrest of the earth in
its revolution, to give Israel the better opportunity to
slaughter the Amorites, takes the tale entirely out of
the pale of belief. Such an occurrence, as against
Mature, i.e., against God, is an absolute impossibility.
The narrator himself, indeed, must have had mis
givings as to the credibility and reception of his
story, for he seeks either to bolster it up, or to shift
the responsibility for its truth from his own to
another’s shoulders, appealing as he does to an
inaccessible source as his authority. “ Is not this
written,” says he, “ in the Sepher Haijashar ? ”—the
�464
Joshua.
Book of the Just, now lost to us. Reference to such
a document shows that the writer drew from an older
source than is the text in which we have his tale,
a document, however, that certainly did not date
so far back as the days of Joshua, inasmuch as we
learn elsewhere (II. Samuel, i. 17 and seq.) that it
is from the Sepher Haijashar that the touching
lament, put into the mouth of David for Saul and
Jonathan, is derived. The Book of Joshua, conse
quently, could not have been compiled and put
together in the indifferent fashion in which it meets
us until after the reign of David, second King of
Israel.
This tale of the standing still of the sun and moon
in their apparent course must surely be one of the
parts of the Old Testament which, in face of the
science of our age, has failed to find apologists ?
So might we have expected. Nevertheless, at
tempts have not only been made to explain away but
even to defend the statement, and in the physical
impossibility implied to find an illustration of the
power—we do not know that any one has ventured to
add: of the goodness and mercy of God. But early
indoctrination still makes men incompetent to see
things as they are, and lets them of the power to dis
tinguish between what is no more than contingent
statement and that which is absolute or necessary truth.
Blind sentiment then takes the lead of open-eyed in
telligence, and blank absurdity and hideous cruelty
are seen in the disguise of wisdom and beneficence.
*
* It is not a little extraordinary that so bold a thinker
and, in matters of science, so well-informed a man as Spinoza
should have been tempted to offer a natural explanation of
the myth relating the still-stand of the sun and moon at the
word of Joshua. He says (assuming it as a fact that the day
light lasted longer than usual) that Joshua and those about
him, ignorant of the true cause of the longer continuance of
the light they witnessed, believed that the sun stood still on
the day in question. They never thought of referring it to
�Hanging before the Sun.
4.65
With the great ally he had, or thought he had, in
his God Jehovah, Joshua could not fail to put the five
Kings of the Amorites, in alliance against Gibeon, to
the rout ?
They are defeated, as matter of course, with signal
slaughter of their peoples, they themselves only
escaping immediate death by hiding in a cave at
Makkedah. This being told to Joshua, he, to make
sure of his prey yet not to interrupt the pursuit and
slaughter, orders great stones to be rolled to the
mouth of the cave, and a guard set over it. “ Pursue
after your enemies and smite them,” says he; “ suffer
them not to enter into their cities; for Jehovah your
God hath delivered them into your hand.” The
triumph complete, Joshua and the men of war return
to the camp at Makkedah, and—vce victis!—it is now
the turn of the chiefs who are hidden in the cave :—
“ Bring forth those five Kings unto me out of the
cave,” says Joshua. Calling his officers about him,
he bids them put their feet on the necks of the pros
trate chiefs, and assures them that if they continue
strong and of good courage, thus will Jehovah aid
them to do to all against whom they fight. But this
is not yet the end; for Joshua, continues the record,
inspired by Jehovah, and with his own hand, we may
presume, even as Samuel did to Agag, “ smote them
and slew them, and hanged them on five trees until
the going down of the sun.” The dead bodies were
then taken down and thrown into the cave wherein,
having sought a refuge, they now found a grave ; its
mouth, to conclude, being stopped up with great
stones, “which remain unto this day.”
Such hangings up before the sun, or until the going
down of the sun, so frequently mentioned in the Heany less obvious cause, such as the ice and hail which then filled
the air, and might have given rise to a higher refractive power in
the atmosphere than usual.—Tr. Theol. Polit., ch. it, p. 60, of
the English version.
�466
"Joshua.
brew Scriptures, must be presumed to have a special
significance ?
That they have, cannot be doubted, and that they
were sacrificial is scarcely questionable. The trees on
which the suspensions took place were crucifixes, and
the attitude of the victim was that which appears to
have been assumed by the Semitic peoples generally
in the act of adoration. At the dedication of the
Temple, for instance, Solomon, it is said, “ stood
before the altar of Jehovah and spread forth his hands
towards heaven and said: -Jehovah, God of Israel,
there is no God like thee,” &c.; and when he had
made an end of “ praying all this prayer and suppli
cation unto Jehovah, he arose from kneeling on his
knees with his hands spread up to heaven ” (1 Kings,
viii. 22 and 54). Those stretchings out of the arms,
again, with or without the Hod of God in his hand, of
which we read so frequently in connection with the
mythical history of Moses, must have had the same
significance—they implied prayer and adoration.
Moses stretches out his hand when he divides the
flood of the Red Sea and when he draws water from
the rock, but most notably of all when he gains the
victory over Amalek. Waited on by Aaron and Hur,
he has ascended the hill that overlooks the field;
“and it was seen,” says the text,-“that when Moses
held up his hands, that Israel prevailed, and when
he let down his hands, that Amalek prevailed. .But
Moses’ hands were heavy, and they took a stone and
put it under him, and he sat thereon ; and Aaron and
Hur stayed uv his hands, the one on the one side, the
other on the other side, until the going down of the sun.
And Joshua discomfited Amalek.” (Ex.xvii.) The rude
Figure in the woodcut on the next page, after a Votive
Tablet of Hicembalis, King of Massylia and Numidia,
to his Deity the Sun-God Baal—older in all likelihood
than anything we have in the Hebrew Scriptures—is
in the very attitude of the victim on the accursed
tree as well as of Moses and Solomon in the act of
�'Joshua Victorious.
467
prayer, and is surely not a little interesting when
seen in connection with the great Catholic Christian
symbol of medieeval and modern times.
*
Joshua, to whom the idea of mercy appears to have
been unknown—as, indeed, it would have been out
of season, acting as he does under orders from Jeho
vah to smite and not to spare—never pauses now in
his career of conquest over the tribes standing in the
* The rude and very ancient tablet figured above was
brought by Sir Grenville Temple, in 1833, from Magrawa,
the site of a Lybo-Phcenician settlement in the Beylik of
Tunis, and is described and figured in the Trans, of the Royal
Asiatic Society for 1834. The inscription in the Phoenician
character has been deciphered by Gesenius : Scripturse L111guaeque Phoenicia Monumenta, 4to, Lips. 1837, and is to the
following effect:—Domino Baali Solari, Rege Eterno, qui
exaudivit preces Hicembalis : “To the Sun-God Baal, Eternal
King, who heard the prayers of Hicembalis. ”
�468
Joshua.
way of the chosen seed, their enemies only because
Occupants of the soil on which they had been born,
and their title-deeds no other than indentures from
God when he gave them power to subdue and make
it fruitful ?
He advances from one victory to another, according
to the record, might his only rule of right.
And the countenance and aid of Jehovah ?
So he or the writer who uses the sacred name may
have imagined ; but enlightened humanity knows no
thing of God’s countenance or favour save with deeds
in conformity with his eternal laws—with those in
special which proclaim the sacredness of human life,
and forbid appropriation by force or fraud of aught
that is another’s.
But the Canaanites, it has been said, were a wicked
race, and so were disinherited, as they deserved ?
Of the state of civilisation and morals among the
Canaanites we know little; and that little not always
in their favour. But they were farther advanced in
the arts of life, as it seems, than the horde that in
vaded them. They were settled denizens on the land
of their birth, not wandering nomads like the Is
raelites ; they dwelt in walled towns, associated as
independent petty republics, and lived in peace or at
war with one another as interest or passion prompted.
If perchance they were not entirely moral in their
generation, and their religion was stained with what
we now look on as indecency, and with blood, what,
it is fair to ask, were the Israelites who came up
against them ? Let the reader refer to the chapters
of the book of Exodus in which so many command
ments with a social bearing find expression; and, if
he have it not already, let him thence acquire the
formation that will enable him to answer the
question.
Favour or no favour, Joshua is a daring leader, and
his warriors are braver, more numerous, better armed,
or better led than their opponents, so that he takes in
�Hazor is Cherem.
469
succession Makkeda’n, Libnah, Lachish, Gezer, Eglon,
and Hebron, and does to each and. all of them as he
had done to Jericho and Ai, putting the men, women,
and children to the sword, and appropriating their
spoil, utterly destroying all that breathed, “as Jeho
vah the God of Israel commanded” (x. 40).
So many of the cities of the level land, or land, of
Canaan, and their territories thus subdued, Joshua
turns his attention to the Perizzite, the Hittite, the
Jebusite, and the Canaanite which dwell in the more
mountainous districts. Jabin, King of Hazor, had, in
fact, allied himself with the clans just named, and
“ come up against Israel with much people, even as
the sand on the sea-shore in multitude, with horses
and chariots very many.” .But Jehovah, as on other
occasions, bids Joshua not to fear them, for “to-mor
row, about this time, I will deliver them all slain be
fore Israel, and thou shalt hough their horses and
burn their chariots with fire.”
Israel, with such assistance, prevails ?
Of course!—Jehovah delivers all into the hands
of his ruthless favourites : Jabin and his confederates
are smitten until none of them remain ; “ Joshua did
unto them as Jehovah hade him : he houghed their
horses and burnt their chariots with fire.” Hazor, the
leading place in this unsuccessful stand against the
invaders, is particularly mentioned as suffering sum
mary chastisement. Taken by assault, we may pre
sume, Jabin the King of Hazor, and all the souls
therein, are smitten with the sword, none of them
being left to breathe, and the town itself with all
within it is burnt to ashes. Hazor, in a word, had been
made Gherem; and we are already familiar with the
terrible significance of this word. The other cities
confederate with Hazor are also taken ; but they are
not burned down; the victors content themselves
with slaying their inhabitants and appropriating the
spoil. “There was not a city,” says the record, “that
made peace with the children of Israel, save the
�Joshua.
Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all the others
they took in battle for it was of Jehovah to harden
their hearts that they should come against Israel in
battle that they might have no favour, but be utterly
destroyed as Jehovah commanded Moses”—that is
to say, they were led to their destruction by Jehovah
himself.
There is the saying of a heathen writer, that God
first makes mad those he would ruin; but in the
book, every word of which is still received by so
many among the most civilised peoples of the earth
as inspired by God, we should scarcely have expected
to find the Supreme Creator presented as leading men
to their destruction. Let us think for a moment of
God hardening the hearts of the Canaanites to
oppose their invaders, and commanding the indiscri
minate slaughter of men and women, with the par
ticular houghing of horses and burning of war chariots
with fire 1
Had the book been truly inspired by God it would
most assuredly have contained no such command
ments. Do we, however, accept the definition of
inspiration given by one of the few consistently pious,
thoroughly competent, and candid biblical critics of
our day as: “ The expression of man’s religious consci
ousness;” and that of “ God’s promises of the land of
Canaan to the Israelites,” as : “ the spontaneous consci
ousness of the writer and his nation,”* we come to a
'
much better understanding of the text than when it
is seen as the result of any immediate intimation or
inspiration from God. It is, indeed, and can by no
possibility be more than a picture by the writer of
his God Jehovah, and the destinies of his people.
God, most assuredly, no more hardened the hearts of
the Canaanites to resist Israel than he hardened the
heart of Pharaoh, in older times, when refusing to let
Israel go; and he no more ordered the children of
* S. Davidson, D.D. Introd, to Study of the Old Testa
ment, I., p. 440 et seq.
�Joshua a Myth.
i
Israel to go in, slay and take possession in Canaan,
than he inspires a neighbouring people of our own
day to covet certain lands that border the Rhine, and
another to desiderate the domains of the Sultan,
whilst he inclines the hearts of the Teuton and Turk
to hold their own. It was the want of elbow-room
and the need they felt for escape from the nomad to
the settled state that drove the Hebrew of old to cast
longing eyes on the better watered and more fertile
lands of Canaan, and led him on, with arms in his
hand, prepared to slay where liberty to settle was
denied. The story of the invasion of Palestine by
the children of Israel, as we have it, is a poem, its
historical foundations, in all likelihood, no broader
than those of “ The Tale of Troy divine.” Myth and
legend, largely as they pervade every part of the
early Hebrew story, are so conspicuous in Joshua that
an astrological and allegorical meaning has even been
connected with the whole of the book. Jericho, it
has been said, may be the Moon-city, Rahab the
Moon-goddess (Rahab, increase, from the waxing of
the Moon through the first half of her orbit), and
Joshua himself another Hercules or Sun-god, point
edly referred to as a Beth-schemite or of the House of
the Sun (Ha-Schem, the Sun, a name of the Hebrew
god), of whose birth and descent, further than that he
was the son of Nun [the fish), we have no information,
though we are told that his death and burial took
place at Timnath-Heres—eclipse of the Sun, or the
obscurity that follows his setting.
*
Some considerable time, we must presume, was
spent in these wars of conquest and spoliation of
Joshua ?
Five or six years, according to the usual reckoning,
but this is merely conjectural, and though Joshua
is said to have taken “ the whole land and given it
* See Drummond, CE dipus Judaicus, 4to., London. Re
printed, 8vo., London, 1868. Higgins, Anacalepsis, 2 vols.,
4to., London; and Nork, Biblische Mythologie, II., 226.
�47 2
Joshua.
for an inheritance to Israel,” so that at length “ the
land rested from war ” (xi. 23), we by and by learn
that “ there yet remained very much land to be
possessed” (xiii. 1); a statement which, doubtless,
approaches the truth more closely than the one first
made. Many towns and districts were very certainly
never subdued in Joshua’s time, nor, indeed, for long
after: “As for the Jebusites, the children of Judah
could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell
with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this
day—a statement that must date from some con
siderable time after the reign of David. Neither
would it seem did Ephraim slay and drive out the
Canaanites from the lands allotted to them, in the
manner first described : “ They drove not out the
Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites
dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and
serve under tribute.”
With the land thus partially subdued, Joshua
nevertheless proceeds to the difficult task of dividing
it among the victors according to their tribes ?
To avoid dispute, apparently, and charges of par
tiality, he has recourse to lots, and gives an engage
ment as from Jehovah that the peoples still in
possession should in due season be driven out. The
tribe of Levi, alone, is to have none of the land as an
inheritance, “the sacrifices of Jehovah, God of Israel,
made by fine, are their inheritancethey are, how
ever, to have certain cities, situated in the territories
of the other tribes, for dwelling-places. The ad
mission but just made that there still remained much
land to be possessed, and that the slaying and driving
out had by no means been so complete as reported,
now finds confirmation in the statement that “ the
five Lords of the Philistines, the Canaanites north of
them—the A vites, the Gib bites, all Lebanon, and the
Sidonians”—as well as certain other tribes more cen
trally situated,—the Geshurites, Maachathites, and
Jebusites, had not only not been slain or driven out,
�Natives not Driven out.
473
but had not as yet been even molested ; they continued
to dwell among the Hebrews of old, as they did in
the days of the Jewish writer of the age of Josiah
(xiii. 13). The veni, vidi, vici of the Book of Joshua
is thus found, after all, to be an empty boast.
On the above showing there is obvious discrepancy
in the accounts we have of the doings of Joshua ?
The discrepancy is endless. The country could
■evidently have been overrun and subdued to a very
• limited extent only. Instead of being exterminated,
the native populations remained in most parts even
numerically superior to the Israelites. But the
natives, graziers here, agriculturists there, divided
among themselves doubtless, and quarrelling at times,
must still have been unused to war on any great
scale. Their assailants, the Israelites, on the con
trary, are represented as soldiers trained and armed
for battle, acting as invaders in a body under a single
leader, and superior through discipline to any oppo
sition that could be offered them. There was, there
fore, no necessity for the indiscriminate slaughter
paraded by the Jewish annalists for the purpose of
magnifying Jehovah and his people Israel.
The vast multitude said to have left Egypt and
made to toil so long in the wilderness, disappear
soon after Joshua comes upon the stage ?
After the questionable Census in the plains of
Moab, we hear no more of the six hundred thousand
and odd able-bodied men, from twenty years of age
and upwards, armed for war. The force in the field
under Joshua, though greatly exaggerated in numbers,
doubtless, is a comparatively compact body, more
easily handled than any larger mass, but still, we may
imagine, more than sufficient to make resistance use
less on the part of the Canaanites. They could, in
fact, have seen nothing for it, in the majority of
instances, but submission; a course to which they
may have been the more easily reconciled when they
found that the invaders were of their own kindred,
�474
Joshua.
spoke the same or a dialect of the same language,,
followed the same social usages, and with little
difference observed the same religious rites as them
selves. The Hebrews and Canaanites were in truth,
as we have seen, scions of the same Semitic stock,
and intermingling freely through the whole of theearlier and by much the longer period of their history
—each taking the sons and daughters of the other as
husbands and wives—they became amalgamated at
length into the people whom we finally know as the
Israelites, or, in a more restricted sense, as the Jews.
Such a conclusion, however, does not tally with
the gist of the general history ?
It must be true none the less ; for though Jehovah
is pledged by the writers of the Hebrew records to
drive out the native populations before his elect—the
children of Jacob, the wily—as the pledge was never
redeemed, so need we have no misgivings in conclud
ing that it never came from God, among whose
eternal ordinances, as we read them in the book of
Nature, it has no place.
What then becomes of the many stringent enact
ments so frequently repeated, from the mythical days
of Abraham and Sarah downwards, against taking
daughters of the soil to wife F
As we see that these were all against the customs
of the country, and were never observed by high or
low until after the Captivity, we conclude that they
are the product of the very latest legislation. They
belong, in fact, to times when the Jehovistic religious
party had got the upper hand in the state, and the
bigotry and intolerance that spring up whenever men
in power imagine themselves the favourites of heaven,
their views alone agreeable to God, and all who differ
from them as no better than accursed, had ripened
into a system.
There is particular as well as general discrepancy,
also, as regards the districts and cities said to have
been conquered by Joshua ?
�Hebron and Debir.
^7$
Hebron, for instance, is said in one place to have
been taken and smitten with the edge of the sword,
and the king and all the souls therein so utterlydestroyed that not one was left alive (x. 36). But
in another place Caleb says to Joshua, “ Now, there
fore, give me this mountain, Hebron, where Jehovah
spoke in that day, how the Anakims were there and
the cities great and fenced. If so be that Jehovah
will be with me, then I will drive them out as Jehovah
said. And Joshua blessed Caleb and gave him
Hebron for an inheritance.” Hebron consequently
had not been captured, neither had its inhabitants
been exterminated in the manner declared. By-andbye, indeed, we are told that Caleb drives out the
three Anakims, Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai from
Hebron (xiv. 12) ; but at a later period in the story,
we learn that “ After the death of Joshua the children
of Judah went up to Hebron, fought against the
Canaanites who dwelt there, and slew the three
Anakims, Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai (Judges i. 9))
who had all already been first put to the sword by
Joshua, and then driven out by Caleb !
*
Much the same story is told of Debir as of Hebron ?
Joshua and all Israel with him, it is-said, fought
against Debir; took it; smote it with the edge of
the sword, and utterly destroyed all that breathed—
“as he had done to Hebron, so did he to Debir”
(x. 38). But immediately afterwards we find that
Caleb, after clearing his possession, Hebron, of the
Anakim, goes up against Debir, and makes proclama
tion that whosoever takes the city, to him will he
give his daughter Achsah to wife ; and that Othniel,
the son of Kenaz, succeeds, and is rewarded in the
terms of the proclamation (xiv. 16-17). But then
we have Othniel as the Hero and Achsah as the prize
in connection with the city of Kirjath-Sepher—called
* Comp. De Wette: Introd, to 0. T. by Th. Parker, II.,
165, and seq.
�47 6
Joshua.
Debir of old, says the writer, in times posterior to the
death of Joshua (Judges i. 11-13).
From these and the numerous other contradictory
and obviously mythical statements of the book of
Joshua we conclude ?
First, that the book is a compilation from frag
ments, mainly traditional, and in many cases purely
mythical; and second, that we have the writings of two
—if not of three or more—different individuals jum
bled together. Besides the information proper to the
book itself, there are many allusions to particulars
with which we are already familiar in writings that
have gone before, as well as with others, in works
more sober in their tenour and more reliable as
authorities, that come after it. References to the
plagues of Egypt and the wonders done in that
country are put into the mouths of Rahab and the
Gibeonites; the passage of the Jordan is plainly a
parallel to the passage of the Red Sea, and needless,
inasmuch as the river is fordable ; Moses is the hero
of the legislation and Joshua the hero of the con
quest of the promised land; Moses had a wonder
working rod, and Joshua has a wonder-working
spear; Jehovah appears to Moses in the burning
bush, and the Captain of Jehovah’s host appears to
Joshua, and in the very words used to Moses bids
him loose his shoe from off his foot, the ground he
stands on being holy; and, to conclude, the death
and burial of Joshua at Timnath Heres in the dark
bears some analogy to the mysterious death of Moses
on Mount Nebo.
Beside the general distribution of lands to the
tribes, there are a few particular allotments to distin
guished individuals ?
We have seen Caleb put in possession of Hebron,
and we now learn that the sons of Aaron, the priests,
are handsomely endowed ; they have no fewer than
thirteen cities assigned them. But, as the sons were
only two, we are at a loss to imagine what use they
�Reuben and Gad Retire.
477
could have made of so munificent a gift : they could
not have occupied thirteen cities, and in the days
referred to there was no letting and sub-letting;
possessions were for individuals and their families,
and the transmission of property only took place by
sale or inheritance among the members of each
several tribe. Such an anachronism as the present
ment of thirteen cities to the priesthood can scarcely
be conceived possible even at a date so remote as the
age of Solomon ; the statement before us, therefore,
we must conclude, was made after the reign of that
*
sovereign.
And now, continues the text, “ Jehovah
gave unto Israel all the land which he swore to give
to their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt
therein, and Jehovah gave them rest round about
. . . and there failed not aught of any good thing
which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel
—all came to pass ” (xxi. 43-45).
This must be a note supplied by a late hand,
ignoring much of what had been said before ?
It has every appearance of being so, standing as it
does in flagrant contradiction with the statements we
have but just had made that there still remained much
land to be taken in and possessed; that the children
of Judah could never drive the Jebusites out of their
city, nor the sons of Manasseh expel the Canaanites
from the district assigned them, &c. Neither, indeed,
were the Geshurites ever got rid of, but continued, the
text tells us, “ to dwell among the Ephraimites unto
this day,” i.e., unto the day when the writer lived,
some time assuredly, longer or shorter, after the
reign of Solomon.
The tribes of Reuben and Gad and the half-tribe
of Manasseh, which have kept their word to Moses
that they would aid the other tribes, their brethren,
in the conquest of the promised land, now take their
See Kuehnen. Hist, critique de l’ancien Testament, Tr. de
l’Hollandais, T. I., p. 330, 8vo, Paris, 1866.
�4-7 8
Joshua.
leave, and set out in return to their own territory
beyond Jordan, with the blessing of Joshua and
a, charge that they should diligently keep the com
mandments and observe the law which Moses the
servant of Jehovah had given them ?
They depart, and having come to the banks of the
Jordan in the land of Canaan they are minded, it is
said, to build an altar, “ a great altar to see to,”
according to the text.
This was piously intended, doubtless, and in thank
fulness to their God who had so marvellously
befriended them and their brethren in their great
enterprise ?
So might we conclude; but, strange to say, it is
taken as a mortal offence by the ten tribes they had
just left; “ the whole congregation of Israel, it is
said, gathered themselves together at Shiloh to go
up to war against them.”
This seems extraordinary ?
So would it be assuredly, could anything of the
kind have occurred at the Early period of Hebrew
history assumed. Then, and for long ages after,
there were numerous holy-places, with rude altars of
earth and unhewn stones, scattered over the country,
at Hebron, Beth-El, Beer-Sheba, Gilgal, Sechem,
Siloh, Lachish, Dan, &c., dedicated to the Hebrew
God or Gods—El, Elohim, Isra-El, or by whatever
other name known, under whatever form represented,
at all of which sacrifices could be duly and lawfully
offered. The ire of the congregation of Israel, how
ever, ceases to strike us as extraordinary when the
writing is referred to post-exilic times, when the only
shrine to which oblations could be lawfully brought
was the one on Mount Zion, and the only God to be
addressed without sin was Jehovah, God of the
reformed religious party in the kingdom of Judah.
The story, if it be more than a myth, if it have any
historical foundation at all, must refer to an episode
in the rivalry between Judah and Israel, in the days
�Early Religious Differences.
qyg
-of Jeroboam, or still later, but here relegated to the
remote age of Joshua and the Epoch of the Conquest.
The congregation of Israel (Judah) expostulate
with Reuben and Gad (Israel or Ephraim) before
proceeding to extremities and coming to blows with
them ?
They send Phinehas, distinguished as we already
know by the 'murder of Zimri and Cozbi, so much
approved of by Jehovah, if the record may be trusted,
and with him ten princes of the tribes. Coming up
with the sons of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh, at
Gilead, they say:—“What trespass is this that ye
have committed against the God of Israel ” [Jehovah,
the God of Judah, being here to be understood] “ in
that ye have builded you an altar ? If the land of
your possession be unclean, then pass ye over into
the land of the possession of Jehovah, wherein
Jehovah’s tabernacle [Temple on Mount Zion, to be
understood] dwelleth; but rebel not against us in
building you an altar beside [in addition to] the
altar of Jehovah our God.”
The Reubenites and Gadites will be much amazed
at this interference with the custom of their fathers—
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and themselves, of setting up
an altar whenever and wherever they were minded
so to do ?
That they must have been taken aback there can
be little question, and we should find them saying so,
assuredly, had we the true account of the incident
out of which, we must presume, the story of the text
to have arisen; but we have it not, we have only the
travestied Jehovistic narrative, in which the parties
inculpated are made to say:—“God, God Jehovah
[Judah’s God] knoweth, and Isra-El [Ephraim’s God]
shall know, if this has come to pass through falling
away from Jehovah or rebelling against him, may
there be no help for us this day ! If we have built
us an altar to turn from following Jehovah, or to
offer burnt-offerings or thank-offerings thereon, may
�480
Joshua.
Jehovah avenge it! And if we have not rather done
this to the end, that in time to come when your
children say to our children, ‘What have ye in
common with Jehovah, seeing that Jehovah hath
made Jordan the boundary between us and you—ye
have no part in Jehovah.’ . . . Therefore, said we,
we shall build an altar, neither for burnt-offerings
nor for sacrifice, but for a witness between us and
you, and between your generations and our genera
tions after us that we do service to Jehovah, and
come to him with our burnt-offerings, our sacrifices,
and our thank-offerings, so that your children shall
not in time to come say to our children, ‘ Ye have
no part in Jehovah.’ Far be it from us, therefore,
say we, this day to fall away from Jehovah by build
ing an altar for burnt-offerings and meat-offerings,
and sacrifices, other than the altar of Jehovah our
[the word should be your] God that stands before
his dwelling-place ” [the Temple of Jerusalem to be
understood].
The account here is not only tautological and
extremely prolix in the original, but, when closely
scanned, is seen to be at variance with other parts of
the Hebrew Scriptures ?
Hardly to be understood either without the com
ment here supplied in some small measure by the
few words within brackets. Explanation more at
large is found when note is taken of the two great
religious parties, Elohists and Jehovists, into which
the Hebrew people came to be divided subsequently
to the reign of Solomon. Of these the Elohists repre
sent the Catholics, the Jehovists the Protestants, of
modern times. The Elohists “stand fast on the
ancient ways,” have their strength in the kingdom
of Israel or Ephraim, and they possess numerous
altars or holy places ; the Jehovists, more advanced,
have their stronghold in Judah, with the Temple on
Mount Zion as the only shrine or holy place they
acknowledge. The Elohists, in a word, abide by the
�Early Religious Differences.
481
worship of the old Hebrew God El Elohe Israel, and
continue to sacrifice to him under the semblance of
the Bull. The Jehovists, again, having attained to
the conception of the Oneness and Omnipresence of
Deity, had abandoned the Idea that God could be
presented under any similitude, but inconsistently
maintained that he could only be lawfully addressed
at his Shrine on Mount Zion. Reuben and Gad, w©
see, do not deny that they had built an altar; but
they are made by the Jewish writer to belie them
selves, and say that it was not intended for burntofferings nor for sacrifice, but for a witness between
them and their brethren. Altars, however, were
never built save for sacrifice, it was the Cairn or Heap
of stones, and upon occasion the single stone pillar
under a tree or by a well, that was the proper
memorial monument. The text but just quoted, in its
inconsistencies and its statements at variance with
all we know of use and wont among the early He
brews, shows unmistakable signs of late writing and
of yet later editorial manipulation in the transparent
purpose it presents to set Jehovah above El EloheIsra-El.
The religious difference between the two sections
of the Hebrew people may possibly have lain at the
root of the fatal disruption that turned into two the
single kingdom conquered by David and ruled over
through the greater part of his life by Solomon ?
There may be some truth in this. United, Judah
and. Ephraim might, as it seems, have made head
against either Egypt or Assyria, operating so far from
home, and have even held their own, under a com
petent leader, in the hilly and easily-defended country
of Northern Palestine against Chaldea. But divided,
hating each other with the blind and deadly hate that
is .engendered of religious difference, and often at war
with one another, they became in succession the easy
prey of even the least powerful of their enemies.
If Reuben and Gad had built, or were minded to
�482
Joshua.
build, an altar at all, it could therefore only be for
sacrifice and oblation; and their offence lay in this,
that it was not to Jehovah, but to the God El-EloheIsrael, Chiun, or Chamos, whose Tabernacle, Image,
and Star had been borne by them and their fathers
in the wilderness for forty years, according to the
prophet Amos (v.), that they were about to bring
their offerings ?
In the olden time there was not only no restriction
as to the building of altars for sacrifice, but every
facility was given for their erection. Jehovah [the
name should here be Elohim] orders Moses to say to
the children of Israel, “ An altar of earth thou shalt
make unto me, and shalt offer thereon thy burntofferings.” It was only when the Temple of Jeru
salem had been built, and proclaimed by the Jehovistic
or Jewish party, the sole shrine at which their God
Jehovah could be worshipped, that the building else
where of an altar for sacrifice and oblation came to be
regarded as a trespass of such magnitude that it could
only be atoned for by bloodshed. The Hebrew people
of the age of Joshua must not be seen as the Israelites
of Jeroboam and his successors of the age of the writer,
setting up altars and bringing offerings to a Golden
Calf as the God who had brought them out of their
Egyptian bondage; they must be paraded as obser
vant of the Law of Moses, eight centuries before it
was even imagined to be in existence, and nine cen
turies before the second Temple of Jehovah, God of
Judah, had been built!
Phinehas the priest and the other delegates ex
press themselves satisfied with the disavowal they
receive from Reuben and Gad of any purpose on their
part to raise an independent altar ?
They say: “ This day we perceive that Jehovah is
among us. Because ye have not committed this
trespass, ye have delivered the children of Israel out
of the hand of Jehovah.” The children of Israel,
it is said in continuation, “blessed God, and did not
�Early Religious Differences.
483
go up in battle array to desolate the land wherein
Reuben and Gad had their possessions and they, it
ia added, called the altar they had built “ Ed—
W&ness that Jehovah is God.”*
The words which speak in this place of the “ deli
very of the children of Israel out of the hand of
Jehovah ” must have a special significance?
The writer would, doubtless, persuade his country
men and co-religionists that all departure from the
so-called Law of Moses—which had been brought to
light, we may suppose, a short while before his time
—and any sacrifice offered at a shrine other than the
Temple of Jerusalem, would bring Jehovah down upon
them with war or pestilence for their presumption.
He would have them believe that his God Jehovah
would not be slow, through the instrumentality of
such a zealot as Phinehas, or by war or pestilence to
make them smart for daring to worship God in any
but the prescribed, though it were, perchance, the an
* It is with great diffidence that we venture to differ from
so accomplished a Biblical scholar as Professor Kuehnen in
our interpretation of this curious episode in Hebrew history.
Referring to Joshua xxi., Professor Kuehnen says :—“How
we see Israel zealous for the unity of worship ! What—build
an altar outside of Shilo, the holy place I This were indeed a
sin of the gravest complexion, which the parties inculpated
make haste to explain away as they best can. The great
thing in the writer’s mind is to have the calf of Jehovah
centered at Shilo, and allowed at no other place.” But we
are persuaded that it is Judah that is here zealous against
Ephraim, after the disruption of the kingdom. The question,
in our opinion, is not about having an altar anywhere save at
Shilo, but of having an altar anywhere save at Jerusalem. The
narrative in the text Professor Kuehnen believes to be derived
from the document he styles ‘ The Book of the Origins and,
as he refers the composition of this book to no more ancient a
date than the reign of Solomon, we see that the history may
very well refer to times by no means so remote as those of
Joshua. In the shape in which we have the tale, it is pro
bably from the pen of a Jewish writer, who lived not earlier
than the reign of Josiah, and is an indifferent invention—ad
majorem Jehova gloriam! The text is confused, tautological,
�484
Joshua.
tique way, and even the way of their immediate
fathers and of most of themselves.
The Jehovists were the Iconoclasts of the days of
Josiah and a few of his successors. They were the
men who ruined the High-places, broke in pieces the
stone columns, and slew the priests of Baal, burnt the
wooden pillars of Aschera, pulled down the booths of
the infamous Kadeschim, destroyed the brazen Ser
pent—said to be that which Moses set up on a pole
in the wilderness—made a bonfire of the Chariot of the
Sun that stood in the porch of the Temple, and so on.
They present themselves in almost all things as pro
totypes of the early reformers of modern times, who
were not always content with breaking in pieces the
images and wrecking the altars, but did not hold
their hands from the solemn piles in which what they
styled The Idolatry had been carried on.
With the departure of Reuben and Grad to their
possessions beyond Jordan, “ a long time after Je
hovah had given rest to Israel,” according to the
and bears obvious marks of editorial manipulation; but the
burden of the narrative assimilates itself perfectly with the
state of things existing between Judah and Ephraim in days
subsequent to the age of Solomon. It is not uninteresting
to note that the site of the ed or witness altar spoken of
appears to have been recently discovered in the course of the
Ordnance Survey of Palestine, proceeding at this time. There
is, it seems, a remarkable lofty white peak visible from the
modern Jericho, twenty miles distant, projecting like a
bastion, and closing the valley of the Jordan. From the
summit of this peak there is a magnificent and very extensive
view. Accessible on the north side only, the surveying party
there obtained the name, Tal’at abu Ayd—the ascent leading
to Ayd. The lofty peak in question, conspicuous in days
when writing had become familiar to the Jews as it had been
from time immemorial, was probably in want of a history,
and has been supplied with one by the writer of the Book of
Joshua. The times with which we have ventured to connect
the narrative of the 22nd chapter of Joshua implies our per
suasion that the tale has reference to incidents much later
than any that can be referred to the days of the mythical suc
cessor of the still more mythical Moses.
�Joshuas Parting Address.
485
text, Joshua, now far stricken in years, calls the
Elders of Israel around him ?
And reminds them, in imitation of Moses, when he
had the notice that he was to die, of all Jehovah had
done for them. Modestly passing over his own
achievements, he speaks of the partition he had made
among them by lot, not only of the lands overrun and
possessed, but of those of the peoples which still
remained to be conquered and taken in. But he
informs them that they have only to be of good
courage, to do all that is ordained in the book of the
Law, to serve none of the gods of the native tribes
among whom they settled, and particularly to contract
no marriages with their women ; the Jewish writer
showing himself as well aware, in his day, as we are
in ours, of the power of the female propaganda in
securing outward conformity, at all events, if not
always inward assent, to the religious dogmas and
rites which are the fashion of the age.
But if they failed to follow the advice now given
them ?
Then should they smart for it: “Do ye in any
wise go back and cleave to the remnants of the
nations left among you,” says the text, “making
marriages with them and they with you; know for a
certainty that Jehovah your God will no more drive
out any of these nations from before you, but they
shall be snares and traps unto you, scourges in your
sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from
off the land. It shall come to pass that as all good
things are come upon you which were promised, so
shall Jehovah bring upon you all evil things. When
ye have transgressed the covenant of Jehovah and
have gone and served other gods, then shall the
anger of Jehovah be kindled against you, and ye
shall perish quickly from off the good land which he
hath given you” (xxiii. adfinf.
This has a great look of prophecy after the event ?
There can be little question of its being so in
�486
'Joshua.
reality. God as Immanent Cause, In All and Of All
that Is, cannot be jealous of other gods, for there are
none such; and God neither favours nor is angry, in
any human sense, with act of man or event that comes
to pass. Such language is the effect of anthropomorphosing God and supposing him possessed of
human appetites, passions, and prejudices — a sin
that must be charged against the writers of the
Hebrew Scriptures, above all others. In the texts
just quoted we see iteration of the old system of con
tract or bargain between Jehovah and his people,
upon which we have observed already; and in the
warnings against serving other gods we have fresh
assurance that Jehovah was believed by the Jews
to be but one among many gods, and not a little
j ealous of their power.
Joshua continues his parting address ?
Or rather we have another writer beginning it for
him anew and varying it in particulars here and there.
The first oration, which breaks off at the end of
chapter xxiii., is continued at the 14th verse of the
24th chapter, and in terms that are not a little
remarkable, the usual interpretation put upon the
Hebrew Scriptures considered. “Now, therefore,”
says the writer, “ fear Jehovah and serve him in sin
cerity and in truth, and put away the Gods which
your fathers served on the other side of the stream
[the JordanJ and in Egypt, and serve ye Jehovah.
And if it seem not good unto you to serve Jehovah,
then choose you this day whom ye will serve,—
whether the Gods which your fathers served on the
other side of the stream, or the Gods of the Amoritps
in whose land ye dwell; but as for me and my house
we will serve Jehovah.”
Joshua therefore gives the people their choice of
the God or Gods they would serve ; and in what is said
incidentally we now learn that Jehovah was not the God
who was served either in Egypt or beyond Jordan,
the proper boundary between the Divinities of one
�Which of the Gods will ye Serve ?
48 7
Pantheon and Those of another. We discover at
length, and at the very end of our task that Jehovah
could have had nothing to do with freeing the Israel
ites from their Egyptian bondage; but that it was verily
the God whose similitude was presented by Aaron to
the wanderers in the guise of the Bull-Calf, who had led
them out of captivity. The writer of the Book of
Joshua, plainly enough, has no idea of God as One and
One only ; he recognises a multiplicity of Gods with
Jehovah his own God among the number. All we
have had in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy, therefore, about Jehovah as the
God of Israel, his apparitions to Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, and Moses, his personal communications and
immediate commandments to the chiefs of the chosen
seed, &c., &c., vanish into nothing. We have, in a
word, no Records of the distant ages and strange
doings referred to in the Pentateuch, but Poems by
writers who lived, as we believe, for the most part
after the Babylonian Captivity.
To Joshua’s proposition as to the God they would
serve the people answer and say ?
“ God forbid that we should forsake Jehovah to
serve other Gods; for Jehovah is he that brought
us up and our fathers out of the land of Egypt, and
did great wonders in our sight, and preserved us
all the way wherein we went and among all the
people through whom we passed.”
This does not tally exactly with what Joshua has
but just been made to say, and with very much
besides that we have had already; for Aaron the
priest has presented them with a Golden Calf as the
God that brought them out of Egypt, and Jehovah
has not only broken out on the people for their backslidings on numerous occasions and slain them by
thousands with the sword and pestilence, but has
inflicted forty years of wandering in the wilderness,
and, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, has
killed off all of adult years who had left Egypt.
�4-8 8
J
’ oshua.
How, then, should we now have the people speaking
of Jehovah as their God, of the wonders they had
seen, and the care that had been taken of them in
their journeyings ?
It were very hard to say, could we not with the
most perfect assurance refer the writing we have
before us to a very late period in the history of the
Hebrew people, and even divine the motive that led
to its composition.
Joshua does not receive the people’s ready accept
ance of the new God Jehovah in place of their own
and their fathers old Gods without a warning ?
“Ye cannot serve Jehovah,” says he, “ for he is a
holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive
your trangressions nor your sins. If ye forsake
Jehovah and serve other Gods he will turn and do
you hurt, and consume you after he hath done you
good.”
The people are not frightened by these somewhat
formidable assurances ?
They say: “ Nay, but we will serve Jehovah,” on
which Joshua tells them that now they are witnesses
against themselves, that they have chosen Jehovah
to serve him. So he makes a covenant with the
people and writes the words of it in a book; takes a
great stone and sets it up under a tree and says :
11 Behold this stone shall be a witness to us; for it
hath heard (/) all the words of Jehovah which he spake
unto us. It shall therefore be a witness unto you
that ye deny not your God”—Jehovah, the God just
chosen, understood.
By which procedure we see that Joshua, or the
modern writer who is using his name, had not got
beyond the old religious notions of his forefathers.
He sets up a stone pillar, symbol of the life-giving
power, under the shade of a living tree, so long an
object of worship with man escaping from the merely
animal into the more properly human or speculative
sphere of existence. It is not unimportant to observe
�Conclusion.
489
that the stone is referred to as having heard all the
words spoken. It was not only the Symbol of the
God, therefore, but the God himself—Deity at once,
and Deity’s dwelling-place. The Book in which
Joshua is said to have written what is called “ The
Law of God ” has not come down to us ?
The Book we have, which passes under the name
of Joshua, contains little or nothing that has not an
immediate bearing on the conquests and partition of
the promised land, and so cannot be that now referred
to. If it ever existed, and it may very well never
have had being out of the imagination of the histo
rian of Joshua’s deeds of spoliation and slaughter, it
has perished in the wreck of ages.
Having done his work, Joshua has now only to be
gathered to his fathers ?
He dies, it is said, at the advanced age of one hun
dred and ten years, and is buried on the borders of
his inheritance in Timnath-Heres, as we have already
had occasion to learn.
We have anticipated almost all that need be said
of the age and authorship of the Book of Joshua.
That it is of relatively modern composition, there can
be no doubt; and from the repeated references we
find to late incidents in Hebrew history, we see that
he whose name it bears could not have been its
author. It is, in fact, a sort of appendix to Deutero
nomy, and the style and peculiar forms of expression
show, almost beyond question, that the writer of
Deuteronomy was, in great part at least, the writer
of Joshua also, although it bears many marks of sub
sequent editorial manipulation. Both Elohist and
Jehovist documents appear in the text. The Book
of Judges has furnished the compiler with several of
his statements, and in this has left our modern har
monists with a crop of contradictions that have
sorely taxed their ingenuity to reconcile with the
�49°
'Joshua.
accredited idea of inspiration. A few of these we
have had occasion to notice in the course of our com
mentary. The mention of Jerusalem, which occurs
oftener than once, would of itself suffice to take the
writing out of the age whose history it details; for
Jerusalem was Jebus until the reign of David; and
the obvious reference made, in more places than one,
to the sufferings that befal a city in a state of siege,
and the miseries that wait on exile, point unequivocably to the invasion of the Chaldeans and the Baby
lonian captivity. The Book of Joshua, therefore, in
its present shape, cannot be of older date than the
age of Manasseh. Speaking of the first twelve
chapters of the Book, containing the tale of the in
vasion of the land of Canaan, Professor Kuehnen
gives it as the result of his inquiries, that “ the
author cannot be regarded as an entirely credible
historian.” Dr. Davidson, having determined the
time of the Deute ronomist as falling in the reign of
Manasseh, and ascribing, as he does, Deuteronomy
and Joshua to one and the same compiler, concludes
that the Book before us was compiled during the
reign of that monarch.
«
C. W. BEY.NELL, PBINTEB, LITTLE PULTENEY STBEET, HAYMABKET.
��
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 Pentateuch and Book of Joshua in face of the science and moral sense of our age. Part VI
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Willis, Robert
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 441-490 p. : ill. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, London. "By a Physician" [Title page]. Author believed to be Robert Willis. Includes bibliographical references.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT138
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Judaism
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 Pentateuch and Book of Joshua in face of the science and moral sense of our age. Part VI), 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.
Bible. O.T. Joshua
Bible. O.T. Pentateuch
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/eab9f0faa0a4e286b7698fc45d364fd5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=OIAMjzfkTr1%7EyqCQOB2c3LgcDKoFkHv456-Pjejzx7914dYV3IkA5jOxRBT8O%7E2F3jxcL8B4%7EDgPqz0TZ%7EKqxX7Vkc40wbDine0paMM-Be78PWae8rT2OPnieQ%7EduZDOpcQ-kPDh-xaK42bwJp3haDA6-P6o6Ite6Sn9NxT18-ovNpe3Ahfzos1hryjWKE5CMCKI8UIHkOVofFIGKm8kNb9G98Mjw08dD6OOCRA6gAEXGhX-Dvfrc5n64u2hVQzRdVUIWEMr4jc7XfoiaAXZ9gEjFvAxucHzWHjg-RXj8fupCfrmI8HlBAu8JqI7tVti-FrQGUo7UyiAglrogFrweA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0e0d46c8cb4f1a6047c5138f1871acc7
PDF Text
Text
07
THE PENTATEUCH
IN CONTRAST WITH
THE SCIENCE AND MORAL SENSE
OF OUR AGE.
By
A
PHTSICIAN.
PART II.
“Zufallige Geschichtswahrheiten konnen der Beweis von nothwendigen
Vernunftswahrheiten nie werden ” — Contingent historical truths can never be
demonstration of necessary rational truths.—Lessing.
PUBLISHED
BY
THOMAS
SCOTT,
NO. II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD
LONDON, S.E.
1873.
Price Sixpence.
��THE BOOK OF EXODUS.
MOSES—THE FLIGHT FROM EGYPT—THE
WILDERNESS—LEGISLATION.
HE descendants of Jacob, sur named Israel,
called Israelites and children of Israel, increased
amazingly, according to the text, “ multiplying and
waxing exceeding mighty, so that the land was
filled with them,” the effect of which is said to have
been— ?
That the jealousy of the Egyptians their masters
was roused, and the Pharaoh, or king, fearing that,
in case of war with a neighbour, they might join the
enemy, fight against him, and so “ get him out of the
land,” therefore were taskmasters set over them to
afflict them, and make their lives bitter with hard
bondage in brick and mortar and service in the fields ;
the straw held needful in brick-making, among other
things, being finally withheld, whilst the tale of bricks
made was required to be the same as before.
Bricks and mortar, we may presume, from their
being particularly mentioned, were the materials
employed by the Egyptians in their buildings ?
The great structures of Egypt, nevertheless, appear
to have been invariably built of stone without mortar.
The temples and palaces of Babylon and Nineveh,
however, were uniformly built of brick and mortar.
In the hard bondage in brick and mortar of the text
we have, therefore, one of the many traits to be had,
when they are looked for, of the age and authorship
T
L
�138
The Pentateuch.
of the Pentateuch • the compiler of which was neither
Moses nor any contemporary of his, but one who
must have lived after the Babylonian Captivity, and
had had, as it seems, occasion to learn something of
the art and mystery both of brick-making and brick
laying—arts little practised either in alluvial Egypt
or rocky Palestine, but pursued as a principal industry
around Babylon and Nineveh on the clay bottoms of
the Euphrates and Tigris.
The Pharaoh of Egypt is said to have fallen on
what seems an extraordinary device to keep down
the numbers of the now obnoxious Israelites?
He speaks to the Hebrew midwives—Shiphrah
and Puah—the names of these women, strange to
say, having survived the wreck of ages ! and orders
them, when they do their office by the Hebrew
women, to kill all the male children, but to save
the females alive.
A most unkingly command; no less unkingly than
unlikely ever to have been given. In a despotic
country like Egypt, however, the midwives would have
nothing for it but to obey ?
So we should have thought; but they, according to
the text, set the king’s order at defiance: “They
feared God,” it is said, and spared the lives of both
the male and female Hebrew children.
Pharaoh would punish the midwives, as matter of
course, for their contempt of his royal commands ?
So might we also fairly have supposed that he would;
but the midwives plead in excuse that “ the Hebrew
women are lively, and are delivered ere the midwife
can come in to them.”
This needed not to have hindered them from carry
ing out the Pharaoh’s orders F
Certainly not; for the new-born child must have
come immediately into their hands—the first moment
under any circumstances at which they could have
obeyed the ruler. But, as if the tale were made to
�Exodus : Israel in Egypt.
139
bear witness to its own. absurdity, we learn that not
only did Pharaoh not punish the contumacious mid
wives, Shiphrah and Puah, but even rewarded them
by building houses for them !
Failing to enlist the two midwives—two midwives
for the service of a people who must have been mil
lions in number, if every part of the narrative be true
—what is said to have been the Pharaoh’s next move
against his obnoxious slave-subjects, the children of
Israel?
He charges them, saying : “ Every son that is born
ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye
shall save alive;” transferring his orders, set at
nought by the midwives, to the parents of the children
themselves.
Such an order is surely as little likely as the one that
goes before it, either to have been given by a king to
any section of his subjects as it was to be obeyed by
them ?
No command of the kind is recorded in the annals
of any other policied or even semi-savage community.
More than this, the Nile was a sacred stream, furnish
ing the sole water-supply of the country; and the
signal progress the Egyptians had made in civilisation,
even at the early date to which the records we are
discussing refer, assures us that all pollution of the
river by dead bodies and the like must have been for
bidden. The dead were not even buried in the soil
of the cultivated lands of Egypt, but, being em
balmed, were stowed away beyond the reach of the
inundation.
Looking at the Hebrew scriptures in the way we
do, as ordinary literary compositions, what might we
say was the writer’s object in the narrative before us ?
That it is contrived, all unartistic as it is, by way
of prologue to the story of the wonderful manner in
.which the life of the male child Moses was preserved.
The future leader and legislator of the chosen people
�140
The Pentateuch.
could not be left with the uneventful entrance into
the world that is the lot of ordinary men. His life
must be in danger from his birth, and miraculously
guarded; he must be the nursling and adopted son of
a queen or of a king’s daughter at the least. And so
it all falls out. Born of parents of the house of Levi,
as it is said, the mother of the future leader conceals
his birth for three months, and then exposes him in
an ark or cradle of bulrushes which she lays among
the flags by the river’s brink. The daughter of
Pharaoh comes down “ to wash herself at the river,”
and, seeing the cradle, she sends her maid to fetch it.
There she finds the infant; presumes that it is one of
the Hebrews’ children, and, instead of ordering it to
be thrown into the river, as a dutiful daughter would
have done, in obedience to her royal father’s orders,
she procures a nurse for it, who turns out to be its
own mother, and gives it the name of Moses—the
saved from the stream—because, as she says, “ I
drew him out of the water.”
With such a nurse the child was likely to do well ?
He throve, grew up, and became as a son to Pha
raoh’s daughter—no inquiry being made, we must
presume, by the princess’s father or mother how she
came by such a treasure !
The first incident recorded in the independent life
of Moses grown to man’s estate is of a somewhat
compromising nature ?
Seeing an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his
brethren, and looking this way and that, to make sure
that he himself was seen of none, he slew the Egyp
tian and hid his body in the sand.
This was surely murder, against the laws of God
and man ?
It was no less ; but it is not so characterised, and
is not meant to be so considered, in the narrative,
nor has it wanted apologists among modern writers.
Murder, however, as the saying is, will out, and the
�Exodus : Moses at Horeb.
14-1
deed must have got wind; for, seeing two of his own
people contending on the very next day, and saying
to him who began the fray: Why smitest thou thy
fellow ? he is met by the counter question: Intendest thou to kill me as thou killedst the Egyp
tian ? Learning by this that what he had done was
known, he had to seek safety in flight from the justice
of the country. He flies, therefore, and comes to the
land of Midian, where he abides, as shepherd, appa
rently, with Beuel, the priest of the country, one of
whose daughters, Zipporah by name, he by-and-by
receives to wife.
The next incident in the life of Moses that is re
corded is a very remarkable one ?
Whilst keeping the flock of his father-in-law (now
called Jethro) in the desert by Horeb, the mountain
of God, the angel of Jehovah appears to him in a
flame of fire out of the midst of a bush, which burned
yet was not consumed. Astonished at the appear
ance of a bush on fire yet not consumed, he turns
“ aside to see the great sight why the bush was not
burnt,” and is then addressed by a voice calling to
him out of the midst of the bush, saying: Moses!
Moses ! and Moses answers, “ Here am I.” Ordered
to put off his shoes from his feet, for the ground on
which he stood was holy ground, he is then informed
by the speaker that he is the God of Abraham, of Isaac,
and of Jacob; that he had seen the affliction of his
people in Egypt, and was come down to deliver them
out of the hand of the Egyptians, to bring them into
a land flowing with milk and honey, and to settle
them there in place of the Canaanites, Horites,
Hittites, Amorites, and others already in possession
of the country. “ Come, now, therefore,” proceeds
the narrative, “ I will send thee unto Pharaoh that
thou mayest bring my people the children of Israel
’ out of Egypt.”
To this extraordinary intimation, so delivered,
Moses makes answer— ?
�142
The Pentateuch.
“ Who am I,” says he, “ that I should go unto
Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children
of Israel out of Egypt ? When I say to them that
the God of their fathers had sent me to them and
they ask me his name, what shall I say ?”
“ Thou shalt say I am that Am hath sent me. More
over, thus shalt thou say : Jehovah, the God of your
fathers, appeared unto me, saying: I have considered
you and what is done to you in Egypt; and I will
bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto a
land flowing with milk and honey; and they shall
hearken to thy voice; and thou shalt come, thou and
the elders of Israel, unto the King of Egypt, and
ye shall say unto him: Jehovah Elohim, the God
of the Hebrews, hath met us; and now let us go,
we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilder
ness that we may sacrifice to Jehovah our God.”
How can we, with the views of our age, conceive
God addressing man in human speech, or imagine
Moses asking God for his name, and God answering
first in abstract terms, and then more definitely, as if
he were but one among a number of gods, and the
particular God of the Hebrew people ? How, indeed,
think of Moses—scion, as said, of the house of Levi—
not knowing by what name the God of his kindred and
country was called ? The designation, I am that
Am, would scarcely have got him credit with his
people; and the name Jehovah now imparted to him,
far from helping, would only have earned him mis
trust ; for El, Elohe, Chiun, or Baal, in so far as we
know, appear to have been the names by which
God or the gods were known to the times in which
Moses is reputed to have lived ; neither he nor they
who for ages came after him having ever heard of
Jehovah. How, further, imagine God dealing deceit
fully with Pharaoh and ordering his messenger to sue
for leave to go a three days’ journey into the wilder
ness to offer sacrifice, when it was his purpose that the
�Exodus : Moses and Jehovah.
143
people should escape from Egypt altogether ? How,
Still further, and to go back, bring our minds to con
template the Supersensuous Infinite Cause we call
God as limited in space and hidden in a bush that
burned yet was not consumed ? How, in fine, believe
that God bade Moses put off his shoes from his feet,
for the ground he stood on was holy, as if any one
foot-breadth of earth were holier than another ?
How, indeed I But so stands it written in the text.
Something, however, may be said for the bush that
burned yet was not consumed ?
In so far as we know that Light and Fire were the
symbols of Deity to the whole of the ancient policied
world, and the Hebrews were scions of the Semitic
stock, the Light and Star worshippers of Chaldea
and Mesopotamia.
Determining to deliver his people, Jehovah would,
of course, smooth the way for their going by dis
posing the heart of Pharaoh favourably towards
them ?
So might we reasonably have expected; on the
contrary, however, he is made to say that he is sure
the King of Egypt will not let them go.
This seems strange to modern conceptions of God’s
providential dealings with the world. What may
have been the writer’s motive in ascribing such
words to God ?
To give him an opportunity, doubtless, of showing
his God, in conformity with the notions of unenlight
ened men, setting at nought the laws we now recog
nise as constituting the very essence of the Godhead,
“smiting Egypt with the wonders he would do in
their midst, getting him honour on the Egyptians,
and giving them to know that he was the Lord.”
God get him honour by smiting the Egyptians ! Do
we read aright ?
So says the text as well here as in several other
places yet to be considered.
�144
The Pentateuch.
God is also made by the scribe to give particular
instructions as to what the people are to do when at
length they find themselves at liberty to depart F
They are not to go empty, but are to borrow of
their neighbours jewels of silver and jewels of gold
and raiment, which they are to put upon their sons
and their daughters, and so spoil the Egyptians I
This is an extraordinary injunction made to come
from God F
It is no less; and the writer must have believed
that Jehovah had no more respect for the m&mn and
tuurn than he could have had himself when he put
such an order into the mouth of his Deity.
What happens when Moses, not taking the word
of his God of the burning bush as sufficient creden
tials to his countrymen, suggests that they will not
believe him, and will say that Jehovah had not really
appeared to him ?
Jehovah asks : What is that in thy hand F And he
said, a rod. Cast it on the ground, says Jehovah ; and
he cast it on the ground and it became a serpent, to his
horror, for he fled from it; but being commanded to
take it by the tail, it forthwith became a rod as
before.
And this was to satisfy the people that the God of
their fathers had appeared to him, Moses, and given
him his commission to them ! What would be thought
nowadays of the man who should say that God had
personally appeared to him, given him an important
commission, and as guarantee for the truth of his
statement performed a feat of the kind before an
assembly of people F
He would be regarded either as a madman or a
juggling impostor, most certainly as no ambassador
from God.
There is more of this preliminary miraculous, or
rather—and not to speak it irreverently—conjuring
matter F
�Exodus : Moses and Pharaoh.
145
Much : Moses is bidden in addition, and as a further
assurance to himself that it is Jehovah-God who
speaks with him, to put his hand into his bosom, and
when he takes it out again it is “ leprous as snow; ”
but returning it to his bosom and then withdrawing
it, “ it is as his other flesh.”
Do any of the diseases known to us by the name of
leprosy come and go in such sudden fashion ?
Several diseases now pass under this name, but
they are all alike of slow growth and generally of
difficult cure when they are not altogether incurable.
These signs, however, Moses is to exhibit to the
people in case of their proving incredulous of his
mission to them; and when he returns to Egypt,
should they not be convinced by such signs and
induced to hearken to his voice, he is then to take
water from the river and pour it on the land when it
should become blood. Furthermore, being slow of
speech himself, he is to prompt Aaron his brother,
“who can speak well,” and make of him his mouth
piece in his efforts to have Pharaoh grant their
petition. “ But I will harden his heart ” says Jehovah,
“ that he shall not let the people go; ” and so all
must necessarily prove in vain.
Moses from the above showing would seem to have
been of a somewhat sceptical temper, hard of belief,
Hot easily satisfied ?
As every reasonable man ought to be when extra
ordinary courses are prescribed, to him, and contra
ventions of the common course of nature are adduced
as evidence of a divine commission or command. But
God is far more indulgent to the doubts of Moses
than men in after times have commonly shown them
selves to the misgivings and questionings of their
brothers.
Pharaoh’s heart being hardened by Jehovah so that
he must refuse to let the people go, Moses is next to
say to him— ?
�146
The Pentateuch.
“ Israel is my son, my first-born ; let my son go ;
and if thou refuse to let him go I will slay thy son,
even thy first-born.”
What! in spite of the hardening the man’s heart
has undergone at the hands of Jehovah, which must
needs make him incapable of yielding ? And is it
possible to think of God threatening retaliation in any
event—retaliation above all for non-compliance with
an order which he himself has made it impossible
should be obeyed, and upon the unoffending first-born
of the land because of its ruler’s obstinacy ?
To the simple moral sense of intelligent man it is
indeed impossible to form such incongruous and un
worthy ideas of God and his dealings with the world.
The tale as it stands is no less irreverent than absurd.
It is not God who hardens the heart of man, but man
who is faithless to his better self when he yields the
sway to his animal appetites and passions, and turns
a deaf ear to the suggestions of his reason and higher
moral nature. Neither does God, like a spiteful man,
retaliate in any human sense for non-compliance with
his behests. Pharaoh by the usage of his age and in
virtue of ordinances propounded in these ancient
writings as from Jehovah himself was entitled to exact
all he required of his slave-subjects the Israelites.—But
to proceed, we have now to note an extraordinary in
terruption of the narrative at this place by the inter
polation of a few verses, the significance of which has
sorely tried the ingenuity of bible-expositors. “ By the
way, in the Inn,” it is said, “ Jehovah came upon him
(Moses) and sought to kill him; and Zipporah took
a knife and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it
at his feet, and said : A bloody bridegroom art thou to
me I And he let him go. She said : blood-bridegroom,
because of the circumcision.” (De Wette.)
What meaning can we possibly attach to this piece
of information. What is to be thought of Jehovah
coming upon Moses and seeking to kill him ?
�Exodus: Moses and Jehovah.
147
In any literal sense it is impossible to say,—the
words have no meaning : had God sought to kill
Moses, he would not assuredly have failed of his
purpose.
And what farther of Zipporah circumcising her son,
casting the foreskin at “ his ” feet, and calling him a
blood or bloody bridegroom to her ?
Also impossible to say ; for the reason given : “ she
called him a bloody bridegroom because of the cir
cumcision,” does not help to any solution of the diffi
culty.
What yet farther of the phrase: “ So he let
him go ” ?
Still beyond our power to conjecture ; unless it
were said that Jehovah, propitiated by Zipporah’s act,
abandoned his purpose of killing Moses.
Has any other explanation of this episode in the life
of Moses been suggested ?
A learned writer conceives that Jehovah’s seeking
to kill Moses may be significant of a serious illness
that befel him at a certain time: and farther that his
recovery was only wrung from his God by the sacri
fice of more than the foreskin of his son; whence the
passionate exclamation of Zipporah.
*
Such an interpretation seems scarcely warranted by
anything in the text as it stands ?
It is not; but the text of the old mythical tale is
obviously imperfect; made so, it may be, by its modern
editor, who, finding matter in it offensive to the ideas
of the times in which he lived and wrote, has substi
tuted circumcision for sacrifice. The interpretation of
the German writer is fully borne out by the whole of
the blood-stained ritual of the Hebrew religious
system, the sacrifice of the first-born of man and beast
which so long formed one of its most essential
* See ‘Ghillanij Ueber den Menschen Opfer der alten
Hsebraaer : On the Human Sacrifices of the Ancient Hebrews,’
p. 683.
�148
The Pentateuch.
features, and the conclusion now generally come to
in regard to the rite of circumcision as signifying a
sacrifice to the reproductive principle in nature of
a small but significant part in lieu of the holocaust
of former days. The epithet bridegroom used by
Zipporah may find its explanation in a custom said
to have prevailed among Jewish mothers in a later
age, whilst stilling their newly circumcised sons, of
speaking to them as their little bridegrooms.
*
So improper and unprofitable a tale as that of God
seeking to kill a man and failing in his purpose, and
of a woman performing a painful and needless opera
tion on her child and then rating her husband and
calling him or her son her bridegroom, cannot surely
be presumed to come by the inspiration of God for
the guidance of mankind in morals and religion ?
Most assuredly it cannot. And so we may fancy
that the tale of Moses threatened to be slain is
given as a pendant to the one in which Jacob is said
to have been met in the dark by a man, who
turns out to be Jehovah himself, with whom he has
a wrestling bout; for each succeeding hero in the early
Hebrew records is more or less a copy of one who
has gone before. But it is more difficult in the present
instance to find a satisfactory interpretation of the
story than it was to elicit a meaning in conformity
with known mythological ideas for the other.
Moses and his brother Aaron, now associated with
him and fully instructed, proceed from Midian to
Egypt on their mission to the Pharaoh, with whom
they have an interview ?
They inform him that they have met with the God
of the Hebrews and petition for leave to “go three
days’ journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to their
God, lest he should fall on them with pestilence or
the sword.”
* See Dozy, 4 Die Israelite!! zu Mekka.’
S. 99.
�Exodus: Moses and Pharaoh.
149
But their God had not threatened anything of the
kind ?
He had not; but the pretext is notable as the first
instance on record in which Religion is made the
cloak to cover an ulterior design.
Pharaoh’s heart being hardened by Jehovah, he of
course refuses the suit ?
As matter of course, and it may be said of neces
sity. “Who is Jehovah,” asks Pharaoh, “that I
should obey his voice and let the people go ? I know
not Jehovah ; neither will I let Israel go.”
Pharaoh indeed could not have known anything of
Jehovah ?
No more than Moses himself, according to the tale ;
for it is only whilst receiving his commission that
he learns from the speaker of the burning bush that
it was he who had appeared to Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob as El-Schaddai, God the mighty, but by his
name Jahveh was he not known to them. Neither
indeed could Pharaoh have spoken of his Hebrew
slave-subjects as a people and by the name of Israel,
the title being of much more modern date than the
period referred to : Pharaoh’s Hebrew subjects were
his slaves.
Pharaoh, reasonably enough, therefore does not
credit the envoys, and in pursuance of the gist of the
story proceeds to impose yet heavier tasks on the
Israelites. What does Moses on the Pharaoh’s refusal
of his petition ?
He returns into the land of Midian, we must
presume, for the Hebrew God was not ubiquitous,
and reproaches him with having sent him on an use
less errand : “ Lord,” says he, very irreverently as
it seems, “why hast thou so evil entreated this
people ? why is it that thou hast sent me ? for since I
came to Pharaoh to speak in thy name, he hath done
evil to this people ; neither hast thou delivered them
at all.”
�150
The Pentateuch.
Does not Jehovah take Moses to task for this dis
respectful and reproachful address ?
By no means; he merely says to him : “ Now shalt
thou see what I will do to Pharaoh. Through strength
of hand shall he let them go, and by strength of hand
shall he drive them out of his land; return ye there
fore to Pharaoh, and when he asks for a sign saying :
Show a miracle for you, then thou shalt say unto
Aaron : Take thy rod and cast it before Pharaoh, and
it shall become a serpent.”
Returning to Egypt and doing as directed, the sign
ordered by Jehovah will, we may presume, have a
notable effect on Pharaoh ?
Strange to say, however, it has none. He calls the
magicians of Egypt, his own wise men, and they with
their enchantments do as much as the delegates of
Jehovah ; they do more, in fact, for they every one cast
down their rods, and each rod turns into a serpent!
But the serpent of Jehovah’s men proves itself
superior to the serpents of Pharaoh’s conjurors ?
By swallowing the whole of them !
And details of such jugglery as this are presented
to us in evidence of God’s power and purpose, through
the minds of inspired men, to guide and inform us ?
The writer, no doubt, believed in magic and con
juring, and so makes his God a magician and con
juror. The serpent-feat of Moses and Aaron, how
ever, paralleled by the court magicians, is not striking
enough to induce Pharaoh to let the Israelites go;
and, indeed, how should it ? His heart is hardened
by Jehovah, and he cannot yield; neither is it in
tended that he should. Moses is therefore to address
him again; and, as it is foreseen that he will still
hold out, the envoy is to turn the water of the Nile
into blood by striking it with his magic wand, the
effect of which will be that the river shall stink, the
fish die, and the water become unfit for the people to
drink.
�Exodus : Moses and Pharaoh.
151
So formidable a visitation, unless immediately re
dressed, must have proved universally destructive,
and not to the fishes only in the stream, but to the
whole of the living creatures ou its banks—to man
and beast, oppressors and oppressed alike, and must
needs have forced the Pharaoh instantly to relent ?
We learn, nevertheless, that it does not; neither
do we discover that the water of the country turned into
blood, stinking and destructive to the fishes, has any
ill effect on the people or their cattle, as if fishes
alone of living things must have water! The Pha
raoh persists in his refusal—a course in which he is
encouraged by his magicians, who with their en
chantment do again precisely what Moses and Aaron
are said to have done; for they, too, says the narrative,
turned all the water of the country into blood;—
whence the water came on which they practised we
are not informed.
The inhabitants and animals of a country cannot,
however, live without water ; and the dilemma into
which the writer has fallen by cutting off the supply
from the river being seen by him, he makes the
people dig wells to meet their wants. But could
they have found water by their digging ?
They could not; for the river being the sole source
whence the water of Egypt is derived, if it were
turned into blood the wells which it fed must have
furnished blood also.
Can water be turned by any process, natural or
magical, into blood ?
We throw the magic overboard, and say that God,
by his eternal laws, has declared that it cannot.
Water is a simple binary compound of the two che
mical elements, oxygen and hydrogen; blood a com
plex quaternary compound of oxygen, hydrogen, car
bon, and azote—the elements, moreover, here existing
in a peculiar state of molecular arrangement not seen
in the inorganic realm of nature. But art is incom
�I52
The Pentateuch.
petent to create chemical elements, or to force such
as exist into combinations out of conformity with
natural law. Water is water in virtue of one of the
great all-pervading laws of the inorganic world, and
blood only makes its appearance when the organising
force inherent in nature comes into play and living,
sensient, self-conscious creatures rise into existence.
The turning of the waters of Egypt into blood
must therefore be an impossibility ?
It is no less, in virtue of laws consentient with the
existence and definite properties of matter.
The next move made by Moses and Aaron will
, surely induce Pharaoh, in spite of the hardening of
heart he has received at the hands of Jehovah, to
relent ?
Although the river has been turned into blood, has
become stinking, so that all the fishes have died, and
the people cannot drink of it, he still persists in his
obstinacy. Moses is then commanded by Jehovah to
say to Aaron : Stretch forth thine hand with thy rod
over the streams, the rivers, and the ponds, and cause
frogs to come up over the land of Egypt.
The writer would seem here to be drawing after
what he saw in Palestine, his native country, where
there are the Jordan and numerous smaller streams
and rivulets; in Egypt there is one great river, but
no secondary streams, though, doubtless, there were
then as now innumerable ditches for irrigation and
ponds for supply. The frogs, however, come up in
spite of the circumstances that must have made it as
impossible for them as for the fishes to live; for the
river has been turned into blood, and we have not
had it restored to its natural condition.
They come up and cover the land of Egypt, making
their way into the houses, the beds, the kneading
troughs, and even the ovens !
The feat of the frogs would surely be found to
exceed the powers of the magicians to imitate ?
�Exodus: Moses and Pharaoh.
153
It is said not; they too brought up frogs over the
land-—small thanks to them!—for by so doing they
could only have made matters worse, if worse may
be imagined.
So formidable a nuisance so increased must have
brought Pharaoh to his senses and induced him to
relent ?
For a while it seems to have had this effect; but
only for a while. “Intreat Jehovah,” says he be
seechingly to Moses and Aaron, “ that he may take
away the frogs from me and my people, and I will
let the people go, that they may sacrifice to Jehovah.”
Moses improves the occasion with this show of
relenting on the part of Pharaoh ?
He is not slow to do so, and says: Resolve me
when I shall intreat for thee and for thy people the
removal of the frogs—in the river only shall they
stay. To which Pharaoh meekly and oddly enough
replies : “ To-morrow,” instead of to-day ! “ Be it
according to thy word,” rejoins the envoy, “that
thou mayest know that there is no God like unto
Jehovah our God.”
Moses is made to speak here as if he acknowledged
the existence of other gods besides Jehovah ?
He is made to speak as, doubtless, the writer be
lieved the fact to be: Jehovah, to Moses and the
early Hebrews, was no more than one, albeit the
greatest, among the gods. He is the God of Miracle
also, opposed to the God of Law, and so assuredly
not the true God.
Intreated by Moses, Jehovah causes the frogs to
die out of the houses and fields, and they are gathered
into heaps, so that the land stank. Pharaoh, we may
presume, will now keep his word and suffer the people
to depart ?
The respite he obtains makes him give signs of
yielding; but the wonder-working powers of Jehovah
through his agents not being yet sufficiently shown
M
�154
The Pentateuch.
forth, he is made by the writer to relapse into his
hardness of heart. The dust of the ground, conse
quently, is now smitten, and is turned into lice
{kinnim, properly gnats), which crawl over man
and beast, and now only is it that the Egyptian
conjurors are found wanting. They cannot imitate
the Hebrew wonder-workers : they did with their
enchantments try to bring forth lice, says the text,
but they could not—very happily, we may be per
mitted to add—and they say to Pharaoh : This is the
finger of God. But Pharaoh’s heart being hardened
by Jehovah, he heeded them not. Why they should
have found it harder to turn dust into lice than
rods into serpents or water into blood, and to call up
swarms of frogs from the ditches at the word of
command, does not appear. And how the despotic
Pharaoh of Egypt should have been so indulgent as to
suffer Moses and Aaron to afflict his people with such
a succession of scourges, instead of throwing them
into prison or shortening them by the head, is surely
as much of a miracle as any of those we have had
detailed.
How are frogs and lice produced under God’s own
natural law ?
Frogs once a year, on the return of spring, from
spawn that has been maturing in the body of the female
parent from the same period of the preceding year;
lice from eggs called nits, which are attached to the
hair and clothes of the lousy, and are hatched at all
seasons of the year; frogs and lice being alike the
product of pre-existing kinds, male and female, and
alike requiring a certain time before they can be
hatched ; frogs, moreover, having to pass some weeks
in the tadpole state previous to appearing in their
proper definite shape.
Do we in the present day ever see any such pro
duction of living creatures, whether of higher or
lower type in the scale of being, as is here said to
have taken place ?
�Exodus: Moses and Pharaoh.
155
We do not; but we are privileged to see what, by
a metaphor, may be spoken of as the finger, and far
more appropriately as the mind, of God, in the har
monious and invariable sequences of nature; and
seeing so much, we are bound to acknowledge neither
interruption nor contravention of the all-pervading
laws—expressions of the Godhead—that rule the
universe in its measureless immensities as in its
individual atoms.
But Pharaoh, when he finds his wise men at their
wits’ end, and referring the production of the lice to
the finger of God, will give in and let his bonds
men go ?
Not yet; though with the plague of flies which
has now to be endured he yields so far as to say to
Moses that he and his people were at liberty to sacri
fice to their God, so as they did it in the land. But
this did not suit the views of Moses, who answers :
Lo, it is not meet to do so; for we shall sacrifice
the abomination of the Egyptians unto Jehovah
our God.
What may be understood by the objection made
by Moses ?
The text does not help us to any interpretation of
its meaning. There is no hint in any preceding
part of the book that the Hebrews were ever inter
fered with by the Egyptians in their religion—we
know nothing, indeed, of the religion of the Israelites
during the long period of their servitude in Egypt—
or that they were required to conform to the religious
system of their masters. Neither is Moses’ objection
taken so much to any sense he may have entertained
of the impropriety of the sacrifice referred to in itself,
as to the danger to the Israelites that might accom
pany its performance, for he says: Lo, shall we
sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before
their eyes and will they not stone us ? What the
abomination of the Egyptians may have been we are
�i$6
The Pentateuch.
not informed. Shepherds are said to have been an
abomination to the Egyptians, but not sheep; they
are reputed, indeed, to have objected to mutton as
food, but they sacrificed rams to their god Amun.
Pharaoh again shows signs of relenting. Twill let
you go, says he now, that ye may sacrifice to Jehovah
your God in the wilderness ; only ye shall not go
very far away ; intreat for me, adds the sorely-tried
and singularly submissive sovereign. So Moses
intreats Jehovah, and the plague of flies is abated.
But Jehovah, according to the record, having other
and more terrible wonders in store whereby he should
further “ proclaim his power and make his name
known throughout all the earth,” Pharaoh’s yielding
is only for a day.
_ Among the number of new plagues inflicted in this
view we find enumerated— ?
A murrain, which killed all the cattle of the Egyp
tians, but spared those of the Israelites, not one of
these being lost; an epidemy of blotches and blains
upon man and beast, to bring about which we for the
first time find certain physical means prescribed by
Jehovah : Moses is to take handfuls of ashes from the
furnace and scatter them toward heaven, the effect of
which would be that wherever the dust fell there
should follow boils and blains upon the flesh.
Would casting cart-loads of furnace ashes into the
air cause blotches and blains upon the men and cattle
of a country a thousand miles and more in length ?
It were absurd to suppose that it would; wood
ashes, used as directed, could only have caused in
flammation of the eyes among such as were somewhat
near at hand. To abrade the skin, wood-ashes must be
mixed with quicklime and applied moist to its surface.
What further plagues or calamities do we find
enumerated ?
A grievous hailstorm, such as had not been seen in
Egypt since its foundation, with thunder and light-
�Exodus: Moses and Pharaoh.
157
ning and fire that ran. along the ground and smote
everything that was in the field—man and beast, herb
and tree, flax and barley; only “ in the land of
Goshen, where the children of Israel dwelt, was there
no hail; ” next we have
of locusts that came
up with an east wind—another physical agency—and
ate up all that had been spared by the hail; and then
a thick darkness in all the land for three days, so
thick that people “ saw not one another, even dark
ness that could be felt,—but the children of Israel
had light in their dwellings.”
Jehovah, the God of Moses, as pictured by the
Jewish writer, shows himself utterly ruthless in this ?
No doubt of it; but the writer’s purpose was to
show Jehovah, as patron God of the children of Israel,
superior to the gods of Egypt. His visitations must
obviously have affected the individual Pharaoh much
less than his subjects, whose hearts had not been
hardened for the occasion, like that of the ruler. To
have punished Pharaoh at all, indeed, when he was
only exercising his prescriptive rights, and must be
presumed to have lost all power of self-control—his
heart having been expressly hardened by Jehovah—
was manifestly unjust; and to make Jehovah spread
desolation over the land of Egypt, when he was him
self the author of its ruler’s obstinacy, can only be
characterised as derogatory to the Idea of God that
must be entertained by rational man, and at variance
with the goodness and mercy always associated with
the essential nature of Deity.
Considerations these which seem satisfactorily to
dispose of the Plagues of Egypt as occurrences
founded on fact ?
Effectually. And then murrain and pestilence and
the light of the sun make no distinctions, but by pre
existent eternal ordinances affect all that live alike.
The narrative, interrupted at this point, gives us
an opportunity of asking what we, as reasonable men,
�!58
The Pentateuch.
gifted with understanding and moral consciousness,
assured moreover of the changeless nature of God and
his laws, are to think of the long array of unavailing
miracles thus far detailed with wearisome prolixity,
and of the motive assigned for their exhibition ?
On such grounds we can but think of them as tales
of Impossibilities — Myths, Embodiments in language
of Ideas belonging to a rude and remote antiquity, and
worthy henceforth of notice only as records of erro
neous conceptions of the attributes of God and the
nature of his dealings with mankind and the world of
things. The means brought into requisition prove
inadequate to satisfy Pharaoh of the superiority of the
Hebrew wonder-workers over the magicians of his own
country, or of their God over the God whom he and
his people adore. JDid we think of God using means
to ends at all, which our philosophy forbids—purpose,
or end, mean and act being one in the nature of God,
and not distinct from one another, or sequences in
*
time —it were surely falling short of a worthy con
ception of The Supreme to imagine him making use
of any that were inadequate to the end proposed.
What is to be said of the reiterated allegation that
God so hardened the heart of Pharaoh that he would
not suffer the Israelites to be gone ?
That it is not only derogatory to the name of God,
but in contradiction with his avowed purpose, which
was from the first that the children of Israel should
quit Egypt and settle in the land of Canaan as his
peculiar people, in fulfilment of contracts entered
into with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the last of
them made some four hundred and thirty years before
the time at which Moses is believed to have appeared
on the scene ; for so long, according to the record,
was the interval between the date of Jacob’s arrival
in Egypt and that of the Israelites leaving it.
* See ‘ Dialogue by Way of Catechism,’ Part II. page 35.
�Exodus: Moses and Pharaoh.
159
Bu.t we have no information about the children of
Israel during the four hundred and thirty years of
their reputed sojourn in Egypt?
We have not a word of or concerning them through
the whole of this long time.
How then believe that we should have such par
ticular intelligence about Adam and Eve, Cain and
Abel, Noah and the flood, Lot and his daughters,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Joseph and his brethren,
&c. &c., comprising a period of a thousand years and
more, according to the computations of our Bible
chronologists ?
How, indeed, unless we assume that it reaches us
through the imaginations of writers who lived during
and after the era of the kings, the Babylonian Cap
tivity, and still later periods in the history of Judah
and Israel.
Pitiless as he has hitherto appeared, Jehovah will
now interpose, soften the heart of Pharaoh, and so
spare the unoffending Egyptian people from further
disasters ?
Not yet. Mercy, with the object the writer has in
view, must still be made foreign to the nature of his
God. Pharaoh does indeed now call Moses, and says :
Go ye; serve Jehovah ; only let your flocks and herds
be stayed. But Moses answers that they must have
the means of sacrificing to Jehovah their God. “ Our
cattle,” continues he, in the haughtiest tone, “ shall
go with us; there shall not a hoof be left behind.”
Jehovah, however, continuing to harden Pharaoh’s
heart, he will not suffer them to go. “ Get thee from
me,” says the now indignant and sorely-tried so
vereign ; “ take heed to thyself; see my face no more ;
for in the day thou seest my face thou shalt die.”
Moses, we may presume, will be more cautious in his
communications with such a threat hanging over him ?
So we might have expected; but he is more arro
gant and outspoken than ever, for he replies : “ Thou
�160
The Pentateuch.
hast spoken well—I will see thy face no more.” Yet
he does ; for, as the writer now makes Jehovah say :
“Yet will I bring one plague more upon Egypt;
afterwards he will let you go,” Moses has to return
to the presence with the following message : “ Thus
saith Jehovah : About midnight will I go out into the
midst of Egypt, and all the first-born in the land of
Egypt shall die, from the first-born of Pharaoh that
sitteth on the throne even unto the first-born of the
maid-servant that is behind the mill, and all the first
born of beasts. And there shall be a great cry
throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was
none like it nor shall be like it any more. But against
any of the children of Israel there shall not a dog
move his tongue.”
Threatened with such calamities as the death of
his own first-born son, and the death of the first-born
of man and beast throughout his dominions, taught,
moreover, by the experience of preceding plagues,
Pharaoh will now assuredly take security against the
threatened visitation by laying hands on Moses,
whom he has already doomed to die did he venture
again to come before him ?
So might we reasonably have expected; but this
would not have tallied with the end the writer has
in view. Pharaoh is therefore made to forget his
purpose of putting Moses to death, and very incon
siderately, as it seems, to treat the announcement just
made as an idle threat. The envoy, consequently, is
left at large, and even goes out from the Pharaoh’s
presence “ in a great anger.” And so it comes to
pass, as had been predicted, that at midnight Jehovah
smote all the first-born both of man and beast in the
land of Egypt.
The wholesale slaughter of the Egyptians and their
cattle accomplished—by what means we are not in
formed, unless we take the text literally as it stands,
and assume Jehovah himself to have been the agent—
�Exodus : Egyptians and Israelites.
161
we learn that against the children of Israel not even
a dog was to move his tongue. The ground for the
distinction is plain enough: the Israelites were the
cherished, the Egyptians the hated, of Jehovah; but
there is a particular reason given for the heavy visi
tation which had now befallen the Egyptians ?
The reason assigned is this: “ That it might be
known how Jehovah had put a difference between
the Egyptians and Israel.”
What difference had God —and here we add, not
the Jewish Jehovah—really put between the Egyp
tian people and the children of Israel ?
God had made the Egyptians, as the superior race,
the masters; and the Israelites, as the inferior race, the
slaves. He had given the Egyptians the valley of the
Nile for an inheritance, and the ingenuity and industry
needful to turn it into “ the garden of the Lord,”
which it was; he had further made them astronomers,
architects,, engineers, sculptors, painters, inventors of
the loom and of paper; contrivers of more than one
system of writing, and familiar, besides, with many
of the most useful and elegant arts of settled and
civilised life—workers in gold and silver and precious
stones, &c. Morally and religiously, moreover, he
had enabled them to approximate to the idea of the
Oneness of Deity though seen under various aspects
—here propitious, there adverse—and led them to
the great conception of Duty or Responsibility for
their doings in the present life to be answered for in
a life to come.
And the Hebrews or Israelites ?
God had left in the lower grades of neat-herds,
shepherds, labourers in the fields; settlers by suffer
ance if not by compulsion in an outlying district of
their masters’ territory, ignorant of astronomy,
architecture, mechanics, sculpture, and of every one
of the arts that “put a difference” between the
nomad barbarian or savage and the policied citizen of
�162
The Pentateuch.
the settled State : he had conferred on. them no fine
sense of the distinction between the mine and the
thine ; and to conclude, had left them without the
conception of a judgment and immortality beyond
the present state of existence.
The first-born of man and beast in the land of
Egypt, then, are smitten, and Jehovah has now,
according to the veracious writer, had sufficient
opportunity of displaying his power over the Gods of
Egypt and the Egyptians themselves. The Israelites
may therefore at length be suffered to depart ?
Brought to his senses at last, — or shall we say
taught by the terrible calamities that had befallen his
people, yielding to the pressure of circumstances and
getting the better of the hardness of heart imposed
on him by Jehovah, Pharaoh is now as urgent with
the Israelites to be gone as he had hitherto been reso
lute to keep them from going. Rising up in the
night and summoning Moses, he says: “ Get you
forth from among my people both you and the chil
dren of Israel, and go and serve Jehovah, as ye have
said ; take also your flocks and your herds and be
gone.” The Egyptians too were urgent upon the
people that they might send them out of the land in
haste, for they said: “We be all dead men.”
The Israelites on their part, though the permission
to depart must have come on them unexpectedly, are
not slow to take Pharaoh at his word or remiss in
yielding to the urgency of their masters ?
They pack up their kneading troughs at once in
their clothes with the dough that is in them; but
they do not neglect the order they had received to
borrow of their neighbours jewels of silver and jewels
of gold and raiment, with which and their own be
longings they set off immediately on their journey
towards the promised land.
Can we imagine the Egyptians ready to lend their
jewels of silver and gold and their garments to
�Exodus : The Israelites quit Egypt.
163
people—their slaves—whom they were driving out of
their country with as little prospect as wish ever to
see them again ?
It certainly is not easy under the circumstances to
imagine any such favourable disposition on the part
of the Egyptians.
When men borrow, it is still with the understand
ing that they are to make return, as when they lend
that they are to have return made ?
There appears to have been no such understanding
in the present instance, on one side at all events.
Jehovah, it is even said, “ gave the people favour in
the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent them all
they required, and they spoiled the Egyptians.”
But this makes Jehovah an aider and abettor in
the theft ?
No doubt of it. But the Jewish writer believed it
not only lawful but meritorious to spoil the enemies
of his people, and he does not scruple to make his
God of the same mind as himself. But the tale is
libellous and false; for God, the universal father,
emphatically forbids theft through the sense of the
mine and the thine implanted in the mind of man—
not to allude to the express commandment which a
later and more conscientious writer in the Hebrew
Bible sees fit to put into the mouth of his God when
he makes him say : Thou shalt not steal!
The Israelites fly or are driven out of Egypt at
last ?
The first-born of the land both of man and beast
being dead, there was no longer any ground for delay.
What extraordinary and utterly incomprehensible
means were used to accomplish the discriminating
slaughter of the first-born of the people and their
cattle in the course of a single night we are not in
this place informed; and the reason given for the sin
gular despite in which Jehovah is presented to us as
having held the Egyptians—the hard service in brick
�164
The Pentateuch.
and mortar imposed on the Israelites, to wit—
does not accord with the flourishing state in which
they meet us at the moment of the Exodus, millions
as they must have been in numbers, if they could
bring six hundred thousand able-bodied men into the
field with arms in their hands, possessed besides of
flocks and herds innumerable, and enjoying such
credit with the native people that they lent them
freely of all they had.
The slaughter of the first-born of Egypt must
therefore be another of the mythical tales contrived
by the writer to exalt and glorify in his own mis
taken way the tutelary God of his people, Jehovah ?
Let the candid reader, with any conception which
he as living in this nineteenth century of the Chris
tian era can form of the nature of God, answer the
question for himself by yea or by nay.
The narrative provokingly enough and on the very
eve of the Exodus is interrupted to speak of a change
to be made in beginning the year ; and, in immediate
connection with this change, of the institution of
the Passover and the dedication to Jehovah of the
first-born of man and beast among the children of
Israel?
Jehovah, says the record, now speaks to Moses and
Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying: <l This month
shall be to you the first month of the year,” without
naming the month. But we by-and-by discover that
it is Nisan, called Abib of old, that is meant; this
being the month in which the Exodus is believed to
have taken place, as it is known to be the one in
which the vernal equinox occurred in ancient times.
The notification, however, is prefatory and subordi
nate to the order for the celebration of the Passover,
which the writers of the Hebrew scriptures show
particular anxiety to connect with the escape from
Egypt,—which they would present in fact as a feast
commemorative of this event in the legendary annals
�Exodus : The Passover.
165
of their people, the whole procedure as set forth being
made to harmonise with this intention.
The rites connected with the celebration of the
Passover were peculiar and solemn ?
On the tenth day of the first month the head of each
house, or where the families were small, the heads of
two or more houses, were to take a lamb or kid, a
male of the first year, without spot or blemish, and
sever it from the flock until the evening of the four
teenth day, when it was to be killed. With a bunch
of hyssop dipped in the blood the lintels and door
posts of the houses were to be struck, and no one was
to leave his home until the morning. The carcase was
to be eaten in the night with unleavened bread and
bitter herbs, and it is particularly ordered that the
flesh shall not be eaten raw, nor sodden with water,
but roast with fire. The meal is farther to be de
spatched in haste, the people having their loins girded,
their shoes on their feet, and their staves in their
hands.
This is plainly enough an account by a relatively
modern writer of the way in which he imagines the
feast of the Passover might have been kept by his
forefathers on the eve of their flight from Egypt, and
so of the way in which it was ever after to be observed
in memory of that event. “ And it shall come to
pass,” says the record, “ when your children say unto
you : what mean ye by this service, that ye shall say :
It is the sacrifice of Jehovah’s passover, who passed
over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt,
when he smote the Egyptians and delivered our
houses.”
The Passover, however, could not have been cele
brated in any such way by the Israelites on the eve
of their flight ?
There was no possibility of its having been so cele
brated, for they fled in such haste that they had no
time to leaven the dough that was in their kneading
�166
The Pentateuch.
troughs, much less to bake it. A family feast, more
over, is turned by the writer into a Sacrifice to Jehovah,
in every indispensable element of which it is wanting.
The reason for striking the lintels and door-posts
of the Israelites’ houses with the blood is not very
satisfactory ?
Being done to guide Jehovah in his visitation to
slay the first-born of Egypt, it meets us as a poor
contrivance of the writer : “ When I see the blood,”
says he in the name of his God, “ I will pass over you,
and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you
when I smite the land of Egypt.” Jehovah must,
therefore, as he imagined, have required an outward
and visible sign to guide him in his acts of mercy as
of vengeance.
The colour of the blood may have had something
to do with the act enjoined ?
Red was the proper colour of the Sun-God, among
the ancients generally; and with the Egyptians came
into special use in the spring of the year for the
decoration of their dwellings, as well as the statues
of their Gods. The Hebrew writer would therefore
seem, after a play upon the word Pass or Passover
(Pesah in Hebrew, with which our word Transit
corresponds exactly), to be substituting red blood, for
the red paint of the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and other
cognate peoples, and using, as a safeguard for the
children of Israel, a sign which the Egyptians, from
time immemorial, had been wont to employ with a
view to ornament and propitiate their gods.
In immediate connection with this unsatisfactory
account of the institution of the Passover, we have
the dedication to Jehovah of the first-born among
the children of Israel themselves. He had slain the
first-born of the Egyptians, and must, as it appears,
have the first-born of the Israelites also ?
“ Sanctify to me all the first-born; whatsoever
openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both
�Exodus : Dedication of the First-born.
167
of man and beast, it is mine,” are the terrible words
in which Jehovah is made to announce his will.
It seems singular that the Jewish writers of the
Bible should manifest the same desire to connect the
sacrifice of their first-born with the most awful of the
incidents said to have accompanied the flight from
Egypt, as they show to associate the Passover with
this event ?
“ It shall be,” says the text, “ when thy son asketh
thee in time to come, saying : What is this F that thou
shalt say to him : By strength of hand Jehovah
brought us out from Egypt, from the house of
bondage; and it came to pass when Pharaoh would
hardly let us go that Jehovah slew all the first-born
in the land of Egypt, both the first-born of man and
the first-born of beast; therefore I sacrifice to Jehovah
all thatopeneth the matrix, being males ”—the words
being males must have been added, the requisition in
several other places being general.
Such a reason for such a sacrifice is surely neither
logical nor satisfactory. Because Jehovah slew all
the first-born of Egypt, therefore were the Israelites to
sacrifice all that opened the womb both of man and
beast among themselves ! They were to pay a much
heavier tax, in fact, than that exacted of the
Egyptians ; for the sacrifice of their children by the
Israelites was to be in perpetuity, whilst that of their
old oppressors had been required but once. How
should such an event as the escape from slavery,
only to be thought of as subject of rejoicing, be fitly
associated with the tears and heart-wringings of
parents that must needs accompany the immolation
of the first-born of their children ?
The dedication to Jehovah of the first-born of man
and beast can scarcely therefore have any connection
with the mythical slaughter of the first-born of Egypt,
the legendary flight from the country, or the feast of
the Passover ?
�i68
The Pentateuch.
There can be little question that it has none. The
consecration or making Clierem implying the neces
sary sacrifice to their God of all that opened the
womb is not so associated in other parts of the
Hebrew Scriptures. “ Sanctify to me all the first
born ; whatsoever openeth the womb among the
children of Israel, both of man and beast, it is mine,”
says the text already quoted (Exod. xiii. 2). “ The
first-born of thy sons shalt thou give to me,” says
another (Tb. xxii. 29). “All that openeth the
matrix is mine,” yet another (lb. xxxiv. 19). In
every instance, therefore, without reference to Egypt,
the Exodus, or any other event. The requirement is
absolute, unconnected with any historical or quasihistorical incident. The sacrifice of the first-born of
man and beast was in truth a custom sanctioned by
general usage among the whole of the Semitic tribes
or peoples and their colonies inhabiting Western Asia
and the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.
But the first-born of man are ordered to be re
deemed ?
Not as the ordinance stands where it is first met
and has not been tampered with, and as the custom
of child-sacrifice is repeatedly referred to in other
places, more especially by the prophetical writers.
The redemption clauses are all interpolations by later
hands; they had no place in the text even so late as
the time of Ezekiel; and then there is the positive
ordinance concerning things Cherem or devoted to
Jehovah, which puts redemption out of the question.
“None devoted, which shall be devoted of men shall
be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death ”
(Levit. xxvii. 29).
May not the Passover also have been a festival
having no connection with the Exodus from Egypt ?
There can be as little doubt of this as of the sacri
fice of the first-born of Israel having no reference to
the slaughter of the first-born of Egypt. The festival
�Exodus: The Passover.
169
galled Pesach by the Jews is a much older institu
tion than the notice we have of it in the Book of
Exodus. Its Hebrew name is exactly rendered as
said, by the English word Transit; and the transit
celebrated was no passage of Jehovah over the
Egyptians to destroy, or over the Israelites to spare,
but of the Sun over the Equator at the epoch of the
vernal equinox—a season of rejoicing that may be
said to have been universal among all the policied
peoples of antiquity, and that is still observed with
fresh accessories and under a new name in the world
of to-day; for the Easter of the present age is in
reality no other than the Pascha, Neomenia, and
Hilaria of the old world—a tribute Deo Soli Invicto.
Mounting from the inferior or wintry signs, trium
phant as it were over darkness and death, the Sun
then appears to bring back light and life to the
world; and the God he symbolized seems to have
been held entitled in return to a portion at least of
the good things so obviously and immediately de
pendent on his presence. Hence the offerings in the
spring of the year of the first fruits of the fields, the
sacrifice of the firstlings of the flocks and herds, and
at length, and as the influence of the offering on the
God was believed to rise in the ratio of its worth to
the giver, of the first-born of his sons by man—victim
of all others the most precious to him, and so thought
to be the most potent of all to propitiate the God.
The Passover may, therefore, have been truly a
solar festival, and by no means peculiar to the Israel
ites ?
The period of the year at which it was celebrated
suffices of itself to proclaim it a feast in honour of the
Sun, and the universality of its celebration over the
whole of the ancient world shows that the Israelites
only followed suit in its observance. But the great
Spring festival of the year has been obscured by the
miraculous and mythical wrappings in which it has
N
�V]O
The Pentateuch.
been presented by the Jewish post-exilic Jehovistic
writers, seeking to hide its meaning by turning this
among other Pagan observances of their age and
country into institutions appointed by their God
Jehovah through the agency of his servant Moses.
The Jewish writers, however, are not even agreed
as to the grounds they assign for the observance of
the Passover ?
In one place it is to be kept as a memorial feast
because the Israelites were spared the visit of the
destroying angel when the first-born of Egypt were
slain ; in another it is to be observed in memory of
their delivery from Egyptian bondage. But it was in
the spring time of the year that the barley harvest of
the East occurred ; and with the bringing of the first
sheaf as an offering to the Sun-God at the season of
his awakening from his death-like wintry sleep, and
the season of rejoicing’ then universally observed, was
by and by associated the legendary escape in exagge
rated numbers of the Israelites from Egypt and the
veritable sacrifice of the first-born of their sons.
The Jewish Passover is often said to have been
derived from the Egyptians ?
That the Israelites had various festivals in common
with the Egyptians and other ancient peoples is cer
tain. That they borrowed so much from Egypt as it
is often said they did is very questionable. Such a
conclusion would seem rather to be grounded on
assuming the large amount of influence which a people
so far advanced in civilisation as the Egyptians must
have had on the rude descendants of Jacob, than on
any strong resemblance between the social, political,
and religious ideas and doings of the Egyptians and
Israelites. To unprejudiced minds the Israelites, when
they meet us on the eve of the Exodus, and for ages
afterwards, appear as having profited so little by their
contact with the Egyptians that additional doubt is
thrown over the whole story of their relationship with
�Exodus: The Flight from Egypt,
171
the land of the Nile. For some ages after the reputed
epoch of the Exodus we never see the Israelites save
as a horde in quest of a settled home, at war with all
around them, and but little, if at all, removed from
utter barbarism.
Having spoiled the Egyptians to the utmost of the
borrowing and lending powers of the two parties, the
Israelites set off, a mixed multitude with flocks and
herds, “ even very much cattle.” We are not without
data from which their aggregate number may be
computed F
We have such in the “ Six hundred thousand on
foot that were men ” (Ex. xii., 87) ; “ six hundred
and three thousand five hundred and fifty from twenty
years old and upwards, all able to go forth to war in
Israel.” (Numb, i., 46.)
Such a number of able-bodied men, harnessed or
armed, as said, implies a gross population approach
ing three millions of souls ?
Something like that of the great city of London or
the whole of Scotland a few years ago !
And this vast multitude quit their homes in a single
night and betake themselves to the desert with no
other preparation iii the shape of supplies than the
dough that is in their kneading troughs ?
“ They were thrust out of Egypt, neither had they
prepared for themselves any victual.” (Ex. xii., 39.)
Without a word of the first requisite for even a
single day’s journey in the burning desert—water ?
There is nothing said about water.
What of the means of transport for the sick and
infirm, who must have numbered ten thousand at
least; for the three hundred women busy in bringing
children into the world, and something like the same
number of men and women going out of it—for so
many are ever thus engaged in a population approach
ing three millions in number during each day of the
year ?
�172
The Pentateuch.
There is nothing said of the sick and infirm, of the
parturient and the dying.
Then must the story in its proportions be a fable
involving contradictions innumerable and impossi
bilities in the nature of things. The whole population
of the valley of the Nile, from Nubia to the Mediter
ranean, did not probably at any time in its most
palmy days of old amount to so many as the Israelites
are said to have been when they fled, were driven out,
or were brought out from Egypt with a high hand, so
various are the words used in the accounts we have
of the way in which the Exodus was effected. Six
hundred thousand and odd able-bodied men with
arms in their hands needed to have asked no leave of
the Pharaoh of Egypt either to go or to stay. Instead
of fleeing to the desert on the faith of promised settle
ments in a land, even though reported to be flowing
with milk and honey, they would have been apt to
think that the fertile land of Egypt, watered by the
mysterious river which rose and fell no man knew
how, was possession preferable and enough. Instead
of consenting to the expulsion, they are allowed in more
than one place to have suffered, from the soil where
they had lived so long and grown to such a multitude,
they would most assuredly have either expelled or
enslaved where they had not slain their oppressors.
Instead of robbing them of their jewels of silver and
jewels of gold and fine raiment, anl stealing away like
thieves in the night, they would have installed them
selves in their masters’ places and taught them in
turn what it was to make mud bricks without
straw !
But this would have interfered with Jehovah’s pro
vidential arrangements for the settlement of his chosen
people in the land of Canaan ?
The providence of God is over all his works in
differently and alike. God was then as now the Father
of the Egyptian as of the Jew; more partial as parent
�Exodus: The Flight from Egypt.
173
to the Egyptian than to the Jew, indeed, were his love
to be truly tested by the Hebrew standard—the mea
sure of temporal good enjoyed.
The Jews did not think, and have not yet learned
to think, that God is verily the impartial parent of
mankind ?
No; they were, and still are, presumptuous enough
to fancy themselves the objects of their Jehovah’s
peculiar care; and the world may be said, in spite of
its persistently cruel treatment of their race, to have
been complacent enough to take them at their word.
Lately, however, there has been something like an
awakening out of this baseless dream; a suspicion has
at length got abroad in the world of the possibility of
its having been mistaken. With the recent discovery
of the Vedas and Zendavesta, the Buddhistic scrip
tures, and the Chinese moral writings, we have come to
know that other more ancient, more moral and better
policied peoples than the Israelites had also their sacred
books, though none of them presume, as do those of
this people, to make God the mouthpiece of some few
good and reasonable, yet of many bad, barbarous,
childish, objectionable, and indifferent ordinances, and
the immediate agent in innumerable cruel and un
justifiable acts.
The Israelites, however, escape or are driven out of
Egypt at last, and in such numbers, it is said, as plainly
appears impossible. Have we any clue to the way in
which the exaggerated multitude of the fugitives may
have been arrived at ?
.Curiously enough we have. In one of the latest
Midraschim—Hebrew Commentaries or Expositions of
the Law we possess (Jalkut Thora, 386), there is a
passage to this effect: “ God said to Moses : Number
the Israelites. Then said Moses: They are as the
sands of the sea ; how can I number them ? God
said : Not in the way thou thinkest of; but wouldst
thou reckon them, take the first letters of their tribes
�!74
The Pentateuch.
and thou hast their number.”* And sure enough, if
the numerical values of the initial letters of the names
of the twelve tribes be added together, the sum
that comes out is five hundred and ninety-seven
thousand ; to which if the three thousand slain on
occasion of the worship of the golden calf which
Aaron made be joined, the exact number of the men
in arms, as first given, six hundred thousand, is
obtained.
This, however, is not the only number of ablebodied men that is mentioned ?
Elsewhere (Ex. xxxviii., 26, and Numb, i., 46) it is
set down at “ six hundred and three thousand five
hundred and fifty men.”
There may perhaps be some recondite and not very
obvious way in which this number too may have been
arrived at ?
It tallies exactly with the number of bekahs or
half shekels said to have been produced by the
capitation tax imposed for erecting and furnishing the
Tabernacle. The whole amount collected is stated to
have been 100talents 1,775 shekels, = 301,775 shekels,
which x by two gives 603,550 shekels, the precise
number of the able-bodied men of the second Census.f
Once on their way, whither do the Israelites go ?
If it were towards the promised land they certainly
took a very roundabout road to reach it. Elohim,
it is said, led them not by the way through the land
of the Philistines, although that was near ; for Elohim
said : “ Lest peradventure the people repent when they
see war and they return to Egypt.” Elohim there
fore led them through the way of the Wilderness of
the Red Sea, from Rameses, whence they set out, to
Succoth and Etham in the edge of the Wilderness;
* Comp. ‘ Popper Der biblische Berichtuber die Stiftshiitte ;
ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Composition und Diaskeuse des
Pentateuch.’ S. 196. 8vo. Leipz., 1862.
f ‘ Popper.’ Op. cit. P. 196.
�Exodus : The Flight from Egypt.
17 5
Jehovah (it is no longer Elohim) going before them
as a pillar of cloud by day, as a pillar of fire by night
to guide and light them on their way. But Moses
must have thought that a native of the country would
be a good addition as a guide through the trackless
waste ; he would not trust entirely to Jehovah’s pillar
of cloud and of fire—for he says to his brother-in-law,
Hobab the Midianite : “ Come thou with us ; thou
mayest be to us instead of eyes ; and it shall come to
pass, if thou wilt go with us, that what goodness
Jehovah shall do unto us the same shall we do unto
thee.” (Numb, x., 29-32.)
Jehovah, we might have imagined, as miracles were
so much in course, would have steeled the hearts of
the Israelites and made the hearts of all opposed to
them like wax, as he is said to have done on other
and later occasions. Why he did not see fit so to do
at this time, when it would have spared so much toil
and suffering, we are not informed. But where are
the places mentioned—Barneses, Succoth, and Etham ?
Rameses, a town and district on the Nile; Succoth,
a station (now unknown), presumably northward
from Rameses, in the direction of Palestine ; Etham,
a place east from Rameses, between thirty and forty
miles away, and not far from the northern extremity
of the western head of the Red Sea. Instead of
advancing from this, however, and nearing their
final destination, the Israelites are strangely enough
now ordered to turn and encamp before Pihahiroth,
between Migdol and the sea, over against Baalzephon on the opposite coast.
What extraordinary reason is given for this diver
gent course, and, in the event of any pursuit by the
Egyptians, ill-chosen position in a strategical point
of view ?
It was, according to the text, that Jehovah might
get him honour on Pharaoh and let the Egyptians
know that he was the Lord. “ For Pharaoh will say
�iy6
The Pentateuch.
of the children of Israel: They are entangled in the
land—the wilderness hath shut them in; and I will
harden the heart of Pharaoh that he shall follow after
them, and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh and
upon all his host.”
Pharaoh pursues the fugitives, to bring them back
we must presume, though he and his had lately been
so eager to be rid of them. They are sore afraid when
they see his host behind them, and turn upon Moses
and reproach him for having led them out of their bon
dage. “ Were there no graves in Egypt, say they,that
thou hast taken us away to die in the Wilderness?
Better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in
the Wilderness.”
But Moses encourages the faint-hearted crew ?
He bids them not to fear ; for Jehovah shall fight
for them. He has but to lift up his rod and stretch
out his hand towards the neighbouring sea to have
its waters divide and part asunder, so that the people
shall go through on dry ground. “ And I will harden
the hearts of the Egyptians,” the narrative proceeds,
Jehovah himself being now brought in as speaker,
“ and they shall follow after; and I will get me
honour upon Pharaoh and his host and his chariots
and his horsemen; and the Egyptians shall know
that I am the Lord.”
The pillar of cloud which had hitherto headed the
column of fugitives is made to interpose between
them and their pursuers at this point ?
It moves most accommodatingly from the front to
the rear, coming between the camp of the Israelites
and that of the Egyptians, and as there was now an
opportunity for another miracle, or violation of a
physical law, we are told that, “ Whilst it was a
cloud of light to the fugitives, it was a cloud of dark
ness to the pursuers, so that the one came not near
the other all night.”
And Moses— ?
�Exodus: The Flight from Egypt.
177
Stretches out his hand over the sea, and it is driven
back by a strong east wind which blew all night, so
that the children of Israel advanced on dry land,
“ the waters being as a wall unto them on their right
hand and on their left.”
A wind of the sort, however, would not have piled
the waters of the Red Sea to the right and left,
but have swept them clean away ?
It would had it blown hard enough; so that the
writer had better have left all to the magic rod, and
not had recourse to any natural agency that would
have failed of the effect described.
The Egyptians pursue ?
As arranged by the narrator—“ Even all Pharaoh’s
horses, his chariots, and his horsemen into the midst
of the sea.”
Jehovah now interferes actively ?
“ Looking out through the pillar of cloud and fire
in the morning watch, he troubles their host; and
takes off their chariot wheels, so that they drave
heavily ! ” And now had the moment for the dis
comfiture and destruction of the enemy arrived:
“ Stretch out thine hand over the sea,” says the re
vengeful man speaking in the name of his God, “ that
the waters may come again upon the Egyptians 1 ”
“ And the sea,” it is said, “ returned in his strength
and covered the chariots and the horsemen and all
the host of Pharaoh: there remained not one of
them.”
The great work of immediate deliverance and de
struction thus accomplished— ?
Moses and the children of Israel sing a grand song
of triumph to Jehovah; and Miriam the Prophetess,
the sister of Aaron, and all the women, with tim
brels in their hands and with dances, answer them in
chorus : “ Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed
gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown
into the sea.”
�178
The Pentateuch.
Though we miss any word of thanksgiving for
their deliverance by the Israelites in this song of
triumph, we meet with phrases that point conclu
sively to the late period of its composition ; for we
discover that the people have been already “ guided
in the strength of the Lord to his holy habitation; ”
the meaning of which is that they are dwelling in
the city of Jerusalem conquered by King David from
the Jebusites, and having the Temple on Mount
Moriah built by King Solomon as the habitation of
their God. And we see farther that the peoples
of Palestine, the Dukes of Edom, the mighty princes
of Moab, and the natives of Canaan, have all already
had cause “ for trembling and amazement,” according
to the words of the poem.
What in brief may be said of the account we have
of the Exodus from Egypt ?
That the story in so far as the accessories are
concerned—the serpent charming, the river turned
into blood, the frogs, the gnats or lice, the flies and
the locusts—must be the work of a writer who had
some acquaintance with Egypt and its natural his
tory : the river in the beginning of the inundation
coming down of a red colour; frogs abounding in a
land so thoroughly irrigated as Egypt; gnats and
flies swarming at particular seasons of the year, and
locusts invading occasionally and devouring all before
them. The thunder and lightning and hail, though
not impossible, must still have been extremely rare
in Egypt. The receding of the Red Sea from its
northern shores, moreover, by the action of the tides,
was known to the writer. At complete ebb the sea
became fordable (or was so before the cutting of
the Great Canal) for a short time, twice in the
twenty-four hours, at the new and full of the moon.
The writer used facts in the natural history of Egypt
in his narrative ; but possessed of a love of the mar
vellous and a fine spirit of exaggeration, he has turned
�Exodus : The Flight from Egypt.
179
the natural into the supernatural, and, it may be, the
actual into the impossible, for the purpose of display
ing the power of his God Jehovah, not only over the
Gods of the Egyptians, but over the domain of the
true God—the world and the laws that inhere in it,
and all to favour the escape of a party of thankless
slaves from their fetters !
Is it either reasonable or reverent to think of God
“ getting him honour” by the destruction of the
beings who can only have come into existence through
conformity with his natural laws ?
It is both against reason and reverential feeling to
entertain such thoughts of God.
Or to hold that the men were inspired by God who
formed such ideas of his nature and attributes, as the
words they presume to ascribe to him, and the acts
they make him do, proclaim them to have enter
tained ?
It is not merely unreasonable, but verily impious to
believe that they were.
Or that they could have been inspired by the holy
spirit of truth associate with knowledge, who make
God say at one time that he brought the Israelites
out of Egypt with a high hand, and at another, that
they were driven out of the land after having been
ordered by their Deity to rob the natives of their
jewels of silver and jewels of gold and fine raiment ?
Inspiration from God can only be fitly spoken of
as coming through the mind of man, and in harmony
with the right and the reasonable in his nature,
never with the irrational in thought and the repre
hensible in deed.
Or that between the dusk and the dawn, a popula
tion approaching three millions in number, with
flocks and herds innumerable, could have crossed an
arm of the sea, were it but a mile in breadth, laid dry
by the receding tide for half-an-hour or less ?
The thing is physically, andso absolutely, impossible.
�180
The Pentateuch.
Pharaoh and his host effectually disposed of, the
Israelites we must presume will now proceed on their
way towards the land reported as flowing with milk
and honey ?
Most singular to say, however, they do not; thev
even turn clean away from it, advance along the
eastern shore of the Red Sea towards the southern
extremity of the Sinaitic peninsula and come, it is
said, into the wilderness of Shur.
Where is Shur ?
Not where the Israelites could have been at this
time, if it was on the way to Shur that Hagar was
found by the Angel of Jehovah when she had been so
ruthlessly driven from his tent by Abraham, then
encamped in the land of Canaan. The desert of
Shur is on the east side of the Dead Sea towards its
northern extremity.
The first stage of the fugitive Israelites after
leaving Rameses is farther said to have been Succoth.
Succoth, we should consequently conclude, must be
within an easy march of Rameses ?
Yet the only Succoth of which we read elsewhere
in the Old Testament is the one to which Jacob came
on his way from Mahanaim after his interview
with his brother Esau, Lord of Seir, in Moab, some
hundreds of miles away from Rameses in Egypt and
the Red Sea. It is, therefore, impossible that the
children of Israel could have reached the Succoth and
Shur mentioned in the histories of Abraham and
Jacob; and as neither desert nor camping place is
known on the borders of Egypt by these names, the
only conclusion possible is, that the redactor of the
part of the Pentateuch which now engages us must
have had two documents before him, severally de
tailing incidents pertaining to different periods in the
earlier nomadic wanderings of the Hebrews in search
of better feeding grounds or more settled homes.
The confusion in the account of the Exodus as we
�Exodus: The Flight from Egypt.
181
have it, and the impossibility of following the Israel
ites in their course by the names of the stations or
camping places given, has even led to the suggestion
that the Misr, translated Egypt, from which they are
described as having escaped was not the Misr of the
Nile, but an outlying district of Phoenicia called
Goshen (see Josh, x., 41 and xi., 16), in which they
had been slaves ; and farther, that the sea they are
said to have crossed dry-shod was not the Red Sea at
all, but an inland lake characterised in the original as
the reedy, rushy, or sedgy sea (Schilf Meere, De Wette),
a title totally inapplicable to the briny Arabian Gulf
on whose shores reed or rush never grew.
*
The Israelites, however, in the account we possess,
have made great speed in reaching the east coast of
the Red Sea after quitting Rameses in Egypt ?
They seem to have spent but a few days—three
days ?—if we may judge by the narrative, in getting
thus far.
What is the distance from Rameses to Suez on the
western head of the Red Sea ?
About thirty-five English miles.
How long would it take a column of men, women,
and children, approaching three millions in number,
burthened with all their belongings in the shape of
furniture, baggage, tents for shelter, &c. &c., to say
nothing of sick and infirm, hampered besides by
numerous flocks and herds, to march in the most
perfect order—impossibility under the circumstances
indicated—from the borders of Egypt to the coast of
the Red-Sea?
A satisfactory answer will be found in the Bishop
of Natal s exhaustive work, ‘ The Pentateuch and
Book of Joshua.’ Very many days, at all events—■
if not even weeks, or, by possibility, months!
* Vide ‘ Badenhausen, Die Bibel wider die Glaube.’ 8vo.
Hamb., 1865. Also ‘ Goethe : Zum West-Ostlichen Divan •
Israel in der Wiiste,’ Bd. vi., S. 158 Stuttg. and Tubing, 1828 ’
�182
The Pentateuch.
Yet the Exodus is said to have been effected in the
course of a single night ?
Between midnight and the next morning, as we
read the account; Etham, on the coast of the Red
Sea, being reached by the following day at farthest;
how much longer it was before Pi-hahiroth, between
Migdol and the sea, was attained we do not learn.
Surely this was impossible ?
On natural grounds certainly. But the process of
evacuation is to be seen as it presented itself to, or
rather as it was elicited from, the writer’s imagina
tion—viz., as miraculous ; which, being interpreted,
means against nature, therefore against God, and so
impossible. For, with our faith in the changeless
laws of nature, expressions, as we perforce apprehend
them, of the power and attributes of God, we acknow
ledge no reported interferences with the necessities
they impose as other than fables devised by ignorance
in view of particular ends—the end in the case before
us being to show forth the superiority of the Jewish
God Jehovah over the Gods of Pharaoh and the
Egyptians, and the peculiar favour in which he held
the children of Israel.
What befals the fugitives next ?
They come to Marah, where the water is found so
bitter that it cannot be drunk, and the people murmur
against their leader.
But the bitterness of the water is said to have
been removed or remedied ?
Jehovah is said to have showed Moses a tree,
which, being cast into the water, made it sweet.
Does the knowledge we now possess of the chemical
nature of the salts which cause brackishness in water,
and of the principles which give plants their special
properties, warrant us in believing that any tree
grows, or did ever grow, capable of neutralising or
eliminating the alkaline and earthy chlorides and
sulphates which commonly embitter and make water
undrinkable ?
�Exodus: The Flight from Egypt.
183
It does not. On the contrary it enables us to
speak positively, and to say that no such tree did
ever grow or could ever have grown. Distillation
alone is competent to make bitter or brackish water
sweet and wholesome; and the art of distillation,
though it came from Arabia, could hardly have been
known in the days of Moses and Aaron, or, if it were,
it is not said, at all events, that it was called into
requisition.
The Israelites next reach Elim, where there are
said to be twelve wells, and threescore and ten
palm-trees. Suppose a mixed multitude of nearly
three millions of men, women, and children—to say
nothing of cattle—how many would there be to a
well ?
Two hundred and fifty thousand.
And if thirty of these may be supposed to have
drunk in the course of every hour of the twenty-four,
and each to have had access to the well twice a day,
how long would it be before all could have quenched
their thirst ?
A very long time—the reader who is curious to
know the exact number of hours, days, weeks, months,
and years may amuse himself by making the calcu
lation.
And reasonable men are still asked to give credit
to so impossible a tale as that of the Exodus of the
Israelites from Egypt—that some two and a-half or
three millions of men, women, and children, several
thousands of sick, infirm, parturient, dying, and dead,
besides vast herds of kine, sheep, and goats, left their
homes in a single night and subsisted for forty years
in a desert that does not furnish food for the four
thousand souls with a few camels and goats who now
possess it ?
They are, indeed, and have it propounded to them
as part of a revelation from the God of Reason for
their guidance in learning to know something of him
�184
The Pentateuch.
and the nature of his agency in the world they
inhabit.
Does not the exaggeration in regard to the num
bers of the Israelites who leave Egypt find its
corrective subsequently ?
Elsewhere we learn that the Israelites were not
chosen by Jehovah “ because they were more in
number than any people, for they were the fewest of
all people ” and truly when the history of the tribe
is perused with unbiassed mind, such an indifferent
reason is seen to be as good as, or possibly better
than, any other that could be given for the choice
—all things else considered. The population of
Palestine—Phoenicians, Syrians, Edomites, Moabites,
Israelites, &c., did not at any time of old amount to
the numbers said to have left Egypt under the
leadership of Moses in a single night.
*
The palm-trees need not detain us, for, as the
Exode is said to have taken place in the spring of
the year, their fruit could not have been ripe; and
had it been so, what would the fruit of threescoreand-ten palm-trees have been among three millions
of hungry human beings, the produce of each tree
having to be divided between 42,857 mouths ! Food,
as well as water, failing, and supplies being indis
pensable, how says the record they^were furnished ?
Flesh meat by means of a flight of quails which
* An excellent authority estimates the population of
Palestine never to have exceeded two millions (Movers ‘ Die
Phoenizier,’ B. ii,, S. 303); and the inhabitants of the Sinaitic
Peninsula, in which the children of Israel, approaching three
millions in number, are said to have wandered and found sub
sistence for themselves and flocks for forty years, do not now,
and probably never did, exceed four thousand souls, who are
not even dependent on the produce of the land for their means
of living, but on the wages they earn in forwarding merchan
dise and travellers through the desert they inhabit; food and
necessaries of every kind reaching them from Egypt and
Palestine. See Robinson’s ‘ Travels in Palestine.’
�Exodus: The Eduth.
185
covered the camp, and bread by a fall of manna from
the skies. Of the latter every man was to gather, or to
have gathered for him, an omer by measure. Did he
gather more on any working day, it was found next
day to stink and to have bred worms ; but, that
wonders might not cease, and as it was unlawful in
the writer’s mind to do any work on the Sabbath,
two omers were to be gathered on the preceding
day, and the one reserved was found to keep sweet
and good, as if there had been a preservative or
antiseptic quality in the air of the Sabbath.
There was also an omer ordered to be gathered
and kept for a memorial and a witness to coming
generations of the wonderful way in which the
chosen people had been fed in the Wilderness. This
omer of manna, like that gathered on the eve of the
Sabbath, was also miraculously preserved from stinking and breeding worms, and is ordered to be laid
up first before Jehovah—the Lord (xvi., 83), and
then before the Eduth—the Testimony (lb., 34).
What may the object be which is thus designated
indifferently Jehovah and Eduth ?
The Hebrew word Eduth, here met with for the
first time and translated Testimony with us, is com
monly understood to signify the Law or Tables of the
Law. But the Law had not yet been delivered to
Moses; the stones on which it was written were still
in the quarry, and the ark in which it was kept was
in.the tree, so that the word Eduth must mean some
thing other than the Law, though it may have the
sense of Testimony.
The literal meaning of the Hebrew word Eduth
might lead us to the sense in which it is here used ?
The word among other meanings implies brightness,
and as the type of all splendour is the Sun, and the
Sun was the chief God of all the ancient peoples, so
the Eduth has been held by some learned mythologists to signify either an Image of the Sun-God, or
0
�18 6
The Pentateuch.
a Symbol of the Deity in one of his most notable
attributes.
Is there anything in the Hebrew Scriptures that
countenances such an interpretation ?
Hadad, Hadod, or Adod was a Phoenician name for
the Sun-God; and the passage from this to Edud or
Eduth is easy. Jehovah, in the text quoted above,
is spoken of by the name of Eduth, and Eduth is
used as synonymous with Jehovah.
*
Journeying through the Wilderness of Sin there
is no water, and the people chide with Moses for
bringing them out of the land of Egypt to kill them
and their children and their cattle with thirst in the
desert. This gives occasion to another great miracle ?
To the notable one, so much made of by painters
and poets in later times, where Moses strikes the
rock with his wonder-working rod, and water flows
for the people to drink.
What are we to think of this ?
As of the report of a miracle, i.e., a statement im
plying contravention of an eternal and changeless
Law of God.
No more possible therefore than that a touch of the
same rod could have turned the water of the Nile into
blood and the dust of the ground into gnats or lice ?
Certainly not; unless we are prepared to give up
our trust in the changeless nature of God and his
Laws, and to live in a state of chaos in which, as the
poet has it: “ Function is swallowed in surmise and
nothing is but what is not.”
Does not the mention of a Wilderness of Sin and
a Meribah, or bitter well, in connection with the early
tale of the Exodus and the southern extremity of
the Sinaitic peninsula, arouse suspicions of the trust
worthiness of the record ?
* See, farther on, what is said about the contents of the
Sacred Arks or Coffers of the Ancients.
�Exodus: Encounter with Amalek.
187
It certainly does so, coming as we do by and by
upon a Wilderness of Sin and a Meribah on the
borders of Palestine, when the spies are sent out by
Moses to report on the land,—the long-looked for
goal of all the desert toils.
Passing over this difficulty, ascribable to the writer
having different documents before him and drawing
from one or other without critical tact or discrimina
tion, we find that the Israelites as they advance come
in contact with some of the desert-dwelling tribes by
whom they are met and opposed ?
And first by the Amaleks in Rephidim, against
whom Joshua as Captain is ordered out, whilst Moses
with the rod of God in his hand takes his stance on
a hill overlooking the field. “ And it came to pass,”
says the story, “ when Moses held up his hand that
Israel prevailed, and when he let down his hand
Amalek prevailed.”
Observing this, what do Aaron and Hur who have
conveniently accompanied the leader to the hill-top ?
They set him on a stone, and one on either side
stayed up his hands until the discomfiture of Amalek,
which was only completed with the going down of
the sun.
Can we conceive any connection between a rod in
the hand of a man on a hill-top and the success of
one of the parties engaged in a skirmish on the plain
below ?
It is impossible to imagine any: force is force, and
courage is courage, and the greater force and the
greater courage by the law of necessity, which is ever
the law of God, prevail over the less : the Israelites,
braver, more numerous, better armed or better led’
defeated the Amalekites.
What does Moses after the battle ?
He builds an altar and calls it by the name of
Jahveh-Nissi, notin thankfulness for his victory, how
ever, but because “Jehovah hath sworn that'he will
�i88
The Pentateuch.
have war with Amalek from generation to genera
tion.”
Is this, according to our modern notions, a seemly
oath to have been ascribed to God ?
To God, conceived of as the impartial parent of
the universe, and in the light of the ideas of our day,
it certainly is not; though it perfectly accords with
such notions of Deity as might be entertained by a
presumptuous, barbarous, cruel, and ignorant people,
or of a later writer, with a dramatic turn of mind,
throwing himself into the ideas and feelings of his
rude progenitors.
The name which Moses gives his altar has a sin
gular affinity with that of one of the principal Gods
of the ancient world ?
Jahveh-Nissi is not far from Jao-Nissi (Ja or Jao,
being the name of a Phoenician deity), nor this from
Dio-nissi or Dionysos, the God of fertility and increase
of the Greeks and other ancient peoples. The Israelites,
with all their exclusiveness, cannot be supposed to
have remained through the whole of their history
uninfluenced by surrounding nations—Phoenicians,
Egyptians, Assyrians, and Medo-Persians, their pre
decessors in civilisation and so much better policied
and more powerful than themselves.
Moses is now visited by Jethro his father-in-law,
who brings him his wife and children ?
He is ; and in the interlude here introduced we meet
with another of those simply natural and purely
human incidents artistically used which lend so many
parts of the mythical and legendary history of the
Hebrews the charm and imposing aspect of reality.
Jethro or Beuel, the priest of Midian, Moses’ fatherin-law, hearing of all that God had done for Moses
and for Israel his people, takes Zipporah, Moses’ wife,
and her two sons, and with them comes to him in the
Wilderness where he was encamped by Horeb the
Mount of God; and says to him : “I, thy father-in-
�Exodus : Jethro counsels Moses.
189
law Jethro, am come unto thee, and thy wife, and her
two sons with her.” “ And Moses went out to meet
his father-in-law, and did obeisance, and kissed him ;
and they asked each other of their welfare ; and they
came into the tent.”
Jethro tenders his son-in-law some sensible advice ?
“ Now I know,” says he, “ that Jahveh is greater
than all the Gods ; for in the thing wherein they dealt
proudly he was above them.” But Jethro sees that
no single man can do the whole of the work which
Moses has imposed on himself, sitting from morning
Until evening with the people standing about him,
judging between them and making them to know the
statutes of God and his laws. “ This thing,” says he,
*l is too heavy for thee ; thou art not able to perform
it thyself alone. Now hearken to my voice. Be thou
for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring
the causes unto God ; but provide out of all the people
able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating
covetousness, and place such over them, to rule them
and to judge them at all seasons ; and it shall be that
every great matter they shall bring to thee, but every
small matter they shall judge; so shall it be easier for
thyself, and thou shalt be able to endure.”
Moses hearkens to Jethro’s reasonable counsels ?
He does, and in so doing shows us that all is not
effected by immediate divine agency and miraculous
means in this legendary narrative. Jethro’s inter
ference here, however, may fairly be held to be im
pertinent. A God-commissioned man must be pre
sumed competent for every emergency and neither to
need nor to take advice from another. In hearkening
to Jethro Moses descends from his eminence as Envoy
and Agent of his God, and so brings suspicion on all
that is ascribed to him as leader of the children of
Israel. Jethro, a Midianitish priest, has a clearer
vision of human capabilities than Moses himself, the
chosen of Jehovah. But the recommendation of
�190
The Pentateuch.
Jethro is by a modern writer, and is inserted in this
place to countenance a favourite assumption of the
later Jews that their Sanhedrim dates as an Institution
from even so far back as the age of Moses !
Having now—a few weeks we must presume—after
quitting Egypt, come to the desert of Sinai and pitched
before the mountain, God, it is said, calls to Moses
therefrom, bids him remind the people of all that had
already been done for them, and say that if they will
obey the voice of Jehovah and keep his covenant, they
shall be a peculiar treasure to him above all people,
—a kingdom of priests and a holy nation ?
Promises greatly calculated to foster pride and
exclusiveness as regards themselves, contempt, hate,
and uncharitableness as regards other peoples, to give
a colour, moreover, to proceedings for which rapine
and murder are the only appropriate names.
The people on their part declare their readiness to
obey in all things ?
Of course they do; the people are ever as ready to
pledge their word as they are careless to keep it. Not
Moses only but Jahveh-Elohim himself, according to
the record, had at all times a heavy handful in trying
to keep the wayward and stiff-necked people they had
led out of Egypt in something like order, a task,
indeed, in which it may be said that neither God nor
man ever completely succeeded, as we shall find in the
course of our exposition.
A great event is now impending and an imposing
prelude is required ?
What is called the delivery of the Law from Sinai,
preceded by injunctions for the people to sanctify
themselves, to wash their clothes, and be ready
against the third day, when Jehovah will come down
in sight of all the congregation on Mount Sinai.
This great event takes place ?
Wrapt about by a thick cloud, amidst thunder
and lightning and trumpet sounds exceeding loud,
�Exodus; Delivery of the Law.
191
Jehovah comes down, as said, and Mount Sinai is
“ altogether on a smoke, and quakes greatly, because
Jehovah descends in fire.” After the trumpet has
sounded long and waxed ever louder and louder—by
whom it was blown we do not learn—Jehovah speaks
to Moses by a voice, and calls him up to the top of
the Mount. There he is ordered to go down and
charge the people that they break not through and
many of them perish; he and Aaron are alone to
come up; the people and the priests—of whom we
have heard nothing till now—are not even to set foot
on the sacred mountain, “ lest Jehovah break out on
them.”
This is a strange materialistic exhibition and
derogatory statement to be connected with the
supersensuous, ubiquitous power conceived by civi
lised man as Immanent Cause in Nature, and by us
in these parts personified and called God ?
Of whom as one and sole in any sense now under
stood, in spite of all that has been said to the con
trary, the Hebrew people until a very late period in
their history had not a notion. The representation
here is only in harmony with the jealous, irascible,
partial, and ruthless human impersonation of the
greatest among the Gods, their own peculiar God who,
until after the era of the kings and the captivities,
they continued to apprehend under various names at
different times—Chiun, Chamos, El-Schaddai, IsraEl, &c.,. to whom they gave the title of Melek-—King,
turned into Moloch, the God to whom they sacrificed
the first-born of their sons and their cattle, and who
was in truth no other than the Kronos or Saturn of
neighbouring cognate tribes and peoples.
The people and the priests, it is said, are not to set
foot on the mountain lest Jehovah break out on them
and consume them ?
We have as yet had no intimation of the existence
of priests among the Israelites. Aaron is still no
�192
The Pentateuch.
more than the subordinate of Moses, though his
brother, and no priest as the word came afterwards
to be understood. The mention of priests is conse
quently a slip of the pen of the late compiler of this
part of the Pentateuch.
The thundering, smoking, quaking, and trumpet
sounds having ceased, the delivery of the Decalogue
or Ten Commandments follows ?
Prefaced by the important announcement that
“ God spake these words saying : I am Jehovah thy
God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me.”
What is to be understood by the words: “ God
spake ? ”
“ When God is described as speaking to man,”
says a learned and pious divine, “ He does so in the
only way in which He who is a Spirit can speak to
one encompassed with flesh and blood ; not to the
outward organs of sensation, but to the intelligence
that is kindred to himself.”* Not in human
language, consequently, as if God were a man, having
the parts essential to articulate utterance, but by and
through the mind of man, whose activities, aroused
by impressions from without, and as emotions and
thoughts proceeding from within, find expression by
the instrumentality of his vocal organs in words as
various as the races that people the earth.
The Decalogue is generally associated in a more
especial manner with the name of Moses ?
It has long been customary so to connect it.
By the concurring testimony of the scholar and
critic, however, the Decalogue has of late been
recognised as an Eclectic Summary made in times
* Davidson (S.), D.D., ‘Introd, to Old Test.,’ I., 233. See
also our ‘ Dialogue by way of Catechism,’ pt. I., p. 13. It is
strange and unaccountable to us to find Spinoza saying that
he thinks it was by a “ real voice that God revealed to Moses
the Laws he desired should be given to the Jews.” Tract.
Theologico-Politicus, pp. 34 and 38, English Version.
�Exodus: The Decalogue.
193
very much, later than the age of Moses, and only
derived in part from the earlier documents that
■underlie the Pentateuch in its present form. A little
study and reflection indeed suflice to show the
ordinary reader, that the Decalogue in the compact
form in which it meets us in Exodus (xx., 1-17)
must be the work of a' relatively modern hand. Some
of the ordinances here artistically grouped have no
bearing on the concerns of a tribe but just escaped
from slavery and wandering in the Wilderness as
Nomads. Several of them again exist among a great
variety of others that are often not only objectionable,
but indecent, or positively iniquitous in character,
scattered throughout the next two or three chapters
of the Book, which have an unmistakable air of much
higher antiquity than the first seventeen verses of
the twentieth chapter, and give us glimpses of a
state of things among the early Hebrews that is
never suspected when the polished summary pre
sented under the ten heads of the Decalogue is alone
Considered.
The Decalogue being held of such high signi
ficance, everything connected with its delivery, we
are to presume, must be beyond the sphere of question
or of doubt F
Unfortunately this is not the case. The original
delivery of the Ten Commandments is not connected
with any tables of stone on which they are subse
quently said to have been written ; they are delivered
viva voce by Jehovah himself amid thunder and
lightning, and it is not until we come to the twenty
fourth chapter that we meet with a word about
Tables of the Testimony, interpreted as Tables of the
Law, which are ordered to be laid up in the Ark of
th© Covenant. By and by again, when we hear of
two Tables of Testimony having been given to Moses
(xxxi., 18), their contents are not specified; and the
account in the next succeeding chapter (xxxii., 15,16),
�194
The Pentateuch.
where two Tables of Testimony are again spoken of,
leads to the idea that it must have been some more
lengthy document than the Decalogue that was
engraved upon them ; for they are now said to have
been written on both their sides by the finger of
God,—a fact, however, if it could by possibility have
been a fact, of which the writer could by no possi
bility have known anything. It is not in fine until
we come to the thirty-fourth chapter that the
words said to have been in the first Tables are
promised to be rewritten in the second : “ Hew thee
two tables of stone like unto the first, and I will
write upon these tables the words that were in the
first which thou brakedst,” says the writer in the
name of Jehovah.
We have no absolute assurance consequently as to
the contents of these Tables of the Testimony ?
None whatever. For when we look on to the four
teenth and following verses of the thirty-fourth chap
ter, we find several of the Commandments included
among the ten side by side with a number of others,
which are not there to be found. Here the text runs
thus in brief : “ Thou shalt worship no other Gods,
for Jehovah is a jealous God ; thou shalt not make a
covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and go a
whoring after their Gods; thou shalt not take of their
daughters to thy sons ; thou shalt make thee no
molten Gods; the feast of unleavened bread shalt
thou keep ; all that openeth the matrix is mine; six
days shalt thou work, but on the seventh day thou
shalt rest; thou shalt observe the feast of weeks;
thrice in the year shall all your men children appear
before Jehovah Elohim, the Elohim of Israel; thou
shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven ;
the first fruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the
house of Jehovah thy God ; thou shalt not seethe a
kid in its mother’s milk.” This enumeration of acts
to be done and left undone concludes with these
�Exodus: The Decalogue.
195
words : “ And Jehovah said unto Moses, write thou
these words, for after the tenor of these words I have
made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And
he, Moses, was with Jehovah forty days and forty
nights; he did neither eat bread nor drink water ; and
he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant,
the Ten Commandments.” Besides the change in the
Tenor of the words as here delivered, we have, there
fore, Moses as the writer and not Jehovah, in oppo
sition to the statement elsewhere made. The confu
sion that reigns in connection with the delivery of the
Decalogue points not only to a variety of hands en
gaged on the text, but to much uncertainty of the
commandments that were really at different times
comprised in the summary. Each writer doubtless
followed the tradition of his day or of his ken ; and
would have his readers infer, as he himself believed,
that something in the shape of the then accredited
Decalogue was that which was engraved upon the
stone tables.
So much of the thirty-fourth chapter as refers to
the Decalogue has a marked paraphrastic and supple
mentary look about it ?
It certainly has. But it is • not the only chapter
bearing on the Decalogue that meets us in the same
way; for, turning to the nineteenth of Leviticus, we
find a repetition in varied terms of many of the old
ordinances, with sundry additions, some of them, in
all probability, from an ancient document, but others
unmistakably from one of the most modern of all the
editors of the Pentateuch.
The late writer of the Book of Deuteronomy, how
ever, says positively that the tables were inscribed
with the Ten Commandments, and the still more recent
writer of the Books of the Kings (I. Kings, viii,,
7-9) informs us that when the Ark of the Covenant
was “ brought into its place under the wings of the
Cherubim ” within the Temple of Solomon, “ the two
�196
The Pentateuch.
tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb ”
were still to be seen. As this must have been done,
hard upon five hundred years before the writer’s day
(he having lived some time after the destruction of
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar), and he shows himself
familiar with the Mosaic Saga, he can only be held
as giving expression to the popular belief; and else
where we learn that when the ark was examined
at a later period it was found empty; the mythical
stone tables writ by the finger of God, had they
ever been there, as well as everything else,—the
Agal/ma tou Theou, fyc., which we believe had been
there, had disappeared.
Looking narrowly into these Ten Commandments,
of which so much is made, we ask first on what
authority they rest ?
On that of the immediate spoken word of God,
says the text. “ Elohim spake these words,” is preface
to the first of the versions we have of them (Ex. xx.) ;
“ These words Jehovah spake,” is the introduction to
the second (Deut. v.). But we have determined the
sense in which these statements can alone be taken:
they are the utterances of men, not the words of God ;
for God never speaks, and never spoke in words to
man.
The two versions, we must presume, will be found
to agree ?
In every essential particular they do, save one : the
reason given for the observance of the seventh day of
the week as a Sabbath or day of rest.
The religious sense, the moral sense, and the reason
of man we may farther presume will be efficiently
met and appealed to in the ordinances of the
Decalogue ?
Inasmuch as with a single exception they are
entirely negative in their character, the important
elements in the nature of man now named may be
said to be left uncared for. The entire domain of
�Exodus : The Decalogue.
197
D#ty, or of acts to be done, is untouched in the
Decalogue, and reason and intelligence are left wholly
out of the question.
The words, “I am Jehovah thy God,” meet us at
the very outset as an announcement that could fitly
have come from the tutelary God of the Jews only ?
And never from the God of humanity at large.
The next clause again, “ Thou shalt have no other
Gods before me,” was assuredly not wanted; for
there are no other Gods, but One God only ; a truth,
however, which the writer could not have known, or
he would have guarded himself from speaking as he
does.
“ Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above
or in the earth beneath ; thou shalt not bow down to
them nor serve them, fori Jehovah am a jealous God.”
The writer makes God speak in terms of his own
apprehension, little dreaming that the heaven abooe
him now became a heaven below him by and by ! The
injunction here is obviously enough directed against
practices long familiar to the countrymen of the
writer, and still followed in the late times in which he
lived. Through by far the greater part of their his
tory the Hebrews were mere idolaters; they made
images of the sun and moon, and of their own pecu
liar star Baal-Chiun (Saturn) ; they burned incense,
and poured out drink offerings to the Queen of
Heaven (the Moon), as their fathers, their kings,
their chiefs, and they themselves had done in the
cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem ; and they
had had plenty to eat, and were well, and saw no
evil so long as they continued to do so. “ But since
we left off to burn incense to the Queen of Heaven,
and to pour out drink-offerings to her, we have
wanted all things, and have been consumed by the
. sword and by famine ; and as to the word that thou
hast spoken to us in the name of Jehovah, we will
�198
The Pentateuch.
not hearken unto thee,” say the people in reply to
Jeremiah’s exhortation to them to forsake the Queen
of Heaven and their other Gods for Jehovah (Comp.
Jerem. xliv., 15-19).
*
The Hebrews undoubtedly
worshipped many Gods, even into late periods of
their history, and under a variety of emblems, from
the unhewn stone block to the sculptured column ;
from figures of the Serpent and the Tree, to those
of the Bull, the Goat, and, we may safely conclude,
the nobler image in human form enthroned between
the Cherubim upon the mercy-seat, and present as
part of the furniture of every house under the title
of Teraphim or Ephod.
Observing such discrepancy between commandment
and practice, it is not easy to conceive the writings
in which the Commandments are set forth as being
in any sense inspired by God, or as dating from any
remote period, such as the age of Moses ?
God trusts his eternal ordinances neither to stone,
to parchment, nor to paper, but implants them in
the nature of things and the mind of man.
We should conclude, then, against the inspiration
of which these disjointed, mythical, legendary, and
contradictory Hebrew records are held up as evi
dence ?
And say that it had no existence out of the imagi
nation of those who proclaim it.
Moses could then have been no God-inspired man?
Had he been so, the writings ascribed to him could
be none of his. Of the life and laws of Moses we
have, in fact, but “ a few scattered and unconnected
* “ Is it not,” says Professor Dozy, “ as if we had here the
Romans speaking in times when the Empire had become the
prey of the Barbarians ? Eor to the neglect of the Old Reli
gion they, too, ascribed all the misfortunes that had come upon
them ; Christianity, in their opinion, being to blame for the
disruption of the State, which the Old Gods had so well and
truly protected.”—Dozy, ‘Die Israel, zu Mekka,’ 162.
�Exodus: The Decalogue.
199
fragments; and even these, for the most part,
obscured and altered by the tamperings of later
times.”* The idolatry that prevailed through the
period of the Judges, and for ages after this, suffices
to prove that the Commandment against making and
worshipping graven images is of relatively modern
date.
Jehovah is made to announce himself as “a jealous
God ”—and we naturally ask of what in heaven or
earth might God, body and soul of the universe in
one, be jealous ?
Of other Gods, doubtless, according to the Jehovistic writer whose work we have before us. Of
them, indeed, might the Jewish Jehovah well be
jealous, for his service was constantly deserted for
theirs,—was never popular, indeed, until more than
one of the few pious and respectable kings ever
boasted by Judah had lived and died, and the
country, at war with itself, was verging to its fall.
“Visiting the iniquities of the fathers on the
third and fourth generation”—proceeds the tale.
But God does not visit the sins of parents upon
children in any sense intended in the text, a truth
which a later writer than the compiler of the Deca
logue, and at variance with him, announced when he
said : “ The fathers shall not be put to death for the
children, neither shall the children be put to death
for the fathers : every man shall be put to death for
his own sin.” (Deut. xxiv., 16.)
“ Showing mercy to thousands of them that love
me and keep my commandments.”
Surely God is merciful to all who study to know
and faithfully obey his laws, written as they are, and
far more at large, in the great open book of Nature
* “Profecto non nisi fragmenta Vitse et Legum Mosis
supersunt pauca, dissipata disjectaque, et hsec ipsa pleraque
•temporum seriorum injuria denuo obscurata et turbata.”—
Ewald, in ‘ Comm. Soc. Gotting,' vol. viii., p. 176.
�200
The Pentateuch.
than in the Hebrew of Exodus or Deuteronomy;
even as they who know them not, or knowing who
neglect them, assuredly bring penalties upon them
selves.
“ Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy
God in vain.”
The name of their God Jehovah was held of such
sanctity by the Jews in later times that they believed
it could not be spoken by man without sin. The
high priest alone was authorised to utter it aloud,
and that once only in the course of the year, on the
great day of atonement. It is to enforce this usage
that we have the story of the man born of an
Israelitish mother by an Egyptian father stoned to
death for having blasphemed the name of Jehovah—
by which we are to understand nothing more than
having dared to take the sacred name into his un
hallowed lips (Levit. xxiv., 10-14). The verses here
are plainly interpolated, and the text of verse sixteen
that follows has been tampered with. In reading
the scriptures aloud the name was at all other times
either slurred so as to be inarticulate, or a title was
substituted for it, Adonai,—Lord, being the one
that first came into use, though this, too, was by and
by esteemed so holy that it must not be pronounced
articulately. Ha Schem—the name—is the word that
is now spoken in the synagogue instead of either
Jahveh or Adonai.
“ Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy (£as
Jehovah thy God hath commanded thee,’ ” adds the
Deuteronomist, referring doubtless to the text of
Exodus) ; “ six days shalt thou labour and do all thy
work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of Jehovah
thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work, thou,
nor thy son, nor thy daughter,” &c. And here
occurs the important difference between the texts of
Exodus and Deuteronomy:—“ In six days,” says the
former, “ Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea
�Exodus: The Decalogue.
201
and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day ;
wherefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day and
hallowedit.” “ Remember that thou wast a servant
in the land of Egypt, and that Jehovah thy God
brought thee out thence .... therefore Jehovah thy
God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day,” says
the latter. The reasons given for the observance of the
seventh day as a day of rest are as plainly at variance
with one another as the writers of the several texts
are seen to be at a loss for any reason for the Sabbath
observance that might prove entirely satisfactory. The
late writer of Deuteronomy may have seen the absurdity
of having God, like a man foredone with the labour
of six days, resting on the seventh day; and so
have shifted the ground for its special observance
from God to the Exodus. A priest, he may farther
have seen that men might possibly be better kept to
the religious observances enjoined them, and so made
more submissive, by having these relegated to one
day of the week rather than spread over the seven.
The Semitic races do not appear, like the Aryans, to
have held each day of the week dedicated to a par
ticular divinity—the first to the Sun, Sunday, the
second to the Moon, Monday, &c. But their seventh
day has, nevertheless, the same significance as the
Saturn’s day of the Phcenicians, Greeks, and Romans,
even as their Chiun, El, Bel, Baal, Ja, and Jahveh
have their type in the Kronos-Saturnus so familiar
to us through our classical studies. The planet
Saturn was The Star of the Hebrew people, and to
the God it typified also belonged the seventh day of
the week. The Sabbath, however, may be said to
have lost its religious significance when God was
conceived of as One and Sole, when all days were
declared to be alike in his sight—as most assuredly
they are—and when charity between those who
thought one day holier than another and those who
looked on all days as holy alike came to be enjoined.
p
�202
The Pentateuch.
Is it not likely that neither in the Decalogue of
Exodus nor of Deuteronomy have we the Originals
of the Ten Commandments ?
It is not only likely, but may be said to be certain
that we have not. The Decalogue, as already said,
is an eclectic summary by a late writer of certain
ordinances scattered among many others over the
books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, which he
held of the highest import and significance. The
Commandment concerning the Sabbath, in particular,
is to be met with as often as three times in different
chapters of Exodus, in close proximity with the one
which contains the Decalogue, and in what may be
safely assumed as earlier forms than that in which it
meets us there. “ Six days shalt thou work, but on
the seventh day thou shalt rest,” says the text, that
is probably the earliest of any (Exodus xxxiv., 21).
“ Six days shalt thou do thy work, and on the seventh
day thou shalt rest, that thine ox and thine ass mav
rest, and the son of thy handmaid [concubine] and
the stranger [slave] may be refreshed,” says another
version, somewhat amplified and having a purely
human motive for the observance of the day appended
(Exodus xxii., 12). “ Six days may work be done,
but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, .... for in
six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, and on the
seventh day he rested and was refreshed,” says the one
that appears to be followed most closely in the Deca
logue (Exodus xxxi., 15-17). Such are the different
forms in which the order, as well as the reason for
observing the seventh day of the week as a day of
rest are delivered, the last quoted being in all likeli
hood from the hand that gave the Commandments
final shape in the Decalogue of Exodus.
Have we any clue to the probable composer of the
Decalogue ?
In him the lynx-eyed criticism of modern times
thinks it sees the writer to whom so much of the
�Exodus: The Decalogue.
203
Pentateuch in its present shape can be fairly ascribed
—“ Ezra the Priest, the Scribe, even a scribe of the
words of the Commandments of Jehovah and of his
statutes to Israel.”*
With the final triumph of Jehovism, the Jewish
scribes could not suffer the seventh day to continue
sacred to Baal-Saturn, the old tutelary God of the
country; neither could they have the Tabernacle and
Ark dedicated to the same Divinity. The day holy to
him and the Tent and Ark in which he dwelt had,
therefore, to be given to the modern God Jehovah.
“ In the veiled sagas of the Pentateuch,” says an able
writer, “ we discover many elements of the idolatrous
worship which prevailed so long among the Israelites.
The mass of the people honoured Saturn as their
national God; they carried about with them in a
Tent his Image in the form of a Bull, as it seems ; to
him they sacrificed the first-born of their sons, and to
his service they devoted the seventh day of the
week.”f Until the time of the exile, says another
accomplished scholar, the Jews were without a pass
able religious motive for the observance of the seventh
day of the week as a Sabbath. It was Ezra who
found for them the one that came finally to be
adopted ; for without misgivings may we assume that
it was he who wrote the Persian story of the Creation
and Paradise as it exists in the beginning of Genesis.
And who, indeed, had such opportunity of learning
something of the Persian sagas as he who lived so
long in exile in the kingdom of Persia, and was
finally sent by its king to Judea “ with the Law of
his God in his hand”—we venture to add; and
with what was not in his hand, in his head. J
The Sabbath, as a day of rest, must have been
much more a matter of necessity in times when all
* Ezra vii. 11 and 14.
f Vatke, ‘Bibl. Thcologie’ I., 201.
I Comp. Dozy, op. eit 34, 35.
�204
The Pentateuch.
below the ruler and the land-owning classes were
slaves, as they appear to have been among the
Israelites, as among the nations of antiquity
generally ?
Then, indeed, was the day of rest a most humane
and beneficent institution. Imposed m religious
grounds, it stood between the arbitrariness that so
commonly comes of wealth and irresponsible power
and the impotency that inheres in dependence. At
the present time, the Sabbath as a religious institu
tion has lost much of its significance : slavery no
longer exists in the civilised world, and, in trading
and manufacturing communities, the labouring classes
give it little heed. They no longer look forward to
one especial day of rest in the week, but make several
Sabbaths in its course ; in many cases they even
dictate the terms on which they will consent to work
at all, and make the accumulated fund of the
capitalist available for profit. Unhappily they do
not commonly use their power aright, turning the
two or three days of the week in which they
do no work into days of idleness and dissipation,
instead of using them for the cultivation of the higher
and nobler elements in their nature. But with our
faith in the possible limitless advance of man in
science and morals, and our belief in the influence of
education freed from the trammels of Churches and
the blight of dogmatic indoctrination, we have no
doubts of the brighter phase of humanity that will in
the course of ages make its appearance.
“Honour thy father and thy mother (‘ as Jehovah
thy God hath commanded thee,’ adds the Deuteronomist, referring again to the version of the
Decalogue he found in Exodus) that thy days may
be long upon the land which Jehovah thy God
giveth thee.”
�
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 Pentateuch in contrast with the science and moral sense of our age. Part II: [Exodus]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Willis, Robert
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 138-204 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: "By a Physician". Author believed to be Robert Willis. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Includes bibliographical references.
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
1873
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT124
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 Pentateuch in contrast with the science and moral sense of our age. Part II: [Exodus]), 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
Bible. O.T. Pentateuch
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c45e86858e4f6c2ce9d2606593409a9f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=pdWdGwPAZ56sYwSQyDmUCZhyMgP%7Exsggub7FM9WTPlLVAvjFty6oC9Nc6JxONsaRkyhsIzHq7w1js4lTUhWlLrrUF9fOfl6WU3-yIk7UsGocd0DJPjDZ%7ESK5xoeRlAbg4fUKKTThJWrEEc2S47RR72ud9eJ-KNPb7ZNuQdxx4QFOB%7Edk3BVvDtTAx9-ZgYkdV-1Z5m%7EpJ8hHD0SlkzBdAImgBXPDhSWGbELyzr73d2tZfFPohFH9ge1cb-0RXJJ8QJ%7EIlRg7B8REl2lxzWsXrpiyffd%7Eo9usgn1gR2t4-fmUri2GhkAhKgHhuRIIM4ql9ZjknT2a6gck7LI-ShdMDw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7e5b9186c99dd2d34679b535e98bacae
PDF Text
Text
CT US'
THE PENTATEUCH
IN CONTRAST WITH
THE SCIENCE AND MORAL SENSE
OF OUR AGE.
_ By
A PHYSICIAN.
“ Zufallige Geschichtswahrheiten konnen der Beweis von. nothwendigen
Vemunftswahrheiten nie werden—Contingent historical truths can never be
demonstration of necessary rational truths.”—Lessing.
PUBLISHED
BY THOMAS SCOTT,
No. 11 The Terrace, Farquhar Road, Upper Norwood,
London, S.E.
1873.
Price One Shilling and Sixpence.
�And are they in the right who, free from doubt,
Can sit in sweet abstraction from each thought
Of Earth, pondering the lives of those who fought
The battles of Jehovah ; viewing the rout
That Israel spread as God’s own act, the shout
Upraised for victory, glorious most when fraught
With deepest ruin to the foe, as taught
By the Qreator! ’T may not be! Without
The special faith that suffers me to view
In one among the multitude of creeds,
Each by its advocates alone held true,
The truth, or other than the pregnant seeds
Of discord among men, I take my flight
From blood-stained legends, Nature, to thy Light!
�THE PENTATEUCH—THORA, ‘
THE LAW.
GENESIS.
TN the beginning,” it is said, “ God created the
JL heaven and the earth.” What are we to
understand by a “ beginning ” ?
The epoch in eternity, doubtless, which the writer
of this part of the Hebrew Scriptures imagined to have
dawned when God created or fashioned, or set about
creating or fashioning, heaven and the earth, first or
oldest of things in his belief.
Is this belief borne out by what natural philoso
phers conclude as to the constitution of heaven and
the earth ?
Heaven, to the modern philosopher, is no firma
ment or solid sphere stretched above and subordi
nate in some sort to the earth, as it was to the
Hebrews, but is infinite space, only to be conceived of
as co-eternal with, and an element in the nature of,
Deity; whilst the earth is but a middle-aged member
of one of the great astral systems that stud The
Boundless, and a much more recent production, in its
compact form, than the whole of the planetary bodies
that circle round the sun in orbits outside its own.
Creation, to the modern philosopher,_ is therefore
something different from the creation, evoking, or
fashioning out of nothing of the Hebrew writer.
B
�2
The Pentateuch.
It is impossible to conceive something coming out
of nothing. But God was, and with and of God were
the elements, which, in conformity with the laws of
force and matter, also inherent in the nature of God,
took form and fashion as suns, planets, satellites, and
comets amid infinite space and in time.
Creation, as now apprehended, implies evolution—
evolution from what ?
As regards the particular aggregations in space,
whereof the solar system is one, and the earth we
dwell on among the least of its members, from a
mass of nebulous matter, extending, in the first
instance, far beyond the limits of the, outermost of
the planetary bodies which, with their satellites, now
circle round the sun.
Vast intervals of time must be presumed to have
elapsed between the epochs when the first, or outer
most, and the last, or innermost, of the planets that
attend the sun took form and fashion ?
Such is the conclusion of modern philosophers;
the planets outside the earth’s orbit being regarded
as the older, those within it as the younger members
of the family, the great sun itself being the youngest
or latest formed of all?
“The earth,” it is said, “ was without form and
' void.”
The earth, in conformity with the laws of attrac
tion, repulsion, and cohesion inherent in matter, could
never have been without form, and could not have
been void, if by void emptiness be understood. From
the moment of its acquiring, and even before it had
a The reader is referred to an admirable paper ascribed to
Mr Hennessey, headed “ Recent Astronomy and the Nebular
Hypothesis,” in the Westminster Review, July,1858. In this able
essay the Genesis of the Solar System is treated exhaustively,
though briefly, in conformity with the most advanced views of
natural philosophers.
�Genesis: The Elohist.
3
acquired, consistency it was a globe, revolving on an
axis, flattened at the poles, bulging at the equator,
and made up, in the several stages of its evolution) of
gaseous, vaporous, liquid, and solid matters, as it is
at the present hour, though these matters must all
have existed in states far different at first from, those
in which they now present themselves.
“ And darkness was upon the face of the deep.”
As yet the deep was not; and at no time, probably,
did absolute darkness prevail in the universe. Any
light that reached the earth, however, could not have
been of the bright kind that is shed from the sun as
it now exists. There must have been light, never
theless, as well from the nebulous matter which had
become compact in the older planets and in the earth,
and was still undergoing compaction into the younger
planets within the earth’s orbit and into the sun
itself, —not to speak of the nebulous and stellar masses
plunged in the depths of space, that were either in
process of condensation, and so eliciting a feebler
light, or that had already acquired the density which
fitted them as fixed stars or suns to shine more
brightly.
“Bright effluence of bright essence increate,”
light was a principle in the nature of God, and must
have existed from eternity :
“ Before the sun,
Before the heavens thou wert, and at the voice
Of God, as with a mantle, didst invest
The rising world of waters dark and deep,”
sings one of the great heroic poets, inspired by the
diviner mind he had through his more perfect organi
zation.
“ And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the
waters.”
�4
The Pentateuch.
The spirit or breath of God (ruacli Elohim) was in
the waters and moved in rhythmic harmony with
them as with all things else. It was not only on or
outside of the waters and other things, but within and
of them, even as the manifestation we call life is within
and of the organisms, vegetable and animal, wherein
and whereby it is made known to us.
“ And God said, Let there be light, and light was.”
Not called into being, however, as but just said, at
some particular moment of time, not distinct from
the Godhead :
“ [But] of the Eternal, co-eternal beam,
......................... since God is Light,
And never but in unapproached light
Dwelt from Eternity, dwelt then in thee,”
sings in lofty rhyme our own inspired Bard.
“ And God divided the light from the darkness, and
he called the light day, and the darkness he called
night.”
The writer speaks of darkness—a purely negative
state or condition,—as if it were a positive something.
But darkness is a mere consequence of the absence
of light; and it is obvious that he could not have
known by what name God called either the light or
the dark: God ordained the light and the dark, but
he left man to give them names.
“ Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
waters ; and let it divide the waters from the waters.”
The writer fancied that the over-arching canopy of
the sky was a transparent solid, in which the sun,
moon, and stars were set, somewhat perhaps after the
manner of the precious stones in the breast-plate of
the high priest; and that as there was an ocean below
or on the earth, so must there be an ocean above or
in heaven, from which at times—on certain sluices,
presumably, being opened—rain fell to moisten the
ground and fit it lor the growth of plants.
�Genesis.• The Elohist.
5
“ Let the waters on the earth be gathered together
into one place, and let the dry land appear.”
Geological facts and reasonable inferences from
them lead to the conclusion that the earth, on its
emergence from the nebulous or gaseous state in
which it first existed, appeared as an incandescent
fluid, and next as a semi-solid ball, when all that was
still vapourable in its constitution surrounded the
glowing mass as a heterogeneous atmosphere, some
thing, in all probability, like that which we now believe
to constitute the photosphere of the sun. Heat, how
ever, passing off into space, precipitation first of the
more and then of the less refractory substances took
place, and a crust of some consistency was formed.
This, shrinking on the still melted mass within, caused
it to burst through in lines and at particular points,
whereby mountains and mountain-chains were formed,
and the surface was made uneven. The temperature
continuing to fall lower and lower, the aqueous vapour
of the atmosphere was finally in great measure pre
cipitated and condensed into water, which, running
down the slopes, gathered itself into the hollows and
there formed rivers, lakes, and seas, with more or less
of dry land between ; irregularities of surface, doubt
less, exerting a paramount influence on the future dis
tribution of land and water. For with shrinkings or
subsidences here, and upheavals there, in combination
with the tremendous rainfalls that must have occurred
in the earlier geological epochs of the earth’s history,
whole continents with mountain-chains for their back
bones, were disintegrated and swept away, whilst
mighty oceans congregated here, were dissipated in
vapour and dried up there; that being made over
and over again the wet which had been the dry, and
that the dry which had been the wet.
The rainfalls in these early geological epochs we
cannot but presume must, indeed, have been tremen
dous ?
�6
The Pentateuch.
If we only consider that the whole of the water now
stored in the oceans that cover so large a portion of
the earth’s surface was once suspended first as gas
or viewless vapour and then as steam in the atmo
sphere, we may form some idea of their extent and
influence in fashioning the crust of the earth as it
now appears. The mass of the stratified rocks which
compose the proper crust of the globe is index enough
of the extent of the continents that must have been
disintegrated and ground down to supply the vast
amount of material of which they consist, and of the
combined powers of the rain and rivers that strewed
this material at the bottom of the shoreless oceans
where the strata took shape, as well as of the
degree of heat still present in the central mass
that fused or welded them into the solids they now
present.
• Disintegration of the first consolidated body of the
earth did not, however, presumably supply the whole
of the materials that now enter into the constitution
of its stratified crust ?
By no means; from all we know it seems reason
able to suppose that some very considerable propor
tion of these was furnished by the matters still sus
pended in the vaporous state amid the fiery atmosphere
that must long have surrounded the incandescent body
of the globe. It was not the water only of our pre
sent oceans, lakes, and rivers, the oxygen of our
earthy and metallic oxydes, the carbonic acid of our
mineral carbonates and coal measures that existed in
the first instance as gas or vapour about the glowing
globe; the salts, the metals, and the mineral substances
most useful to man, and most prized by him, must
probably all have been there originally in the form of
elements, and only acquired their distinctive states and
qualities when the temperature had fallen low enough
to allow the law of the elective affinities to come into
play. (See Appendix A.)
�Genesis: The Elohist.
7
“ And God called the dry land earth, and the waters
called he seas.”
It is the Hebrew poet himself who calls the dry
land Arets, and the gathered waters Imim—words
which we translate Earth and Seas. Had God called
these aggregates of solid and liquid matter by any
names—and we venture to think that he never did,
otherwise than through the mouths of men,—the
writer of the sentence quoted could very certainly no
more have known what they were than he could have
known by what names day and night were called.
° Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding
seed and the tree yielding fruit.”
The waters which at several epochs and for such
lengthened periods covered the whole or a vast pro
portion of the globe, were undoubtedly the source,
seed-bed, and nursery of the vegetable tribes which
at length, and after the lapse of countless aeons, gained
a footing on the land, and from the lowly forms of
sexless flags, lichens, mosses, ferns, horse-tails, &c.,
finally acquired sexuality, and showed themselves as
the palm and pine, the fig, orange, olive, vine and
host of other seed and fruit-bearing herbs and trees
that prepared the way for the advent of the higher
organisms, the conscious living creatures which made
their appearance on the earth at last.
_ i‘ Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to
divide the day from the night, to be for signs and for
seasons, for days and for years, and to give light upon
the earth.”
In our modern geological cosmogony we feel
assured that a long interval elapsed between the forma
tion of the moon and the definite formation of the sun
as he now exists—if indeed the formation of the sun
can yet be said, with any propriety, to be definite or
complete. The. moon, we conclude, circled round
the earth in a period other than that she now observes,
and shed a paler light than she does at present upon
�8
'The Pentateuch.
its unpeopled surface, whilst the sun yet showed a disc
less fiery than that he now presents, but of millions
instead of hundreds of thousands of miles in diameter.
The formation of the sun and moon, however, was
simultaneous, according to the Hebrew poet, and had
reference solely to the convenience of man. But the
moon is some hundreds of thousands of years younger
than the earth, and by aeons older than the sun ; and
though man finds his advantage in the light and
other attributes of these great bodies, they certainly
took shape and had motions and qualities irrespec
tively of him, but in harmony with the laws which
inhere in matter and bring about phenomena. The
phases of the moon give man the week, and her period
about the earth the month, as the course of the earth
about the sun—of the sun about the earth in the
olden belief—gives him the seasons and the year.
“ Let the waters bring forth the moving creature
that hath life, , and fowl that may fly above the
earth.”
The waters were doubtless the womb in which the
germs took shape that finally and in virtue of inherent
powers eventuated not only in senseless vegetable
forms, but in those gelatinous atoms with implanted
sensibilities and aptitudes which by evolutionary
efforts turned at length into radiates, molluscs, arti
culates, insects, fishes, amphibians, mammalians, and
man. The absolutely dry is the absolutely barren;
the moist is the source of life ; hence the rise, in the
heathen mythology, of Aphrodite, emblem of the
generative power, from the sea.
“ Let the earth bring forth the living creature after
his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the
earth.” ■
The Hebrew poet thought that the tenants of the
dry land must have had their origin thereon, as he
believed the tenants of the waters had theirs therein.
Regarding the whale as a fish, he referred his birth to
�Genesis: 'The Elohist.
9
the wr ters—and truly, in one respect, for his forma
tion fhs him for life in these alone ; but the whale
and his congeners the porpoises are not fishes anymore
than their allied kinds the walruses, dugongs and
seals ; for they all have warm blood, breathe by means
of lungs, bring forth living young and suckle them
precisely as do the mammalians that live on the land.
“And God said : Let us make men in our image,
after our likeness. And God created man in his
image, in the image of God created he him ; male and
female created he them.” (Eng. Vers, and De Wette.)
Man, the Hebrew poet necessarily saw as the crown
and consummation of the creative energy. But we
may be permitted to regret that he should have ima
gined and should have said that man was made in the
image of God ; for God as all-pervading Spirit or
Force, Essence or Cause, is without parts or propor
tions, and so is without figure—a truth subsequently
acknowledged in more than one part of the Hebrew
Scriptures by other writers. God fills the universe,
and is necessarily impersonal and unimaginable in any
shape. It is the converse of the writer’s statement
that is true : it is man who has fashioned God like
himself. In harmony with the law of sexual dis
tinction in all the higher classes of animals, man on
his appearance on Earth is here fitly presented as
cognate male and female, from the first.
And God gave the herb bearing seed, and the tree
bearing fruit for meat, to the conscious creatures
evolved, we venture to assume, in virtue of aptitudes
inherent in certain of the inorganic natural elements,
prime instruments of God, and possessed of powers
which finally formed flesh and blood and nerve
and brain, with the wonderful appanages of feeling,
the moral sense, the religious sense, understanding
and reason ; faculties by which man comes at length
to conceive a Supreme Being to whom reverence
and obedience are due, to arrogate rights for him
�IO
The Pentateuch.
self, and to own obligations to his fellow-men. It
is to be regretted that the Hebrew writer should not
have noted that God had also given the flesh of
animals as well as vegetables for food to man and
other creatures,—flesh to be supplied by the sacrifice
of the weaker by the stronger and more highly
organised among animals, man, as the most highly
organised and most intelligent of any, sacrificing
every other living thing that is fit for food to satisfy
his appetite, and only attaining to the highest per
fection of his powers where he diets on a mixture of
vegetable and animal substances.
“ Thus were finished the Heavens and the Earth
and all the host of them.”
The writer gives his Elohim—God or Gods—much
less time in which to complete the marvellous work
than from its constitution and self-revealed history
we now feel assured was necessarily employed.' He
had Eternity to draw on ; but he has not used his
privilege beyond the scanty measure of a few days.
Any term, however, of any conceivable length he
could have fixed on, would still have fallen short of
that which God may have used in fashioning the vast
assemblage of systems of which the Earth, in so far
as mass is concerned, is so insignificant a part.
“And God rested the seventh day from all the
work which he had made.”
The writer here obviously fancies Elohim like him
self. Weary with six days’ work, he gladly rests on
the seventh day, and so fancies that God must have
done so too. But God never rests • for God is not to
be thought of as prime or inceptive Cause only, but
as persistent, ever-active Cause of all that is and of all
that comes to pass. Were God to rest for an instant
of time, the fair fabric of harmonious nature would be
the Chaos out of which the Hebrew writer presumed
it to have arisen.
Thus far we have a connected account of the
�Genesis: The Elohist.
TI
creation of heaven and the earth and its inhabitants—
what is to be thought of the tale ? .
As of a simple, beautiful poem, the work of a man
of thoughtful and imaginative mind, having the
culture of the age in which he lived, and writing the
language of his country in the highest state of purity
to which it ever attained; a writer, therefore, of rela
tively recent times in the history of the Jewish people
—one, moreover, who drew little or nothing from
either oral or written tradition or legend, but gave
shape in words to the ideas and fancies that spring
up in minds of thoughtful and poetic mould. The
account of Creation, as contained in the first chapter
of Genesis, must be the work of a writer who lived
during or immediately after the reign of Solomon,
before the Hebrew tongue had begun to decline from
its purity and become mixed with Aramaic words—
one of the Isaiahs or Lyrists who penned the finest of
the Psalms, the glory of the Hebrew literature, and
that cannot be said to have their like in the letters of
any other people.
The narrative of the first chapter of Genesis is not,
however, the only account we have in the Hebrew
Scriptures of the early history of the world, and more
especially of the circumstances under which man
began his career on earth ?
There is a second account, commencing with the
fourth veyse of the second chapter of the Book of
Genesis, which differs notably from the first, and
begins abruptly in these words : “ These are the
generations of the heavens and of the earth when
they were created.”
It might almost be presumed that there was some
thing wanting here ?
So much of the document, seemingly, as gave the
generations referred to. The verse, however, has every
appearance of an interpolation, intended to connect
the narrative that is to follow with that which has
�I2
The Pentateuch.
gone before. But so little affinity have the two
acconnts, in fact, that a new hand is at once sus
pected by the critical reader, who soon finds his sus
picion turned into certainty by the diversity of treat
ment he observes and the different name by which he
finds the Deity now designated, the title in the first
account being always Elohim—translated God in the
English version, and in the second Jahveh or JahvehElohim—translated Lord and Lord-God with us.
Nor is this all. A multitude of minor differences
in the style and kind of information given, meet the
critica 1 eye, which proclaim not two but four writers,
who must have lived at times remote from one
another, and had access to legendary and documen
tary matter that did not always agree in its terms.
The first account we have, however, is characterised
by biblical scholars and critics as being from the pen
of one of the Hebrew writers called Eloliists, the
second from that of one or more of those entitled
Jehovists, all of them apparently belonging to the
priestly caste, but deriving their information from
different and often discrepant sources.
What is the first particular we have from the new
writer—the Jehovist—in his account of th^ early
world ?
Passing by all the particulars connected with the
formation of the heavens and the earth as we have
them from the Elohist, he begins by informing us that
Jahveh-Elohim, the Lord-God, besides the heavens
and the earth, had also created “ every plant of the
field before it was in the earth, and every herb before
it grew.” He appears to have imagined that trees
and herbs were made by God much in the way that
artificial flowers are made in the present day, and
then planted in the ground, as he himself was wont
to see husbandmen at work planting pot-herbs round
Jerusalem.
What reason is assigned for God’s procedure in
�Genesis: The Jehovist.
13
thus making herbs and trees, instead of evoking them
from the ground like the Elohist ?
It is because “ the Lord-God had not yet caused it
to rain on the earth, and there was not a man to till
the ground.”
The writer of these words could not, it is obvious,
have known of the Elohist’s account of Creation, in
which there was not only water enough and conse
quently rain, but herbs and trees growing and yield
ing their seed and fruit, and both man and woman to
tend the plants and till the ground, supposing that to
have been needful to the growth of vegetables in a
state of nature, which it is not. The vast and vigorous
growths that gave rise to the carboniferous strata of
the earth all took place myriads of years before there
was a man to till the ground, though there must have
been rain enough and to spare, and carbonic acid in
the air in such excess as was probably incompatible
with the existence of any but the lower forms of ani
mal life,—certain it is that none of the higher forms
had as yet made their appearance when the mighty
morasses spread and the forests grew that now lie
buried in our coal measures.
Have we not evidence in geological records of rain
having fallen on the earth not only before the appear
ance of man on its face, but even before that of any
of the higher forms of animal life ?
Yes, ample; on sand-stone slabs deposited during
the tertiary period of the earth’s existence we not
only find pit-marks like those made on sand and mud
by falling showers at the present day, but even learn
the quarter whence the wind blew when the showers
fell! More than this, we find the foot-prints of a
frog or toad-like creature with a heavy tail, indicated
by the trail or smoothed line obliterating the rain-pits
in the wake of the footsteps I Yet more, and in
strata much older than those to which the sand-stone
slabs belong that preserve these interesting records,
�14
The Pentateuch.
we find abundance not only of vegetable, but of ani
mal remains. So that we are enabled positively to
say that plants grew, that animals lived on them, and
on one another too, and that rain fell hundreds of
thousands—it may be millions of years before there
was a man to till the ground.
The Lord-God—Jahveh-Elohim—we are then in
formed, caused a mist to go up from the earth to
water it, and make the plants he had fashioned to
grow; further, that he made man of the dust of the
ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life and he became a living creature (not soul, as in
the English translation, the word soul leading to
metaphysical conclusions not contemplated in the
text) ; finally, that he planted a garden in Eden, and
therein put the man whom he had made.
This is according to the text; but the physics of
the writer are at fault, for if the earth had the water
necessary to supply the mist which was to fall in
rain, it had already the moisture needful to make
plants grow. And then he makes his deity fashion
the man as a statuary fashions his statue, and only
put life into him at last by breathing into his nostrils;
he knew nothing of the law of evolution which the
science of our modern world discovers in nature’s
acts, which we are still to look on as the acts of God
in his quality of Cause, and so of Creator.
The garden in Eden is carefully planted ?
With every tree that is pleasant to the sight and
good for food ; the tree of life in the midst of the gar
den, and.the tree of knowledge of good and evil; per
mission being given to the man freely to eat of the fruit
of every tree in the garden save and except of that of
the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Of this tree
he is not to eat; for in the day he does he is told that
he shall surely die.
What is the next step in the proceedings of JahvehElohim, according to the writer ?
�Genesis: 'The 'Jeho'uist.
15
He is made to say, as if it were a discovery or
afterthought, that it is not good for the man to be
alone, and that he would therefore make a help-meet
for him. Before proceeding with this kindly purpose,
however, the writer makes Jahveh-Elohim turn off
to form the beasts of the field and the fowls of the
air, which he brings to the man, who is now named
Adam, “ to see what he would call them, and whatso
ever Adam called every living creature, that was the
name thereof.”
Adam’s nomenclature has not reached us ?
It has not, though it might as well have been pre
served as many of the particulars given by the writer.
It was probably simpler if less copious than that of his
successors, the modern naturalists. Still, “ for Adam,”
it is now said, and despairingly as it were, “ there
was not found an help-meet for him.”
Jahveh-Elohim is made by the writer to proceed in
a very roundabout way to supply the deficiency ?
He causes a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, from
whose side a rib is taken, out of which a woman is
, made and brought to the man, who styles her Isha,
feminine of Ish, man.
This seems a poor conceit in face of the omnipotence
of God and is in palpable contradiction with the state
ment in the Elohistic account of Creation, according
to which and in harmony with the great law of sexual
distinction, God is said to have made man male and
female from the first. May we not, therefore, with
out irreverence, say that if the Elohist’s account be
correct, that of the Jehovist cannot be true ?
Surely it is a puerile contrivance as prelude and
pretext for what the man is immediately made to say :
—“ This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my
flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was
taken out of man.” But God took no rib from the
side of man to form his counterpart, woman : “ Man
like, but different sex,” Isha needed not to be taken
�16
The Pentateuch.
in this childish and inconceivable way from the side
of Ish to be of one flesh with him ; she was so by
God’s fiat when simultaneously with him she came
into, being, and long before he and she together had
attained to the higher state of conscious life, worthy
of their noble collective Aryan designation Man,
from the reason (manu skr.) wherewith they were
endowed.
Adam is charmed with his helpmate ?
Of course he is:—
“ So lovely fair was she,
That what seemed fair in all the world seemed now
Mean, or in her summed up, in hei- contained,
And in her looks. * *
Grace was in all her steps, heaven in her eye,
In every gesture dignity and love,”
according to the version of our own great king of
song.
The man and the woman do not, however, accord
ing to the narrative, long enjoy the happy state of
innocence and bliss in which they were placed at
first ?
The serpent, says the story, was more subtil than
any beast of the field, and said to the woman : “Yea,
hath God said ye shall not eat of every tree of the
garden F ”
And the woman ?
Said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of
the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree
which is in the midst of the garden God hath said :
Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it lest ye
die.”
The serpent answers ?
“Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that
in the day ye eat thereof your eyes shall be opened,
and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
The serpent shows himself a subtil beast indeed,
�17
Genesis: The Jehovist.
apt in using as in understanding human speech, and
excelling in persuasive power! The Elohist, in his
account, gave man the dominion over the beasts of
the field and the fowls of the air; but the Jehovist
reverses' the picture and makes man dominated by
the reptile that creeps upon his belly, and, in popular
belief, lives upon dust!
The woman yields to the suggestion of the insidi
ously friendly and familiar serpent ?
She sees that the tree is good for food, pleasant to
the eye, a tree to be desired to make one wise ; and
so she takes of the fruit and eats, and gives to her
husband also, and he eats.
With the result ?
(
That the eyes of both are opened—not, however, in
any intellectual and. moral sense, as might have been
presumed, but in a sense purely physical, for they
only now discover, it is said, that they are naked,
and to hide their nakedness that they sew fig-leaves
together to make them aprons—-scanty covering
enough, but which Jahveh-Elohim, according to the
writer, improves on subsequently by making them
“coats of skins.” The fig-leaves were at hand ; but
it has been made a question as to whence came the
skins, and as to who it was who slew and flayed the
animals that bore them, and shaped and sewed
together the garments ! And thus do men land
themselves among the absurdities that crop up when
they are guilty of the folly of anthropomorphosing
the Infinite Supreme ; and of giving a literal meaning
to Eastern tales, the product of early and ignorant
ages of the world !
The discovery of their nakedness was but a slight
initiation for the man and woman into the knowledge
of good and evil that was to follow on eating the
forbidden fruit. Having senses, indeed, they needed
not to have partaken of it to learn that they were
naked. But is it in the nature of things, that aught
C
�i8
Phe Pentateuch.
taken into the mouth could have given man first to
know whether he were naked or clothed ?
It is not; knowledge of the kind comes through
the senses of sight and feeling, not of taste, and where
these senses exist such knowledge is already pos
sessed.
Or that fruit of any kind eaten should teach man
kind the difference between good and evil ?
In so far as sweet, sour, bitter, and other savours
are concerned, and as wholesome or unwholesome
qualities are good and evil—Yes ; but as regards the
moral good and evil implied though not expressed
—No. God has connected the knowledge of what is
good and evil from a moral point of view with certain
parts of the brain, the functions of which are facul
ties of the mind, and it is by means of these that man
knows and makes distinction between moral good and
evil; even as it is by the nerves of the tongue that he
distinguishes between sweet, sour, and bitter, the
sapid and insipid, &c., by those of touch and sight
that he knows the difference between the rough and
the smooth, the nude and the clothed, &c., and by
those of the stomach and body at large that he is
made aware of what is wholesome or deleterious.
The discovery of their nakedness by the man and
the woman is sometimes interpreted otherwise than
literally ?
But as it seems by a somewhat forced construction;
the effect of eating the forbidden fruit being said to
have been to engender concupiscence, carnal' desire,—
as if that had been a sin ! But God had created man
male and female, and put desire for one another into
their minds ; blessed them, too ; said to them, Increase,
multiply, and replenish the earth, and furnished them
forth for the work. Neither, if we may trust our own
Poet of Paradise, was Eve
“ Uninformed
Of nuptial sanctity and marriage rites;
�Genesis : The Jehovist.
19
Nature herself wrought so in her that she,
Seeing her husband, turned,
And with obsequious majesty approved
His pleaded reason.”
The feeling that leads man to cover certain parts of
his body in lands where he has no need of clothing,
may be said to be an element in his nature, almost
as much his peculiar heritage as his religious sense,
and must have made itself felt in the very prime of his
emergence from mere brutality into properly human
though still savage life. There seems, therefore, no
occasion to see any recondite meaning as underlying
Adam’s discovery that he was naked. Such know
ledge he certainly never had from eating any even
such fruit as is said to have grown in the garden of
Eden.
What interpretation is commonly put on the
appearance and part played by the serpent ?
That it was the impersonation of Evil, designated
Satan or Devil, who in guise of a serpent was the
spokesman and tempter.
Is there any warrant in the text for such an
assumption ?
There is none. The words are explicit: “ The
serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field.”
Is there anything else against the vulgar interpre
tation ?
Yes; the dualism implied in the recognition of a
Principle of Evil apart or distinct from a Principle of
Good—a recognition entirely foreign to the concep
tion of Deity and the religious system of the Jewish
people. If we constantly meet in the sacred writings
of the Jews with Deity in the two aspects of Good
and Evil, their God, whether called El or Jahveh, is
still one only. Though no more than the greatest
among the Gods, he is ever to them the Supreme,
Lord of the Dark as of the Light, source himself of the
�20
The Pentateuch.
Evil as of the Good thatbefals. “ Shall there be evil
4n a city and I have not done it, sayeth Jehovah.”
Amos iii. 6. “ I form the light and create darkness ;
I -'make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all
these things.” Isaiah xlv. 7. We say nothing here
of the absurdity of Evil personified and called Satan
or Devil; for that is one of the earliest errors of man
kind, as it still continues among the unworthy super
stitions of the present day.
The prominence given to the Serpent and the Tree
—the whole idea of the garden in Eden, indeed, ap
pears foreign to the Jewish theocratic system ?
Most obviously; and so must the idea have been
derived by the writer from what he or his coun
trymen had learned through intercourse, commercial
or otherwise at some earlier period, through exile in
later times, with the Medes and Persians, in whose
religious system the dualism of Deity is an essential
element; the beneficent principle in nature, typified
by Light, being called Ormuzd, and the adverse
principle, symbolized by the serpent, named Ahriman.
It is not unimportant to observe that nowhere else in
the Hebrew Scriptures save in this early part of the
Book of Genesis do the serpent g,nd Satan appear as
counteracting the benevolent purposes of Jehovah.
On the contrary, the image of the reptile, as in the
instance of the brazen serpent which Moses lifted up
in the Wilderness, is rather assumed as the emblem
of healing :—propitiated by worship and sacrifice the
death-dealing principle in nature stays the pestilence;
and Satan, once admitted into the celestial hierarchy
of the Hebrews, is seen but as one among the other
ministers or agents of Jehovah—tempting and trying
the faith of mankind, it may be, but never appearing
as the adversary of the Supreme (Job passim).
What, according to the narrative, follows on the
discovery of their nakedness by the man and woman ?
Hearing the voice of Jehovah-Elohim “ walking in
�Genesis : 'The 'Jehovist.
21
the garden in the cool of the day I” they hide them
selves among the trees. Jehovah-Elohim, not meet
ing them as usual, it might seem, calls Adam and
says, “ Where art thou ? ”
Adam answers: “ I heard thy voice in the garden
and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid
myself.”
Adam does not, therefore, honestly and at once
acknowledge his disobedience of the commandment
he had received, but lays the fear he feels to face the
Lord-God to the score of his nakedness.
So says the record; and Jahveh-Elohim, as if he
needed the information, asks : “ Who told thee that
thou wast naked ? Elast thou eaten of the tree
whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not
eat?”
To which Adam, shifting the blame of disobedience
from his own shoulders in a regretable and somewhat
cowardly way, makes answer: “ The woman thou
gavest to be with me gave me of the tree and I did
pof. ”
What next ?
Turning to the woman, Jahveh-Elohim says :
“ What is this that thou hast done ? ” And on her
meek reply, “ The serpent beguiled me, and I did
eat; ” addressing the serpent, he proceeds : “ Because
thou hast done this thou art accursed above all cattle
and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly
shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of
thy life.”
The serpent, as he had shown himself familiar with
human speech, could scarcely be supposed to be igno
rant of that which was divine, and so the writer felt
himself at liberty to make his God inform the serpent
of the penalty he was to pay for his interference.
But is the serpent really cursed above all other
creatures, or does God truly curse any of his handi
works ?
�22
The Pentateuch.
The serpent, like all other creatures, is fitted for
his state in every particular. He never progressed
save upon his belly, and is no more cursed than any
creature else that, in the course of nature, has come
into life. He is even more agile in his movements
than many other animals much higher in the scale of
organisation than himself, glancing through the
herbage and striking his prey or throwing his deadly
coil about it with the rapidity of lightning. Neither
does he eat dust, but lives on animal food like other
carnivorous creatures, which he also has the skill to
secure alive for himself. Far from being cursed, in
deed, the serpent, in many of his kinds, is favoured
with such an instrument of destruction in his poison
fangs as gives him superiority over every other crea
ture, no matter how much larger, stronger, and more
knowing than himself, man, the lord of creation him
self, not excepted.
There is something said about especial enmity put
between the woman and the serpent ?
“ I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
says the story, “ and between thy seed and her seed,
it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise its heel.”
What may be the meaning of this ?
It must be allegorical, like so much else that has
already been commented on; it certainly can have no
such meaning as is usually put on it by theologians.
A reasonable interpretation of the enigmatic words,
however, may be found by a reference to certain an
cient Indian sculptures, where the Sun-God, Krishna,
source of life, is seen with one foot on the head of
the snake, Kaliga, emblem or source of darkness and
death; or to the modern planisphere; where the
kneeling Hercules, one of the Sun-Gods, is repre
sented with uplifted club treading on the head of the
mighty snake that coils about the pole, emblem of
winter and the surcease of life. The reference, there
fore, is probably astrological, and the meaning of the
�Genesis: The Jehovist.
23
myth scarcely doubtful:—The sun, escaping from the
inferior or wintry to the superior or summer signs of
the zodiac at the vernal equinox, triumphs over winter,
and awakens the earth from the sleep of death to
renovated life. Feigned to have died and lain buried
for a season, and mourned over as Osiris, Adonis,
Tammuz, &c., he is hailed anon with acclamations
and rejoicings as newly risen from the dead.
So much for the serpent. What is said to the
woman ?
“ I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy con
ception ; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children,
and thou shalt be subject to thy husband and he shall
rule over thee.”
And to the man— ?
“ Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy
wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded,
thee, saying, thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the
ground for thy sake ; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it
all the days of thy life ; thorns also and thistles shall
it bring forth to thee. In the sweat of thy face shalt
thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground; for
out of it wast thou taken—dust thou art, and unto
dust shalt thou return.”
Can we conceive God multiplying sorrow on man
as a penalty for yielding to such an impulse as the
desire to know good from evil; an impulse, more
over, implanted by himself ?
It were surely impious to think of anything of the
kind in connection with the idea of God.
Or of God inflicting pain on woman in particular, as
a penalty for putting forth her hand and tasting of
fruit within easy reach, fair to look on, pleasant to the
taste, enlarging the scope of her mental vision, and
not injurious to her body ?
It is absurd to speak of God as dealing in any
such way with any of his creatures.
What were man, did he not know good from evil ?
�24
The Pentateuch.
He were then no better than the beasts—more
helpless, indeed, than they ; for in their finer senses
of sight, touch, smell, and taste, they discriminate
more nicely than man in many cases between the
good and the bad, in so far as their bodily state is
concerned.
The desire to know is even a primary impulse, one
of the great gifts of God to man ?
It is so, indeed ; and is the one desire which man in
his most advanced state sees it of the highest moment
to cultivate ; source, as it proves to be, of all the plea
sures he has in his higher-intellectual existence ; of so
much, therefore, that gives him his true title to be
looked on as lord of the creation.
But man was threatened with death did he eat of
the forbidden tree : “ In the day thou eatest thereof
thou shall surely die,” says the record. Yet not only
did Adam not suffer bodily death at the time of his
eating, but he may be said to have then awakened to
his higher intellectual and responsible life.
Theologians cannot therefore be warranted in their
assumption that man became obnoxious to death
through disobeying the arbitrary commandment said
to have been given him ?
•
What follows immediately shows that the writer
believed man to have been created mortal from the
first: He is driven out of the garden in Eden lest he
should take also of the tree of life, eat, and so like
the Elohim—the Gods, live for ever. It is not true,
therefore, according to the Hebrew tale itself, that
death was brought into the world through man’s in
fringement of an order not to eat of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil. Immortality was no
item in the original charter either of man or any
other creature or thing; and it is even impious to
speak of the natural and inevitable surcease of life as
a penalty : a necessity in the nature of things, it can
be no penalty. It has been well and truly said that
�Genesis: The Jehovist.
25
the natural term of man’s life is about three score
and ten years. The few who reach extreme old age,
between four score and four score and ten, mostly
find the length of the way more than wearisome long
before its end ; the load of years grows heavy to be
borne, and there are few who are not well content
to lay down the burthen at last.
Death being regarded as the greatest of evils that
could befall mankind, and as a punishment for diso
bedience, by the Hebrew writer, can he be warranted
in speaking of the pain connected with child-bearing
as imposed on the woman by way of peculiar penalty
for the active part she took in aspiring after other
, knowledge than that which she had through her mere '
senses ?
Pain under any circumstances is first and in the
natural fitness of things an admonition to beware of
influences injurious to the bodily state, and, in the case
of the woman about to become a mother, of the great
. event in her life that is imminent, putting her on her
guard and bidding her make provision for the safety
of herself and the fruit of her womb. And then it
would seem that the effort necessary to bring forth
children cannot, in the nature of things as they are
(and so as they could best be), be dissevered from
more or less of suffering.
Might not the woman, however, have been so framed
by the Mighty Workman as to have brought forth
without suffering ?
No ; if pain be suffered in the process, we may feel
assured that it was inseparable from it. Constituted
as she is, we may be certain that she could have been
advantageously constituted no otherwise than as she
is.. All things are precisely as they could be. The
pain inevitably connected with child-bearing is brief,
the joy of motherhood is for life.
Is the ground truly cursed because of the man’s
participation in the woman’s desire to know and
�i6
The Pentateuch.
become as one of the Gods ; or, like a school-boy, for
having eaten an apple fair to view and on proof made
found savoury and not unwholesome, though forbidden
to put forth his hand by the owner of the garden ?
God curses nothing that by his fiat is or comes to
pass in conformity with his laws. If the ground
bears thorns and thistles it also yields spontaneously
the herbage on which so many creatures live, and on
the flesh of which in turn man and other carnivorous
tribes subsist. It supports the luxuriant vegetation
of the tropics unsolicited, and in the warmer latitudes
yields with little care the cereals, roots and fruits
that minister to man’s most pressing wants; under
less favourable aspects of clime and site, it still grate
fully responds to forethought and ingenuity when
brought to bear upon it:—Anticipating results and
using means to ends in harmony with nature’s laws,
the barren heath under man’s fostering care puts on
a smile, and waving harvests look up to the sun
where scarce a blade of grass had grown, and the
harsh or sapless wilding is turned into the melting
pulp of our summer fruits. To speak of the ground
as cursed of God is to libel the Supreme—if that
indeed were possible. At the price of labour man
has all his most necessary wants supplied by the
kindly ground. One of God’s best gifts to man,
indeed, has been said to be the necessity to work, by
one who was himself among the busiest of workers
whilst he lived, and who has done so much through
the work he did to free the world from superstition
and the base idea that idleness is a boon.
What can be said for the information Adam re
ceives that he is dust and shall to dust return ?
That the body of man is made up in but small
measure of the dust of the ground ; it is in fact much
more the creature of water and the air than of any
kind of earth. And as to the interpretation put on
the text that instead of the eternal life intended for
�Genesis : I’he ‘ ehovist.
J
27
him at first he is henceforth to have a merely tem
porary existence, this is readily disposed of by
acknowledging God’s purposes as they are from
eternity so are they eternal; and man, as he has a de
termined existence in time, to have been from the first
precluded from the possibility of living for ever.
That death came not into the world because of any
transgression by man of a commandment of God is
certain ; for that the earth was peopled by myriads
of animals which lived and died aeons before man
appeared upon the scene is certified to us by the
remains of these we find entombed in such profusion
in the strata that compose the crust of the globe.
The law of evolution, of birth and death, instituted
as it undoubtedly was from the beginning of life on
the earth, may without irreverence be spoken of as
a necessity in the nature of things : were this not so,
the law would not now exist; for neither God nor the
revelation he makes of himself in his laws suffers
essential change.
Would immortality on earth be verily a boon ?
As it is not given, so the divine wisdom proclaims
that it would not. In the Pagan mythology Heracles
penetrates to the garden of the Hesperides, slays the
dragon that guards the tree of life, gathers the fruit,
and brings it forth for the use of man ; but Pallas
Athene meets him on the way and takes the fruit
from his hand, knowing that it were not good for
man to eat of it and gain, like the Gods, immortal life.
Progress were, indeed, impossible did not one genera
tion of men succeed another. Succession is the law,
which, as it now obtains, so did it ever obtain. Kinds,
indeed, only continue to appear so long as the condi
tions necessary to their existence prevail; when these
cease the living things that depend on them—
plants or animals—die out and are seen no more. Time
was when man was not; and the time may come—
will in all likelihood necessarily come—when, with.
�28
The Pentateuch.
change in the cosmical, telluric, atmospheric, and other
conditions wherewith his life is bound up, he, like the
mammoth and megatherium, will have disappeared
from the face of the earth.
Man, however, to return to our text, had disobeyed
the commandment said to have been given by God;
but he was still in the garden in Eden, and could not
be suffered to remain therein ?
The Lord-God, according to the story, is made to
say : “ Behold the man is become as one of us to
know good from evil; and now lest he put forth his
hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live
for ever ; therefore the Lord-God sent him forth from
the garden of Eden, and placed cherubims and a
flaming sword which turned every way to keep the
tree of life.”
The qualities of things eaten, we have seen, consist
in such as affect the palate and the bodily health—
how, then, conceive a tree bearing fruit possessed of
the power to confer everlasting life ?
How, indeed ! Everlasting life belongs to God and
the manifestation he makes of his Being in the Uni
verse ; to nothing else.
The tale must, therefore, be an allegory—a myth,
an Idea clothed in words, possibly transmitted by
legendary tradition through long ages before it
reached the Hebrew] writer who moulded it into
the indifferent shape in which it meets us now.
Several interpretations have been given of the alle
gory ?
Several; among others one of an astronomical cha
racter. By turning to a celestial globe it will be seen
that as Virgo (Eve) with the ears of corn or fruit
bearing bough in her hand, followed by Arcturus
(Adam) sinks in the West, Perseus (the Cherub
armed with the flaming sword) rises in the East and
seems to drive the woman and the man from the sky.
There are other interpretations, however, on legen
�Genesis: The'Jeho'uist.
29
dary grounds, that better consort perhaps with
Hebrew history than this, which implies a knowledge
of the constellations and of celestial phenomena of
which we find few traces in the Book of Genesis?
The first account of Creation ended as we saw
with God’s resting from his labours and seeing that
all was very good. The second has a less satisfactory
conclusion ■ for here, as we have just seen, we find God
cursing the ground, inflicting pains and penalties for
the transgression of an arbitrary commandment, and
expelling the man and the woman from the garden
of delight he had planted for their happy dwelling
place, thwarted in all his benevolent purposes by the
serpent!
These two accounts differ so essentially that it
seems impossible to conceive them as emanating from
the same individual or delivered through inspiration,
as said, from one source ?
They differ so entirely and deal with such dis
similar elements that they must be held to have
proceeded not only from different individuals of the
same family of mankind, but even to have originated
among different races of men. The first or Elohistic
account may be spoken of as purely Semitic; the
second as essentially Aryan in its character. The
Elohistic narrative in its rhythmical and balanced
proportions is obviously the product of a single
mind, creating in conformity with the rules of
Hebrew poetical composition:—it is a connected
history of Creation by a Poet. The Jehovistic
account cannot be seen from the same point of view.
It has every character of a compilation from tradition
and legend, and assimilates in many leading par
ticulars with the myths and beliefs of the western
branch of the great Aryan family of mankind which
find expression in its Sacred Scriptures, the Zendb See Dr Kalisch’s learned Commentary on Genesis.
�30
The Pentateuch.
Avesta, as the views of the Eastern branch of the
same race are comprised in the Vedas. The Elohistic
account might have originated among any of the
ancient peoples somewhat advancedin civilisation and
possessed of the leisure needful for speculation and
literary labour. The Jehovistic account, on thecontrary,
without poetic verve or semblance of constructive
talent, is a kind of chronicle of imaginary doings, it
is the work of an archaeologist or antiquary and
cherisher of mythical and legendary lore,—a cha
racter we miss entirely in the Elohist, in whose brief
and grand summary we note no reference either to
myth or legend, and no statement on which a single
dogmatic conclusion could be hung—no word that does
not accord with a pure and simple sense of the power
and goodness of God as Creator of the world. In
the incoherent narrative of the Jehovist, on the con
trary, we meet with nothing that cannot be referred
to myth or legend, derived moreover, for the most
part, from sources beyond the boundaries of Judea,
pertaining to peoples other than the children of Israel,
and supplying foundations for the entire superstructure
of Christian Dogma. The Jehovistic account may
even be said to sin in transferring essentials of the
religious system of the Medo-Persian people to that of
the children of Israel.
Which of these two accounts is believed to be the
more ancient ?
The Elohistic; although this is questionable, for
both accounts can be said with great certainty to
date from relatively recent times—the Elohistic being
clearly enough shown, by the finished character of
the work and the purity of the diction in the original,
to be the product of an age not earlier nor yet much
later than that of Solomon ; the Jehovistic being as
safely assignable to a time subsequent to the Baby
lonian captivity, when the Jews had been brought
into contact with a people entertaining dualistic ideas
�Genesis : The Jehovist.
31
of Deity, and in their ritual addicted to Light or
Dire, Tree and Serpent worship—Light or Dire,
having Ormuzd, representative of the Good or
Creative principle in nature, symbolised by the Sun
and the Tree; Darkness, Destruction and Death,
having Ahriman, in eternal antagonism to Ormuzd,
with the serpent as his emblem.
This would account for the prominent places occu
pied in the Jehovist’s story by the Tree and the
Serpent ?
The worship of the Tree and the Serpent was
among the earliest and widest spread of all the ways
in which man sought to show his sense of dependence
on a something, a Power, beyond and stronger than
himself. Unless it be the rising of the sun—“ Great
eye of God, ” no phenomenon in nature is so notable
in temperate lands as the awakening of the vegetable
world from death to life on the return of Spring ;
and save the lightning’s flash, nothing is seen so
deadly as the serpent’s fang. No marvel, therefore,
that the tree was chosen by man awakened to reflec
tion as symbol of the Life-giving power, or the
serpent selected as type of the death-dealing influence
around him. These symbols personified and called
by names became Brahma and S^iva, Ormuzd and
Ahriman, Osiris and Typhon, Jehovah and Satan,
God and the Devil. Detached from the Nature in
which they inhere, and thought of as causes of the
good and evil that befals, they were then sought to
be communed with in thankfulness or in fear, and,
approached with praises, prayers, and offerings, all
the elements of the religious ideas and ritual obser
vances of mankind make their appearance.
The history of the garden in Eden, of the Tree of
Life and the subtil serpent continue, we may presume,
to occupy a prominent place in the religious annals
of the Jewish people ?
It is very notable, nevertheless, that the tale is not
�32
The Pentateuch.
even once referred to by any of the succeeding Old
Testament writers; nor indeed until we pass the
epoch of the Christian sera do we find it exerting the
slightest influence on the religious opinions of the
Jewish people. Neither Jesus of Nazareth nor his im
mediate friends and followers appear to have known
anything of the garden of Eden, or
“ Of man’s first disobedience and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world and all our woe.”
It was not until Paul of Tarsus1 came upon the scene
that the tale, taken in its most literal sense, began to
bear fruit. Connecting the myth of man’s disobedience
with the Messianic Idea, in the modified shape it had
assumed in his day, with the moral and religious
teaching, the beautiful life and cruel death of Jesus
of Nazareth as they were orally related to him, Paul,
the one man of culture, seemingly, among the dissi
dents of his day from the religion of his country,
made it the foundation of the New Dogmatic Religion
he taught with such unwearied zeal, which has so
long exerted so vast an influence in the world, and is
only now beginning to lose its hold* on the minds and
imaginations of mankind.
Returning to our story, we find the man and the
woman after their expulsion from Paradise knowing
each other in the way ordained of God and bringing
children into the world—Cain and Abel, according to
the unhappy tale of the Jehovistic writer, earliest
record of dissension between man and man, of the
first murder done in time, of the parties to the differ
ence Brothers, and its ground Religion !
True—according to the story:—Cain the husband
man’s offering of “ the fruits of the earth ” was not
respected of Jehovah, whilst Abel the shepherd’s
sacrifice of “ the firstlings of his flock and the fat
thereof” was accepted.
�Genesis : Cain and Abel.
'
33
We might have imagined that the laborious hus
bandman’s offering of the products of his industry
and skill would have been at least as well received by
Jehovah as the idle herdsman’s lamb and kid ?
Certainly, and with good reason we might. But
as Jehovah in the later Jewish ritual, of which alone
we have the record somewhat complete, is only to be
approached with blood-offerings, it would not
have suited the modern priestly compiler of these
mythical tales of early times to have had the fruits
and flowers of the earth—God accursed, as said—as
grateful to his God Jehovah as the blood or Life,
and the fat and flesh, of his daily and periodical
sacrifices.
Cain is described as dissatisfied with the rejection
of his offering and the preference shown to that of
his brother ?
So it is said—his countenance fell; and turning his
anger against his brother, they had words,—they had
a quarrel; and as they were in the field Cain rose up
against Abel his brother, and slew him. The blow
therefore could not have been of malice prepense,—
nor meant to be fatal, as unhappily it proved.
Cain is not informed why his offering of fruit and
flowers was not respected ?
He is not; he is only told that “ if he does well he
will be accepted, and if not well that sin lies at the
door; ” but where he had done amiss, and so had his
offering rejected, is not set forth in this enigmatical
sentence. With the Jewish ritual as subsequently
instituted before us, however, we are at no loss to in
terpret it. To the Hebrew mind there could be no
remission of sins without the shedding of blood—the
terrible, idea that forms the foun dation of the domi
nant Christian faith, though it certainly has no part
in the religion of Jesus of Nazareth. •
Jehovah is wroth with Cain for his foul deed,
and tells the criminal that he is now cursed from the
D
�34
The Pentateuch.
earth ; that when he tills the ground it will not yield
its strength, and that henceforth he should be a fugi
tive and a vagabond in the earth.
Does not the writer here make physical results de
pend on moral conditions ?
He does ; but if Cain, with his hands all embrued
in his brother’s blood, tilled a fertile soil with the
requisite skill and care, the land, by a prior fiat of
God, would not fail to yield its increase; and the
most pious and moral man who settled on a desert,
or who brought neither skill nor care to bear on his
work even under circumstances favourable in them
selves, would have failure for his portion. He who
conforms to the laws of nature in their several do
mains, whatever his moral or religious character, will
not fail of his return; as he who. does not so conform
himself, no matter what his pious disposition, will
necessarily go without reward.
Cain, however, is to be protected from violence ?
Jehovah, it is said, set a mark on him, lest any
one meeting him should slay him.
Such a precaution would imply that there were
other people in the earth besides Adam and Eve and
their son Cain ?
It would so; but the book is full of like incon
sistencies, as in this place it is very notably, with the
commandment elsewhere delivered, that he who
knowingly took life should surely himself be put to
death.
Cain and Abel are the first children of the first
man, Adam, and his wife, Eve, according to the
Jehovistic narrative. Does this agree with the
Elohist ?
It does not. The Elohist’s story, interrupted after
the third verse of the second chapter of Genesis, is
resumed at the first verse of the fifth chapter in these
words: “ This is the book of the generations of
Adam; ” and Adams first son is not Cain, neither is
�Genesis
Cain and Abel.
35
the second Abel; but the first and only son he has
whose name is mentioned is Seth, and though Adam
is reported to have lived hundreds of years afterwards'
and begotten sons and daughters, neither they nor
their descendants are named. The genealogy of Seth
alone is continued, he begetting Enos, Enos Cainan,
Cainan Mahalaleel, and so on, till we come to Lamech,
who begets Noah, the next personage who plays an
important part in the mythical tale in the study of
which we are engaged.
The terrible tale of the murder of Abel by his
brother Cain may therefore be the work of one of
the later Jehovistic writers ?
It has every appearance of being so ; and if we may
imagine the writer thinking it desirable to have the
earliest possible authority for the blood-stained altars
of his day, we can divine his motive for inventing
the story of the offerings and of the preference shown
by Jehovah for the bloody over the bloodless sacri
fice, inserting it where it stands, and adding the mur
der of the one brother by the other by way of giving
colour and force to his picture. No man in his senses,
freed from prejudice and possessed of the requisite
information, can believe for a moment that the
Jehovistic writer could have known that Cain killed
Abel, or that the three sons of Noah were Shem,
Ham, and Japhet.e
e Subsequently to the time when Nehemiah was Governor
of Judea under Cyrus, says M. Albert Reville, the office of
High-Priest, as conferring the chief authority in the country,
became an object of ambition, not only between one priestly
family and another, but between different members of the
same family; and in a certain instance in which two brothers
were aspirants to the office, so high did the rivalry run, that
the one killed the other. It were not presuming too far, per
haps, as all fiction has a foundation in fact, and as we are now
so well assured of the relatively modern date of by far the
greater portion of the Pentateuch, to find in this recent in
stance of fratricide the source of the story of the murder in
�36
The Pentateuch.
God, in calling men and women into the world,
had endowed them, as well as all other conscious
living creatures, with the wonderful faculty of pro
ducing their like, and continuing themselves in their
kind ?
He had virtually said, in the power bestowed, but
not in words : “ Increase and multiply and replenish
the earth,” a commandment they were no more loth
to obey in times gone by than they are in the present
day. But Jehovah, as it appears by the record, had
been less careful than might have been expected in
selecting the race by which the world was to be
peopled; for, to say nothing of the murder of Abel
by Cain, no more than ten generations of men had
•lived on the earth before their wickedness was found
so great, the imaginations of their heart so con
tinually evil, that, according to the record, it even
“repented Jehovah that he had made men upon the
earth.”
This is extraordinary language in connection with
the name of God ?
With the idea of God, as we entertain it, certainly,
but not with that of the Jehovah of the Hebrew
Scriptures, who was but a powerful man of the early,
jealous, revengeful, arbitrary, variable, and often
savage type. The statement, nevertheless, stands
part of the sacred writings of the Jews, still held in
spired not only in their precepts and ordinances, but
in every word and letter, and believed by iflore than
they are denied among Christians to be the word of
God to man.
Can we, however, presume that God ever repents
of anything he has done, or changes his mind as to
aught he had intended to do ?
Man may repent and change; God cannot do so.
the olden time of Abel by his brother Cain.—(Comp. Revue des
Deux Mondes, lier Mars, 1872.)
�Genesis ; 7 he Flood.
37
- Is there any reason given for the great wickedness
charged upon mankind ?
There is none.
Is not the disobedience in eating the forbidden
fruit assigned as its cause ?
It is not once referred to ; and if it had been so, the
disobedience as consequence of an untoward disposi
tion could not be its cause.
Is there anything else in the text that may be held
adequate to bring about the evil imaginations im
puted ?
There is absolutely nothing. The sons of God, in
deed, are said to have seen the daughters of men that
they were fair, and to have taken them wives of all
they chose ; and this incomprehensible statement has
been laid hold of as a means of accounting for the
prevailing wickedness. But the sons of God, who
ever they were, must be presumed, from their title,
to have been of higher nature than the daughters of
earth, and to have improved, not deteriorated, the
breed.
And. this, indeed, in so far as we can judge by
what is said, appears to have been the case; for we
learn. that the children born to the sons of God co
habiting with the daughters of men became mighty
men, which were of old men of renown ?
So runs the tale; and the myth or legend helps to
no solution of the matter. The wickedness of men,
however, was great in the earth, and every imagina
tion of man was evil continually, so that Jehovah
said at length; “I will destroy man whom I have
created from the face of the earth, both man and
beast and creeping thing, and the fowls of the air;
for it repenteth me that I have made them.”
. The beasts and creeping things and fowls of the
air had done nothing to deserve extermination ?
Nevertheless they were to share in the doom of
man and be destroyed.
�38
The Pentateuch.
Certain reservations, however, are to be made to
the general portentbus resolution come to by Jehovah ?
Addressing Noah, who is characterised as “ a just
man and perfect in his generations,” Jehovah in
forms him that the end of all flesh had come before
him, and that he had resolved to destroy them, and
all wherein is the breath of life, by means of a flood
of water which he will bring upon the earth. With
Noah, however, he will establish his covenant. Him.
and his family, of all mankind, he will save alive by
means of an ark, or great ship, which he is ordered
to construct of certain materials, of certain dimen
sions, and in certain ways, in which he and his family,
and two and two, male and female, of every living
thing, are to be housed whilst the whole earth is laid
under water.
Noah does all he is ordered ?
He does, and with his wife, his sons and daughters,
their sons and daughters, and the pairs to be saved
alive, is safely housed in the ark. Then, it is said,
are the foundations of the great deep broken up, and
the windows of heaven opened, and rain falls for
forty days and forty nights, and the waters prevail
exceedingly, covering the higher hills fifteen cubits
and upwards, so that all in whose nostrils was the
breath of life are destroyed from the face of the
earth, Noah alone and they that were with him in the
ark remaining alive.
How long is the flood of waters said to have pre
vailed ?
After increasing for a hundred and fifty days, the
fountains of the deep, it is said, are stopped, and the
rain from heaven is restrained. The waters then
begin to assuage; but it is not until the first day of
the tenth month that the tops of the highest lands
are seen, when the ark grounds on the mountains of
Ararat; and only after the lapse of a whole year of
imprisonment that Noah, finding the ground dry,
�Genesis : The Flood.
39
takes off the covering of the ark and goes forth, he
and his family, and all that had been saved alive,
with the blessing of God upon him and them, and a
renewed injunction to be fruitful and to multiply upon
the earth.
Noah was ordered to take into the ark pairs of
every living thing. Every living thing would include
whales, seals, fishes, and the inhabitants of the waters
generally—crustaceans, molluscs, radiates, &c.—yet
we find no mention made of them.
There is none; but if they were to be saved, some
provision was as necessary for them as for the other
air-breathing land animals. With the obvious diffi
culty of providing in the ark for the inhabitants of
the water, however, they are left to take their chance
in the Tohu-Bohu of the flood. Every inhabitant of
the water, nevertheless, has a definite sphere assigned
it, for which it is fitted, and out of which it cannot
live. Natives of the salt water cannot, for the most
part, live in the fresh, nor can those of the fresh
generally live in the salt. The whalebone and
spermaceti whales, among many others, would have
proved especially awkward occupants of the great
ship!
. There is provision made for feeding the host of
living creatures there gathered together ?
There is, but for the vegetable feeders only.
How, then, were the flesh feeders to be kept alive ?
By accommodating themselves, say the apologists
for every untenable statement within the lids of the
Bible, to the dry fodder of the phytivorous kinds—by
feeding with, not on them.
. The lion, tiger, wolf, and weazel eat hay and straw
like the ox and sheep ?
So most of our authoritative exponents of the diffi
cult Bible passages say. But the structure of the
teeth and jaws of the carnivorous tribes incapacitates
them from doing as our learned exegetists would have
�40
Phe Pentateuch.
them, for they can only cut and tear their food in
pieces, not grind, it into pulp like the ox and sheep.
The structure of their stomach and intestines, more
over, is not of the kind that fits them to digest and
assimilate vegetable food.
Was not some provision also necessary for saving
the members of the vegetable world alive ?
As indispensably necessary as it was in regard to
those of the animal kingdom, yet none is made, pro
bably because the writer had overlooked the fact that
plants held under water for any length of time are
as surely drowned as animals. Scarcely any land
growing plant can be kept for days, weeks, or months
submerged without being killed; neither will the
plants that live naturally in fresh water exist in salt
water, nor will salt-water plants survive in fresh
water. The pretty incident of the olive leaf with
which the dove sent forth from the ark returned
as a sign that the waters were abated, was an im
possibility ; after steeping in brine for twelve months
all the olive trees must have been long dead and
their leaves rotten.
And in what state could the Earth have been left,
after a flood that covered the highest mountains
fifteen cubits and upwards ?
What could it have been but a bank and shoal of
desolation, bare of herbage of every kind ; so that
the vegetable feeders saved alive in the Ark must
have died forthwith of hunger when released from
their temporary shelter.
Had the flesh-feeders been thought of in the Ark,
they too must now have starved like the phytivorous
kinds when dispersed over the bare, stony, muddy,
and depopulated flats ?
They would but have been saved from sudden
death by drowning to fall victims to a lingering death
by starvation.
There are two accounts of the flood, as of so many
�Genesis: The Flood.
41
other incidents in the Hebrew Scriptures, one as
usual by the Elohist, the other by the Jehovist ?
There are certainly two different accounts, much
intermingled, indeed, yet separable for the most part
by careful sifting from one another.
Do they agree ?
No ; they differ in several important particulars,
especially in a distinction made by the Jehovist between
what are called clean and unclean animals. Whilst
two and two of the unclean are ordered to be taken
into the Ark, the clean are to be received by sevens—
three pairs and an odd one.
The odd one would have been of little use in help
ing out Jehovah’s final admonition to the pairs on
leaving the Ark ?
But was necessary to avoid breaking the sets and
making the survivor of any pair useless ; for a victim
must be available for the religious service which Noah
is made to perform immediately on quitting his long
imprisonment, his first act having been to build an
altar to Jehovah and to offer burnt offerings thereon
of every clean beast and clean fowl he had had with
him in the Ark.
Jehovah is gratified by Noah’s pious acknowledg
ment of the favour shown to him and his ?
.Jehovah, it is said, smelled a sweet savour, and
said in his heart: I will not again curse the ground
for man’s sake ; for the imagination of man’s heart is
evil from his youth; neither will I again smite every
living thing as I have done.
This is surely very strange language to be set down
as proceeding from his God by the writer!—But if
the imaginations of the heart of man were seen in
this way by Jehovah after the terrible catastrophe
that had taken place, it is obvious that nothing had
been done to better the Earth by drowning it ?
The almost despairing tones in which the narrative
proceeds might fairly lead us to conclude that as little
�42
'The Pentateuch.
had been done by the flood to amend matters in the
past as to leave them with a chance of improvement
in the future. But we are to be careful to assign the
account given of what Jehovah said in his heart to
its only possible author—the Hebrew writer; for it
is very certain that he could know nothing of the
purposes of the True God, and that the words
ascribed to the Supreme are not his, but the man’s.
Jehovah is now made by the writer to appear as
though he were even sorry for what he had done, for he
makes him go onto say : While the Earth remaineth,
seedtime and harvest, and heat and cold, and summer
and winter, and day and night, shall not cease. And
I will establish my covenant with you, and for a
token I set my bow in the cloud ; and it shall come
to pass that when I bring a cloud over the earth that
the bow shall be seen in the cloud, and I will remem
ber my covenant which is between me and you and
every living creature of all flesh.
All this is purely human; meaningless in con
nection with the name of God; but the Hebrew
writer had evidently no other conception of God than
as a supernaturally powerful, irascible, revengeful,
and yet upon occasion pitiful human being, thwarted
continually in his kindly purposes by the wayward
ness and wickedness of the creature he had called
into existence.
What is to be concluded in regard to the covenant
which Jehovah is stated to have entered into with
Noah, whereof the bow in the heavens is the token ?
God’s covenants were all made with man when he
commenced his career on earth, their conditions im
plemented in the organisation of his body and its
aptitudes, all co-ordinate with and in the most perfect
possible harmony with the nature of things and the
circumstances amid which he began, as he still con
tinues, to be.
' What are we to think of the writer’s imagining
�Genesis: The Flood.
43
that God required a remembrancer of aught he meant
to do or to leave undone ?
Whatever the writer may have imagined, we are to
think that God, who is in and of all that is and that
comes to pass, needs no remembrancer. The rain
bow is a natural and necessary effect of the refraction
or breaking up of the difform rays of which light is
composed, by the globular drops of water that consti
tute rain, in virtue of laws inherent in and co-eternal with the nature of God and the qualities of matter.
Rainbows necessarily spanned the sky countless ages
before there was a Noah to observe them; it may
have been that one appeared when the several showers
fell that have left their records in the sandstone slabs
now preserved in our museums !
Looked somewhat closely into, therefore, with an
eye couched of prejudice, the story of the Deluge
(the Noachian Deluge as it is called to distinguish it
from other deluges of which shadowy records are
preserved in the legendary annals of several ancient
nations) appears to be wanting in every particular
that could give it the semblance not merely of pro
bability but even of possibility ?
There can be no question of this. The motive
assigned for its occurrence, in the first place, is
absurd—utterly incompatible with the Idea of the
God of reason and humanity. The saving instrument,
the ark itself-—speaking seriously of the matter for
a moment,—was utterly incompetent to the end pro
posed,—it was not of half the tonnage of our Great
Eastern steam-ship! And how conceive all the
animals that people the globe packed into any defi
nite space, were it even ten or twenty times the area
of the mighty ship ! How, again, conceive Noah and
his three sons competent even in the course of their
reputed long lives to have prepared and put together
the materials of such a vessel as the one described.
They were assisted by the wicked people about them,
�44
'
The Pentateuch.
it may be and has of course been said : true, and these
were at the end to stand complacently by whilst Noah,
his family, and selected pairs from either pole to the
equator filed into the ark, and left them outside to
drown!
Shut up in the ark pitched with pitch without and
within, with a single window in the roof—and no
more is mentioned, whatever apologists in face of the
difficulty may say—a cubit each way in its dimensions,
what must have been the inevitable fate of the in
cluded company ?
The door could scarcely have been closed, supposing
the window to have been left open—and Jehovah
himself is made to shut it, as shut it must needs be
to keep out the rain—before the whole assembly
would necessarily have been stifled. Man, the higher
mammalia, and most birds, can live for hours, even for
days, without food, but they cannot exist for five
minutes deprived of air; and the ark, with its win
dow of a cubit, or eighteen inches, square in the roof,
would have proved as inevitably fatal by stifling to
the creatures within it intended to be saved, as the
waters would be found deadly to those outside
destined to be drowned.
So deadly an agent as vitiated air operating imme
diately would have made any further provision for the
maintenance and comfort of the inhabitants of the
ark unnecessary ; but supposing such a possibility as
asphyxia not to have occurred—and it is obviously
never contemplated by the narrator—how could Noah
and his three sons have distributed their appropriate
rations to the several pairs or sevens of all the ani
mals that peopled the earth, now gathered together
around them; how have supplied them with the in
dispensable water, how have got rid of the inevitable
excrements ?
How indeed!
Why, then, dwell on such childish, impossible, and
�Genesis: The Flood.
45
even impious tales as those in the Old Testament of
the Jews concerning the flood and Noah’s ark ?
Because they still obtain currency and credence in
the world, although they undoubtedly deserve all
these epithets, and are in very truth not only childish,
impious, and impossible, but misleading, and calculated
to give false notions of the God of Nature’s dealings
with mankind and the world. The tale of the Deluge
and the ark is never presented in its true light by the
ministers of religion, though as men of culture their
eyes must have been opened to its absurdity, and the
most imperative of all their duties is surely to speak
truth, and to show God’s providence in acts harmo
nious with the great eternal changeless laws, elements
in his own nature, whereby he rules the world.
The Deluge and the favour shown to Noah and his
family are still advanced as illustrations not only of
God s displeasure and justice in dealing with the
wicked, but of his goodness and mercy also, and the
special favour in which he has the exceptionally good
and pious ?
This is certainly the case. But God’s displeasure
and justice are shown by the punishment or reward’
which men bring on themselves through the violation
or observance of his laws. Neither do his goodness
and mercy appear any more in the lives saved from
flood and tempest, than is his vengeance proclaimed in
the lives that are lost. As we proceed in the narrative,
indeed, suspicions arise that all the members of the
family exceptionally saved were not so worthy of the
favour shown them as it seems easy to imagine they
might have been. The mythical tale of Noah and the
Deluge, with all the unreason attached to it, is never
theless made to enter as a prominent feature into the
Christian system. The infant of parents belonging
to several of its churches, and these the most influen
tial of all, does not undergo the initiatory rite of bap
tism by sprinkling with water, without allusion being
�46
Phe Pentateuch,
made to Noah and his family, “whom God of his
great mercy saved in the ark from perishing by
waterthough the connection between a world
drowned, with Noah saved, and the sprinkling of a
little water on the face of an unconscious infant
escapes both common sense and unsophisticated
reason.
The tale of the Deluge is one of the incidents re
corded in the Hebrew scriptures that rivets itself on
the mind and imagination of the young, and, with the
further reference made to it in connection with a
solemn religious rite, scarcely fails to exercise an ad
verse influence on the judgment of men and women
in riper years ?
There can be little doubt of this. The ship-like
ark with the nicely-formed figures of its multitudi
nous tenants, headed by Noah, his wife, and their
sons, Ham, Shem, and Japhet, which is presented to
almost every child among us when its intelligence
begins to dawn, fixes the myth as a positive occur
rence in the mind of the vast majority of children
born into the world of Christian parents, and it is
not every one who can free himself in after life from
the absurd and indefensible conclusions to which it
leads.
To refer to the goodness and mercy of God in con
nection with the world he has drowned, is surely
beside the mark ?
It appears so to the unprejudiced who venture to
use the reason and moral sense which God has given
them for their guidance, and to see things in conso
nance with the knowledge of their age. If the earth
was filled with wickedness, as said, and it were con
ceded that wickedness deserved punishment, still
drowning does not seem either the reasonable or mer
ciful way of bringing about the amendment which we
must presume to be the object of all castigation—
the castigation of God in especial. And if Noah and
�Genesis; 'The Flood,
47
his family were worthy to be saved alive, they could
not have been alone in their worthiness ;—there were
new-born babes, for instance, helpless infants, and
young children, who could not have deserved drown
ing on the ground that their fathers and mothers
were wicked. The hapless animals, also, which
perished, had been guilty of none of the disobedience
and wickedness alleged against the human kind, and
could no more have' merited their untimely fate
through obeying their natural instincts, than the pairs
saved could have merited the preference shown them
through fulfilling theirs.
So much for the moral aspects, or some of the
moral aspects, of the Noachian Deluge. Can the de
bacle referred to be comprehended and accounted for
on simple physical grounds ?
As an universal over-swimming of the earth within
the period when man became its denizen, the Deluge
of the Bible is incomprehensible; and had it even been
possible, yet may we feel confident that it did never
occur. The dry land of the earth, indeed, has in
every part known to us been at different and gene
rally far remote epochs oftener than once at the bot
tom of deep seas and vast fresh-water lakes. So
much we know for certain ; and we further feel assured
that the bottoms of many of our present seas and lakes
must once have been dry land. The islets that stud
the vast Pacific Ocean rest for the most part on the
peaks of lofty mountains now submerged. Upon and
around these the coral insect, building its own habita
tion for ages, spreads itself abroad level with the wash
of the sea, and furnishes man with resting places
amid depths he tries in vain to fathom with the com
mon plummet line. Arctic and Antarctic lands, again,
now overlaid with thick-ribbed ice, thousands of feet
inBthickness, where lichens and mosses are the only
vegetable productions sparsely seen, once possessed a
luxuriant growth of the trees and shrubs of temperate
�48
The Pentateuch.
lands, and teemed with insect and higher animal life.
The temperate regions, again, where nature now
smiles for half the year at least, and the soil yields
corn and wine and oil to the industry of man, were
overlapped in former ages of the world by glaciers
hundreds of feet in thickness, pouring down from
northern heights, and putting as effectual an end to
the life that had been upon them as ever Noah’s
Deluge could have done; telling the tale of their
source and leaving records of their course in the pon
derous blocks or boulders they have carried and left
among us, as well as by the groovings and abraded
surfaces of our hills, on which the eye of science reads
the history of another state of things than that which
now prevails.
Are there any traces of the presence of man on the
earth discoverable among the records of those earlv
ages ?
In so far as we yet know it is only in the latest
drift—the gravel, sand, and clay of the quaternary
period, and in the caves of limestone rocks, that we
find evidences in his remains, of man’s existence on
the earth. Associated as these are with the teeth and
bones of animals fitted to live in cold or temperate
climates,—the cave bear, the hyeena, the hairy mam
moth and woolly rhinoceros, we infer that man as
man was present in these northern temperate lati
tudes in times not exceedingly remote, geologically
speaking, from the last great glacial epoch in the
earth’s history, but still some hundreds of thousands
of years ago—how many it is impossible to say.
There may have been—doubtless there was—some
foundation in fact for the tale of the Noachian
Deluge ?
Many regions of the globe are still exposed to dis
astrous floods that sweep away the inhabitants and
their cattle by thousands, and we are therefore war
ranted in saying that in the story of the Noachian
�Genesis: Noah.
49
Deluge we have the legendary record of some great
flood which occurred in far off times, when the high
lands of Armenia and Mesopotamia, whence appear
to have come the Hebrews and others of the cognate
tribes that peopled Palestine, were other than they
are at the present day, or than they were fifty, a hun
dred, a thousand, or ten hundred thousand years ago.
Tn the earlier ages of the world there must have oc
curred floodings of extensive districts of country, at
tended with disastrous consequences to life and pos
sessions, of which we have the shadowy records in
the tales of the Noachian, Dencalian, and other
deluges. In our own day, indeed, we know that
floods as terrible, it may be, as any that ever occurred
in pre-historic times, and probably even more destruc
tive to human life, have happened in regions watered
by such mighty rivers as the Indus and the Ganges.
These, however, we now interpret as having come to
pass through no repentant mood or revengeful pur
pose on the part of God to drown the hapless people
for their sins, but in consonance with natural inci
dents and natural laws, such as the giving way of a
mountain harrier that had penned up a mighty lake,
disintegrated by frost, and sapped by long-continued
rain ; the melting of a glacier which stretched across
a gorge in the hills, and held back an ocean behind
it; excessive rainfalls, accompanied by gales of wind
that heaped up the waters of great draining streams
at their outlets to the ocean, &c.
So much for the flood; what is said of Noah’s
doings after it ?
He became a husbandman, planted a vine, drank
of the wine it produced, and was drunken.
Some years must have elapsed before Noah could
have indulged in such an improper way; and whence
he had the vines, after all the plants on the face of
the earth had been drowned, like its animal inhabi
tants, does not appear.
E
�5°
The Pentateuch.
What happened next ?
Noah’s son Ham happening to come into the tent,
and seeing his father in an unseemly state of naked
ness, and probably asleep after his debauch, was
cursed in his posterity by his parent, whilst Shem
and Japhet, who covered him over, are blessed.
“ Cursed be Canaan (one of Ham’s sons), a servant
of servants shall he be unto his brethren,” is the form
of the malediction pronounced on the son by his
father for having had the use of his eyes.
What may be the meaning of this ?
Canaan, according to the mythical story, was an
cestor of the tribe that peopled the country called
after him, which the Jews ravaged with fire and
sword, appropriating the territory, and reducing the
inhabitants whom they did not slaughter to the state
of slaves. The curse of the innocent son—cursing in
the Hebrew scriptures not always going by demerit,
any more than blessing by desert—may have been
contrived as an excuse for the murder and robbery
perpetrated in after years by the sept which had
Shem for its progenitor.
What is the next remarkable incident recorded in
these mythical tales of prehistoric times ?
The building of a city on a plain in the land of
Shinar, and of a tower in especial whose top was to
reach to heaven, all the people being still of one
language.
What follows ?
“Jehovah,” it is said, “came down (!) to seethe
city and the tower.” Not approving of the builders’
proceedings, apprehensive it might seem that, united
by the bond of a common language, their work would
be carried to a successful issue, and heaven, his own
peculiar dwelling-place, be stormed, he is reported to
say further: “ Go to ! let us go down and there con
found the language of the people that they may not
understand one another’s speech.” This being done
�Genesis; The T^ower of Babel.
$i
—Jehovah coming down and confounding their
speech—the inhabitants of the city on the plain of
Shinar left off their building, became scattered abroad
over the face of the earth, and heaven was not as
sailed.
The purpose for which this childish story was de
vised is plain ?
It was doubtless contrived as a means of accounting
for the diversities of language which the Jewish
writer, even in his restricted intercourse with the
rest of the world, could not fail to observe. As to
God’s “ coming down to see,” and “ the tower whose
top should reach to heaven,” all this is mere childish
ness, though not unimportant, as enabling us to
measure the conception of the nature of Deity enter
tained by the writer, whoever he was—one of Nebu
chadnezzar’s captives in all probability, who had had
reluctant occasion to see the lofty temple of Babylon,
on whose summit, as the metropolitan “ High place,”
the rites of Baal and Mylitta were celebrated.f
Have we not two accounts of the Tower of Babel
and the confusion of tongues, as of so many others of
the mythical tales of the Old Testament ?
We have but one account of this particular inci
dent, and that by the Jehovist. It is not even alluded
to by the more sensible Elohist. Both writers, how
ever, give genealogies of Noah’s descendants ; but
these do not agree, the Jehovist stopping short at the
name of a certain Joktan, not mentioned by the
Elohist, who carries on the stock to Terah, the father
of Abram, the next most important personage met
with in the story of the Hebrew people ?
Terah, we are informed, removes with his family
from Ur of the Chaldees to Haran—what happens to
Abram his son ?
Commanded to leave his father’s house and kindred,
f See Herodotus, Clio, 199, and Appendix B.
�5*
Phe Pentateuch.
under a promise of being made a great nation, Abram
departs and comes into the land of Canaan; but a
famine prevailing, he goes on, still southward, and
reaches Egypt, where he abides.
What particular orders did Abram give his wife
Sarai as they neared the land of Egypt ?
He ordered her to report falsely of their relation
ship—to say she was his sister, not his wife, lest the
Egyptians, to obtain possession of her, should make
away with him.
What came of this ?
Sarai, being fair to look on, was taken into the
Pharaoh’s house—as a concubine, of course, and
Abram was well entreated. But Jehovah,' it is said,
“ plagued Pharaoh because of Sarai, Abram’s wife,”
though, to our modern sense of fairness, the parties
who most deserved plaguing were Abram and Sarai
themselves. Brought by the plagues he suffered—■
what they were we are not informed, of the kind
perhaps which the Scottish poet hints at when he
speaks
“ Of the best wark-loom in a’ house,
No worth a prin just at the pinch ”—
and led to suspect that he had been imposed on,
Pharaoh now summons Abram to his presence, and
reproaches him with the falsehood he had suggested;
but, only anxious to be quit of the strangers, he sent
Abram away with his wife and all that he had.
There is a repetition of this story in another part of
these Old Testament writings still held sacred ?
There is. Abiding at a later period in Gerar (in
Phoenicia), and again “ lest they should slay him for
his wife’s sake,” Abram himself reports Sarai his wife
as his sister to Abimelech, king of the country, who,
like the Egyptian Pharaoh, had taken her to himself.
But Elohim (for the story in its present shape, if the
title of his God is to guide us, is from the Elohist, as
�Genesis: Abram.
53
in its first form it was from the pen of the Jehovist)
now threatens Abimelech in a dream with death to
himself and disaster to his kingdom,—not because of
his concupiscence, however, but by reason of his re
lations with Sarai, into which he may be said to have
been led by the lie that was told him.
To what shift is the writer now driven to save
Sarai from dishonour and to help Abram out of the
disgrace of telling a falsehood ?
He appends a number of particulars to his tale,
which may fairly be taken for what they are worth,
and then speaks of a more intimate blood-relationship
between Abram and Sarai than any that had been
hinted at before. But to make Abram the husband
of his own father’s child—his sister, therefore,—
seems on every moral mode of computation a sorry
means of helping him out of his difficulty—better to
have left him with the lie than laden him with incest.
But criticism is thrown away upon the unreason and
incongruity of the twentieth chapter of Genesis.
To make confusion worse confounded, is there
not another story, the same in almost every particular,
connected with the history of Isaac and Rebekah ?
There is, and strangely enough, and to puzzle us
the more, it is the same, or it may be another Abime
lech, King of the Philistines, who now takes the place
of the King of Gerar and the Pharaoh of Egypt.
Abimelech, King of the Philistines, however, is
neither plagued like the Pharaoh nor threatened like
his namesake ; for, happening to look out of a window
“he saw and behold Isaac was sporting with Rebekah
his wife.” On this discovery, and inferring the true
relationship between Isaac and Rebekah, he challenges
the husband with having spoken falsely.
Is Abimelech, King of the Philistines, wroth with
Isaac and Rebekah because of the falsehood they had
told him ?
By no means. On the contrary, he sends Isaac
�54
The Pentateuch.
away,, with his wife ; “ having done him nothing but
good. Sarai would seem to have been a singularly
attractive person; for when the encounter with
Abimelech took place she must have been not less
than ninety years old 1 And this and other such
unhallowed tales comprised in these old writings of
the Jewish people are still paraded in this nineteenth
century of the Christian era as parts of the inspired
word of God given for the edification of mankind!
Resuming the history of Abram, who now returns
from Egypt, in company with Lot his brother, to
Beth-el in Palestine, where, on his southward journey,
he had already built an altar to Jehovah,—what
happens ?
The herdsmen of the brothers having quarrelled,
they agree to separate; and Lot, having the first
choice, selects the plain of the Jordan, which was well
watered “ even as that Garden of Jehovah the land
of Egypt,” before the calamity that befel Sodom and
Gomorrah ; whilst Abram, for his part, resolves to
abide in the land of Canaan, which is again formally
promised to him and his posterity as a possession for
ever ; though it is now many centuries since it was
lost to them, and won by the Saracen and Turk.
The history of the Patriarch is interrupted at this
point ?
By the ill-digested account we find of a great battle
fought between four kings against five; of the capture
of Lot by Chederlaomer, one of the kings engaged,
and his confederates; of the rescue of Lot by Abram
and his retainers, and the recovery of all the booty
that had been carried off; of the appearance on the
scene of a certain Melchizedek, King of Salem, who is
also styled Priest of the most high God, who blesses
Abram, and in return receives a tithe of all the spoil
recovered.
Various interpretations, it is-to be presumed, have
been given of this episode ?
�Genesis: Abram.
55
Besides having been seen for that which in all
likelihood it is—the legendary record of a raid by
one party of petty chiefs against another—a more
recondite meaning has been connected with it; the
personages brought upon the scene having been re
ferred to the figures still to be seen on our celestial
globes, which have all been derived from planispheres of
ancient Indian and Egyptian descent, whilst the par
ticulars spoken of and the numbers given are held to be
significant of an attempt to reform the calendar. This,
owing to the true length of the year, 365 days six
hours fifty-six minutes and as many seconds, not being
known, was found in ancient times to require frequent
adjustments in order to bring the seasons, or the
solsticial and equinoctial points into conformity with
astronomical data and the computations of the old
astrologers.?
“ After these things,” says the text, “the word of
Jehovah came unto Abram in a vision, saying: Fear
not, Abram, I am thy shield and thy exceeding great
reward.” Does the Patriarch express himself grateful
for this assurance of the Divine favour ?
On the contrary, he complains that he is childless,
and that the steward of his house is his heir. He is
assured, however, that this shall not be so, but that
his heir shall be a son who shall come out of his own
bowels. Meantime he is bidden to look abroad on the
stars of heaven and say if he can number them, and
is further assured that so many should be his
posterity.
What more ?
Abram is now ordered to make a sacrifice of a
heifer, a she-goat, a ram, a turtle dove, and a young
pigeon. This he does ; slaying the victims, he divides
s The reader who is curious will find the subject now hinted
at discussed at length by Sir W. Drummond in his (Edipus
Judaicus ; and by a German writer of great erudition, Nork, in
his Biblische Mythologie.
�56
"The- Pentateuch.
them in the middle and lays the halves one against
another, but he does not proceed to consume them
with fire as usual upon the altar which we must pre
sume he had built. As the sun was going down a
deep sleep fell upon Abram, in which he had a second
vision, and was informed that his seed should be
strangers in a land that was not theirs ; that they
should there be afflicted for four hundred years, but
should afterwards come out with great substance and
possess the land where he then was from the river
of Egypt to the great river Euphrates.
What interpretation is to be put on the informa
tion thus and at this time delivered ?
That it is all information given after the event, and
assures us definitively that so much of the text at
least as conveys it was written long after the Israelites
had been settled in Palestine, and had subjugated the
Amorites, Hittites, Kenites, Jebusites, &c. Further,
and more particularly, as the Jebusites were only sub
dued and their city Jebus taken by King David, who
changed its name to Jerusalem, we learn that the
writer lived subsequently to the reign of that poten
tate.11
By what extraordinary agency were the carcases
prepared by Abram consumed ?
“ When the sun went down and it was dark, a
smoking furnace and a burning lamp passed between
the pieces.” But Jehovah, the titular God of the
Jews, is repeatedly spoken of in the Hebrew scrip
tures as “a consuming fire;” the smoking furnace
and burning lamp are therefore to be understood as
figurative expressions for the fire which Abram made
use of to sublimate the bodies of his victims and make
them meet food for his God.
h The Bishop of Natal has shown satisfactorily that this
passage is by the writer of Deuteronomy,—a very late writer
consequently.
�Genesis: Abram.
SI
Abram, we have seen, has been promised a son of
his own; but Sarai his wife bore him no children.
She, however, had a handmaid, an Egyptian, Hagar
by name, whom she gave to Abram her husband as a
second wife or concubine, saying to him: “ Go in
unto my maid, I pray thee, that I may obtain children
by her.”
This was a somewhat extraordinary and hazardous
proceeding on the part of Sarai ?
To modern notions, but not, it would seem, to such
as prevailed among the ancient Hebrews. Sarai may,
perhaps, have been curious to know whether the
“ effect defective ” lay with her or with her husband.
Abram, however, consents to the proposal F
He is nothing loth ; and Hagar conceives by him.
But when Hagar knew that she was with child by
Abram she despised and probably was insolent to her
barren mistress Sarai, who complains to Abram of
her handmaid’s behaviour.
Abram interposes manfully, of course, between the
barren Sarai and the fruitful Hagar, who has now his
own child under her heart ?
He does nothing of the kind. As he has already
shown himself cowardly and untruthful in presence
of Pharaoh and Abimelech, Abram now shows him
self both unjust and without natural compassion for
his concubine, for he says to the envious Sarai:
“ Behold thy maid is in thy hand ; do with her as it
pleaseth thee.” In her spite, although all had come
to.be as it was through her own suggestion, Sarai, as
said, “ dealt hardly with Hagar
who, terrified,
flees from her face into the wilderness.
What befalls her there ?
She is speedily reduced to extremity, of course, but
is found by a well of water in the desert by the angel
of Jehovah (who here, as in so many other places of
the Old Testament, turns out to be Jehovah himself),
and is admonished to return and submit herself to
�58
The Pentateuch.
her mistress. By way of inducement to do so (and
persuaded, doubtless, also by the strait in which she
found herself), she receives most liberal promises of
an ample posterity through the son whom she is in
formed she will bear. She therefore returns, and in
due season is delivered of a son, whom Abram calls
Ishmael, the name which Hagar had received for him
from the angel of Jehovah in the wilderness.
What is the next remarkable incident recorded in
this extraordinary history ?
When Abram is. ninety-nine years old, Jehovah
appears to him and announces himself as El-Schaddai—
the mighty El or God; orders him to change his
name from Abram to Abraham—father of many
nations, and his wife’s name Sarai to Sarah—Prin
cess ; “for,” says the narrative, “ I will make nations
of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.”
The covenant already made with Abram is thus
again, but with additions and more solemnly, renewed
with Abraham ?
It is, and as its seal and testimony for ever the rite
of circumcision is commanded : “ Every male child
among you,” says the text, “ shall be circumcised ; he
among you that is born in the house or is bought
with money of the stranger, that is eight days old,
shall be circumcised; the uncircumcised man-child
shall be cut off from his people—-he hath broken my
covenant.”
. What may be the meaning of the rite of circum
cision thus formally and forcibly announced ?
To think of it for a moment as ordered of God
were absurd : God sends his work fit for its end into
the world; it needs no interference of man to make
it so. Among the Semitic tribes, of whom the
Hebrews were one, human sacrifices appear to have
prevailed universally in early times : the first-born
of man and beast—or as the Old Testament scrip
tures have it, all that opened the womb—belonged to
�Genesis: Abraham.
59
the God of the tribe, however named—El, Bel, Baal, or
Molech—and through countless ages was undoubtedlysacrificed to him by fire. But as time ran on, as
civilisation advanced and more humane ideas were
engendered, the barbarous practice was seen in its
true light, and a substitute for the sacrifice of the
whole was sought for, and believed to have been
found, in the sacrifice of a part.
The rite of circumcision has significance in another,
though closely allied, direction ?
It has. Besides its symbolical character of sub
stitute, it is intimately connected with the worship
paid to the reproductive principle in nature, of which
the symbol was the Phallus. The Egyptian priests,
priests of the gods of increase—Osiris, Isis—were
necessarily circumcised, as the priests of the deities of
decay among other peoples—Attys, Cybele, &c. were
emasculated. In Egypt the priest appears to have
been consecrated to his office by circumcision,—the
commonalty of the country were not as a rule sub
jected to the rite. The Israelites, however, as a people
holy to Jehovah, were as matter of course and neces
sity circumcised : on the eighth day instead of being
presented as a burnt offering on the altar of his God,
as in the olden time he would have been had he hap
pened to be the first-born, every son of Israel in later
days had, and still has, the foreskin of his private
member solemnly resected by the priest and con
sumed in the fire, an offering, disguise it as they may,
to the fire-king Melek or Moloch whom their fathers
worshipped, and on whose altars they had been used
to offer up the first-born of their sons and daughters,
of their flocks and herds.
How does Abraham receive the intimation that a
son will be born to him by his wife Sarah, that she
shall yet be the mother of nations and that kings of
peoples shall be of her ?
Not so reverently as might have been expected.
�6°
The Pentateuch.
He fell on his.face, indeed, but he laughed incredulous,
and said in his heart: Shall a child be born unto him
that is an hundred years old; and shall Sarah that
is ninety years old bear ! He therefore entreats God
for his son Ishmael. But God says to him : “ Sarah
thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed, and thou shalt
call his name Isaac, and with him and his seed after
him will I establish my covenant everlastingly. And
as for Ishmael, him I have blessed, and he shall be
fruitful;. twelve princes shall he beget, and I will
make , him a great nation ; but my covenant will I
establish with Isaac which Sarah shall bear unto thee
at this set time of the year.”
There is as usual a second account of this mira
culous engendering of a son by persons respectively
one hundred and ninety years old ?
There is, and from the Jehovist, as that which pre
cedes is in great part from the storehouse of the
Elohist in great part, we say, for interpolations in
its course are readily detected by the attentive
reader. In the second account “ three men ” appear
to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, as he sat in the
tent door in the heat of the day. Abraham addresses
them as “My Lord,” invites them into his tent, has
water fetched to wash their feet, entertains them with
the flesh of a calf “tender and good,” with cakes
baked on the hearth by Sarah, and with butter and
milk a sumptuous Arab shiek’s repast, in short, and
himself stands by them under the tree as they eat.
What say the three men thus hospitably enter
tained ?
They ask after Sarah, and “ he ” (the singular
now taking the place of the plural) informs Abraham
that Sarah his wife shall bear him a son. Sarah,
‘ old and well stricken in years, with whom it had
ceased to be after the manner of women,” hears the
announcement and laughs at the notion of her and her
lord being old also ” having a child between them.
�Genesis: Abraham.
61
Sarah’s laugh and implied incredulousness does
not pass unobserved ?
No. “ Jehovah (the name now changed from
Elohim) said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah
laugh, saying : Shall I of a surety bear a child which
am old I Is anything too hard for Jehovah ” ?
What answer makes Sarah when challenged with
her incredulous laughter ?
Not being of a perfectly truthful disposition, as we
know already, we are not surprised when we find her
denying that she had laughed : “ I laughed not,”
says she, “ for she was afraid. But Jehovah said :
Nay, but thou didst laugh.”
What are we to think of such tales, and of such
conceptions of the Deity as are implied in them ?
That the tales are the conceits of men with the
minds of children, and the preservers of them, and
above all the believers in them as records of veritable
events, involving matter either interesting or edifying,
are to be held as ignorant, credulous, superstitious,
and incompetent persons.
To the query : Is anything too hard for Jehovah,
what answer must be given ?
That God the Lord, Supreme Cause, Rule and Ruler
of the Universe, never contravenes the laws which are
his essence—cannot be in contradiction with himself.
Having ordained that when it ceases with a woman
to be after the manner of women she shall no longer
bear children, we may safely and with all reverence
say that God had verily made it too hard for him to
have Sarah become a mother. But the Jews had no
conception of a universe ruled by General, Invariable,
Necessary Law, nor any other idea of Jehovah than
as a sovereign prince and ruler, doing and undoing at
his arbitrary will and pleasure, having the earth alone
of all his works, and the children of Israel alone of all
the people upon it, as objects of his fatherly care and
consideration.
�62
The Pentateuch.
The , narrative proceeds, informing us that the
men
(the plural again) rise up and look towards
Sodom, Abraham going with them to bring them on
their way. As they go, Jehovah (now it is the sin
gular) is represented as deliberating with himself
whether he ought not to impart to Abraham the pur
pose he had conceived of destroying Sodom and
Gomorrah because of the wickedness of their inha
bitants, and is here made by the writer to say :
Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great
and their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and
see whether they have done altogether according to
the cry of it which is come unto me; and if not I
will know.” The Jews evidently thought of their
Jehovah as we think of a person in authority who
needs to make inquiry as to the truth or falsehood of
the reports that reach him : he came down to look
after the builders of the Tower of Babel and confound
their language, and he comes down again to take the
measure of the sinners of Sodom and Gomorrah? and
punish them according to their demerits.
The men turn their faces towards Sodom, but
Abraham, it is said, “stood yet before Jehovah.”
The use now of the plural and then of the singular in
this extraordinary narrative will give the candid
reader a sufficient hint of the composite character of
the Pentateuch. The narrator must have had more
than one of the legendary tales that were still floating
in his day before him when he wrote (and he could
not have written until after the times of more than
one of the Jewish kings), and has here, as in so many
other places, performed his task of editor indifferently.
Abraham left alone with Jehovah, what takes place
between them ?
The notable parley in which the man Abraham
tries to turn his God Jehovah from his purpose of de
stroying Sodom and Gomorrah. “ Wiltjthou destroy
the righteous with the wicked ?” asks the Patriarch
�Genesis : Abraham.
6J
of the Lord. “Peradventure there be fifty righteous
within the city ; far be it from thee to slay the right
eous with the wicked,—and shall not the judge of all
the earth do right ?” “ If I find fifty righteous in
Sodom, then will I spare all the place for their sake,”
replies Jehovah, according to the Hebrew scribe.
. Abraham would make still better terms for the
city, and continues perseveringly, saying :
“ Peradventure there shall lack five—ten—twenty
forty of the fifty and Jehovah says : “ I will not
destroy it for ten’s sake.” “ And Jehovah went his
way as soon as he had left communing with^Abra
ham.”
What are we in the present day, with our ideas of
the immanent ubiquity and necessarily impersonal
nature of God, to think of such a tale as this, and of
words bandied in such a way between man and the
Deity ?
The tale is doubtless another of the myths or legends
transmitted orally from remote antiquity and pre
served by an over-scrupulous editor from the oblivion
it so well deserved, if by its means it were intended
to convey any true or possible idea of God’s proce
dure in his dealings with mankind and the world.
Man does not bandy words with God ; neither does
he attempt to fix the Supreme on the horns of a
dilemma by a series of Socratic questions, each reply
to each succeeding query leaving the respondent more
m the wrong than he had been before. God’s acts
are not in time, but from eternity; they are not con
sequences, whether in advance or in recall of ante
cedent purposes. . God, moreover, does never in any
human sense punish, neither by condoning misdeed
does he ever forgive the guilty. [Are there ten
guilty persons in a great city, they suffer for them
selves, if their guiltiness be through violation of anv of
God s laws ; and ten thousand guiltless persons, their
fellow-citizens, would not save them from paying the
�64
The Pentateuch.
penalty of their sin. Unhappily the opposite does
not hold; for one reckless and guilty person violating
a natural law may cause the death of many,—a truth
of which terrible illustrations are offered in the explo
sions that so frequently occur in coal mines and
powder mills.
Proceeding with the tale as delivered, we now find
“ two angels,” two of the “three men” presumably
who had been entertained by Abraham, going on to
Sodom, where they are met and waited on by Lot
much in the same way as they had been by his
brother Abraham. What next befals ?
The narrator, as if to show how well the doomed
city deserved its impending fate, presents us with
such a picture of the state of morals and customs pre
vailing among its inhabitants as it seems impossible
in these our days even to imagine; Lot and his
family, the parties excepted from the ruin hanging
over their homes, by their after-doings appearing in
scarcely a more favourable light than their detestable
fellow-townsmen.
Must not the nineteenth chapter of the Book of
Genesis be regarded by us as a most extraordinary
element in a volume said by ecclesiastics, and gene
rally believed, to be given by God to the world for
its edification in morals and furtherance in religious
knowledge ?
Looked at with the eye of reason, it can be seen in
no other light. So gross and offensive ar e most of
the particulars it contains, that they cannot here be
mentioned openly. But to proceed: Lot and his
family forewarned, escape from Sodom and flee to
Zoar, and then, the sun being risen upon the earth,
Jehovah rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone
and fire from Jehovah out of heaven, and overthrew
these cities, and the plain, and all their inhabitants,
and all that grew upon the ground—the innocent with
the guilty consequently—infants and young children,
�Genesis: Sodom and Gomorrah.
6$
as well as the grown men and women, all wicked
alike, for among them, from what is said, there conld
not have been found ten that were innocent, else had
the cities been saved. The destruction was indiscri
minate, and the Jewish God Jehovah himself its
agent! Lot, however, has escaped with his family to
Zoar, where he did not long remain, but quitting the
little town, he went and dwelt with his daughters in
a cave—hard by, we may presume.
What happened there ?
That of which it shames us to speak. The daugh
ters, as though the destruction of Sodom and Gomor
rah had been attended with effects as far reaching as
the flood of Noah, are made to speak as if their father
were the only man left alive in the world. To satisfy
a brutal appetite, they are said in this book of the
Jewish law, accepted by Christian men and women
as inspired by God, to have made their father drunk
with wine, and to have sought his bed in succession,
the consequence of which is that they both conceive
and bear sons, who respectively become in after years
the progenitors of the Moabites and Ammonites,
What may be the possible meaning of this foul tale ?
The Moabites and Ammonites — cognate Semitic
tribes, speaking the same, or dialects of the same, lan
guage as the Hebrews, were among the number of
those whom the Israelites dispossessed of their lands
and reduced to slavery, when they did not take their
lives. A vile and unnatural origin had to be devised
in after times by way of excuse for the ills which
these unfortunate peoples were made to suffer in an
age gone by. The daughters of Lot were little worthy
of the favour shown them in their escape from Sodom
reduced to ashes; but they were wanted by the writer
as parts in the machinery of his story.
The wife of Lot escaped with her husband and
daughters from the burning, but came to an extraor
dinary end nevertheless ?
�66
The Pentateuch.
She, according to the veracious historian, for having
looked back upon the burning town, was turned into
a pillar of salt upon the plain, where, if we may be
lieve the traveller who has an eye for the marvellous,
she is still to be seen I The transformation, inflicted
for a natural and innocent impulse, was as severe as
it was extraordinary, no parallel to which, we may
believe, has since occurred ; though men do still look
fondly back upon the homes they are leaving, when
sad necessity or prescriptive tyranny—worse than
fire from heaven—devotes them to destruction. But
the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah is a myth—an idea
furnished with accessories and embodied in language.
Were such towns ever in existence, as they may well
have been, and destroyed in the manner described, it
could only have happened by the eruption of a volcano
now extinct, like those outbursts of Vesuvius which
desolated Pompeii and Herculaneum in more recent
times, and of other burning mountains which still
bring desolation and loss of life over many parts of
the earth’s surface. But the Jews, as we have already
had occasion to observe, ascribed every event in both
natural and human history to the immediate agency
of their God Jehovah, believing as they did that all
the calamities which befel nations as well as indivi
duals were punishments for acts displeasing to him.
Assuming Sodom and Gomorrah to have been over
whelmed by a volcanic eruption in very remote times,
therefore, was it said, must their inhabitants have been
a wicked and abominable race; and further, as the
lands of the Moabites and Ammonites were usurped
by the children of Israel, so were the Moabites and
Ammonites the spawn of the incestuous intercourse
detailed.
We have additional evidence of this Jewish view of
the special providential ordering of things by Jehovah,
immediately after the story about Sodom and Gomor
rah, and about Lot and his daughters, have we not ?
�Genesis: Abraham and Isaac.
67
It is now that we meet with the tale of Abraham’s
second denial of Sarah as his wife,—on this occasion
to Abimelech, King of Gerar ; and we learn that
Jehovah “ visited Sarah, as he had said, and did unto
her as he had spoken,” Jehovah being thus made, as
it were, the immediate agent in the matter, for now
it was that Sarah “ conceived and bare a son to Abra
ham in his old age.”
Abraham was mindful of the terms of the covenant
entered into with him by Jehovah ?
He was : when his son was eight days old he was
duly circumcised and named Isaac by his father,
on the day on which all that opened the womb
according to more ancient custom were sacrificed on
the altar of burnt offering. Seven days was the first
born, whether of man or beast, to be with the mother
or dam ; on the eighth it must be given, as his due for
the increase and as the price of future favours of the
like kind, to the Reproductive Principle in Nature
conceived as Deity.
Circumcision was not all that was required in the
case of mankind in after times, when the religious
system of the Israelites came to be formulated, and a
priesthood established ?
Then had the first-born of man, besides parting
with his foreskin, to be further redeemed by a certain
price in money. The first-born of beasts might be
sacrificed or redeemed at the option of those into
whose herds or flocks they were born, with the single
exception of the ass, which was on no account to be
offered on the altar, but in case it was not redeemed,
was to be put to death by having its neck broken,—
that is, by being thrown from a height and killed.
The single exception of the ass as unavailable for
sacrifice on the altar of the Hebrew God, and the
peculiar mode in which it is ordered to be put to
death, seem to require explanation ?
Which may be found in the fact that the ass, both
�68
The Pentateuch.
in Ancient Egypt and Palestine, was looked on in the
light of an animal at once sacred and accursed. In.
Palestine he long supplied the place of the horse, and
was in regular use for the saddle as well as beast
of burthen ; but in Egypt he was sacred to Typhon,
the brother and enemy of Osiris, and was the victim
especially devoted to him, the mode of his sacrifice
being that which is commanded in the Hebrew Scrip
tures. Typhon himself, generally figured in Egyp
tian sculptures with the head of the swine, is some
times also met with having the head of the ass ; and
among the Egyptian drawings there is a very singular
one in which Horus has Typhon with the ass’s head
by the ear, and is belabouring him with the staff he
has in his hand—z.e., the early Spring or Summer Sun
has vanquished his enemy Winter.1
The system of redeeming by money instead of con
suming by fire was certainly a mighty step in advance,
and, once entered on, was likely to be vigorously en
forced in view of the revenue it brought to the priest
hood. But there must have been a certain reluctance
on the part of Abraham’s God to forego his ancient
right to the first-born of the patriarch’s posterity ?
It would seem so by the record, at all events. Isaac
had certainly a narrow escape from sublimation by
fire, and being sent in the way of a sweet savour as
food to the God of his father.
What says the tale ?
After his departure from Abimelech of Gerar,
Elohe, it is said, did tempt Abraham, saying: “Take
now thy son, thine Only (Jahid, Hebrew, used as a
noun), whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land
of Moriah, and offer him there for a burnt-offering
upon one of the mountains which I shall tell thee of.”
1 See Moyers: Die Phoenizier, B. I. See also a Paper by
Herr Hirt in Abhand. der Histor-Philolog. Klasse der Acad,
d. Wissensch. zu Berlin aus den Jahren, 1820—21. S. 165.
�Genesis : Abraham and Isaac.
6g
Does Abraham express surprise at this extraordi
nary command of his God Elohe ?
. Not any; he rises up early in the morning, saddles
his ass, cleaves wood for the burnt-offering, and sets
out on the journey. After three days’ travel he sees
the place of the sacrifice afar off, bids the attendants
he had with him remain with the ass where they
were, whilst he and the lad should “go yonder and
worship, and come again to them.” Abraham then
lays the wood for the burnt-offering on his son ; takes
fire in his hand and a knife, and they go on together.
Is Isaac passive whilst all this is done ?
Not entirely: he sees the fire and the wood and
the knife, but not the lamb for the sacrifice. His
father assures him, however, that Elohe will provide
himself a lamb for the burnt-offering. Arrived at
Mount Moriah, Abraham builds an altar, lays the
wood in order upon it, binds his son Isaac, lays him
on the pile, and raises the knife to complete the
sacrifice. But the angel of Jehovah (it is no longer
Elohe) calls to him out of heaven, and bids him
not to lay his hand upon the lad; “ for now,”
proceeds the angel, who,.as in other instances, is
seen to be Jehovah himself, “I know that thou
fearest. Elohe, seeing thou hast not withheld thy
son, thine only son from me.” Lifting up his eyes,
Abraham discovers a ram caught by the horns in a
thicket behind him, which he takes, slays, and pre
sents as a burnt-offering in the stead of his son.
This is an extraordinary story ! Can we, as reason
able and passably pious men, believe that God ever
tempts mankind,—ever commanded a father to make
a burnt-offering of his son ?
God? in bestowing on man the wonderful power of
paternity, has also put such feelings of tenderness
into his heart as makes the entertainment of such an
idea abhorrent to his nature. He who should now—
and, it is not unfair to presume, in the day also when
�7o
The Pentateuch.
the tale was written—imagine that he had received
an order from God to slay and make a burnt-offering
of his son would be treated as a madman, and merci
fully taken care of by his friends. Possessed of our
faculties and masters of ourselves, we are not mas
tered by distressing dreams and phantoms of the
night.
Isaac, however, as we see, was not sacrified, although
Abraham had received the express commands of his
God to make a burnt-offering of his son ?
No ; and this putting God in contradiction with himself, and the angel of Jehovah calling out of heaven,
relegates the story of the Temptation of Abraham to
its proper place among the myths and legends of hoar
antiquity. Our advanced conceptions of the nature of
Deity forbid us to think of God as tempting mankind,
as commanding and countermanding in a breath, as
calling out of heaven in any sense, or using human
speech otherwise than mediately through the mouth
of man.
What farther comment may be made on this tale ?
Had child-sacrifice lain outside the sphere of Hebrew
religious rites, as the modern Jews and bible-commen
tators all show themselves so eager to show that it
did, in face of Jehovah’s express order to sanctify to
him all that opened the womb both of man and beast,
such a commandment as that said to have been given
by God to Abraham could never have been imagined.
Had not human sacrifice been familiar to the Jewish
mind, as it undoubtedly was up to the time of the
Captivity, the Patriarch would have been depicted
rejecting the order to slay his son as the command
ment of a lying spirit.^
May not the tale have been contrived in relatively
modern times—after the Babylonian Captivity, for
instance—to declare that God had ceased to require
k Vide Vatke, Biblische Theologie, § 22, S. 276.
�Genesis: Abraham and Sarah.
71
the human victims as burnt-offerings to which he
had been so long accustomed, and that the will might
henceforth without offence be substituted for the
deed ?
The story of the temptation of Abraham has many
unquestionable marks of recent composition. It cer
tainly does not date from the period to which the
incidents among which it appears are referred; and
could indeed only have been invented in times when
the better spirits among the Jews had made the dis
covery that God delighted not in the blood of bulls
and rams, and still less in that of human beings.
Much has been made by modern theologians, in
connection with the Christian system, of the accre
dited command of God to Abraham to make a
sacrifice of his son ?
Very much. But God, as we have said, never com
mands his creatures to do aught that is not for their
own good, or the good of others; and the dogma
(entirely foreign to the spirit of the theistic morality
taught by Jesus of Nazareth) which makes of this
holy personage a sacrifice to satisfy Divine Justice,
assimilates the great God of Nature, the father of all
flesh, with the Phoenician El-Saturnus, Chronos, or
Molech, who was said himself actually to have sacri
ficed Jeud his only son—Jeud or Jehud—another
form of Jahid, Only.
Returning to the family affairs of the Patriarch,
we do not find that Sarah, blessed with a son of her
own, shows herself any way better disposed towards
Hagar, her handmaid, than she had been when she
was barren and childless ?
It is Sarah’s turn now to mock Hagar, the
Egyptian. “ Cast out this bond-woman and her
son,” she says to Abraham, “ for her son shall not
be heir with my son, even with Isaac.”
Abraham does not surely yield to this cruel sug
gestion of the spiteful and ungrateful woman ?
�72
The Pentateuch.
Although the thing, as said, was very grievous in
his sight, because of the lad, and because of the bond
woman, nevertheless, and as the story goes, having
God’s sanction for what he did, he yields to Sarah;
and charging Hagar with some bread and a bottle of
water, he turns her and her son—his own son, too—
Ishmael, out into the wilderness to perish, as he must
have known, and. where, but for the discovery of a
well of water when she and her child were reduced
to extremity, she must inevitably have died.
Hagar, however, is again succoured in time,
although how or by whom—unless it were by the
mythical angel of Jehovah as before, we are not in
formed. But Ishmael and his mother, after this,
disappear from the scene, and the whole interest is
concentrated on the Patriarch of the Hebrew people
and his son Isaac. There is an incident now men
tioned, which enables us, with the lights we possess,
to see Abraham as no more the exclusive worshipper
of the God El or El-schaddai of his forefathers than
he is of the more recently introduced Jehovah ?
He plants a tree by the well Beer-sheba, and there
calls on the name of Jehovah.
What may be the meaning of this ?
The word usually translated Grove in our English
version of the Hebrew Scriptures mostly signifies a
tree or a pillar of wood, when it does not mean the
divinity of whom the tree or pillar was the symbol—
the Aschera, Astarte, or Ashtaroth of Phoenicia, the
Mylitta of Babylonia, the Aphrodite of Greece, the
Venus of Rome, the Syria Dea of Lucan, personifica
tion of the passive element in the reproductive
principle of nature, usually associated with Baal the
Sun-God or active generative principle and object of
adoration with all the peoples of the ancient world.
Abraham, in planting a tree by the well of Beer-sheba,
the well itself significant of fertility, made an offering
to the God of Increase; and meets us here, as he must
�Genesis : Isaac and Rebekah.
73
have been in fact, if hot wholly mythical, as the Arab
Shiek, the worshipper of the Gods of his Fathers, not of
the Jehovah of post-Davidic times, when the Thora or
Code of Law ascribed to Moses had been compiled,
and the Temple of Jerusalem declared the only shrine
at which offerings acceptable to the Deity could be
brought.
-Sarah dies when she is a hundred and twenty-seven
years old, according to the record; and Abraham
buys of Ephron the son of Zohar, one of the sons
of Heth, the cave of Machpelah as a burying place
in the land of Canaan where he is sojourning. Well
stricken in years himself, Abraham is now anxious to
see his son Isaac settled with a wife; but, unwilling
to have a daughter of the land of Canaan advanced to
this honour, he despatches a trusty servant, whom he
binds by an oath, to Mesopotamia, his native country,
there, from among the number of his own kindred,
to find a helpmate for his son. The servant departs
with a handsome retinue of camels and attendants.
He entreats Jehovah-Elohim, the God of his master
Abraham, for good speed in his mission, and asks him
to let it come to pass that the one among the maidens
■who comes to draw water from the well, outside the
city of Nahor, by which he might halt, and to whom he
should say : “ Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that
I may drink,” and who should reply: “Drink, and I
will give thy camels drink also,” should be she whom
he—Jahveh-Elohim—had appointed for his servant
Isaac, “and thereby,” adds the envoy, ‘‘shall I know
that thou hast showed kindness to my master.” What
happens ?
Among others who come out to draw from the well
is Rebekah, daughter of JBethuel, son of Milcab,
Abraham’s brother Nahor’s wife, blood relation of
Isaac, consequently twice removed; and on Rebekah
it is that the choice falls ; for, asked for a draught
from her pitcher, she immediately repeats the words
�74
The Pentateuch.
which the envoy had resolved should be a sign from
Jehovah of his approval,—the Jews imagining that
their God interested himself even in the selection of
their wives !
The messenger enquires of Rebekah whose daughter
she is, and if there were room in her father’s house
where he and his troop might be lodged. Being in
formed that she is the daughter of Bethuel, and
assured that there was straw and provender and
lodging-room in her father’s house, he presents her
with the mystical gold ring, prototype of the gold
ring of the marriage ceremony among ourselves, and
having a significance then which it has no longer;
and beside the ring, he also presents her with brace
lets of price for her arms. What does Rebekah, on
the unexpected address of the stranger and the
presents she receives ?
She hastens home, informs the family of what has
passed, shows the ring and the bracelets, and
despatches her brother Laban to bid the stranger
welcome, and lead him • to the house. In short, the
parties speedily come to an understanding, and matters
are forthwith satisfactorily arranged, as though they
had been subject of anxious discussion long time
before. Rebekah by and by departs with the messen
ger as bride elect of Isaac, who meets her as with
her escort she draws near his father Abraham’s
tents, brings her to his late mother’s tent, where he
instals her; makes her his wife, loves her, and is com
forted after his mother Sarah’s death. What infor
mation have we now that seems to remove Abraham
out of the category of possible historical personages ?
He is said to have taken a second wife, Keturah
by name, and by her to have had a family of five
sons—of daughters, who may have been as many, no
mention is made—and only to have given up the ghost
when he was a hundred and seventy-five years old!
Is this credible ?
�Genesis : The Age of Man.
75
If we acknowledge the laws of nature, which are
the unimpeachable ordinances of God, to be changeless
as their author, we answer without misgiving : No,
it is not possible, and so is not credible.
What may be said of the extreme ages to which
men are said to have attained in these prehistoric
times—in these long by-gone ages of the world?
That the tales which transmit them are myths
which never had any foundation out of the imagina
tion of their inventors. Instead of getting shorter
and shorter as we come down the stream of time, it is
certain that human life has become longer and longer.
Savages and barbarous tribes are surrounded by num
berless conditions and circumstances adverse to life
that are mitigated in almost every instance, and in
many entirely removed, as progress is made in civili
sation and as appliances are discovered that minister
to the comfort and security of existence. There is
not only no prima facie likelihood that primaeval and
prehistoric man lived longer than the men of the
present day, but every presumption that life in by
gone ages of the world was much shorter on the
whole than it is now.
Have not certain recent scientific enquiries of un
questionable weight, resting on no fond imaginations
of poets, but on physiological grounds, definitively
settled the question, not only of the age that may
possibly be attained, but of the age that has ever been
attained, by man ?
We can now speak positively and say that, whilst
the life of man may possibly extend in rare and ex
ceptional instances to a hundred years, and even to
one, two, or three years beyond that term, the few of
all the millions born into the world who attain to
what all now agree in calling extreme old age, finish
their career between the limits of three-score and ten
and four-score and ten years.
So much for the men and women of the present
�The Pentateuch.
age, but what of those who lived in ages gone
by?
Neither are we without reliable records of the ages
at which they who flourished in these finished their
course on earth. The skulls of individuals taken
from the tombs of Sakara in Egypt, who died and
were buried some sixteen centuries before the date
assigned to the Deluge, or about the time when,
according to the Jewish accounts, the world was
created, show the same conditions of bone-structure
and dentition as the skulls of the men and women
who die at ages familiar to us at the present time.
The sutures of these old Egyptian crania are found to
approach obliteration in different degrees and to pre
sent other marks of age in exact conformity with
what is seen in the crania of persons who are known
to have died at certain ages among ourselves:—in
the younger heads the sutures are distinct, in the
older they are obliterated more or less completely,
and in the very old they are effaced. In the younger
heads, again, the teeth are more or less perfect, in the
older they are decayed or gone, precisely as among
ourselves in persons who die at every age between
childhood and seventy, eighty, or ninety years.
Have we not authentic information on this subject,
of even much higher antiquity than any imparted, by
Egyptian tombs, though their mummified occupants
lived so long ago as the second Dynasty of the
Pharaohs, or some centuries before the flood ?
We have; in the skulls that have of late years
been recovered from the drift, and dug out of caves
from under loads of stalagmite and breccia, whose
owners trapped and contended with the woolly rhino
ceros and mammoth, and disputed possession of their
sorry dwelling places with the cave bear and hysena—
all extinct at the present time. Carefully examined
and compared with recent crania, these skulls of indi
viduals who lived during the quaternary and towards
�Genesis : Esau and Jacob.
77
the close of the last great glacial period in the earth’s
history, so marvellously preserved through so many
thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, present
the same essential characters as those of the men and
women who die at the usual ages in the present day ;
and assure us that if they lived as long, they certainly
lived no longer than their descendants, the miners and
iron-workers of Belgium, who now people the soil
which once they trod.1
Returning to our story,-—what comes of the mar
riage of Isaac and Rebekah ?
As many of the incidents in the sacred writings of
the Hebrews are so commonly repeated in connection
with each new personage who comes upon the scene,
we might almost have anticipated that Rebekah, like
Sarah, would prove barren at first, but fruitful after
wards ; and so it falls out. Isaac, it is said, “ entreated
the Lord for his wife Rebekah,” so that she conceived
at last, and in due season brought forth twins—Esau
and Jacob.
What is there notable about these ?
Esau, the first born, it is said, was “ a red and
hairy man and became a cunning hunter; ” Jacob,
again, was “ a plain man, a dweller in tents, or living
much at home; ” and whilst Esau was loved of his
father, because of the venison he found him in the
chase, Jacob was loved of his mother.
What came of this unlike disposition in the youths^
and different likings of their parents ?
Returning faint and weary from hunting on a
certain occasion, Esau begged some of the pottage of
lentils which Jacob had sod and now got ready. But
the selfish Jacob, instead of sharing with his brother
and ministering to his wants, will only part with his
mess in return for Esau’s birthright as the elder born.
“Behold,” says Esau, “lam at the point to die, and
1 See Professor Owen’s admirable essay on Longevity in
Fraser s Magazine for February, 1872.
�78
The Pentateuch.
what profit shall this birthright do to me.” So he
bartered his birthright to Jacob for the lentil broth.
It was surely neither kind nor brotherly in Jacob
to profit by his brother’s state, faint for want, and
weary from the field ?
It certainly was not, but was of a piece with the
rest of Jacob’s character and procedure, as we
shall see.
What happens next ?
Isaac, grown old and his eyesight dim, calls his
eldest son Esau and bids him go into the field and
take him some venison, that he may have savoury
meat once more and find fitting occasion to give him
his blessing before he dies.
Whilst he is gone on this filial errand, what does
Rebekah, and to what iniquity does Jacob lend him
self?
Rebekah conspires with her favourite Jacob to
cheat the blind old man, her husband, and to rob
Esau, her first-born, of his father’s blessing. “ Go
now to the flock,” says Rebekah to her son Jacob,
“,and fetch me two good kids of the goats, and I will
make them savoury meat for thy father, such as he
loveth; and thou shall bring it to thy father that he
may eat and that he may bless thee before his
death.”
Does Jacob consent to this unfair suggestion of his
mother, or does he not rather object ?
He makes no objection, and is only fearful that the
plot may miscarry : “Behold,” says he, “Esau my
brother is a hairy man, and I a smooth man ; my
father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to
him as a deceiver, and I shall bring a curse upon me
and not a blessing.”
What answer makes Rebekah to this ?
She says: “ Upon me be the curse, my son, only
obey my voice and fetch me the kids.” This he does
forthwith, and she makes the savoury mess of the
�Genesis : Isaac and "Jacob.
79
kid’s meat such as old Isaac loved. She then takes
the goodly raiment of her elder son Esau and puts it
on Jacob, covers his hands and the exposed part of
his neck with the skins of the kids, and gives the
mess of meat and the bread she had prepared into his
hand. Thus disguised and furnished forth, Jacob
comes to his father and says : “ My father ! ” and he
says : “ Here am I, who art thou, my son ? ”
Jacob, conscience-stricken because of the unworthy
part he is playing, must surely answer truly now, and
say he is Jacob his father’s youngest son ?
No such thing. On the contrary, he lies egregiously,
and says: “ I am Esau, thy first-born; I have done
according as thou badest me. Arise, I pray thee;
sit and eat of my venison that thy soul may bless me.”
What answer makes Isaac ?
How is it, he asks, that thou hast found it so
quickly, my son ?
Jacob, for very shame, must needs now own the
imposition so far carried on successfully ?
By no means ; he plays the hypocrite now, as he is
playing the deceiver and has already proved himself
the liar, and answers his father’s question in these
solemn words : “ Jehovah, thy God, brought it to me.”
This is shocking ! Old blind Isaac, nevertheless,
seems to have had some misgivings about the party
who is addressing him, for he says: “ Come near me,
that I may feel thee, my son, whether thou be my
very son Esau or not. And Jacob went near to his
father, and he felt him and said : The voice is Jacob’s
voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau; and he
discerned him not, and so he blessed him.”
In spite of having gone so far, Isaac cannot yet
have been altogether satisfied of the identity of the
son before him ?
No; for he asks again: “Art thou my very son
Esau ?” and he (Jacob) said, “ I am.”
This reiteration of the lie seems to satisfy all the
�8o
Phe Pentateuch.
misgivings of the old man, for he now eats of the
mess prepared for him, and drinks of the wine set
before him, does he not ?
_ He does ; and bidding his son come near, he blesses
him saying: God give thee of the dew of heaven,
and the fulness of the earth, and plenty of corn and
wine; and let people serve thee, and nations bow
down to thee; be Lord over thy brethren, and let thy
mother s sons bow down to thee; cursed be every
one that curseth thee, and blessed be he who blesseth
thee.”
How fares it with Isaac when Esau returns from
the chase, brings his savory mess of venison to his
father, bids him arise and eat, and asks for his
blessing p
Isaac, it is said, trembled with a great trembling
and said : “ Who is he that hath taken venison, and
brought it to me, and I have eaten of -all before thou
earnest, and have blessed him ? ”
And Esau P
When he heard the words of his father he cried
with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said—
“ Bless me, even me also, 0 my father! ”
Isaac yields to this passionate and natural appeal ?
Nay, indeed! Blessing in the olden time seems to
have been restricted to one ; for the old man replies :
“Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken
away thy blessing.”
Is Esau content ?
How should he! he says: “ Hast thou but one
blessing, my father ? bless me, even me, 0 my father,
and he lifted up his voice and wept.”
Esau was surely unfairly and cruelly dealt with in
all this ?
According to modern moral notions he was cheated
of his right; and common sense and justice alike
would now have required the thief to restore what
he had stolen. What motive can we imagine for
�Genesis : Isaac and 'Jacob.
8i
the story as it is told ? A mythological meaning, as
with many other parts of the Old Testament, has been
connected with the repeated supercession we encoun
ter of the elder by the younger born. As Night,
esteemed the eldest born of things, gave place to Day,
so it has been surmised is Cain superseded in his
sacrifice by Abel, Esau by Jacob in his birthright
and blessing, Ephraim by Manasseh, Aaron by Moses
in command, &c.
But Esau is said further to have been the progenitor
of the Edomites, a cognate tribe, and enemies of long
standing of the Jews; the poet or fabulist therefore
makes Esau sell his birthright for the mess of pottage
when he was hungry as a prelude to letting him of
his father’s blessing, in order that it might fall on
Jacob, from whom the Israelites themselves were
reputed to have sprung. The preliminary barter of
the birthright was doubtless held by the narrator,
as it has since been held by apologists for all the right
and wrong, the good and evil, that lie within the lids
of the Bible, as adequate to cover the subsequent
villanous artifices by which the blessing is filched
away; for it seems impossible, on simple moral apart
from prescriptive religious grounds, to conceive the
most consummate impersonation, whether of Jewish,
Christian, or Pagan selfishness and dishonesty, ap
proving the act of Jacob, or condoning the means
by which his object was accomplished.
The Jews would seem to have held that something
of a preternatural character pertained to a blessing,
which was not nullified by the means, however dis
honest, employed to obtain it ?
It appears so. Old Isaac himself, when he dis
covers that he has been imposed on, speaks not of
recalling his blessing, but says : “ I have blessed him
(Jacob), yea, and he shall be blessed.” But the
Jews believed, as we have already had occasion to
observe, that their God took a particular interest,
G
�82
Phe Pentateuch.
not only in them as a people at large, but in every
individual, and in the acts of every notable indi
vidual more especially, among them. They did
nothing, never entered on any undertaking, or came
to any conclusion, without “asking Jehovah,” -i.e.,
without drawing lots, consulting the Ephod or
Teraph im—domestic idols of which every household
appears to have had one or move, and receiving an
answer in approval. On the most solemn occasions
of all they seem to have referred the case to the High
Priest, who then had recourse to the Urim and Thummim he carried on his breast, and to the Sevenbranched Candlestick which was so important a part
of the furniture of the Altar, and in constant requisi
tion in casting nativities and other kinds of divi
nation.
Is not he who deceives his blind old father and filches
his brother’s birthright and blessing a villain, deserv
ing of present punishment and failure in his after
enterprises, rather than worthy of God’s peculiar
favour, of man’s approval, and of success in all he
purposes or puts his hand to ?
Morally judged he is so undoubtedly, but men
judge mostly by the success or failure that follows
action; and God is not truly, as he is commonly
thought to be, a kind of celestial potentate or chief
magistrate, with powers of prison and gibbet at com
mand. Jacob himself puts the legitimacy of the con
spiracy in which he engages with his mother on the
sole footing of its success, “ Peradventure,” says he,
“ my father will feel me, and I shall seem to him a
deceiver, and I shall bring a curse upon me and not
a blessing.” But he who acquires or gains his end,
no matter what it is, does so by conforming to the
natural law of acquisition, which has no bearing on
moral principles. The accumulator may be the most
heartless and unprincipled of mortals; but if he
steadily pursue his selfish ends and his purpose of
�Genesis: Jacob.
83
gathering to himself regardless of others, God will
not only not interfere to hinder him of success, but,
it may be said, will assuredly favour him in his ob
ject ; neither will his fellow-men say aught against
him if he but grow rich and keep on the safe side of
the statute law ; nay, they will not only say nothing
against, but will even fawn on and flatter him; per
chance even speak of raising a statue to him.
The Jews, far from seeing anything dishonourable
in the conduct of Jacob, even vaunt themselves on
their descent from the unbrotherly, untruthful, and
deceitful man ?
They do ; and making God a party to their ap
proval, they have always spoken of their tutelary
Deity Jehovah as the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and
of Jacob; so that successful selfishness and untruth
have sanctified to them the unrighteous means by
which the headship of the family was obtained.
Esau, wroth with his brother, hates him in his
heart, and old Isaac having now been gathered to his
people, he says : “ When the days of mourning for my
father are over, I will slay my brother Jacob.” Does
he take any steps to make good his threat ?
We have no information of any. But Rebekah has
overheard the rash words, and sends her darling Jacob
to Padan-Aram out of the way, until the easy Esau’s
anger should be abated, and he had forgotten, or shall
we say forgiven, the wrong that had been done him.
What befals Jacob on his way to Padan-Aram ?
He has a wonderful dream.
About his unbrotherly and unfilial conduct, doubt
less ; and the bad part he has played being brought
home to him, he resolves to make amends and restitut on to the extent in his power ?
Nothing of the kind! The sun having set, and the
night coming on, he makes a pillow of one of the
stones where he is, and lays him down to sleep.
And he dreams that he sees a ladder set on the earth
�84
’The Pentateuch,
■with its top reaching to heaven, up and down which
the angels of Elohim come and go, Jehovah himself
standing above and over all.
What then ?
Jehovah speaks and informs the dreaming man
that he is Jehovah, the God of Abraham and of Isaac
his father; that he will give the land on which he
lies to him and to his seed, which should be as the
dust of the earth, and prove a blessing to all the
families of the earth ; “ and,” continues the narrative,
“I am with thee and will keep thee in all the places
whither thou goest, and I will bring thee again into
this land, and will not leave thee until I have done
that which I have spoken to thee of.”
Jacob awakes ?
And says : “ Surely Jehovah is in this place and I
knew it not. This is none other but the house of
God, and this is the gate of heaven.” He then sets
up the stone on which he had pillowed his head as a
pillar, pours oil on its top by way of consecrating it
and calls the spot Beth-El—House of God, the name
of the place having at first been Luz (Lux, Light).
What may be the meaning of Jacob’s act ?
Stones, as enduring things, appear to have been
almost universally objects of reverence and worship
with men in the long-continued infancy of the human
mind. As pillars they had a special significance, and
were then looked on as typical of the instrument
efficient in the wonderful faculty possessed by living
creatures of reproducing their kind. The stone
column or token set up by Jacob was neither more
nor less than the Phallic emblem, before which he
and his forefathers were wont to prostrate themselves.m
And the oil he poured on its top was a further offerm Et verisimiliter semen eorum Numini sub symbolo phallico
culto proferre, sicut mos adhuc hodie est apud indigenos Ter
rarum Bengalensium.—Conf. Levit. xviii. 21, and xx. 2.
�Genesis: Jacob.
85
ing to the divine power it represented for fertility and
increase.
Has this respect or reverence for the stone pillar
as symbol of the reproductive principle in nature yet
died out from among men ?
By no means. The Jews through the whole of their
history, even to the time when the Temple of Solomon
was built, erected pillars of wood and stone to the
gods they worshipped—to Baal and Aschera in espe
cial, before which they presented their sacrifices, and
at the feet of whose altars they poured the blood of their
victims and their drink offerings. Nor can it be said
that the sacred stone, disguised as column, obelisk, or
steeple, has yet gone out of date, though its meaning
is no longer understood. The obelisk in front of St
Peter’s at Home and the spires of our churches are
emblematic of the same thing as the stone which
Jacob set up, as the columns erected on the “ high
places ” to Baal and Aschera, and as those that stood
before Solomon’s Temple. In certain districts of India
—the country that gave birth to so many of the reli
gious ideas and to all the philosophy of the world—
at the present time every village has its sacred stone
usually set up under the shade of'a Tree, upon which
newly-married and barren women come and seat them
selves after pouring a libation of ghee or oil on its
top. Neither was the sacred stone left out of the
reckoning by our own forefathers in the olden time.
The King was not held as duly installed in his office
unless he were seated on a stone, hence our Saxon
King's-stone still to be seen railed about in the town
of Kingston-on-Thames; the Scotch King’s-stone car
ried away from Scone by Edward III., and now
preserved in Westminster Abbey under the rude chair
which served for a throne; London-stone still notable
in Gannon Street; and, to go farther afield, the black
stone of the Gaaba of Mecca, to prostrate themselves
before which come the thousands of Moslems annually
�86
The Pentateuch.
from their distant homes, there to have the seal affixed
as it were to their title-deed to heaven. Nor is the
anointing in many instances omitted; the consecra
tion of the king and priest is not held complete with
out the application of the chrism or holy oil; and the
poorest adherent of the Church of Rome has extreme
unction at last by way of passport for the journey from
which there is no returning. These are all plainly
lingering remnants of a symbolical worship that was
once universal in the world, and of which the mean
ingless traces might now, as it seems, advantageously
disappear from among us.
Having set up and consecrated his token, Jacob
vows a vow ?
Saying : “ If Elohe will be with me, and keep me
in the way I go, and give me bread and raiment so
that I come again to my father’s house, then shall
Jehovah be my God, and this stone which I have set
up for a token shall be God’s house.” Jacob’s God,
we are therefore to conclude, had heretofore been El,
Elohe or El-shaddai; but, were his prayer granted,
he would then take Jehovah in his stead. Here it is
impossible to overlook the hand of the late Jehovistic
writer. Jehovah was the peculiar Deity of the postexilic reforming party among the Jews, and it could
not but be of the highest moment to him and to them
to exhibit their chief patriarch as a worshipper of their
God. But Jacob, if there ever really lived such a
personage, could never have heard of the Jewish
Jehovah; El, El-Shaddai, or some other of the El
compounds was the name of the God he worshipped.
Jacob, in fact, bargains with the Supreme Being as
he had bargained with Esau for the mess of pottage
in lieu of the birthright ?
He is made to do so, at all events. If God will do
so and so, then will he, Jacob, on his part do so and
so in return. To conciliate Jehovah, the God of the
writer, Jacob is presented to us as ready to give up
�Genesis; Jacob.
87
his own old familiar God or Gods, El or Elohim.
Jacob always meets us as a dealer or bargain-maker;
but shows himself ready in the present instance to
give an equivalent, or what he seems to have thought
was an equivalent, for the benefits he expected him
self to receive. “ Of all that thou shalt give me I
will surely give the tenth unto thee,” is the con
cluding item in the compact he enters into with his
God—a clause added, we cannot doubt, by a still later
hand, one of a brotherhood who never lose sight of
their own interest.
The terms do not seem over liberal ?
As regards God the giver of AU they have no
meaning; as regards the priesthood, who here stand
for the Thou and the Thee, they are even more than
liberal.
Do tithes, of which so much has since been made,
appear to have been originally bestowed for the pecu
liar benefit of the priesthood, or the church they
represented ?
By no means. The tithe of the corn and oil and
wine which the land produced, and of the flocks and
herds of the year, was to be solemnly eaten by the
people themselves in the holy place, that they might
learn to fear Jehovah. Tithe was, in fact, to be dedi
cated to rejoicing and merry-making. Were the place
too far off which J ehovah should choose for the festive
occasion, the tithe of all was then to be turned into
money, and the money spent “on whatsoever their
souls lusted after.” (Deut. xiv. 22, et seq.) The
widow, the fatherless, and the stranger also were to
share, and the Levite, as having no possessions, was
not to be forgotten. But none of the tithe was to be
expended on occasions of mourning, nor was aught of
it to be given for the dead (Deut. xxvi. 14); i.e., it
was not to be spent on the articles of meat and drink
with which the dead among so many peoples in the
olden time were provided for the journey to the dis-
�88
Phe Pentateuch.
taut land, the place of disembodied spirits. Taking
the last quoted text for a guide, the clergy of the
Church of Rome might possibly see the impropriety
of levying contributions on their flocks for masses
and prayers for the dead.
Jacob proceeds on his journey and comes to Haran,
where he makes acquaintance with his kinsfolk on
the mother’s side, having halted by a well, precisely
as Isaac’s messenger had done. As with Rebekah,
so now with Rachel, the younger of Laban’s two
daughters, who comes to the well to water her father’s
sheep. Jacob is smitten with the damsel, falls in
love with her as matter of course, is presented to
Laban her father, and agrees (another bargain) to
serve seven years with him for Rachel as his wife.
This he does fairly and truly, but he is deceived by
Laban at the end of the term, he substituting his
elder daughter Leah for Rachel the younger, the be
trothed, on the bridal night. What happens when
Jacob discovers that he has been imposed on ?
He complains to Laban of the trick that has been
played him, and says : “ Did not I serve with thee for
Rachel ; wherefore then hast thou beguiled me ? ”
What says Laban to this ?
He replies that the younger must not be given in
marriage before the first-born ; but he adds : “ Fulfil
her (Leah’s) week and we will give thee this (Rachel)
for the service which thou shalt serve with me for
yet seven years.”
Jacob accepts the terms ?
He does ; fulfils his week manfully with Leah, and
Laban then gives him his second daughter to wife
also.
The Jews of old must have been less fastidious in
such matters than folks of the present day ; where in
all civilised communities a man may not only not have
two wives, and still less two sisters as wives, living
with him at the same time—which the Jews them-
�Genesis: Jacob.
89
selves in later days did not allow,—conditions all of
them reasonable enough; but a man may not now
marry the sister of a deceased wife,—a prohibition
altogether unreasonable; for not only is there no
consanguinity between the man and the woman
here which might prove a legitimate bar to their
union, but there is the strong and natural tie between
the living sister and the children—if children there
be—of her who has prematurely passed away. What
is the upshot of the double marriage ?
Leah, who has been imposed on Jacob, naturally
enough is not loved by him as he loves Rachel; but
“when Jehovah,” according to the text, “ saw that
Leah was hated, he (in requital) opened her womb ; ”
but Rachel, like Sarah, the mother of Isaac, and
Jacob’s mother Rebekah, is barren at first—for there
is incessant iteration of like incidents in these
mythical and legendary tales—and only, like the re
markable women referred to, fruitful at length.
Rachel, barren herself for a time, and envious of
her fruitful sister, in imitation of Sarah with Hagar,
doubtless, gives her handmaid Bilhah to her hus
band as a concubine or third wife, and she conceives
and bears Jacob two sons in succession.
There is more of this, is there not ?
. Plenty; Leah having ceased bearing, as she ima
gined, after having given Jacob four sons, follows her
sister’s example, and gives her handmaid Zilpah as
a second concubine or fourth wife to her husband;
and she too, like Bilhah, presents the Patriarch with
two sons one after- the other.
What farther ?
It were neither edifying nor seemly to proceed with
particulars; for the tale is now of Jacob cohabiting
with one and then with another of his wives or con
cubines, and next of Leah—fruitful again through
eating mandrakes, it is said, found for her in the
wheat-field by her son Reuben, so that she adds a
�9°
The Pentateuch.
fifth and a sixth son. and a daughter to the four she
had already presented to her lord.
And Rachel F
All in good time ! As Jehovah by our text had seen
that Leah was hated and had opened her womb by
way of return, so does he now remember Rachel in
her yearnings for offspring: “ Give me children or else
I die,” she had said to Jacob in her passion; and
though Jacob’s anger is kindled against her, and he
has said : “ Am I in God’s stead who hath withheld
from thee the fruit of thy womb F ” he continues to
cohabit with her, and she, having partaken of her
sister’s mandrakes, becomes a mother at last, bears a
son whom she calls Joseph, and exclaims in her joy :
“ God hath taken away my reproach ; ” for the Jews
held barrenness in woman to be a sign of imperfection
and incapacity, if not even of the divine displeasure.
What is the mandrake which Reuben found for his
mother Leah, and to which such virtue is ascribed F
The Hebrew word translated mandrake in our ver
sion, is rendered “Mele mandragora” by the Greeks,
and is commonly said to be the love apple or tomato ;
but this is probably a mistake. The mandrake was a
tap-root plant of some sort; and the name is still
given by our unlettered herbalists to the root of the
white bryony—a drastic purgative, however, not cal
culated, as it might seem, to provoke appetite or aid
conception, as the Jews believed.
Jacob having now secured his wives and concubines,
and with a numerous offspring rising about him,
grows weary of his servitude to Laban and notifies
his desire to be gone—what says Laban to this F
Laban would have him tarry, and bids him name
his own terms if he will consent to do so.
What says Jacob to the offer F
He boasts of the advantage his service has already
proved to Laban : “It was little thou hadst when I
came, and now it is increased into a multitude,” is the
�Genesis : Jacob.
gi
prelude io his proposition for payment not in money
but in kind : those among the goats that were already
or that should be born ring-streaked, speckled or
spotted, and those among the sheep that were brown,
were to be for his hire.
Laban consents ?
He does : the flocks are shed and Jacob’s parti
coloured lots are driven off under the care of his sons,
three days’ journey from Laban’s white or self
coloured cattle.
What device does the artful Jacob practise now ?
He peels him white streaks in green rods of poplar,
hazel and chesnut, which he sets up in the watering
troughs of the sheep and goats; and so arranges
matters that the females shall only conceive when
they come to drink, the consequence of which is, as
said, that the young produced are mostly ringstreaked, spotted and speckled.
Jacob, the wily, does yet more than this ?
He does; and always with an especial eye to his
own advantage and something like his father-in-law
Laban’s disadvantage : he only puts his peeled rods
in the watering-troughs when the strongest of the
cattle are about to become pregnant; “ when the
cattle were feeble he put them not in,” says the text,
which continues : “ and so the feebler were Laban’s,
and the stronger Jacob’s.”
This does not seem over and above honest in Jacob ?
It is everything but honest; it is shamefully and
barefacedly dishonest. It may be condoned, indeed,
by referring to the old Jewish law of an eye for an
eye, a tooth for a tooth, for Laban had unquestionably
imposed on Jacob, and Jacob may be said to have but
paid him back in his own coin: “If my father cheat
me, I shall cheat my father,” said, or is said to have
said,, a distinguished member of the Jewish com
munity among ourselves, dealing largely in foreign
securities, in days not long gone by.
�92
The Pentateuch.
There is another version of this notable story, as
of so many more in the Hebrew Scriptures ?
There is, and with different, circumstances; for
Jacob is now absolved of any need to have recourse
to craft or to play the part of dishonest herdsman.
Here Jacob complains to his wives Leah and Rachel,
the sisters, that their father Laban had withdrawn
his countenance from him, had changed his wages
ten times, saying now that the speckled, and then,
that the ring-streaked cattle should be his portion;
“ but the God of my father,” he proceeds, “ has been
with me, and suffered him not to hurt me ; for if he
said : the speckled shall be thy wages, then all the
cattle bare speckled ; and if he said thus : the ringstreaked shall be thy share, then bare all the cattle
ring-streaked; and thus God hath taken away the
cattle of your father and given them to me.”
This is surely making too familiar a use of God’s
presumed interference in the affairs of men ?
It is in strict conformity, however, with antique
Jewish notions that God took immediate part in even
the most minute and intimate relations of their lives;
and, farther, that the Supreme had favourites, irre
spective of merit, among the children of men. The
old J ewish writers had no conception of a world, and
of man as one of its elements, ruled by great universal,
eternal, and necessary laws, expression to the culti
vated mind of to-day of the power and true providence
Jacob has a dream besides, that may have put him
on the natural way of securing ring-streaked and
speckled cattle for himself without having recourse
to the questionable procedure of the peeled rods ?
The angel of Jehovah, he tells his sister-wives,
spake with him in a dream, saying : “ Jacob ! and I
said : Here am I. And he said: See, all the rams
which leap the cattle are ring-streaked, speckled and
griseled, and I have seen all that Laban doeth unto
�Genesis• Jacob.
93
thee ; I am the God of Beth-El, where thou anointedst
the pillar and vowedst a vow unto me. Now, arise ;
get thee out from this land, and return into the land
of thy kindred.”
Eave we any fact that might help to explain the
myth of the peeled rods used by Jacob in securing
the increase of his part among the flocks ?
It is not uninteresting to observe that the figure
of the man who holds the scales with one hand in
the sign of Libra on some of the oldest of the Zodiacs
has a streaked rod or rule in the other. Now, Sep
tember, the month in which the sun entered Libra in
former times, is that also in which the ewes begin to
conceive; whence it has been conjectured that the
Hebrew writer was taking hints from the pictorial
calendar for the composition of his story.
What say the wives to the communication of
Jehovah, which may, nevertheless, very well reflect
Jacob’s own waking thoughts and aspirations ?
Seeing, as they say, that they “ have no longer any
portion or inheritance in their father’s house and are
counted of him as strangers, for he hath sold us and
quite devoured also our money; for all the riches
which God hath taken from our father is ours and our
children’s ; therefore whatsoever God hath said unto
thee, do.”
Laban certainly has not shown himself a strictly
honest man in his dealings with the husband of his
daughters ; but they in turn seem to show little of the
love and devotion naturally to be looked for in chil
dren to their parent ?
This is true: they forget the long years' through
which their father fed and housed and clothed them.
In conformity with the notions of their age, however,
they are made to ascribe the increasing poverty of
their father to the displeasure, and the growing
wealth of their husband to the favour of their God.
The device of the rods, were God like the impar-
�94
The Pentateuch.
tial judge we look for among ourselves, would have
brought punishment on Jacob, not yielded him re
ward ?
Premeditated and deliberate dishonesty is the
worst of dishonesties, and selfishness is a mean and
sorry vice ; but the punishment and the reward are
with man, not with God, save as he is represented by
man.
Jacob hearkens to the counsel of his wives ?
He does forthwith: setting his family on camels
and stealing away without a word to his father-inlaw Laban, who has gone sheep-shearing and hears
nothing of the flight for several days, he turns his
face towards Gilead with all he has, and there arrived
he pitches his tents.
Beside what might be called her own, has not
Rachel taken some things that did not rightfully
belong to her ?
She has “ stolen the Images that were her
father’s.”
Images in the possession of Laban, descendant in
the direct line from Nahor Abraham’s brother, father
of Leah and Rachel the wives of Jacob, the son of
Isaac, the son of Abraham ! This is unlooked for in
formation. The man must have been an Idolater ?
The story seems plainly to say as much. But were
ever the Hebrews, either then or for centuries after
wards, anything but Fetish worshippers ?
They declared emphatically in later times that they
were the chosen people of Jehovah, their God; and
their descendants, exiles from the land that was pro
mised to them as an inheritance for ever, and scattered
over the face of the habitable globe, still believe them
selves to be so. This is wonderful enough, all things
considered; but still more wonderful is the fact, that
the European communities have continued so long to
take them at their word, and to look on them as wor
shippers of the One God.
�Genesis: Jacob.
95
Laban, absent from home, hears nothing of the flight
of Jacob and his wives for three days ; but informed
of it at length, and missing his property and his house
hold gods, he sets out in pursuit seven days’
journey, intending recovery doubtless of the things
abstracted, if not more serious reprisals. Before
coming up with the fugitives on Mount Gilead, how
ever, he has a communication from Elohim—God.
God, it is said, visited Laban the Aramaean in a
dream by night, and admonished him to speak neither
good nor bad to Jacob, so that when he overtook him
at length, heonly ventured to reproach him with having
stolen away with his daughters as captives taken with
the sword, and adds : Though thou wouldst be gone,
because thou sore longedst for thy father’s house, yet
wherefore hast thou stolen my gods ?
Jacob, unaware of this particular theft, denies it:
“With whomsoever thou findest thy gods,” he says,
“ let him not live.” So Laban searches for his gods
throughout the encampment, but in vain; for Rachel,
the thief, has secreted them in the camels’ furniture
and sat down upon them ; and as she excuses herself
from rising because of a certain natural visitation—
the nature of which she is not so delicate as not to
explain—the gods cannot be found.
This gives Jacob an opportunity to turn round on
Laban, and to be wroth with him ?
An opportunity he is not slow to improve : “ What
is my trespass,” says he, “ what is my sin that thou
hast so hotly pursued after me.” Boasting of his long
and faithful service, he says roundly to his father-inlaw : “ Except the God of my father, the God of
Abraham and the fear of Isaac had been with me,
thou hadst surely sent me now empty away. God
hath seen my affliction and the labour of my hands,
and rebuked thee yester-night.”
How could Jacob know this ?
There is no difficulty, the familiar terms considered
�96
The Pentateuch.
upon which the Patriarchs were with their God, who
may have informed him !
Laban is appeased, and says to Jacob: Now there
fore, let us make a covenant, I and thou, and let it be
for a witness between me and thee. What does
Jacob ?
He takes a stone and sets it up for a pillar, and the
two parties, heaping stones about it, call it Galeed
and Mizpah, for it is to be at once a witness and a
landmark between them, Laban stipulating for good
treatment for his daughters, and that no other wives
should be taken by Jacob to afflict them, and both
agreeing that neither he nor Jacob should pass
beyond the heap to do each other harm. Laban then
kisses his sons and his daughters, blesses them, and
returns to his place, whilst Jacob offers sacrifice upon
the mount where he is encamped.
What is the next interesting incident in the history
of the patriarch Jacob ?
Proceeding on his way and meeting “ the angels
of_, God ” in a place he calls Mahanai'm, he thence
dispatches messengers to his brother Esau whom he
had so grievously wronged, then dwelling in Seir in
the land of Edom, and bids them say “ unto my Lord
Esau” that “ his servant Jacob ” is in his territory
and hopes to find grace in his sight.
Well ?
S
The messengers return to Jacob and report to him
that . his brother Esau, informed of his coming, is
on his way to meet him with a great retinue of men,
four hundred in number.
And Jacob ?
Conscience-stricken and fearing his brother’s anger,
when he hears of the great attendance, he divides his
people and his flocks into two ; lest Esau coming with
hostile purpose smite the one company, then the other
should escape.
What more ?
�Genesis : Jacob and Esau.
gj
He prays to his God, as men mostly do in straits
and difficulties ; reminds him of the promises already
made and of the order to return into his own country
now in course of being obeyed, and owns himself un
worthy of all the favour shown him. “ With my
staff,” says he, “ I passed over this Jordan, and now
I am become two bands; deliver me, I pray thee,
from the hand of my brother Esau, for I fear him,
lest he come and smite me and the mother with
the children. And thou saidst I will surely do thee
good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea which
cannot be numbered for multitude.”
Jacob must needs think that his God required to
be reminded of his promises ?
It plainly enough appears so ; but Jacob’s idea of
God was very different from that of the enlightened
of the present day ; although not very different per
haps from that still entertained by the vulgar and
uninformed.
To conciliate his brother Esau, Jacob makes ready
a handsome present in conformity with oriental
usage ?
A very handsome present, indeed, which he sends
on before, he himself following at the head of the
train with the handmaids and their children
in the van, Leah and her children next, Rachel
and Joseph last of all—the least cherished there
fore in front, the dearest in the rear, lest Esau
should prove hostile.
How does Jacob comport himself in presence of his
brother ?
Lifting up his eyes and seeing Esau coming on
with his numerous escort, be advances and “ bows
himself seven times to the ground as he draws neai’
his brother.”
And Esau ?
“Esau ran to meet his brother Jacob” who had
bargained away from him his birthright and stolen
H
�98
The Pentateuch.
from him his father’s blessing, “ and embraced him,
and fell upon his neck and kissed him, and they
wept.”
Esau must have been of a kindly and forgiving
nature ?
Surely he was so, or he is made to appear so by
the writer who tells the tale ; generous too, was Esau,
and open and honourable. “ Who are all these
belonging to thee,” he inquires of his brother ; and
his brother answers : “ The children which God hath
graciously given thy servantand they all bowed
themselves ; and after came Rachel and Joseph, and
they bowed themselves. And he inquired further :
“ What meanest thou by all this drove which I met ?”
And Jacob answered : “ These are to find grace in the
sight of my lord.”
And Esau, to the cringing and fair-faced show of
his brother ?
Answers : “ I have enough, my brother, keep that
thou hast unto thyself.”
To which Jacob ?
Replies : “ Nay, I pray thee ; if now I have found
grace in thy sight then receive my present at my
hand ; for I have seen thy face as though I had seen
the face of God, and thou wast pleased with me—
take, I pray thee my present (not blessing as in our
English version) that is brought to thee ; God hath
dealt graciously with me, and I have all things. And
he urged him, and he took it.”
Jacob belords his brother still further, does he not?
After putting his brother on a level with his God
there was little room for' further flattery, yet he uses
such phrases as these : “ My lord knoweth ; ” “ Let
my lord, I pray“ Let me find grace in the sight
of my lord.”
The brothers part good friends and reconciled ?
They do; Esau returns to Seir ; and Jacob wending
on his way comes to Shalem in the land of Canaan,
�Genesis: 'Jacob wrestles with Elohe.
99
■where he buys part of a field and erects a Pillar
which he calls El-Elohe-Israel—a compound of the
names by which the God of the primitive Semitic
tribes possessing Palestine was known.
There is a notable and most extraordinary incident
met with in the middle of the narrative of the meeting
between Jacob and Esau, but connected with the
name of Israel, which we have just seen applied to
the pillar erected by Jacob ?
A very notable and to modern apprehension extra
ordinary incident indeed. As Jacob is journeying
towards Seir to meet his brother, he is “ left alone ;
and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking
of the day; and when the man saw that he prevailed
not against Jacob, he touched the hollow of his thigh,
so that the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint
as he wrestled with him ; and he said: Let me go, for
the day breaketh ! And Jacob said : I will not let
thee go unless thou bless me. And the man said:
What is thy .name; and he said Jacob. And the
man said: Thy name shall be called no more Jacob,
but Israel (Prince of God), for as a prince hast
thou power with God and with men, and hast pre
vailed.”
Does not Jacob also question his opponent as to
who or what he is ?
Jacob says: “ Tell me, I pray thee, thy name,” and
his adversary answers: “Wherefore is it that thou
dost ask after my name ?” But Jacob’s question was
most pertinent; for in days when there were believed
to be many gods it was very necessary to know who
the One was with whom intercourse was had ; and
this could best be done through the name and title of
the individual.
Jacob’s opponent does not tell his name nor say
who he is ?
He does not; but owning himself in some sort
worsted in the encounter, only escaping from Jacob’s
�IOO
The Pentateuch.
grip indeed by touching a tender part of his body,
he blesses Jacob, who calls the place where the en
counter happened Peniel (the face of God) ; for says
he : “I have seen God face to face and my life is pre
served.” Jacob’s opponent would, therefore, seem to
have been no man, as said in the text, but El, Elohe,
or God himself in person.
. What interpretation can be put upon this strange
and obviously mythical tale ?
More than one has been attempted ; but its sense
has mostly remained to orthodox expositors as dark
as the darkest of the night in which the wrestling
match is said to have occurred. From the narrative,
Jacob evidently supposes that it was his God El with
whom he had been striving, though to our modern
notions the idea of man struggling with God in flesh
and blood seems even too extravagant to have been
possibly entertained. Jacob, however, does say that
he had seen God face to face ; so that on this point
there can be no question. It is then to be noted that
the opponent desires to be let go when “ the day
begins to break ; ” and that “ the sun rises ” on Jacob
as he passes over Peniel halting, yet with a blessing
from the encounter. These particulars, aided by a
small amount-of mythological knowledge, give a key
to the mystery involved in the tale : It is allegorical
of the struggle between Light and Darkness, i.e.,
between the beneficent and the adverse aspects of
Nature, combined in the Hebrew conception of the
Deity. The tale is probably a fragment of a larger
document, dissevered from the rest of the record which
told of the Light or Sun, Moon and Planet worship
followed by the far-off forefathers of the Hebrew race,
before they had swarmed away from the hills and
valleys of the high lands of Armenia and Mesopo
tamia. It has no connection, save by inference, with
anything that has gone before, nor with anything that
comes after in the Hebrew Scriptures—not even with
�Genesis: Jacob the Wrestler.
ioi
the change of Jacob’s name, for that had been men
tioned already.
The hollow of Jacob’s thigh is said to have been
put out of joint in one part of the narrative (xxxii.
25) ; in another (v. 32) it is a sinew which is said
to have shrunk—“the sinew which is upon the hollow
of the thigh ; therefore,” it is added, “ the children
of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank unto this
day.”
The meaning of this, too, must be allegorical ?
No doubt of it. The part which the children of
Israel “ eat not unto this day” is neither the great
sciatic nerve, as is sometimes said, nor any tendon
connected with a muscle.
Have we not a story akin to this in what is called
the Pagan Mythology ?
We have—in the myth of the wrestling bout that
takes place between the Tyrian Heracles and Zeus, in
which Heracles, like Jacob, comes off halting with a
dislocation of the thigh. But why the story here
should be characterised as pagan and called mytho
logical and incredible, whilst the Hebrew tale is
looked on as sacred and held worthy of belief, is
not so obvious. The two myths have doubtless a
common origin. The Tyrian hero, the god in his
favourable aspect, contends with the Father of gods
and men in his adverse aspect, precisely as Jacob—
Israel the wrestler, assumed as symbolical of light,
contends with Elohe in his quality of darkness, or the
night. But Phoenicians, Tyrians, Canaanites, Israel
ites, &c., were all alike children of the same Semitic
stock, spoke closely allied dialects of the same lan
guage, and in their religious ideas, rites and ceremo
nies were at one.
There is another version of the wrestling match
between Hercules and an adversary, which throws
additional light on the Hebrew fragment ?
It is that in which Hercules contends with Antaeus.
�102
The Pentateuch.
The sun—Hercules, wrapt in the lion’s skin, had
his domicile in the zodiacal sign Leo; Anteus had
his in that of Aquarius. But Leo is the sign in which
the sun is supreme, and summer is in the ascendant;
Aquarius the sign in which the sun is at the lowest
point of his annual course, and winter rules the year.
Hercules’ adversary is aptly named Antaeus, Opponent,
-—his opposite or other self, in ceaseless contention
with whom he is alternately the victor and the van
quished, the light now getting the better of the dark,
the dark in turn becoming superior to the light, but
each destined ere long again and in endless succes
sion to yield to the other.
What happens after the brothers Jacob and Esau
have taken their several ways ?
Dinah, the daughter of Jacob by Leah, is violated
by Shechem, son of Hamor the Hivite, who, however,
inconsistently as it seems, then makes suit through
his father to Jacob to have the damsel to wife.
Does Jacob agree to the proposal ?
We have no account of his objecting, but his sons
are wroth with Shechem when they hear of the wrong
he has done to Dinah their sister. Nevertheless, to
the proposals made for reparation by marriage, they
answer deceitfully, and say they cannot give their
sister to one that is uncircumcised, but if every male
of the Hivites will consent to circumcision, then say
they we will give our daughters to you, and we will
take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you
and become one people.
The Hivites agree to the terms; do Jacob and
his sons keep faith with them ?
Far from it; there is small account of good faith
between man and man in the legendary and mythical
accounts we have of these early times. On the third
day, when the circumcised Hivites are sore from the
operation, Simeon and Levi, two of Jacob’s sons,
“ take each man his sword and come upon the city
�Genesis : 'Jacob and the Hivites.
103
boldly and slay the males,” despoiling and carrying
off all it contained in the shape of cattle and other
wealth, and leading the women and their little ones
into captivity.
Deception and cruelty seem to have been very
much at home with Jacob and his family ?
So it plainly appears. Jacob, however, is not alto
gether satisfied with the daring act of his sons. But
it is not with their faithlessness and barbarity that he
quarrels; it is because by what they have done they
have made him “ to stink ” among the inhabitants of
the land, the Canaanites and Perizzites; and “ I,
being few in number (he says), they will gather
themselves together against me and slay me and my
house.”
* There is happily an air of improbability about this
story which seems to take it out of the sphere of his
tory, is there not ? .
There is, and not only of improbability, but of im
possibility. Two men, even with every advantage of
arms, could scarcely enter the smallest hamlet, slay
all the males, load themselves with the spoil, drive off
the flocks and herds, and carry away the women and
children with impunity. There are two accounts,
moreover, of this business in the same chapter of
Genesis, one of which may be read complete without
a word of the slaughter and spoil which figure in the
other; and, as that seems to be the older record, let
us also trust that it is the more truthful of the two.n
What incidents worth noting occur in Jacob’s on
ward journey ?
Ordered by his God to go up to Beth-el and there
to erect a pillar, he commands his household and all
who are with him to put away the strange gods that
are among them.
u See Bernstein’s Origin of the Legends of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob for a new and probably correct explanation of this
fable.
�104
'The Pentateuch.
This is an extraordinary order !
How should
Jacob, the familiar of his God and father of the
Israelites, have suffered strange gods in his family ?
But they obey ?
They give Jacob all the strange gods that were in
their hand, and their rings also, and he buries them
under the Oak that was by Shechem ?
Jacob and his family would seem from this to have
been, like Laban and his daughters, idolaters ?
That they were and did long continue to be so there
can be no doubt. The strange gods were, of course,
household images of small size, such as Rachel had.
stolen from her father Laban.
But the rings were not gods ?
No ; but rings of all kinds—ear-rings, nose-rings,
finger-rings, bracelets, anklets—were amulets dr
fetiches, emblematic of the Yoni or female element
in the reproductive power of nature—of which
the cosmical snake—the symbol of eternity—
with its tail in its mouth, was the prototype. The
Egyptian divinities are always represented with what
is called the Key of the Nile in one hand—a circle or
loop with a cross below—the circle, sign of eternity,
the cross significant of the four great epochs in the
flight of time, or of the moments when the sun, in
his annual round, crossed the equator at the vernal
and autumnal equinoxes, and attained his highest
summer and lowest winter meridian altitudes.
The place where the strange gods and the rings
are buried has also its significance, has it not ?
No doubt it has; they were buried under the Oak
as a propitiatory offering to the life-giving principle
in nature, universally typified among the earlier
races of mankind by trees.
Jacob comes to Padan Aram, and there God, as it
is said, appears to him again, informs him that he is
El-Scliaddai — God the mighty ; tells him that his
name shall not any more be Jacob, but Israel; bids
�Genesis: 'Jacob.
I05
him be fruitful and multiply • says that a nation and a
company of nations should be of him, and that kings
should come out of his loins, whilst the land that had
been promised to Abraham and Isaac should be con
firmed to him and to his progeny for ever. “ And
then,” continues the narrative, “ God went up from
him in the place where he talked with him.”
Have we not had much of this story already, with
certain strange accessories ?
Certainly; where we had the account of the
wrestling match that took place in the night season,
and only ended with the dawning of the day; when
Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, &c.
Can man,*reasonable and cultivated man, really
and truly accept such tales as inspired revelations
from God, or as guides to piety and purity of life ?
They are, undoubtedly, accepted as revelations, and
still believed in as actual occurrences, though the end
to be served by them in the direction indicated is not
so obvious. To the emancipated from superstitious
beliefs, however, it is inconceivable how they should
still pass current in the world, or be received as sup
plying examples that are not rather to be shunned
than followed. Had not men determined beforehand
that they had come from sacred and inspired sources,
their details and tendencies would assuredly never
have led to the conclusion that they had had any such
hallowed origin as that ascribed to them.
Reading the Hebrew Scriptures as thus, with
unsealed eyes, and by the light of collateral know
ledge, mythological and other, are we not forced on
conclusions as to the origin, worth, and real signifi
cance of these ancient writings, very different from
such as are generally entertained ?
So much follows of necessity; and we are then
left at liberty, from the book of nature and our own
minds, to form nobler and more worthy conceptions
of God and his Providential rule of the world than
�106
The Pentateuch.
any that are to be gathered from Hebrew sources;
and, further, to think that better books than the Bible
may be found to aid in the education of the young. ■
Journeying from Beth-el, what happens ?
Rachel is taken in labour, and dies in giving birth
to her son Benjamin; then there is a foul tale of
Reuben in connection with Bilhah, one of his father’s
wives or concubines; lastly, Jacob visits his father
Isaac in Hebron, where the old man dies at an in
credible age, and is buried by his sons Jacob and
Esau. Jacob then continues to dwell in the land of
Canaan, in which his father was a stranger, and
Joseph, his son by Rachel, now seventeen years old,
tends the flocks of his father along with his brothers,
the sons of Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah.
Joseph is not liked by his brothers ?
No,; Joseph as the elder-born of Rachel, Jacob’s
first love, and because he was the child of his old age,
“ was more loved by Israel than all his children.”
This naturally begat jealousy and dislike among the
others ; and then, as we are told that Joseph “ brought
to their father evil reports of his brothers,” this
assuredly would not make them love him any the
more.
Joseph has a dream besides that still further
inflames the dislike of his brothers ?
He dreams that as he and his brothers were binding
sheaves in the field, his sheaf stood upright, and all
his brothers’ sheaves stood round about and made
obeisance to his sheaf.
Has he not yet another dream P
He dreams further that the sun, moon, and eleven
stars made obeisance to him ; and when he tells this
dream to his father he is rebuked by his parent, who
says, identifying himself, Rebekah, and his eleven sons
with the sun, moon, and stars of the dream : “What
is this dream that thou hast dreamed ? Shall I and
thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow
�Genesis: yose'ph.
107
down ourselves to thee ?” Jacob, nevertheless,
“observes the saying,” and Joseph is naturally hated
more than ever by the other members of the family.
The Jews of old thought more of dreams than do
men of culture in the present day ?
Than men of culture, certainly, though dreams still
puzzle and terrify the ignorant and superstitious
vulgar. The Jews of old thought that “ dreams
were from God;” they generally interpreted them
literally, though sometimes also allegorically; and
the great bulk of their presumed communications
from God appear to have been receivedin dreams and
visions of the night, a mode of communication little
trusted at the present time, wherein men rely more
and more advantageously on knowledge and waking
thoughts than on sleeping fancies.
The further account, leading to the catastrophe
that is in preparation, informs us that Israel sends
Joseph to Shechem as a spy upon his other sons : “ Go,
I pray thee,” says Jacob, “ see whether it is well
with thy brothers, and well with the flocks, and
bring me word again.” A delegate of the kind
would not be apt to be over well received ?
Hardly; and the brothers, when they saw him afar
off, even before he came near them, conspired against
him to slay him. “ Here cometh this man of dreams,”
say they; “ and now let us slay him and cast him into
one of the pits, and we will say some evil beast hath
devoured him, and we shall see what will become of
his dreams.”
Reuben, however, interposes, and bids the rest
“ shed no blood, but cast him into a pit,” intending
thus, it would seem, to save his life and restore him
to his father ?
According to a second account it is Judah who
interferes : “ What profit,” says he, “ will it be if
we slay our brother and conceal his blood; come let
us sell him to the Ishmaelites (a troop of whom,
�io8
Phe Pentateuch.
going towards Egypt, have come in sight) ; let not
our hand be upon him, for he is our brother.”
There appear to be two accounts of this bad busi
ness, drawn.from different documents, and jumbled
together, as in so many other parts of the Jewish sacred
writings. In one it is Reuben who saves Joseph
alive ; in another it is Judah. Here it is Judah and
the brethren who sell Joseph to Ishmaelites, there
it is Midianitish merchants who draw him out of the
pit and sell him to Ishmaelites, who carry him to
Egypt; and again it is Midianites who sell him
in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh; and
yet again it is Ishmaelites who effect the sale.
What inference may be drawn from such diversity
of statement ?
That the idea of supernatural inspiration' in con
nection with the Jewish Scriptures ought to be aban
doned, and the matter seen as it must needs be in
fact—viz. : that the compiler or editor is here, as
elsewhere, drawing now from one document or tradi
tion, and then from another, and that with the super
stitious respect for the letter which characterised the
Jews of old, and without a show of critical discrimi
nation, he mixes up the several accounts into what he
intended should be a continuous and consistent nar
rative.
Reuben, who is not made a party to the sale of his
brother, returns to the pit, and “behold, Joseph was
not there ! and he rent his clothes and came to his
brethren and said : The child is not, and I, whither
shall I go I ” The brothers take little heed of his
wailing, but proceed as they had purposed ?
They take Joseph’s coat of many colours, and
having killed a kid, they dipped the coat in the blood,
and brought it to their father, who knows it, and in
his grief exclaims: “It is my son’s coat; an evil
beast hath devoured him I” So he rends his clothes,
puts sackcloth on his loins, mourns for his son many
�Genesis : Judah and Tamar.
109
days, and refusing to be comforted, says : “ I will go
down into the grave unto my son mourning.” A true
and beautiful picture of natural affection sorely tried,
and doubtless from the hand of one among the earliest
of the true poets whose writings have come down to
us 1
We have several particulars now related, not always
of the most delicate and moral kind when viewed in
the light of the more advanced ideas of delicacy and
morality of the present day ?
Particulars which, nevertheless, are interesting from
an antiquarian and ethnological point of view, and
important as marking intervals of time, and showing
how little faith is to be attached to many of the nar
ratives in the Hebrew Bible as embracing historical
truth's.
What are these ?
Joseph is seventeen years old when he is sold into
Egypt; and as Leah bears Issachar and Zebulon be
tween the birth of Judah and that of Joseph, Judah
must have been about twenty-four years of age at this
time. Judah now takes Shuah to himself as wife,
and she bears first one son, Er, then another, Onan,
and yet a third, Shelah. Er, Judah’s first-born, is
old enough to have a wife given him—Tamar; Er
dies (he is said to have been “ wicked in the
sight of the Lord, and so the Lord slew him”).
Judah desires his second son Onan to take his late
brother’s wife to himself, in conformity with the usage
of the country, and raise up seed to his brother. But
Onan does not like the match; and though he obeys
his father in so far as the union went, he resolves,
and so acts, as to raise no seed to his brother. This,
it is said, “ displeased the Lord, and he slew him also.”
Tamar, for the second time a widow, ought now to
have been given in marriage to Shelah, Judah’s third
son; but she had proved so disastrous a bargain to
Er and Onan, that Judah must have hesitated to ven-
�I IO
The Pentateuch.
ture on her with his sole remaining son. Tama? was
dissatisfied when she sees that Shelah, though grown
to man’s estate, is not given to her as her husband ;
and she, the widow of two of his sons, resolves to
seduce Judah himself. With this view she casts off
her widow’s weeds, veils herself, shows herself in an
open place as an harlot, and is addressed by Judah.
“ What wilt thou give me?” says Tamar to Judah
when solicited by him. “ I will give thee a kid from
the flock,” he replies. “ Give me a pledge till thou
send it.” “ What pledge shall I give thee ?” “ Thy
signet and thy bracelets, and the staff that is in thine
hand.” And he gave her all. Immediately after her
incestuous intercourse with Judah, Tamar resumes
her weeds, and when Judah sends the kid by his mes
senger desiring to have back the pledges he had left
with her, she is nowhere to be found.
What does Judah ?
He desires the kid to be disposed of, or given
away, nevertheless, “lest,” as he says, “he should be
shamed.”
What next in this edifying story ?
Judah is by and by informed that Tamar has
played the harlot, and is with child; and be says :
“ Bring her forth and let her be burnt.”
What does Tamar ?
When brought forth she shows the pledges she had
had, and says : “ By the man whose these are am I
with child; discern, I pray thee, whose are these—
the signet, the bracelets, the staff.”
And Judah ?
Acknowledging the pledge, he declares that she has
been “ more righteous than himself, because that he
had not given her to wife -to Shelah his son.”
Can we as moral beings conceive accounts of pro
ceedings such as these to have been written under
the inspiration of God for the instruction and im
provement of mankind ?
�Genesis: Joseph.
Ill
It is impossible.
Or that God has in especial favour the men who
are guilty of doings such as these, and the race who
think them not unworthy of a place among their
sacred annals as a people ?
This, too, even on the vulgar showing, is impos
sible.
Or that we do well in putting the book which con
tains such foul tales into the hands of our children as
a means of furthering them in a knowledge of that
wherein virtue and propriety of conduct consist r
It is only brutal ignorance, blind bigotry, and gross
superstition that can say it is well to do so. God
has no favourites among his creatures, or, if he has,
they are such alone as conform themselves to his laws
—physical and moral. Through the understanding
and higher moral nature wherewith man is endowed,
God proclaims his condemnation of acts that are only
worthy of the beasts of the field. But these tales are
from the traditions of ages barbarous and long gone
by, and only committed to writing in much more
modern times,—traditions descending, it may be, from
the Stone Age of the world, when men had no better
tools than such as were poorly supplied by chipped
flints, when they ate one another, and grilled and
split the long bones of their sires for the marrow they
contained. '
Joseph is brought to Egypt by the merchants or
slave dealers, and sold to an officer of the Pharaoh,
Potiphar by name, whose favourable opinion he forth
with secures. by his good conduct and intelligence.
Attempted to be seduced, and in her anger falsely
accused by Potiphar’s wife, however, he falls into
disgrace and is thrown into prison. Here, again, the
propriety of his demeanour wins him the notice and
confidence of the keeper of the prison; and having
successfully interpreted the dreams of two of Pharaoh’s
servants who had been put in ward for some offence,
�I 12
The Pentateuch.
he is brought under the notice of Pharaoh as a seer,
Pharaoh himself having dreamed a two-fold dream,
which none of the magicians or wise men of Egypt
could interpret. Summoned to the presence, the
Pharaoh tells his dream to Joseph, and he, from- its
tenor, interprets it as a notice from God of the coming
on of seven years of plenty, to be followed by seven
years of dearth. Joseph is careful to take no credit
to himself for his dream-interpreting powers ; in con
formity with Jewish ideas, he says he had but given
“ the answer of peace which he himself had received
from God.”
The Pharaoh accepts Joseph’s interpretation of his
dream ?
He does, and is so much pleased with the inter
preter, that he takes him into his counsels ; appoints
him as head over his house; takes the ring from his
own finger, and puts it upon Joseph’s ; arrays him
in fine linen; hangs a gold chain about his neck ;
gives him to wife Asenath, daughter of the Priest of*
On, and makes him ruler over all the land of Egypt.
“ Only in the throne will I be greater than thou,”
adds the confiding sovereign ruler of the land.
This is a great and sudden rise ?
A great and sudden rise, indeed; and all on the
faith of the still untested truth of the interpretation
of a dream ! Needful, however, as an introduction to
the narrative that follows, viz.: The arrival of Israel
and his family in Egypt, in consequence of the famine
that conveniently prevailed at this time in the land of
Canaan; the touching incidents of the meeting of
Joseph with his unnatural brethren, and the retri
butive justice which the writer would show to wait
on evil, and the reward that follows well-doing.
The years of plenty, succeeded by the years of
famine, as predicted by Joseph from the Pharoah’s
dream, follow, of course ?
Of course they do; and Joseph gathers store of
�113
Genesis: 'Joseph.
Corn, as the sand of the sea, into all the granaries of
Egypt'; so that, when the years of famine arrive,
though dearth prevails in all the neighbouring lands,
there is bread in Egypt. When the famine begins to
be felt, Joseph unlocks his stores, and is liberal enough
to sell, not only to the natives of the country, but, in
aid of the story, to strangers also. Hearing that
there is corn in Egypt, Jacob says to his sons, “Why
look ye one upon another ? Behold, I have heard
that there is corn in the land of Egypt; get ye down
thither, and buy for us from thence that we may live
and not die.”
The sons depart ?
Ten of them ; for Jacob will not part with Benja
min, his youngest son, “ lest, peradventure, mischief
befall him.” They arrive in Egypt; and Joseph
“knew his brethren, but they knew not him.” They
bow themselves with their faces to the earth before
the great Governor of Egypt; and Joseph, remember
ing his dreams, when he "sees them in this position,
and, doubtless, not entirely forgetting the cruel usage
he had had at their hands, then speaks roughly to
them, asks them whence they came, and says to them,
“ Ye are spies ; to see the nakedness of the land are
ye come.”
They excuse themselves ?
“ Thy servants are no spies,” say they, “ but twelve
brethren, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan;
and, behold, the youngest is this day with our father,
and one is not.”
“ By the life of Pharaoh,” answers Joseph, “ ye
shall not go hence, except your youngest brother come
hither. Send one of you,” according to one version
of the tale (for here we have two as usual—“ let one
of you be bound in prison,” says the other version),
“ whilst the rest carry corn for the famine of their
houses, but bring your youngest brother to me, so
shall your words be verified, and ye shall not die.”
I
�114
The Pentateuch.
Then come the compunctious visitings upon the
brethren for what they had done to Joseph ; and still,
in the presence of the Governor, and speaking in their
own tongue, they accuse one another of their hardbeartedness, notwitting that Joseph understood them,
“for he spake to them by an interpreter.”
Simeon is bound as hostage, and the rest depart
with provision for the way, their sacks full of corn,
and the money of each returned, tied up in the mouth
of his sack. They reach home, and narrate to their
father all that has befallen them ?
And communicate the conditions on which Simeon
is to be released ; but Jacob refuses absolutely to part
with Benjamin: “ My son shall not go down with
you; for his brother is dead, and he is left alone; if
mischief befal him by the way, then shall ye bring
down my grey hairs with sorrow to the grave.” But,
the famine continuing, when they had eaten up the
corn they had brought out of Egypt, Jacob bids them
go again and buy a little food.
The sons consent to go ?
Only on condition that Benjamin is suffered to go
with them : “ Slay my two sons,” says Reuben to his
father, “ if I bring him not to thee again.” “ Send
the lad with me,” says Judah, “ and we will arise and
go; that we may live and not die, both we and thou
and our little ones ; I will be surety for him ; of my
hand shalt thou require him.”
Jacob yields to their entreaties, and to sore
necessity ?
“ If it must be so now,” says the old man, “do this :
take of the best fruits in the land, and carry down
the man a present,—a little balm, and a little honey,
spices and myrrh, nuts and almonds; and take double
money in your hand; the money that was brought
again in the mouth of your sacks carry again in your
hand ; peradventure it was an oversight; take also
your brother, and arise, go again unto the man, and
�Genesis : Joseph.
115
God Almighty give you mercy before him, that he
may send away your other brother and Benjamin : if
I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved ! ”
They depart, and stand a second time before
Joseph. When he sees Benjamin among them, he
orders the ruler of his house to bring his brethren
home, and to slay and make ready; for these men,
says he, shall dine with me at noon ?
Brought into Joseph’s house, they are much afraid,
because of the money they had found returned in
their sacks ; they excuse themselves to the steward;
inform him of the money they had found, and show
both this and that which they had now brought to
buy more corn.
The steward consoles them ?
Saying : “ Peace be to you ; fear not; your God
and the God of your father hath given you treasure
in your sacks. I had your money; and he brought
Simeon out unto them.”
They make ready the present they had provided
for Joseph, and bow themselves to the earth before
him, when he comes home. Joseph asks kindly alter
their welfare, and says: “ Is your father well, the old
man of whom ye spake, is he yet alive ?” “ Thy ser
vant our father is yet alive, he is in good health.”
And lifting up his eyes, and seeing Benjamin, his
mother’s son, he asks : “ Is this your younger brother
of whom ye spake ? And he said, God be gracious
unto thee, my son ! And he made haste, for his
bowels yearned upon his brother; and he sought
where to weep • and he entered into his chamber and
wept there. And he washed his face and went out
and refrained himself.”
Prosperity and his wonderful rise in the world had
not hardened Joseph’s heart, as so often happens ?
Joseph is an impersonation of goodness and for
giveness, drawn by a master’s hand in simple and
beautiful words. But it is a tale such as belongs not
�116
The Pentateuch.
to the age of the world with which the name of
Joseph,. the son of Jacob, is connected. It is the
conception of an Isaiah or a Micah, or of a mind
more delicate and refined than either of these-—a
beautiful and touching story, unsurpassed in its
treatment and its pathos; a story over which our
eyes were wont to fill whiles we were children, as
they fill now, after seventy years and more, perhaps,
have passed over the heads of the men !
Joseph would seem to have taken some little plea
sure in frightening his naughty brothers ; for he bids
his steward put their money into the sacks of all as
before, and his own silver drinking-cup, beside the
money, into the sack of the youngest, so as to make
it appear that the cup had been stolen. Dismissed
on their way homewards, and outside the city gates,
Joseph says to his steward : Up, follow after the men ;
and when thou dost overtake them, say unto them :
Wherefore have ye rewarded evil for good ? Is not
this the cup in which my lord drinketh, and whereby
indeed he divineth ?
Joseph, it would therefore seem, was not only an
interpreter of dreams, but a diviner in other ways ?
Fortune-telling from the cup is still practised—
more, perhaps, in jest than in earnest—among our
selves. It is no golden jewelled goblet, however,
such as we must presume Joseph’s to have been, with
beads and rivulets of precious liquor stealing down
its sides, that is now in use by our gossips. It is the
homely tea-cup and the grounds adhering to the
bottom and sides which are the hieroglyphics that
prompt the Pythia in her responses.
Accused of having purloined the cup, the men, in
conscious innocence, rebut the charge; but are con
founded when, on the sacks being undone, the cup of
my lord the Governor of Egypt is found in the sack
of Benjamin. They rend their clothes, relade their
asses, and return into the city. Joseph would then
�Genesis : Joseph.
117
detain his brother Benjamin beside him, whilst the
rest returned to their home; but Judah pleads
■ touchingly against the Governor’s purpose : “ Oh,
my lord,” says he, “let thy servant, I pray thee,
speak a word in my lord’s ears. My lord asked his
servants, saying: ‘ Have ye a father or a brother ?’
and we said unto my lord, ‘We have a father, an old
man, and a brother, a child of his old age; and his
brother is dead, and he alone is left of his mother,
and his father loveth him. Now, therefore, when I
come to thy servant, my father, seeing that his life is
bound up in the lad’s life, it shall come to pass, when
he seeth that the lad is not with us, that he will
die, and thy servants shall bring down the grey hairs
of thy servant, our father, with sorrow to the grave ;
for thy servant became surety for the lad unto my
father, saying, ‘ If I bring him not unto thee, then
I shall bear the blame unto my father for ever.’ Now,
therefore, I pray thee, let thy servant abide instead of
the lad, a bondsman to my lord, and let the lad go up
with his brethren.”
Joseph can hold out no longer: “ Cause everyman
to go out from me,” he exclaims; and, turning to his
brethren, he says : “I am Joseph; come near me, I
pray you ; I am Joseph your brother whom ye sold into
Egypt. And doth my father yet live ? Now, therefore,
be not grieved nor be angry with yourselves that ye
sold me thither, for God did send me before you to
preserve life. Haste ye then and go to my father,
and say unto him : Thus sayeth thy son Joseph :
God hath made me Lord of all Egypt; come down
to me, tarry not. And ye shall tell my father of all
my g^ry in Egypt, and ye shall haste and bring
down my father hither. And he fell upon his brother
Benjamin’s neck and wept, and he kissed all his
brethren and wept upon them.” The good Joseph 1
and the sweet poetic mind that still makes our hearts
to throb in sympathy with its own as it wove the
�118
The Pentateuch.
tale, though it has been stilled so many hundred
years !
The brothers return home and tell the wondrous
story to their father, whose heart faints within him
at first, for he scarce believes them. But seeing the
presents with which they are loaded his spirit revives,
and he says : “ It is enough ; Joseph my son is yet
alive ; I will go and see him before I die.” He takes
his journey accordingly with all belonging to him ?
With his sons and daughters and his son’s sons and
daughters, their cattle and all the gear they had gotten
in the land of Canaan, they move away, three score
and six in all, making up with Joseph, his wife
Asenath and the two sons she had borne him, the
three score and ten persons—the mystical number
seventy—connected with Jacob who come out of the
land of Canaan into Egypt.
The wealth, in cattle especially, said to have been
possessed by Jacob and his sons in the land of Canaan
might seem to make removal to Egypt on account of
famine unnecessary ?
So we might suppose ; with their flocks and herds
they could have been in no want of animal food; and
if the land was in a state to produce “ balm and
honey, nuts and almonds, spices and myrrh ” as pre
sents for the Governor of Egypt, it was also in a con
dition to yield corn for Jacob and his sons, and
herbage for their cattle ?
So we might fairly suppose. But continued peace
ful settlement in the land of Canaan would not have
enabled the Jewish scribes to exhibit their people in
any peculiar or very striking way as the special
favourites of their God Jehovah. Neither would he
have had the occasion required to show the many
strange signs and wonders they describe in proof of
his almighty power and his superiority over the gods
of Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Neither indeed would
such a course have left any excuse for the cruelties so
�Genesis : Jacob in Egypt.
119
wantonly committed against the Egyptians, or the
invasion of Palestine and the indiscriminate slaughter
of its inhabitants, accounts of which are laid up in
the Hebrew annals as acts approved—nay commanded
by God, meritorious in themselves and worthy of imi
tation by posterity.
But the famine, as foretold by Joseph to the Pha
raoh ; and, presumed to have extended to Palestine, is
the cause which led immediately to Jacob’s removal
with his family from the land of Canaan to Egypt?
The famine, too, must be a myth—part of the ma
chinery brought into play by the writer. Occasional
droughts with consequent dearths have, doubtless, at
all times prevailed in Palestine, as in other lands
within the variable latitudes, but the geographical
position of the country and all we know of its climate
forbid us to believe that drought and dearth for seven
successive years are within the sphere of possibility.
Egypt, again, not depending on its local rainfall for
the productiveness of its soil, but on the waters of the
Nile, whose source is more than a thousand miles away,
is as necessarily inundated once a year and fertilised,
as winter and summer come alternately over the
northern and southern halves of the globe. Total
failure of the crops in Egypt, even for one year, may be
said not to be possible. The rise of the river in one year
being more than in another, and the acreage effec
tually irrigated and cultivated being in consequence
less or more, there may in different years be relative
abundance or dearth, but never entire failure of the
land’s increase, never even scarcity for such a period
as seven years in succession.
Jacob and his son’s wealth consisting in cattle of
different kinds, the land of Egypt, so wholly agri
cultural, would not seem the most advantageous con
ceivable for the location of neat-herds and shep
herds ?
This difficulty is got over by Jacob and his family
�120
The Pentateuch.
being settled by Joseph, with the Pharaoh’s approval,
in the land of Goshen, a district on the northern
borders of Egypt adapted to grazing, but which will
be looked for in vain upon the map of such extent as
might suffice to support the population that is said
finally to have possessed it.
There was a special objection, moreover, to the set
tlement of Jacob and his kindred in the land of Egypt
proper ?
Besides the first and most obvious objection that
presented itself to the writer’s mind—the impossi
bility of having herds and flocks among the polders
and canallated fields of the great valley of the Nile,
shepherds are said to have been an abomination to
the Egyptians.
What may be the meaning of this ?
An obscure epoch in the history of Egypt is pro
bably referred to, when the country was invaded and
for a time dominated by a barbarous people called
Hyksos or Shepherds, of whom little that is not con
jectural is known—a wild Arabian tribe in all pro
bability of the same Semitic stock as the Hebrews—
who broke in upon peaceful Egypt out of the neigh
bouring desert and made themselves masters of the
country for a season—how Ion git is impossible to say—
but who were finally either absorbed into the general
population, or, as the ruling class, were got the better
of and exterminated or expelled.
Jacob however takes his journey with all he has,
and as in his other significant moves does not fail to
have a fresh vision and communication from the God
of his father Isaac ?
God, says the text, speaks unto Israel (Jacob) in a
vision of the night, and announces himself as the God
of his father, bids him not fear to go down into Egypt;
for, adds his interlocutor : “ I will go down with thee,
and will bring thee up again and make of thee a great
nation.”
�Genesis: Jacob in Egypt.
121
A long time elapsed, however, as we learn from
another page of these scriptures, before God redeemed
the repeated pledges he is said to have made to the
Patriarchs ?
Four hundred and thirty years, according to one
of the accounts, between the promise now made to
Jacob and the Exodus from Egypt, when the first
steps may be said to have been taken which, after
forty years more of wandering in the desert, were to
lead to fulfilment of his engagements. But it is man
who makes promises and enters into covenants ; God
makes and enters into none, save in the eternal,
changeless laws which are his essence, and these are
not in time but from eternity.
And, then, were the Jews ever a great nation;
numerous as the stars of heaven or the sands of the
sea shore ?
Never. They did not even at any time obtain
entire possession of the land they believed had been
promised to them, and were alternately tributaries to
the Moabites, Philistines, Phoenicians, Egyptians,
Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans, by all
of whom they were at different times conquered,
amerced as tributaries, or led into captivity as slaves.
The promises made them, therefore, can only have
been in their own imaginations ?
They certainly cannot have been from God, for they
were never kept.
But to return—Jacob on his arrival in Egypt is
dutifully met by Joseph in his chariot, and by him is
presented to the Pharaoh. Inquired of by the sove
reign how old he is, what answer makes he ?
“ That he is an hundred and thirty years oldand
rather ungratefully and untruly, as it seems, from all
we know of his history, he adds : “ Few and evil have
been the days of the years of my life.”
Can we fancy the successful superseder of his elder
brother and filcher of his father’s blessing, the un-
�122
'The Pentateuch.
vanquished wrestler with Elohe himself, and the
prosperous possessor of herds and flocks, and a nume
rous progeny, to have given such an answer ?
Not if he were speaking in sober seriousness. His
own life had been prosperous; the evil in it had all
fallen upon others.
The famine continuing in the land of Egypt, how
does Joseph proceed ?
W arily and with a view to aggrandise the ruler,
harshly and so as to impoverish and break the
people ; for he first gathers into his own hand all the
money in the country by the sale of his hoarded corn ;
then he says, “ Give me of your cattle if money fail
and the year coming to an end with no abatement of
the scarcity, he finally buys up all the land, every
man selling his field for bread, and removes the
people into the cities from one end of Egypt to the
other.
Does he not make one exception in this getting
possession of the soil ?
He does : “ The land of the priests bought he not,”
a piece of information which enables us surely to
divine what he was who tells the story.
A priest ?
Undoubtedly. Nor was Joseph yet at an end with
his hard conditions to the people. In return for
the seed they received to sow their fields, he made
it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day that
Pharaoh should have the fifth part of the produce,
except of the land of the priests, which became not
Pharaoh’s.
Another exception in the same line, and with the
phrase “unto this day,” assuring us not only of the
probable calling of the narrator, but of the compara
tively late period when he lived and wrote ?
It does so assure us, very certainly. The children
of Israel, however, prosper in the land of Goshen,
having no hard conditions imposed on them by the
�Genesis : Jacob in Egypt.
123
Governor; and Jacob, we are told, lived for seventeen
years thereafter among his children.
The longest life, however, comes to an end at last,
and we have more than one account of the incidents
attending Jacob’s death ?
It appears so. In the first that meets us he calls
Joseph to his side and engages him by the oath held
most sacred among the Jews to dispose of his body in
the way he desires : “ Put, I pray thee, thy hand
under my thigh (admove manum tuum testibus meis)
and deal kindly and truly with me; bury me not in
Egypt, but I will lie with my fathers, and thou shalt
carry me out of Egypt and bury me in their buryingplace.” In the second account given of the patriarch’s
end Joseph is told of his father’s sickness, and taking
his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, in his hand, he
visits his parent, who on his part is told of his son’s
arrival, when he “ strengthens himself and sits upon
the bed.” Seeing Joseph’s sons he asks who they are,
for his eyesight is dim. Being informed, he says,
“ Bring them, I pray thee, unto me, and I will bless
them.”
He blesses them ?
He does ; but imitates his own father Isaac in so far
that, though he blesses both of the lads, he gives for
no imaginable reason the preferential blessing with
the right hand to the younger son. In this second
account he says nothing about desiring to be buried
out of Eygpt, but having blessed Joseph he adds,
“ I die, but God will bring you again into the land of
your fathersy
Jacob, therefore, speaks of the land of Canaan as
his own country and the country of his fathers ?
He does so; and when we read of the ample pos
sessions of Abraham and of Jacob and of Esau, called
Duke of Seir, it is impossible not to see that the land
of Canaan had already been given by God to the Pa
triarchs and their seed; for they could not have be-
�124
The. Pentateuch.
come proprietors of hundreds of camels, of thousands
of oxen, and of hundreds of thousands of sheep and
goats, had they not also been lords of the soil.
Such considerations as these might lead us to infer
that the first coming of the Israelites into Egypt was
due to another cause than the famine at home, the
one assigned ?
It seems more likely, from the context and other
parts of the imperfect history we possess, to have
been owing to'the fortune of war,—the truth in al
likelihood being that a body of them was carried to
the land of the Pharaohs as captives at some period un
named in their history, they having been deported, in
conformity with ancient usage, from their own homes
to those of their conquerors, and by them treated as
slaves. The Hebrew Scriptures indeed are silent as
to any Egyptian captivity similar to the captivities of
Assyria and Babylon'; but when we discover the
Jewish physiognomy among the trains of captives de
picted in the temples, we are authorised to conclude
that the position of the children of Israel in Egypt
was never anything other than that of slavery. This
would better account for the hard usage they are said
to have suffered at the hands of their masters in after
times, which led to revolt and flight, than the reason
assigned in the record. The posterity of Jacob, after
a peaceful residence for centuries in Goshen, could
not have been looked on as intruders and to be feared,
nor treated with harshness, more than any of the other
inhabitants of the laud of Egypt.0
° Movers refers to a curious passage in ‘The Birds’ of Aris
tophanes, to show that the Israelites in early times must have
been slaves in Phoenicia as well as in Egypt. The Cucku
arrived in Phoenicia at the time of the wheat and barley har
vest, and his call interpreted by the Greek comic writer is to
this effect: Circumcised to the field! The Israelites must
therefore have been the bondmen, field labourers to their more
civilised and powerful neighbours.—Die Phoenizier,’ ii. 314.)
�Genesis : 'Jacob's Heath Song.
125
Jacob distinguishes Joseph from, his other sons ?
He does by the legacy he leaves him. After giving
him his blessing, he adds : “ Moreover I have given to
thee one portion above thy brethren which I took out
of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with
my bow.” In no part of the Scriptures, however, is
there any mention made of early feuds between the
descendants of Abraham settled in Canaan and their
neighbours, nor of any feat of arms performed by
Jacob against the Amorites in particular. Jacob, on
the contrary, is characterised at the outset of his his
tory as a plain or peaceful man, so that the verse here
may be an after-thought of the writer for the greater
exaltation of Joseph, although Jacob’s boast may lead
us to suspect that we have by no means the history of
the Hebrew people complete.
Jacob blesses or addresses some words of farewell
to his other sons before he dies ?
He does; but what he says can be less interpreted
as blessing than as prophecy : “ Gather yourselves to
gether (he says) that I may tell you what will befal
you in times to come; gather yourselves together and
hearken, ye sons of Jacob, hearken to Israel your
father I”
He then addresses each in succession, saying first
to Reuben as his eldest—
“ Reuben, thou art my first-born, my might, the
beginning of my strength! * * * * Unstable as
water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up
to thy father’s bed, then defiledst thou it.”
We have had the story of Reuben’s transgression
already, which seems so unnatural and abominable
that an allegorical interpretation has been sought not
only for it, but for the whole of the 49th chapter of
Genesis, to which our survey has now brought us.
What may be the nature of this interpretation ?
.We have already seen Jacob assuming that he, his
wife, and his other sons were the sun, moon, and
�126
The Pentateuch.
eleven stars of Joseph’s dream, and there can he littTe
doubt of the twelve tribes of Israel having been con
stituted as representatives of the twelve signs of the
zodiac through which the sun passes in his annual
circuit round the earth, as understood by all the
nations of antiquity. Antiquarian writers of the
highest authority are further agreed in concluding
that the several tribes (in much later times than the
age of Jacob, however) carried banners with devices
distinctive of each upon them, these being, in fact, no
other than the figures of animals, men or things to be
found, with little variety, on the planispheres or
zodiacs of the Indians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans,
and ourselves.
What is the interpretation given to the Patriarch’s
address to Reuben in conformity with this, which may
properly be spoken of as the enigmatical and astro
logical meaning that underlies the language of this
as of so many other parts of the Hebrew Scriptures ?
The tribe of Reuben is believed to have carried the
sign of Aquarius on its banner. Now the sign of
Aquarius is typified by a human figure with a pitcher
or urn out of which water is flowing : hence Reuben
is unstable as water; he defiles his father’s bed when
he cohabits with the Patriarch’s concubine Bilhah,
and so forfeits his birthright as eldest born, which is
given to Joseph. And oriental astronomers designate
one of the asterisms in the sign of Aquarius by the
name of Bulha, which rises when the sun is yet in
Capricornus,—the house of Saturn, the star of Israel,
—and sets at the precise time when Aquarius also
dips under the horizon head foremost, and by re
versing his urn was held by the ancients to cause the
overflow of the Nile.
This is certainly curious and is not usually adverted
to by commentators on the Hebrew Scriptures,
although it has great semblance of probability for
its truth. What says the Patriarch further ?
�Genesis: Jacob's Death Song,
127
“ Simeon and Levi are brethren ; instruments of
cruelty are in their habitations ; in their anger they
slew a man,” &c. Now the sign allotted to them was
Pisces, the fishes, a sign held of specially malignant
influence by the old astrologers ; for whilst the sun
is in Pisces all the constellations that were considered
adverse are seen above the horizon ; and with his
setting in this sign the disasters of the reign of
Typhon, i.e. of winter, begin ; for then it is that Orion
sets and is feigned to die from the sting of the veno
mous scorpion who rises, and that Osiris is entrapped
and slain by Typhon. In their self-will these brethren
are further said to dig down a wall—the Hebrew,
more correctly translated, meaning to maim, or it may
be to emasculate a bull; and in the Mithriac monu
ments in particular, when the sun in Pisces sets, the
scorpion is represented gnawing the genitals of the
vernal bull—i.e., the reproductive power of nature
falls into abeyance, and the destructive principle
asserts its power.
What is said to Judah ?
“ Judah is a lion’s whelp ; his hand is in the neck
of his enemies, and his father’s children bow down
before him.”
The interpretation of which is ?
That the sun having in the olden time attained his
highest northern meridian altitude in Leo, the cog
nisance of the tribe of Judah, all the other constella
tions are beneath or may be said to have become
subject to him; hence, the hand in the neck of ene
mies, and the father’s children bowing down before
him.
The sceptre it is said shall not depart from Judah
nor the ruler’s rod (not lawgiver as in the English
version) until he come to Shiloh and the people obey
him. How may this be interpreted ?
The constellation Cepheus, as King of Ethiopia, is
still seen on our celestial spheres with a crown on his
�1-18
The Pentateuch.
head and a sceptre in his hand. This constellation
rises towards the end of July under Leo, as it were,
and continues the paranatellon or concomitant aster
ism of Leo until the sun enters Scorpio. Cepheus,
the King, sets about the time Scorpio rises, and then
ceases as it seems to attend upon Leo; the brighter
of two of the most conspicuous stars in Scorpio, called
Shuleh by Arabian astronomers, then making its ap
pearance on the visible horizon.
What may be the meaning of the sentence where
Judah is said to bind his ass’s colt to the vine and to
wash his garments in wine ?
It probably alludes to the influence of the sun in
bringing to maturity the fruits of the earth, those of
the vine in especial, whose noble product, wine, glad
dens the heart of man.
Zebulon, says the Patriarch in continuation, shall
dwell at the haven of the sea, and shall be for a haven
for ships. How may this be interpreted ?
The standard of Zebulon was Capricornus ; and on
turning to a celestial globe we observe that the ship
Argo, with the most brilliant star in the southern
heavens—Canopus—visible in Egypt, by us unseen,
sets as Capricornus rises.
Issachar is the next in order ?
Issachar is a strong Ass couching between two
burthens ; and Issachar bore on his banner the sign
of Cancer, in which are the stars called the Asses.
Had the sun had the turning point in his course as
now in Cancer, instead of Leo as at the time the
zodiac was designed which the writer of Jacob’s
death-song must have had before him, we should find
no difficulty in interpreting the couching as between
the burthen of the past and the burthen of the future.
But the translation of the Hebrew by the English
word burthens, seems to be erroneous, the proper ren
dering being partitions (Drummond), Viehlvurden—
cattle hurdles (De Wette). Issachar saw that rest
�Genesis ; Jacob's Death Song.
x.
129
was good, yet bowed his shoulder to bear—he couched
at the turning point of the summer half of the year.
Dan it is said shall judge his people as one of the
tribes of Israel. Dan shall be a serpent by the way,
an adder in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels so
that his rider shall fall back ?
A sentence which finds its ready interpretation in'
the fact that the tribe of Dan bore the sign of Scorpio
on its banner. This was one of the accursed signs
according to the ancient astrologers; for with the
entrance of the sun into Scorpio commenced the reign
of Typhon, the death of Orion, and the emasculation
of the vernal bull. Close to Scorpio we see the
serpent Ophiucus,—the adder that bites the horse’s
heels,—the head of this serpent ascending along with
the feet of the Centaur, or Hippocentaur, to obtain
the element of the horse, the heels of which are said
to be bitten by the reptile. It is not without interest
to note that in the record of the doings of the tribe
of Dan elsewhere recorded (Joshua, ch. xix.), we
read of their taking the city of Leshem and giving it
the name of their chief or father, Dan. Now, the
bright star in Scorpio which we call Antares was
called Leshat by the Chaldeans and Lesos by the
Greeks, so that the astrological significance of what
is said of Dan is not doubtful.
Of Gad it is said a troop shall oveiyjome him, but
he shall overcome at the last ?
In Capricornus there is a cluster of stars called
variously Gadia and Gadi by the Chaldeans and
Syrians, Giedi by the Arabians. It might be pre
sumed at first sight, therefore, that Gad must have
had Capricornus for its cognisance. But the cogni
sance of Gad was Aries, the Ram, in which sign the
sun crossed the equator in the olden time, as in times
still older he made the passage in Taurus, and from
the inferior mounted triumphantly, victorious as it
were, over the inferior signs, in the lowest of which,
K
�130
Phe Pentateuch.
Capricornus, comprising the cluster or troop of stars
called Gadia, he was feigned to have been born at the
winter solstice: pressed on symbolically by a troop
at one time, the sun advancing in his course prevails
over it at last.
Out of Ashee the bread shall be fat, and he shall
give the dainties of the King (De Wette).
Libra was the sign carried on the banner of Asher,
and when the sun had reached this sign the happy sea
son of the year had come, with skies still mild and the
earth burthened with the load of ripened and ripening
fruits which under the fostering influence of the God
of Day it had produced. Hence the allusion to the
big loaf and the dainties for a King.
Naphthali is a hind let loose; he giveth goodly
words.
Tradition allots Virgo to Naphthali. The word
translated IxiniL had probably a different signification
in the original, and what is implied by the goodly
words he gave it is not easy to conjecture.
Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough
by a well, whose branches run over a wall.
The writer compares Ephraim, who assumed the
standard of his father Joseph, to a young bull, and
tradition assigns Taurus to the tribe of Ephraim—
Taurus, the sign in which the vernal equinox occurred
in very ancient times, and when the vegetable world
was starting into life. Hence the allusion to the
fruitful bough, spreading abroad in its luxuriant
growth. “ The archers have sorely grieved him, and
shot at him and hated him ; but his bow abode in
strength, pliant the power of his hands, made strong
by the hand of the mighty Jacob ” (De Wette), con
tinues the text. Now' it happens that immediately
after the sun has passed into Sagittarius, the head of
Taurus begins to set, whence we can easily conclude
as to the archer who shoots at him in hate. But the
whole of the matter here can only be satisfactorily
�Genesis ; 'Jacob''s Death Song,
iji
explained by referring to the Mithriac monuments,
delineations of several of which are given by Hyde in
his classical work, ‘Veterum Persarum et Medorum
Religionis Historia.” In these, Mithras the sun in
Taurus is represented on the back of a Bull, whose
side he pierces with a dagger, and its blood, the
symbol of life, flows down to vivify and fertilise the
earth, whilst a flying arrow is seen directed against
■ the breast of the animal, and the scorpion is observed
gnawing his genital organs.
“ Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf; in the morning
he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide
the spoil.”
This tribe bore the wolf on its banner, and one of
the ancient eastern symbols of the sign Gemini is the
wolf. Further, Gemini was the sign in which the
god with the dog or wolf’s head, Anubis, had his
station, who, besides announcing the rise of the Nile,
was also the planet Mercury, which changes alter
nately and so rapidly from an evening to a morning
and from a morning to an evening star, whence the
possible allusion to the prey and the spoil in connec
tion with the night and the morning P
In concluding his death song, Jacob commands his
sons assembled around him, precisely as he had com
manded Joseph individually in the first account we
had of the death-bed scene, not to bury him in Egypt,
but with his fathers in the cave that is in the field of
Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field of
Ephron the Hittite for a burying-place. Having
made an end of commanding his sons, he brought his
feet together on the bed and departed, and was
gathered to his people.
p.The .writer mainly followed in the above astrological ex
position is Sir W. Drummond, in his ‘ CEdipus JudaicuS;’ with
some hints from Nork’s ‘ Biblische Mythologie.’ Where the
Scripture texts given differ from the accredited English ver
sion, De Wette’s unrivalled translation of the Bible has been
followed.
�132
The Pentateuch.
What is the conclusion now come to by the abler
and better informed of the critical exponents of the
Hebrew Scriptures in regard to the prophetical death
song of J acob ?
That it is a poetical prophecy after the event, largely
interlarded with allegorical and astrological matter,
and not composed, in all probability, until after the
epoch of the Kings of Judah. Dr Davidson agrees
with those critics who think it may have been written
by Nathan (vide ‘ Introduction to Old Testament,’ i., p.
198). “ The Deity,” says this ripe scholar, able critic,
and liberal theologian, “ did not see fit, so far as we
can judge, to impart to any man like Jacob the know
ledge of future and distant events. Had he done so,
he would not have left him to speak on his death-bed
like an Arab chief of no higher blessings to his sons
than rapine and plunder, and without the least refer
ence to another and better state of existence on which
he believed he should enter, and on which he might
counsel his sons to act continually.” That the death
song is allegorical is obvious enough to us, and
if it have the astrological meaning assigned to it by
such scholars and thinkers as Kircher, Jablonski,
Dupuis, Drummond, and Nork, it seems as if it could
only have been produced after the Babylonian cap
tivity, when the Jews had received a lesson in the
astrological lore of the Chaldeans ; they themselves
up to the time of the exile appearing to have been
profoundly ignorant of all beyond the fact that there
were lights in the sky—sun, moon, planets, and fixed
stars, which influenced them as they fancied in their
estates, and were set in heaven, moreover, for their
peculiar advantage.
Joseph and his brethren, now reconciled, like
dutiful sons, carry out their father’s injunctions in
regard to the burial ?
Joseph commands his servants the physicians to
embalm the body of his father Jacob, and having the
�Genesis:
Joseph.
ijj
Pharaoh’s leave of absence he sets out with all the
adult members of his father’s house for the land of
Canaan, where, after a grievous mourning, charac
terised in the text as “ the mourning of the Egyptians,”
he buries his father. He then returns to Egypt with
his brethren, who fearing that Joseph would now hate
them, their father being dead, and requite them for
the evil they had done him, send a messenger to him
and entreat forgiveness for their trespass and their
sin.
Joseph, as we know him, does not deny them ?
“ Fear not,” he says ; “for stand I not under God ?
Ye thought evil against me, but God turned it to
good, to bring it to pass as it is this day, to save
many people alive. Now therefore fear ye not; I will
care for you and for your children. And he com
forted them and spake kindly to them.” (Eng. vers,
and De Wette.)
Joseph lives long in Egypt, and sees the children
of the third generation of Ephraim his son; the chil
dren also of Machir, the son of Manasseh his own son,
were brought up on his knees—this implies a long
life ?
Joseph, according to the text, lives a hundred and
ten years and then dies. Before being gathered to
his fathers, however—and we might say as matter of
course and in emulation of his father Jacob—he says
to his brethren : “ God will surely visit you and bring
you out of this land unto the land which he swore to
Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.” He also takes an
oath of his kinsmen binding them to carry his bones
from Egypt to the ancestral burying-place in the land
of Canaan. His life at an end, his body is embalmed
and put into a coffin in Egypt.
�APPENDIX.
(a.) genesis of the earth.
The elements and their compounds probably ex
isted at first in states far different from those in
which they now present themselves : water as oxy
gen and hydrogen; the saline, earthy, and metallic
oxides, carbonates, chlorides, &c., in the form of their
constituent elements. A vast amount of heat must
also have been set free whilst the atmosphere and
crust of the earth were undergoing condensation and
consolidation from the gaseous and vaporous into the
liquid and solid states in which they now exist, which
could not all have been dissipated in space, and so
lost to the earth. Concentrated into mighty flashes of
lightning—electric sparks of portentous power,—it
was probably used in bringing into play the elective
affinities of the elements or simple substances, and so
producing the compounds in which we now meet with
them, the heat itself from sensible becoming latent in
these.
(b.) the confusion of languages.
Can any reasonable explanation be given of the
myth of the Tower of Babel ?
From its geographical position on the Euphrates—
now a sedge-grown stream creeping sluggishly along
among sand-banks and over shallows, but in former
ages rolling a much mightier tide to the sea—Babylon
�Appendix.
135
lay in the direct line of communication between the
East and the West. This naturally brought men of
different tongues together, and after the wars of
Nebuchadnezzar and his deportations from the con
quered countries it became a kind of centre in which
numerous different races of the human family were
made to congregate. Hence, such the diversity of lan
guage said to have prevailed that the inhabitants of
one quarter of the great city did not understand the
tongue of those of another. The inventor of the
mythical tale may have been one of the deported
Israelites, and well acquainted with the confusion of
tongues that prevailed in Babylon.
(C.) TEMPTATION OF ABRAHAM.
Have we not parallels in the old mythologies of
like intended but interrupted sacrifices of children by
their fathers ?
We have already referred to one at least where the
sacrifice is said to have been completed: Kronos,
arrayed in his royal robes, to stay a pestilence, offered
up his son Jehud to his father Uranos. But Athamas,
King of Iolchos, about to sacrifice his son to Jupiter
Laphystius, in fulfilment of the terms on which he
held his kingdom, like Abraham, wras prevented, the
god considerately substituting a golden-fleeced ram
for the son; Iphigenia, about to bleed on the altar of
Diana, was replaced by a hind, &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
The Pentateuch in contrast with the science and moral sense of our age. Part III: [Thora - the Law]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Willis, Robert
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 135 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: "By a Physician". Author believed to be Robert Willis. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Includes bibliographical references.
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
1873
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT125
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Judaism
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 Pentateuch in contrast with the science and moral sense of our age. Part III: [Thora - the Law]), 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
Bible. O.T. Pentateuch
Conway Tracts