1
10
2
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2121233032e6c2df4adb0c2dd455d7f0.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=mhUFQwE0kG1UKL3%7ETZFLveF2d0FkZbkLKV0cmSMeO59PbA9BhMgXTH8jxkHu0y4FVND8bx4lDXbaDYki3bL2w%7ED5Ie5tOgnKTXds1%7EUQBmsbtlEjKfxptYsUUkZoNysV39OdebE7no%7E129UrTcS6%7ETHILCB9R5g20-wK751UZnRYC4h7e0jD1kIaboCCes94T764BY6-ML3aPoqvZ-swVAiMaksEOqhCi2KQVBbhT%7Es7ghu3%7EI4qMeVeFcIQGysLsRP82LRs1TZcmwPrXRjxav2vU4ga2ZBBdrXlN4OTR9BCeX%7ERf%7EfCnrmrcuoP967kWkM1oL0UrbXoNEBgVgPROw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d1260c1aeb8077fc76e76445909f4465
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
WHAT THE OLD TESTAMENT SAYS
ABOUT ITSELF.
BY
JULIAN,
Author of “The Popular Faith Exposed,” “Bible Words: Human,
not Divine,” “The Pillars of the Church,” Etc.
ISSUED FOR THE
London :
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET St.
Price One Penny.
* ,
�OUR PROPAGANDIST PRESS COMMITTEE.
This Committee has been formed for the purpose of assisting in
the production and circulation of liberal publications.
The members of the Committee are Mr. G. J. Holyoake, Dr.
Bithell, Mr. F. J. Gould, Mr. Frederick Millar, and Mr. Charles
A. Watts.
It is thought that the most efficient means of spreading the
principles of Rationalism is that of books and pamphlets. Many
will read a pamphlet who would never dream of visiting a lecture
hall. At the quiet fireside arguments strike home which might
be dissipated by the excitement of a public debate. The lecturer
wins his thousands, the penman his tens of thousands.
The aim of the various writers will be to obtain converts by
persuasiveness rather than undue hostility towards the popular
creeds.
All who are in sympathy with the movement are earnestly re
quested to contribute towards the expenses as liberally as their
means will allow. The names of donors will not be published
without their consent.
On the 31st of January of each year a report and balance-sheet
will be forwarded to subscribers. The books of the Committee are
always accessible to donors.
Contributions should be forwarded to Mr. Charles A. Watts,
17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C. Cheques should
be crossed “ Central Bank of London, Blackfriars Branch.”
PUBLICATIONS ISSUED FOR THE COMMITTEE BY
MESSRS. WATTS & CO.
Agnostic Problems. Being an Examination of Some Questions
of the Deepest Interest, as Viewed from the Agnostic Standpoint.
By R. Bithell, B.Sc., Ph.D. Cheap Popular Edition, cloth, 2s. 6d.
post free.
_____
id. each, by post 1Xd->
Agnosticism and Immortality. By S. Laing, author of “ Modern
Science and Modern Thought,” etc.
Humanity and Dogma. By Amos Waters.
What the Old Testament Says About Itself. By Julian.
The Old Testament Unhistoric and Unscientific. By Julian.
LIBERTY OF BEQUESTS COMMITTEE.
This Committee has been formed for procuring the passing of a
law legalising bequests for Secular and Free Thought purposes.
As the law now stands, all legacies left for the diffusion and main
tenance of Secular or Free Thought principles can be confiscated.
Subscriptions in furtherance of the object of this Committee may
be sent to Mr. George Anderson, Hon. Treasurer, 35a, Great
George Street, London, S.W.
�KH'AZ.
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT
EXAMINED.
Part I.
WHAT THE OLD TESTAMENT SAYS ABOUT ITSELF.
Probably every person who reads this little work knows
that a part of the Bible is called the “ Apcfcrypha,” a
word which means “ reserved for the initiated,” or “ kept
back from the general public.”
Exoteric and Esoteric Disciples.—In all the ancient
religions there were two classes of disciples—-the exoteric
and the esoteric. The exoteric were the general auditors,
the esoteric the real disciples, initiated into the secret and
hidden meaning of the words employed by the master.
Thus, when Pythagoras taught in his schools that wise
men should “ beware of beans,” the general public
supposed he meant that beans were to be avoided as a
food; but he privately told his true disciples that he
meant: Do not interfere with politics, lotteries, or ballotboxes, in which votes were taken by beans, as we now
take them by slips of paper or small ivory balls.
You will remember that, when Jesus had spoken a
parable to the Jewish mob, his disciples frequently came
to him in private, and asked him to explain to them the
esoteric or secret meaning of his words. The initial
verses of the Fourth Gospel afford a good example, where
the words “ Logos,” “ darkness,” “ light,” and so on, have
a. double meaning—one open, and one remote or con
cealed. Now, the latter may be called the Apocrypha,
and we are told by Ezra or Esdras that Moses gave one
Pentateuch to the general public, but another to the
initiated. The exact words are : “ In the bush I
�2
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
[Jehovah] did manifestly reveal myself unto Moses, and
talked with him when my people served in Egypt. And
I sent him to lead my people out of Egypt, and I
brought him up to the Mount of Sinai, where I held
him by me a long season. And I told him many
wondrous things, and showed him the secret of the times
and of the end ; and I commanded him, saying : These
words shalt thou declare [openly to the people] ; but
these thou shalt hide [from the general, and declare only
to the initiated].”* Similarly, as we shall see by-andby, Jehovah commanded Ezra to write certain books,
one of which was to be published abroad, and seventy
others were to be reserved for the priesthood. The
Apocryphal books were the foundation of what is called
tradition.
The Apocrypha.—In the Old Testament, till quite
modern times, there were thirty-eight books, fourteen of
which are omitted in all Bibles now published by the
Bible Society. These fourteen books were first called
“The Apocrypha,” in 1380, by John Wyclif the Re
former ; but they still continue parts of the canonical
Scriptures in all Catholic Bibles.
Why Ignored by Protestants.—Protestants ignore
these fourteen books entirely. But the Church of
England, trimming between Catholics and Puritans,
teaches that the Apocrypha is excellent for Christian
instruction and example, but is not to be used for doc
trine and dogma. The words of the article are as
follows: “Whatsoever Book is in the Old Testament
besides the twenty-four [mentioned] shall be set among
the Apocrypha—that is [books] without authority of
belief. The Church doth read them for example of
life and instruction of manners, but doth not apply them
to establish any doctrine.”
I am quite prepared to allow that much of the Apoc
rypha is extremely foolish, and undoubtedly mere fable;
but what else can be said of the talking serpent and the
talking ass ? and on the former of these stories is founded
the great Church doctrines of original sin, the fall of
man, and redemption or paradise regained. The tale is
* 2 Esdras xiv. 3-6.
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
3
that the Devil metamorphosed himself into a snake, and
chatted with Eve in familiar converse, just like a neigh
bour-gossip. Having persuaded the silly, vain woman
to taste a certain fruit, because it would make her clever,
sin entered the world with all its evils, including death
and Hell.
The Strange Part of the Story.—Now, what is very
strange in this marvellous story is this : The prating
snake was no snake at all, but the Devil; and the whole
serpent tribe was cursed because the Devil acted a lie.
“ On thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all
the days of thy life ” was, in reality, said to the Devil;
but somehow it got transferred to the race of serpents,
who were as innocent as young lambs. The serpent did
not assume the form of the Devil; but the Devil
assumed the form of a serpent. Suppose his Satanic
Majesty had assumed the form of an archangel, as he
sometimes did, would the curse have fallen on all the
hierarchy of Heaven ?—“ on your bellies shall ye crawl,
and dust shall ye eat” henceforth, instead of the fruits of
Paradise ; yet one would have been just as wise, just as
fair, as the other. However, we meet a parallel case in
the New Testament, when a legion of foul fiends took
up their abode in a herd of swine; the swine were killed
for the demoniacal trick. This is just as if a burglar
broke into the mansion at Sandringham, and the Prince
of Wales, his wife, children, and domestics were all
hanged instead of the burglar. If I choose to dress up
like an African and steal the Crown jewels, surely the
Queen would not send her armies into Africa, and reduce
all the inhabitants to slavery. Then why should snakes
and serpents be punished because, without their know
ledge and consent, Satan masqueraded as a snake in
order to tempt Eve to disobedience ? But the mystery
does not end here. Evidently the serpent tribe before
then were not creeping things ; for a part of the curse
was “ on thy belly shalt thou go ” henceforth. Now,
Satan does not go on his belly, and does not eat dust all
the days of his life. At least, I suppose so. Certainly
he did not crawl on his belly like a snake when he
tempted the Nazarene in the wilderness, and carried him
to the pinnacle of the temple, and to a mountain so
�4
the old and new testament examined.
exceedingly high that Jesus could see thence even the
Antipodes, as well as the kingdoms of the northern half
of the globe. Telescopes have done something for ns;
but we have not yet invented an instrument which can
show us our Antipodes. As Satan, the aggressor, escaped
this curse, it fell wholly on the innocent party, who were
as guiltless as you or I.
These manifest fables, these illogical stories, these
palpable contradictions, make us pause to believe that
they can be the words of truth and soberness. I cannot
bring my mind to believe that a God of Justice and
Wisdom would punish innocent serpents because the
Devil chose to assume their form ; nor can 1 believe that
he killed a whole herd of swine because a legion of
devils were supposed to have taken up their abode in
the pigs. I cannot believe that snakes and serpents
are now creeping things, because Satan played them
this trick. But, if the tale of the serpent is not true,
then the tale of the “ fall,” the dogmas of “ original
sin ” and of “ redemption,” are false also, and the whole
Bible scheme falls to ruin like a child’s card-house.
There is nothing in the Apocrypha more illogical and
foolish than these two tales of the canonical Scriptures,
and not all the concensus of all the fathers, Hebrew or
Christian, can render the story of the Serpent and Eve
credible.
I really must press upon my readers the supreme
importance of this remark. We are too apt to dwell
exclusively upon the amiable character of Jesus, his
going about daily doing good, his suffering, his resurrec
tion, and ascension into Heaven. We feel that the
wonderful miracles ascribed to him were wholly beyond
the power of man. We feel that his conception by the
Holy Ghost accounts in some measure for his claim of
being god as well as man. We feel that his resurrection
by his own innate will makes him the potentate of life
and death, and that his ascension into Heaven has
restored him to the throne which, we are told, he aban
doned in order to become man. Looking at these
things alone, we see no great difficulty in believing that
this extraordinary person might be divine. If divine, he
was God incarnate, or God in the fashion of a man. If
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
5
he was God, who had merely assumed for the nonce the
likeness of man, he did it that he might die. If he did
not die on the cross for his own misdeeds, he died for our
redemption. If he died for our redemption, he was our
federal head in the New Dispensation. Before this,
man was in the Old Dispensation, that of Adam; but
after the death on the cross he was transported from the
dispensation of the first Adam into that of the second
Adam, Jesus Christ.
Now mark how all this hangs together. We all know
that the strength of a chain cable is only that of its
weakest link, and so the truth of this long story is wholly
dependent on the weakest portion of the story.
If man was never under the dispensation of Adam, he
could never be removed therefrom into the dispensation
of the new Adam. If there is no transmitted sin, there
was no original sin to be nailed to the cross. If Adam
never bit the forbidden fruit, he never committed that
sin of disobedience, and could not have transmitted the
transgression to his posterity. He was a clean fountain,
and sent forth clean water—not a polluted spring from
which issued a polluted stream. There was nothing to
redeem, no muddy water to purify, no birth sin to wash
away. If, therefore, the tale of the prating serpent is
rejected, the death of Christ to abolish the evil conse
quences of the “ fall ” must be rejected also. If the
Devil, in the guise of a snake, did not talk to Eve,
impose upon her vanity (and remember she had no
vanity, for she was not yet in sin), and induce her to eat
the fruit of the “Wisdom Tree,” then the death of Jesus
to abrogate these consequences is wholly a misconcep
tion. He may have died, but he did not die to abolish
the fatal consequences of Eve’s listening to the words of
a serpent, inasmuch as there was no such serpent.
Just as far as this tale of the Devil is true, the hypo
thesis of redemption is true. Just as far as the iniqui
tous judgment passed on the reptile race, because the
Devil played them a most scurvy trick, is true, so far
and no further the atonement of Christ is true. If the
Almighty did not punish snakes because Satan on one
occasion pretended to be a snake, then Christ did not
die upon the cross because God did do so. If, in fact,
�6
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
Paradise was never lost as related in the foolish and
most illogical tale told us in Genesis, it could never be
regained as we are told it was in the Gospels.
Do look for a moment at the tissue of nonsense and
contradiction in this Jewish myth. Surely never HLsop
could have strung together anything more utterly im
probable :—
We have man made in the image of God, who has
no image at all; no likeness of anything in heaven or
earth ; no form ; no parts.
We have Adam, though perfect in holiness and inno
cence—perfect as God could make him, perfect as God
himself—guilty of disobedience ; and by this one act of
disobedience “ guilty of the whole law ”—by this one
act of disobedience made to rank with liars, adulterers,
thieves, and murderers, the children of the Devil and
the heirs of Hell.
We have a serpent, which was no serpent at all, but
the Devil in masquerade.
We have reptiles before they were reptiles ; because
the condition of “creeping” was not yet imposed upon
them.
We have a godly, immaculate woman, fresh from the
hands of the Almighty, described as vain, conceited,
credulous, wilful, and hungering to know the difference
between good and evil.
We have innocent beasts (serpents) punished eternally
for doing something which they did not do.
We have the guilty Devil let off scot-free, and per
mitted to roam the earth, through all time, to plan more
mischief and ruin millions of souls yet unborn.
And we have, in addition to all this, the sin of all
sins—the teeth of all mankind set on edge, because
thousands of years ago a silly woman chose to eat sour
grapes.
And, mark ye, if every word of this tissue of nonsense
is not precisely true, the whole story of redemption falls
to the ground, for one hangs on the other as cause and
effect.
Religion the Invention of Priests.—Every religious
mystery has had, and still has, its hierarchy, whose
ergon it is to uphold its mythology. The rabbis and
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
7
Christian fathers did the same; but their concensus
is not of the slightest value and authority beyond that
of the priests of Egypt, China, Hindustan, old Greece
and Rome, Etruria, Persia, or any other priesthood.
All they can do is to say : “ Such is our mythology, and
these are our books.”
The Apocrypha Worthy of Credit as Other Scrip
tures.—We have somewhat run away from our imme
diate subject, the Apocrypha, but have shown there is
no earthly reason why the fourteen half-and-half books
are not just as worthy of credit as the twenty-four selected
by the compilers of our articles in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth.
We said above that these fourteen books were first
called “The Apocrypha” in 1380, by John Wyclif, the
Yorkshire Reformer. Before that time they were called
“ Hagiographa.” And it must be distinctly borne in
mind that all copies of the Old Testament in the first
three centuries of the Christian era contained the Apoc
rypha without the slightest intimation that it differed
in authority and character from the twenty-four books
stamped with the authority of our Protestant reformers.
The Council of Trent in 1546 distinctly recognised its
equal authority and “ inspiration ” with any other parts
of Scripture. It forms part of the Septuagint always used
by Jesus called the Christ; it is universally attached to the
version published in 1609 by the English colony of Douay;
and the Catholic Church to the present hour considers it
an integral part of the Old Testament. The main reason
why the reformers disliked it is because certain doc
trines, such as purgatory and prayers for the dead, which
they objected to, are supported on the authority of these
books; but this looks very like selecting Scripture
because it squares with preconceived opinions, and not
forming religious doctrines on the authority of Scripture.
The Church first draws out its own platform, and then
selects such books as correspond therewith, and rejects
whatsoever makes against them. That is, the Church
makes the Bible, and not the Bible the Church. I grant
that the nation makes its laws, not the laws the nation;
and a master makes the rules to be observed in his house,
not the rules the master; but the things are not parallel.
�8
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
In the latter cases the nation and the master are free to
do as they like; but the Church pretends to be the mere
exponent of Jehovah, the interpreter of his laws, the
executive of his government, and every iota of their own
introduction is imposition and forgery. It is living and
acting a lie; palming off their own counters as the
current coin of the kingdom of God. If the Bible is
God’s digest, no human council can possibly introduce
a single dogma or doctrine. The law and the testimony
is the one and only authority, and everything besides is
false coin and religious treason. Take the dogma of
the Vatican Synod in 1870—the Immaculate Concep
tion. Where is that found in the Bible ? Nowhere.
But, if synods are the Church legislators, then plainly the
Church is only a human institution. It is not God’s
Church, but merely a synodical Church. It is not under
the hand and teaching of God, but under the hand and
teaching of human boards, which may vote one thing
to-day and something else to-morrow ; one thing in the
east and another in the west; one thing with the domi
nant party of sect A, and another thing with the domi
nant party of sect B. Practically, this is done all the
world over. A set of men make a platform : those who
like its planks join the set; those who do not, look out
for another sect which they like better ; but, as for God’s
word, it is made by the Church the mere testimonial to
a quack medicine—all very well so long as it fadges with
their own platform; but the moment it runs counter
thereto it is wrong, it must be whittled down, it speaks
in metaphor, the letter killeth, it is man’s interpretation
which giveth life. If science, history, or synods run
counter to the Bible, the Bible, as the weaker vessel,
must go to the wall.
The Two Books of Esdras.—Returning to the Apoc
rypha, you know that two of the books are entitled
“ Esdras,” another form of Ezra. This Ezra or Esdras
was a Jewish priest, born probably during the captivity
of the Jews in Babylon. Artaxerxes, the Long-handed,
King of Persia, gave him a commission to return to
Jerusalem and take with him as many exiles as wished
to return. We are told that only 1,754 persons availed
themselves of this permission, thirty-eight of whom were
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
9
Levites; all the rest of the captives preferred to remain
in the rich cities and fertile lands of the Persian king.
This speaks highly for the prosperity of the people and
the mild rule they were under. Probably the Mosaic
religion was unknown among them, except perhaps by
a few antiquaries, and certainly it was a matter of in
difference to them. Sixty years before, the King of
Babylon had carried away captive 10,000 princes and
mighty men of valour, besides craftsmen and smiths.
This would amount to something like 300,000 in all.
So that less than one man out of 150 was willing to
return. This does not say much for the Jewish theo
cracy. Above 149 out of every 150 preferred the
government, laws, religion, and customs of the Persians
and Babylonians to the vaunted government and religion
of Jehovah.
The Old Testament Unknown and not Cared for.—
You must not suppose that the Jews had Bibles as we
now have. Apparently, in the reign of Josiah, there was
one, and only one, in the whole kingdom of Judea ; but
not a single copy among all the ten tribes of Israel.
Josiah reigned about 100 years before the Captivity.
Apparently “ the Law of Moses”—-that is, the Pentateuch
—was neither read nor even consulted by the Jews, for,
when Hilkiah the priest accidentally stumbled on a
copy in some rubbish-heap of the Temple, it was
announced to the king as a wonderful discovery, and as
much fuss was made about it as if we were now to light
upon, in some out-of-the-way store, a MS. copy of old
Homer.
There is not the least likelihood that a copy was taken
by the captives to Babylon. All that the Jews knew
about Moses and his religion they learnt by hearsay,
just as the Greeks and Romans knew about their my
thology. It was a system taught by their priests, and
we know from our own history of the mediseval ages
how utterly worthless and untruthful such hearsay reli
gion always is. Read our old English Chronicles, such
as Geoffrey of Monmouth, and see what reliance can be
placed on hearsay history; and there is no reason to
suppose that the Jews differed in this respect from the
ancient Britons. History, as a matter of fact, is quite a
�IO
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
modern science, a thing born in the last half of the nine
teenth century; before then it was the record of floating
tradition, cooked, dressed, and salted by romancers, as
historical novels were in the Walter Scott period.
There is a sort of truth in “ Ivanhoe ” and the “ Talis
man;” but it is the traditional grain of wheat in a bushel
of chaff, or needle in a bottle of hay. We know what
such religion must always be—a series of marvels and
superstitions, trifling incidents magnified and grossly
exaggerated, a row in the streets transformed into a great
battle, a rioter knocked down by a policeman exalted
into a martyr, and some ringleader of the mob immortal
ised as a Caius or Tiberius Gracchus. Who now believes
the battle of Lake Regillus, so graphically sung by
Macaulay, to be an historic fact ? or that Castor and
Pollux, on their heavenly steeds, led the Romans to
victory ? Yet such romance was Roman history. Who
now believes in the marvellous feats of Horatius and his
two comrades at the Bridge?—a tale of blood-stirring
interest, and at one time as firmly believed as text of
Holy Writ. There is no tale in the Old Testament so
well attested as these Roman tales. There were feast
days kept in their honour with as much gravity as we
keep Christmas Day or Good Friday. Historians and
poets referred to them, and biographers delighted to
trace up pedigrees to some hero who fought and died
at these mythical engagements. I maintain that Aulus
the Dictator, who led the Romans in the Battle of Lake
Regillus, is as worthy of credit as Joshua, who over
turned the walls of Jericho by too-tooing on seven silver
trumpets. I maintain that the tale of Castor and Pollux
fighting for the Romans is every bit as likely as the
angel which led the host of the son of Nun to victory
after the passage of the Jordan.
“ So Aulus spake, while buckling
Tighter black Auster’s band,
When he was aware of a princely pair
That rode at his right hand.
So like they were, no mortal
Might one from other know ;
White as snow their armour was,
Their steeds were white as snow.......
And Aulus, the Dictator,
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Il
Scarce gathered voice to speak—
1 Say by what name men call you ?
What city is your home ?
And wherefore ride ye in such guise
Befoie the ranks of Rome ?’ ” '
And the two celestial horsemen told Aulus they were
Castor and Pollux, and concluded with these words
’Tis for the right we come to fight
Before the ranks of Rome.’ ”
Turn now to the Book of Joshua, ch. v., the last three
verses: “And it came to pass when Joshua was by
Jericho that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold
there stood a man over against him with a sword drawn
in his hand. And Joshua said to him, ‘ Art thou for us,
Or for our adversaries ?’
And the man said: As
captain of the Lord’s host am I come.’ And Joshua
fell on his face to the earth, and did worship the
heavenly visitant. It was Castor and Pollux come, to
help Joshua, as they helped Aulus ; and one tale is just
as likely as the other.
.
Ezra Read to the People his own Version op the
Books of Moses.—Well, Ezra, at the kings bidding,
went to Judea, and thirty-eight men of the priestly tribe
were willing to cast in their lot with him. What he did
in Judea we are not told ; but probably he left his little
colony there and returned to Babylon. Thirteen years
later we find him again in Jerusalem with Nehemiah,
reading to the people “ the Book of the Law.
The
exact words are (Nehemiah viii.):
Ezra the priest
brought the Law before the congregation, and read
therein before the street that was before the Water-gate ,
[he read] from morning until mid-day........... and all
the people wept when they heard the words of the Law.
And on the second day he read to the people about the
Feast of Tabernacles, and all the people went forth and
brought boughs to the roofs of their houses............and
sat under the boughs.”
Inferences.—Before we proceed any further it will be
well to make one or two passing observations.
Manifestly, the Book of the Law was a new thing to
these Jews, for when Ezra read it the words came to
them as a surprise. Apparently they never before heard
�12
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
ab°ut ?e Fe?St
tabernacles, and, like children thev
made themselves bowers on their house-tops and played
no
Pal ^rnaC CS; T^y had been born and brought
up in Babylonia, and evidently knew nothing of the Five
Books of Moses. Probably they scarcely knew the name
S Kng Arthaur.°Ur m'ettered hindS
have
I he question hence arises, Where did Ezra get his
oook from ? Happily we are not left in doubt upon the
subject, for he himself tells us all about it in 2 Esdras xiv.
ow Ezra Got his Bible.—Ezra says, as he sat under
an oak tree, there came a voice to him out of a bush
hard by and said: “ Esdras, Esdras !” Whereupon I
feetWe And I?'!6 /AL°rd’” and 1 St00d UP™
feet And the Lord bade me go and reprove the people
for their sms. So I answered and said, “I will go and
do as thou commandest: but when I am dead, who will
then be able to teach the people the way of life ? for the
Book of the Law [that is, the Jewish Bible] has been
burnt, and no man knoweth the things that have been
rtr- m thee]r°k
If’ now’ 1 have found favour in
thy sight, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I will write
out all that hath been done from the beginning of the
world, even all that was written in the Book of the Law
Jat men may find thy path, and that those who live in
the latter days may live.”
And the Lord said to me : “ Go thy way Esdras and
prepare thee a goodly number of boxwood’tablets \ and
with thee five men [names given] skilled in writing
quickly. And when thou hast written what is in thy
heart, some of the things thou shalt publish abroad, and
some thou shalt show only to the wise. To-morrow, at
this hour, shalt thou begin to write.n
So I retired from the sight of man with the five scribes
for forty days into a field, and remained there. But no
sooner had I retired from the sight of man than the
IZX Cai3e,it0 !meuagT’ Sayin£: “Esdras, open thy
mouth and drink what I give thee.” So I opened my
mouth and he reached me a cup full of something like
wMer but the colour of it was like fire. And I took
and drank it, and when I had so done my heart uttered
understanding, and wisdom grew in my breast, for my
�THE OLD TESTAMENT.
13
spirit strengthened my memory. And the five men
wrote the wonderful visions. For forty days they wrote
all day long, and at night they ate bread. As for me, 1
spake in the day, and held not my tongue by night.
And in the forty days the men had written 204 [the
margin says 904J books.
\nd the Highest said to me: “ The first that them
hast written publish openly, that the worthy and the
unworthy may read it; but the seventy last keep back,zx\a.
show only to the wise among the people, for in them
is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom,
and the stream of knowledge.” And I did so.
Such is the account given by Ezra himself; but there
are one or two things extremely puzzling. The scribes,
we are told, wrote out 204 or 904 books. What, then,
is meant by the first and the seventy last of these, books .
Seventy and one neither make 204 nor 904. It is pretty
plain, however, that the first was the common Bible, or
Old Testament, to be read by and to the people ; but
that there were seventy other esoteric books, to be shown
only to the learned priests. These Apocryphal Scriptures,
like the Sibylline books, furnished traditions whenever
the priests required support.
Another difficulty is this: What is meant by in them
is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom,
and the stream of knowledge ” ? Does it mean in the
seventy Apocryphal books is wisdom, understanding, and
knowledge, or in the “ wise ” to whom these books were
to be shown ? Either way, it is quite certain only a
very small portion of the Bible was given to the general
public; the main part was kept back, as strong meat
unfit for babes.
The most important lesson, however, taught by this
extract is, first, there was but one Book of the Law in
all Judea, and that was burnt or destroyed by fire. Ezra
says he was the only man who knew it more or less
perfectly by heart, and he retired to a field for forty days,
and wrote out from memory what we now call the Five
Books of Moses, probably including Joshua, and other
“Historical Books” of the Old Testament. For this
task he was qualified by drinking a cup-full of some strong
liquor, of the substance of water and the colour of fire.
�14
THE old and new testament examined.
Internal evidence corroborates this tale, for it is quite
certain that many things could not possibly have been
written till long after the death of Moses; and all such
remarks as “which remain unto this day” show to
demonstration that the writer lived long, long after the
event recorded. Of course, Moses and Joshua could
not have written the records of their own deaths. And
such a remark as “ There has not arisen a prophet since
like unto Moses ” must have been written after the days
of the prophets, which would bring us to the time of
Ezra. Similarly, when it is said at the close of Joshua
that “Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and
all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua,” it is
■‘ '^ manifest that these words must have been written after
the “days of the elders,” and probably a considerable
time after.
If the Old Testament is merely the reproduction of
Ezra, written in forty days from memory, and obviously
interpolated, it is not much to be depended on. Six
weeks is but a short time for such a task, and a slippery
memory may account for many palpable errors. But,
what is worse than all this, Ezra had an object, was very
strongly biassed, was brought up in Babylon in the very
darkest period of Jewish history; and, as “no man
living ” knew the Bible except Ezra, there was no one
to check him or correct his box-wood tablets. No doubt
Ezra was a learned man, as learning then went with the
captive Jews; but it is wholly impossible now to tell
where his memory halted, where he touched up his
narrative, as the Catholics touched up the New Testa
ment, and to discriminate between the original text and
the interpolations introduced. Such a book can, in no
sense, be called the Word of God; and it is a gross
falsehood to affirm that not a word, not a letter, not even
a point, has been added thereto or taken therefrom.
This is palpably incorrect, and, being so, if any part
belongs to the original tqxt, the version we possess is a
comparatively modern recension by Ezra after the
Captivity. He tells us so himself; internal evidence
corroborates his statement; and, if this is denied, the
gainsayer is bound to produce a more plausible theory.
�
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
What the Old Testament says about itself
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Julian
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from Cooke, Bill. The blasphemy depot (RPA 2003), Appx. 1. 'Julian' is the pseudonym of Ebenezer Cobham Brewer (1810-1897). At head of title: The Old and New Testament examined. Issued for the Propagandist Press Committee. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1891]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N422
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 (What the Old Testament says about itself), 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. N.T.-Criticism
Bible. O.T.-Criticism
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c90077b0b7599a1b440a76edbf9b88a7.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BEr2WCK%7EHTEVb7iDhThd6LvTkeqZNCtGWTiUf7GTZ9s-ClpEUODaFdK3KSi4Zu13Jx%7Elzc7bTpJKBVrko1WajmWA0luxnzLWHfmyvPB0yQiI-vGnOREbd3ulGL0ok8iwXt53zVxSueXgQQCk138QqsnWwivJXur9-wDrx07WsyDf7kOtUkhYAC-%7Egbeh2CGUDMQiey9xV0yVhCoJe0ztQ0XatWDFtayAIXMBeIcU8bOoL3P5tZK%7E2gJmn5Nb2b-S1D4awIsfRIJ1cBasK8xiPB1HimRteRHoHWnfWRFGHafw1%7EXt00MVDBU2dKwKoPkQW-nRhPbCGFHsOTMamoue5g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
958d544855c81a92690ee18d51448c04
PDF Text
Text
THEOLOGY
OF THE
PAST AND THE FUTURE.
BY
M. M. KALIS CH, Ph.D., M.A.
REPRINTED EROM PART I. OF HIS COMMENTARY ON LEVITICUS.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price, One Shilling.
��PREFACE.
My dear Mr Scott,
I have carefully considered your proposal of
reprinting from the First Part of my “ Commentary
on Leviticus,” the Chapter on “ The Theology of the
Past and the Future ; ” and though I believe that the
views set forth in this Treatise receive their full light
only if read in connection with the preceding en
quiries in the same volume, of which they are the
logical inferences, I readily assent to your suggestion,
hoping that, even in this isolated form, the Essay may
help to promote the great object which you pursue
with so much zeal and judgment. The Second Part
of the “ Commentary on Leviticus,” which is about
to be published, contains several Treatises corroborat
ing the conclusions here summarised, both with refer
ence to the composition and the theology of the
Biblical Canon.
Believe me,
Yours very faithfully,
M. KALISCH.
London,
April 25, 1871.
To Thomas Scott, Esq.,
Mount Pleasant, Ramsgate.
�KI
�THE THEOLOGY OF THE PAST AND
THE FUTURE.
T has too long been customary, even for liberal
and acute critics, merely to comment on the
facts contained in the Bible, and to weigh the degree
of reliability they merit, while the ideas and the
teaching have either been declared final for all ages,
or have been tacitly assumed as unimpeachable.
The time, however, has arrived for abandoning this
questionable course, for determining by a search
ing and calm enquiry the positive value of the
notions that pervade the Scriptures, and for ascer
taining by a candid estimate, how far they satisfy the
modern mind, or correspond with the philosophical
and scientific results of the last centuries. This
task will either show the entire sufficiency of the
Bible for all our spiritual needs ; or, if it lead to a
different conclusion, it will prove an essential pre
liminary to the attempt of constructing a system of
theology that shall be in harmony with our general
modes and habits of thought, accord with the achieve
ments of science and with the ordinary tenor of our
lives, and which shall therefore beneficently influence
our conduct and progress.
In our age, we are accustomed to look upon every
occurrence as the natural and inevitable consequence
of human action, or of some other circumstance with
which it is connected. We attempt to trace effects
to adequate causes. Unchangeable laws regulate
I
�6
Theology of the
the life of individuals and nations, and prescribe
the course to universal history. The gradual de
velopment of mankind is the necessary result of
the abilities, energies, and passions inherent in men.
The happiness of the individual depends, in a great
measure, on his mental and physical organisation;
lor it is the ordinary concomitant of healthful vigour
of body and mind; while wretchedness is the usual
fate of infirmity and morbidness. Prosperity is the
combined product of personal exertion and favour
able opportunity.
Man is, therefore, in some
respects, a free agent; but in a much higher degree,
he is a creature of necessity. The works which he
produces result from the talents he may possess, and
from the activity he is able or willing to display.
They are prompted by that internal impulse which
is inseparable from his idiosyncrasy. He is capable
of improvement and advancement, as he is liable to
retrogression and decline. He labours as his powers
bid him; he succeeds according to the measure of
his gifts or of his usefulness ; and he finds his chief
reward in the consciousness of having zealously cul
tivated and honestly employed his faculties.
If, imbued with these notions which underlie our
whole life, we turn to the Scriptures, we are at once
struck by a different sphere of thought, by a strange
and unfamiliar spirit. Forced away from the circle of
ideas which guide us in our daily pursuits and
reflections, we are abruptly transferred to concep
tions and views, which indeed occasionally touch
a sympathetic chord, whether from their poetical and
imaginative beauty or from the ineffaceable im
pressions of childhood, but which our maturer
manhood finds it impossible to acknowledge and
to adopt. And finally, the affection for a venerable
tradition that may linger in our hearts, must yield to
the severer truths dictated by our intellects.
�Past and the Future.
7
1. The Creation.
The Scriptures teach that the universe and all it
contains, were called into existence in six days, by
God’s direct command. This Biblical cosmogony
(Gen. i. 1—ii. 4) is grand and sublime, but it is
faulty and unscientific; it disregards those at
tributes of matter which, by their own inherent
power, of necessity produce the changes and com
binations that constitute the cosmos; therefore, it
arbitrarily compresses within the limits of a few
days what was effected by the gradual operation
of myriads of millenniums, and it transforms into
acts of personal agency what we are wont to regard
as the result of clearly defined and unchangeable
laws.
2. Miracles.
The same personal interference continues in Biblical
history. For special ends, the eternal course of nature
is altered, and miracles are performed. Yet the idea
of miracles is absolutely opposed to our notions of the
universe, as derived from a patient cultivation of the
natural and historical sciences. It gains ground
whenever men, unable to understand their position
as a subordinate though organic part of mankind,
consider themselves or their community as the chief
end of creation and general government. For it rests
virtually on the assumption that nature pays special
regard to. the deeds and destinies of individuals or
single nations, and bestows aid and sympathy, or dis
plays resistance and enmity, in accordance with the
behests of a ruling power; whereas her whole economy
is one and indivisible, embracing the universe, and
working in majestic impartiality for all worlds alike.
Therefore Spinoza justly used miracles and ignorance
as convertible terms, and he added the weighty words
fraught with significant meaning, “ I believe the
�8
Theology of the
principal difference between religion and superstition
to be this that the former is founded upon wisdom,
the latter upon ignorance; and I am convinced that
herein lies the reason why the Christians are distin
guished from other men not by an honourable life,
nor by love, nor the other fruits of the Holy Ghost,
but merely by an opinion ; because, like all the rest,
they fortify themselves only by miracles, that is by
ignorance, which is the fountain of all wickedness, '
and thus convert faith, however true, into supersti
tion/’
-—
Ancient nations felt strongly the influence of the
divine power in nature; but as they had explored
nature most imperfectly, all her remarkable or unusual
phenomena appeared to them as direct manifestations
of the deity, or as miracles, which inspired them
both with terrifying awe and sublime veneration;
and these feelings worked the more powerfully, the
more vividly their youthful minds were affected by all
impressions, and the more consistently they were ac
customed to develop and to apply every new and
great idea. The assumption to which we have alluded
gave rise, among the Romans, to the fictions oiprodigia
or portenta, by which the gods were believed to
announce impending calamities or important events
—the sky appearing in a blaze of fire, or flaming
torches illumining the air; spears or hands burning
but not consumed; men of fire assailing and fighting
with each other; flesh or worms, earth, stones, or
blood raining from heaven; the water of rivers
changed into blood; women giving birth to monstro
sities ; animals speaking, mules bringing forth young,
and wonderful animals, as snakes with the manes of
horses, starting up ; trees springing from the soil full
grown, and cut stems suddenly rising to an extra
ordinary height; rocks moving spontaneously; birds,
in anguish without apparent cause, seeking refuge;
marvellous or alarming sights and sounds produced by
�Past and the Future.
9
delusion of the senses; images of gods speaking, or
shedding tears.
The Biblical miracles are founded on similar con
ceptions. By the command of God, heavenly bodies
are said to have been arrested in their course
(Josh. x. 12-14; Is. xxxviii. 8); yet we know
that such a contingency would be inevitably fol
lowed by a complete derangement of the sidereal
systems, and by the incalculable ruin of thousands of
worlds. Occasionally even the Bible shows a gleam
of the conviction of nature’s immutable stability:
“ He has established the heavens for ever and ever;
He gave a law, and they trespass it not” (Ps. cxlviii.
6); “ He said to the sea, Hitherto shalt thou come,
but no further; and here shall thy proud waves be
stayed” (Job xxxviii. 11); “I have placed the sand
for the boundary of the sea by an eternal law, that it
cannot pass it; and though its waves rage, they can
not prevail” (Jer. v. 22). But such incidental admis
sions do not materially influence the spirit and tenor
of the narratives. According to Biblical accounts, the
Divine will constantly changed those intrinsic proper
ties of things which constitute their very character and
essence. But if we read that the water of the Nile
was converted into blood (Ex. iv. 9 ; vii. 17-20), and
that ordinary water was at the marriage of Cana,
changed into wine (John ii. 1-11); that the waves of
the Red Sea were divided and stood upright like a wall
(Ex. xiv. 21, 22), and the floods of the Jordan, touched
by Elijah’s mantle, opened a dry path (2 Kings ii.
13, 14); that an axe, which had sunk to the bottom
of the river, rose by Elijah’s will and swam on
the surface (2 Kings vi. 6), and that Christ walked
on the water of the Lake Genesareth (Mark vi. 48,
49); that the men of Sodom and Bar-Jesus (Elymas)
were suddenly struck blind (Gen. xix. 11; Acts xiii.
6-11), and blind men recovered their sight as suddenly
(Matt. ix. 28-30; xx. 32-34); that a staff became a
serpent and a serpent a staff, a healthy hand was by
�IO
Theology of the
a word made leprous, and a leprous hand healthy (Ex,
iv. 2-7); that the earth opened its womb to engulf
alive rebellious offenders (Num. xvi. 30-33), and the
dead were revived or raised alive from the grave
(Johnxi. 1-44; Matt. ix. 18, 24, 25); that Moses was
forty days on Mount Sinai without requiring any food
whatever (Ex. xxxiv. 28), and that a limited supply of
flour and wine was practically unlimited, and sufficed
for the household of the widow of Zarephath a con
siderable time (1 Kings xvii. 14-16); that every vessel
which could possibly be procured, filled itself spon
taneously with oil by Elisha’s command (2 Kings iv.
3-6); that 4,000 men, besides women and children,
were satisfied by seven loaves and a few little fishes,
and left over seven baskets full of broken pieces
(Matt. xv. 32-38); that a fig-tree, covered with leaves
and capable of bearing fruit, instantaneously withered
away (Matt. xxi. 19); that the ass of Balaam spoke
(Num. xxii. 28, 30), a raven provided Elijah regularly
with bread and meat (1 Kings xvii. 4-6), and a whale
preserved Jonah in its womb three days and three
nights, and then threw him on the dry land unhurt
(Jonah ii. 1-11): if we read all this, we might be led
to the perplexing conclusion that there is nothing
stable and fixed in nature, were we not taught by
science to regard undeviating uniformity as nature’s
first principle. All reality is destroyed, and the things,
devoid of a well-defined character, lose their intrinsic
value and absolute existence. “ The miracle changes
the serious code of nature into a merry book of fairy
tales ; but for this reason, miracle itself deserves to be
ranked no higher than a fairy-tale.” Disdaining, like
fancy, to which it is largely indebted, the fetters of
necessity, it capriciously confounds the qualities of
matter, combines what is naturally incompatible, and
disjoins what is inseparable. Every miracle “paralyses
reason;” for it checks the specific work of reason,
which consists in searching for laws and causes, and,
by depriving it of the safe support of experience,
�Past and the Future.
11
renders it valueless even for pointing out the path of
practical duty. The miracle attempts to sway nature,
but not, like reason, by penetrating into its organism,
but by misusing it for arbitrary ends. Unrestrained
by any limit, and unshackled by any condition, it
appears in power boundless and inexhaustible. Exer
cising a complete rule over matter, and reminding man
of his own inborn yearning for the infinite, it is by
unreflecting generations easily mistaken as divine.
Hence the East is the home of miracles ; because the
East is most apt to confound fancy and reflection:
these two faculties have indeed abstraction as a
common element; but fancy defies or disregards
reality, while reflection judiciously preserves and
spiritualises it.
It is not only useless but objectionable to reduce the
miracles by ingenious and strained interpretations, to
the least possible number, or to explain their force
away, by representing them as ordinary occurrences
told in a marvellous (Jr imaginative form. Thus it
has been asserted that the Bible contains nothing that
is opposed to the rules of nature, and that, for in
stance, the prolonged day in Joshua’s time may be
accounted for by the supposition that a large quantity
of ice happened to be in the upper region of the air,
and caused an unusually strong refraction of the
solar rays ; and this led to the vague and untenable
opinion that all Biblical statements found to be in
opposition to the laws of nature are “ either poeti
cal metaphors, or are related according to the
opinions and prejudices of the writers, or have
been inserted in the Scriptures by sacrilegious
hands —which principles manifestly deprive the
narratives of Scripture of all definite meaning and
value.
Equally questionable is the device of
separating the “ end and essence ” of the revelations
from the accessory notions associated with them, and
of insisting upon the truth of the former, while relin
quishing that of the latter, a device which would
�12
Theology of the
open the floodgates to every variety of arbitrary dis
tinction. Yet these views have been adopted by earlier
and later writers, and among them by Reimarus, the
famous “fragmentist” ofWolfenbiittel, who by attempt
ing natural explanations ’ of events which the authors
of the Bible obviously meant to describe as super
natural, was misled to the most curious fancies,
as for instance, that the thunder which accompanied
the revelation on Mount Sinai was possibly produced
by the sudden explosion of 11 a sort of gunpowder,”
while Moses communicated with Joshua, who was
in the camp, by means of a speaking-trumpet.
This observation has a still wider scope. The ut
most perplexity must be created if the results of philo
sophical thought are by strained expositions grafted
upon the Scriptures, in the vain hope thereby to save
the authority of the latter j thus Spinoza rightly main
tains that the ceremonies of the Old Testament con
tribute nothing to virtue and happiness, and that they
can therefore form no part of a Divine Law; but it
is idle to assert that this is the view of the Old
Testament itself, which enjoins moral and civil laws,
religious doctrines, and ceremonies as equally binding
and equally irrevocable; the endeavour to prove the
contrary is necessarily futile and ineffectual. Yet
Spinoza severely denounces, in theory, the method
which he himself repeatedly follows j he inveighs
especially against Maimonides, and justly so, for
advocating that method, which he describes as
“ noxious, useless, and absurd; ” he is equally decided
in censuring forced reconciliations of texts manifestly
at variance with each other; he declares and proves
that Scripture ought neither to be subordinated to
theological convictions, nor theological convictions to
Scripture, but that both ought to be kept apart in
so far as theology is the result of independent
reasoning; but such is the bane of vagueness,
that elsewhere he expresses almost the opposite
opinion : “ Yet we do not desire to accuse those men
�Past and the Future.
13
of impiety because they accommodate the words of
Scripture to their . individual conclusions; for as
Scripture was once itself adapted (by its authors) to
the capacity of the people, thus every one is per
mitted to adapt it to his own views, if he sees that
he is thus able to obey God, with the fuller consent
of his conscience, in all matters that concern justice
and love.” Who does not see that such principle,
or rather such absence of principle, renders all
religious knowledge uncertain and fluctuating, and
renounces beforehand all absolute truth 1
It is equally unavailing to confine miracles to
certain periods ; Catholicism, in this respect more
in accordance with the spirit of the Bible than Pro
testantism, which attempts an unsuccessful compro
mise between belief and reason, extends their opera
tion beyond the limits of tradition, and supposes
their constant and living manifestation. For the
Biblical narratives do not simply contain miracles, but
are throughout framed in a miraculous spirit. They
are entirely compiled on the assumption of a perpetual
and immediate intervention of God in the natural
course of events. That extraordinary “ offering of
jealousy,” (Num. v. 11-31), which is evidently an
ordeal involving the regular and miraculous interfer
ence of God, is alone sufficient to disclose the wide
chasm which separates the Biblical from the scientific
notions beyond all possibility of agreement. Wonders
are freely employed to remove difficulties, even where
these might have been overcome by natural agencies.
Whether Noah and his family are alone rescued
amidst the universal destruction of living creatures,
or Lot is by special messengers of God saved from
the calamities which overthrew his entire district;
whether Pharaoh is, by unparalleled afflictions, forced
to release the Hebrews, or the persons and the pro
perty of the latter remain untouched when the land
is visited by appalling misfortunes; whether God per
sonally guides and protects the patriarchs, or afflicts
�14
Theology of the
the women of Abimelech’s household with barrenness
because that king took Sarah into his house (Gen.
xx. 17, 18) ; whether He gives to the myriads of
wandering Israelites food and water in abundance
for forty years, or makes the hostile Syrian army
hear a noise of vast numbers of horses and chariots,
to delude them into the belief of large hosts ap
proaching, in consequence of which they flee panicstricken, leaving their whole camp behind them (2
Kings vii. 6, 7)—these and the numerous traits of
a similar kind defy all laws both of reason and ex
perience, and substitute phantasmagoric playfulness
for sober historiography to such a degree that even
the attempt at harmonizing them with scientific
results bespeaks the slothfulness of a mind equally
unable to form an independent estimate of the anti
quated past, and to keep pace with the growth of
modern inquiry. “ By the direction of God,” observes
Spinoza, “I understand the fixed and immutable
order of nature or the concatenation of natural things.
The general laws of nature, by which everything
happens and is determined, are nothing but the eter
nal decrees of God, which ever involve eternal truth
and necessity. Therefore, whether we say that every
thing happens according to the laws of nature, or that
everything is ordained by the will and direction of
God, we say the same thing.” These views, whether
they be avowed or not, rule our lives and our thoughts.
They must form the starting point of all future
theories of philosophy and theology. Sometimes in
deed the Bible records natural facts in connection
with miracles; for instance, Moses threw a certain
wood, which God had shown him, into the bitter
waters of Marah, which then became drinkable (Ex.
xv. 25), and similarly Elisha rendered salubrious for
ever a deleterious spring of water by casting into
it a quantity of salt (2 Kings ii. 20-22); Elisha leaned
repeatedly over the dead boy, till the latter grew
warm and returned to life (2 Kings iv. 34, 35); the
�Past and the Future.
*5
Syrian general Naaman was healed from leprosy after
bathing seven times in the Jordan (2 Kings v. 1-14);
and the ten plagues of Egypt are all based on natural
phenomena of almost regular occurrence in that
country : but these facts, though affording to us valu
able hints and explanations, were by the Biblical
narrators not meant to remove the miraculous char
acter of the events; they prove, on the contrary, that
even where a natural explanation offered itself, and
was suggested by tradition, it was rejected by miracle
loving generations, and set aside in favour of the
assumption of extraordinary agencies. Yet, what
natural basis can be discovered for the legends that
Miriam became suddenly “leprouslike snow” because
she had spoken slightingly of Moses (Num. xiL 10);
that a corpse which touched the bones of Elisha,
became alive and rose from the grave (2 Kings xiii. 21),
or that diseases were cured, physical defects removed,
and evil spirits expelled by touching the hand or the
garment of Christ (Mat. viii. 13-15), or “an handker
chief or apron” of the apostle Paul? (Acts xix. 12);
that a large number of fiery horses and chariots ap
peared to deliver Elisha from his pursuers 1 (2 Kings
vi. 17); that fire came out of a rock by striking it with
a staff, and consumed the meat and the cakes placed
thereon by Gideon as an offering ? (Jud. vi. 20, 21);
that the sea raged because it bore the guilty Jonah,
and became tranquil as soon as the latter was removed
from the ship ? (Jonah i. 12-15).
And yet the Bible itself lowers considerably the
force and effect of miracles by attributing the power
of performing them not only to Hebrews worshipping
foreign gods, and to heathens controlled by the might
of Jehovah, as in the instance of Balaam, but to
idolaters who work in opposition to Jehovah Himself,
as the magicians of Egypt (Ex. vii. 11, 12). The
New Testament goes even farther; it supposes that
miracles are performed by “false Christs and false
prophets” (Mat. xxiv. 24) to such an extent “that if
�16
Theology of the
it were possible they might deceive the very elect; ”
the enemy of the Church represented under the form
of a beast rising out of the earth “ did great wonders,
made fire come down from heaven, and thereby de
ceived many men” (Rev. xix. 20); and “the spirits of
the devils,” which betray the kings of the earth and
of the whole world, work miracles (Rev. vi. 14).
Wonders, therefore, neither testify to the greatness
of God, nor to the purity or truth of doctrines. It
[is, moreover, extremely difficult to distinguish be
tween a true and a false miracle ; all criteria that have
been fixed, are either misty or fallacious.
The inference to be drawn from these facts is as
decisive as it is significant. Can a gift that an idol
is able to bestow, have any value or reality ? Can
those powers be supernatural which a Hebrew prophet
shares with a priest of Baal ?
Miracles are both impossible and incredible—
impossible because against the established laws of
the universe, and incredible because those set forth
by tradition, are palpable inventions of unhistoric
ages.
The belief in miracles may, in certain periods, not
be without advantage and importance; it emanates
from a spiritual elevation, perhaps from a moral
impulse; it may serve to strengthen the religion of
the heart, and to sanction those doctrines which the
mind recognises as true and eternal; it may thus
prove a material aid to a genuine faith; but it can,
at best, only be a means to that end; it loses its
usefulness when it loses the connection with the
mind ; it becomes injurious and dangerous and leads
to mechanical ritualism or fanatic vehemence when
it is isolated from the moral faculties ; and engenders
hypocrisy and falsehood when it ceases to be con
ceived in simplicity and childlike ingenuousness.
According to the current and traditional views,
miracles were wrought exclusively in the early times
of deficient education and imperfect knowledge;
�Past and the Future.
if
they are no longer reported in the more enlightened
epochs of progress and research. Why should they
have so suddenly and so completely ceased? It
is futile to reply that they were performed only as
long as they were necessary for the training of the
human race ; for miracles, by confounding and often
insulting reason, and hence fostering superstition,
especially magic, witchcraft, and sorcery, to which
they are akin, far from promoting, tend to retard
the education of mankind. They are valueless for
our advancement, whether in religion or philosophy ;
for neither the one nor the other can be improved
by phenomena which the human mind is unable to
understand; those facts and ideas only can influence
us which lie within the sphere of our common
nature; “ from an effect which surpasses the capacity
of man, he cannot deduce intelligible truths, and
those are silly who, if unable to understand a thing,
have recourse to God; forsooth, a ridiculous mode of
displaying ignorance.”
The notion of “ rational wonders” which has been
propounded is preposterous; for all wonders are irra
tional; they realise their character the more com
pletely, the more irrational they are; for reason
penetrates into the depth and essence of things,
while the miracles play lightly on their surface. The
love of the miraculous, innate in human nature, and
strongest in imaginative or enthusiastic minds, and
in the early stages of development, is the parent of
miracles; they germinate not in the quality of
things but in the propensity of men. “ Believe you
that I am able to do this ? ” Jesus asked the blind
men who came to him to be cured, and “ they said
to him, Yea, Lord,” (Matt. ix. 28); a leper appealed
to him saying, “ Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make
me clean,” and Jesus said, “ I will,” and the leprosy
was immediately removed (Matt. viii. 2, 3). Miracles
are desired and demanded when they are believed in ;
their origin lies neither in the sphere of metaphysics
�18
’Theology of the
nor of theology; they can be explained only as
psychological phenomena. Mohammed was pressed
on all sides to perform miracles in vindication of his
alleged mission; the incessant requests of both
friends and foes, justified by the precedents of the
Old and New Testament, almost brought him to
despair ; and in vain he insisted, that the greatest
miracles are the creation, the animal and vegetable
kingdom, heaven and the seas.
The untutored and youthful mind delights in un
common and astounding mysteries, the manly intellect
endeavours to reduce all uncommon and astounding
mysteries to ordinary and intelligible laws. The one
is, therefore, prepared to witness miracles as soon as
an occasion arises, the other refuses to acknowledge
them even after they are supposed to have happened.
The childlike believer feels his yearnings unsatisfied
by the severe, impartial, and uniform rule of ever
balancing and all-embracing reason ; the thoughtful
philosopher disdains the insinuating flatteries of aspir
ing enthusiasm, and of exceptional or providential
protection, because he divines eternal harmony and
order in the stern sameness of nature’s working.
The former, therefore, in order to be awed, requires
extraordinary marvels, since “ the miracle is the
darling child of faith;” whereas the latter is im
pressed with a sense of sublimity by examining the
common and daily operations of nature. Confiding
apathy beholds in the affairs of life the inscrutable
and desultory play of preternatural influences ; ener
getic reason is restless to discover the connecting
thread of cause and effect. Hence the former either
disregards or reads in vain the book of the past,
while the latter derives from it the most fruitful
lessons for his guidance and training. The feeble
minded, conscious of his helplessness, constantly tries
to support himself by some unexpected and unac
countable aid; the resolute man of action glories in
his ability of maintaining his due place in the system
�Past and the Future.
x9
of creation by his own energy and the legitimate
exercise of his strength. And while the one is eager
to be lifted, on the wings of fancy and of faith, im
measurably beyond his natural sphere, the other pre
fers laboriously to conquer, by the sword of thought
and science, his proper domain as a rational being,
and to desire no more, convinced that he is great only
in the same degree as he is independent, and that
his conquests are sure and inalienable when he ob
tains them by his own exertions and the unrestrained
powers of his nature. The contrast, therefore,
between the miracle-loving Scriptures and the pro
ductions of pragmatic history, is the contrast be
tween poetry and truth, between the hazy beauty
of .the morning-dawn and the clearness of the midday-sun, between the first creditable efforts of reflect
ing infancy and the safe conclusions of experienced
manhood.
History rests on proofs and the internal evidence
of facts; the Biblical narrative introduces elements
lying beyond the test of ordinary examination, and
often directly opposed to experience, reason, and
possibility. While, therefore, the one possesses
objective truth, the other may be accepted or dis
carded according to the individual principles of the
reader.
The Scriptures habitually represent drought and
famine, pestilence and earthquake, floods and every
other disaster caused by the elements, as the results
of idolatry and wickedness; they make the cessation
of these inflictions dependent on the people’s re
pentance and reformation, and hence they speak, for
instance, of “the ignominy of famine” (Ez. xxxvi.
30): but the scourges of nature result from physical
laws which, though they should never be thoroughly
understood, certainly repudiate the notion of a direct
influence of the moral upon the physical world. And
with respect to the living creation, the conception of
the Bible is so childlike, that it assumes the pos-
�Theology of the
20
sibility of moral degeneracy in animals, usually sup
poses a simultaneous corruption of men and beasts,
and includes the one and the other in the same
exercises of penitence, fasting, and humiliation (Jonah
iii. 7-8); nay, it imagines that even the earth, the
abode of man, and the material from which his body
was framed, may share the general depravity ; and
hence it couples the destruction of man, as in the
deluge, with the destruction of the beasts, and at
least the temporary devastation of the earth, if not,
as in the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah, its
utter annihilation—all which notions are to us like
strange and fanciful echoes of a remote past.
The veil which once covered and hid nature, has
in a great measure been withdrawn. The awe which
men felt at her grandeur, has thereby not been
diminished; on the contrary, it has gained in force
and. reality. But enquirers have arrived at the con
viction that they must renounce the hope of fathom
ing a power that rules her working ; that she does
not enable us to understand the distinction between
“a primary cause” and “secondary causes,” since,
throughout her dominion, she reveals causes that
we must consider as primary, and beyond which we
cannot pass if we desire to penetrate into the genesis
of things ; and that, therefore, man's dignity and his
happiness depend on the earnestness with which he
explores nature’s laws and obeys her suggestions and
behests.
3.
Prayer and
other
Devotions.
From the principles laid down with regard to
miracles, it will not be difficult to estimate the value
of several other fundamental notions which pervade
the Bible. If every effect produced in the material
world is the consequence of a commensurate physical
cause to which it is intrinsically related, human sup
plication, sacrifices, fasting, or any other form of
�Past and the Future.
21
devotion or asceticism, cannot possibly exercise an
influence on the course of events or on the destiny of
men. There exists no conceivable connection between
the one and the other. The spiritual aspiration of
prayer lies in a sphere totally different from that
which causes the changes or the progress of the ex
ternal world. If we read that Elijah’s prayer
suddenly called down from heaven a fire to consume
his sacrifice (1 Kings xviii. 36-38), we are startled by a
complete overthrow of all the truths to which we are
accustomed with regard to the permanent order of
things, and we find it impossible to abandon the un
disputed results of science in favour of a doubtful
tradition, even if this tradition did not form part of a
narrative coloured throughout by fanciful legends.
If the entreaty of Abraham at once removed the
barrenness which had afflicted the women in
Abimelech’s household (Gen. xx. 17, 18), if prayers
are supposed to effect or to accelerate the recovery of
the sick (Num. xii. 13, 14) and even to restore the
dead to life (Acts ix. 40), or to cause sudden blind
ness (2 Kings vi. 18), we fail to see, how words, how
ever fervent, can effect a physiological process result
ing from the complicated operation of the human
organism. And yet the New Testament plainly
teaches, “ Is any one sick among you ? let him call
for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over
him . . . and the prayer of faith shall save the sick”
(Jas. v. 14-16); nay it contends, “If you shall say
unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou
cast into the sea; it shall be done; and all things
whatever you shall ask in prayer, believing, you shall
receive” (Mat. xxi. 21, 22); and thus it consistently
asserts, “ all things are possible to him that believes”
(Mark ix. 23). By what inherent force is prayer able
to stay a pestilence or a locust-plague, or to procure
the victory in war 1 If people pray for rain to
secure a plentiful harvest, they cannot be aware of
their irrational proceeding ; or else they would not
�Theology of the
cherish the impossible hope, that for the sake of the
limited, district in which they happen to live, the
meteorological laws which fix the distribution of rain
over the whole globe, should be capriciously upset, a
contingency which, were it feasible, would utterly
derange the atmospheric relations of our planetary
system.. In short, the efficacy attributed to prayer
lies entirely in the unreal region of the miraculous.
When, in 1865, public prayers were appointed to be
offered up throughout Great Britain for the cessation
of the cholera, the objections entertained by many of
the most educated men were well expressed by Prof.
Tyndall. “The great majority of sane persons,” he
observed, “ at the present day believe in the necessary
character of natural laws, and it is only where the
antecedents of a calamity are vague and disguised
that they think of resorting to prayer to avert it; ”
he calls this a “pagan method of meeting the
scourge j ” and he adds, “the ideas of prayer and of a
change in the course of natural phaenomena refuse
to be connected in thought.”
If the heart of a man is filled with humiliation and
shame on account of moral transgression or deficient
zeal in the exercise of virtue or of duty, let him, in
contrition, confess to himself his weakness and apathy,
and atone for his guilt by increased energy and dili
gence in all noble pursuits. If his soul rejoices in
the possession of boons and benefits, let him prove
that he deserves these blessings by using them unsel
fishly, by banishing pride, by lending his indefatigable
assistance to the less fortunate, and by unostenta
tiously aiding every good cause. And if his mind
contemplates with admiration the grandeur of nature
and the wonderful fitness of all her parts, let him
evince his appreciation by an eager . study of
her marvellous mechanism and by an ungrudging
obedience to the lessons she teaches. But it is vain
and irrational to utter supplications for such objects
as health, long life, or posterity, riches, success, or dis
�Past and the Future,
23
tinction j for they either lie entirely beyond the
control of man, or depend on the measure of his
abilities and his vigour, or they follow, as an inevita
ble sequence, from the organisation of society and the
order of the physical world. Ancient writers already
pointed out the difficulty, that different men of equal
earnestness and piety often pray for opposite things,
which the deity cannot possibly grant simultaneously.
“ Some sailors,” observes Lucian, “ pray for the north
wind, others for the south-wind; a farmer desires rain,
a cloth-worker sunshine, and often Jupiter is uncertain
and hesitates in his decision.” Nay Plato classes the
belief in the possibility of moving the gods by sacri
fices or prayers among the worst forms of impiety
and among the unfailing causes of wickedness.
Hence we may estimate the value of the prayers
sanctioned by the different creeds and sects • and we
take as a specimen the chief Christian prayer
attributed to Christ himself and partially borrowed
from the Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish sources
(Matt. vi. 9-13), a prayer which is allowed by common
consent to be one of the finest forms of supplication.
“ Our father which art in heaven.” Is that Being
which is adored as divine enthroned in one special
abode ? or does it pervade the universe and fill all
things that surround us, nature with her wonders and
her wealth? And what is “ heaven” in the scientific
language of our time ? Nothing distinct from sky or
air, atmosphere or ether.—“ Hallowed be Thy name.”
What does this traditional phrase and the following
one, “ Thy kingdom come,” express which cannot be
conveyed with much greater clearness by terms,
derived from the sphere of practical ethics—by an
exhortation to self-sacrificing devotion and unswerv
ing rectitude, universal diffusion of peace and virtue,
of knowledge and truth?—“Thy will be done in earth,
as it is in heaven.” This absolute power of decision
in all things contradicts our views of the general course
of events as regulated by our own exertions and
�24
Theology of the
by unchangeable conditions.—11 Give us this day our
daily bread.” Even the most pious can see in these
words hardly anything beyond the wish that the efforts
of his intelligence or activity may be successful, or
that the operation of the elements which constitute
our social organism, may be favourable for securing
his sustenance or establishing his worldly prosperity.
“ And forgive us our debts as we forgive our
debtors.” Only the latter part of this invocation
depends upon ourselves, and if carried out in a free
and generous spirit, forms our highest moral glory;
but the former part is in many cases unfeasible; for
a guilt can only be condoned by those against whom
it has been committed; and very often the com
munity does not and cannot pardon guilt, but exacts
the most rigid retribution, which, however, involves
the expiation of the offence.—“And lead us not into
temptation, but deliver us from evil.” It is against
the well-known order of things that circumstances and
events should be guided with the special view of
keeping individuals away from temptation; they take
their necessary course, and trials can only be avoided
and misfortunes overcome by prudence and moral
strength.—“For Thine is the kingdom, and the
power, and the glory for ever.” These words can
receive a distinct meaning only by depriving the world
of matter of all independence, and human society of
all responsibility.
Devotion, in the spirit above indicated, is not only
beneficial, but indispensable to every moral mind;
while prayer in the vulgar sense is at variance with
reason and intelligence. “Praying,” observes Kant,
“taken as a formal act of worship and a means of
grace, is a superstitious illusion; a sincere wish to
please God in all our ways, that is, the frame of mind
accompanying all our actions and making them ap
pear as being performed in the service of God, is
the spirit of prayer, which can and ought to work
within us incessantly.”
�Past and the Future.
25
Before beginning difficult or uncertain and danger
ous enterprises, men feel disposed to pray and to
invoke a higher assistance. What is the motive or
impulse of such prayers 1 They express the wish, that
all external circumstances also may be propitious,
which, no less than man’s own strength and ability,
prudence and perseverance, are required for the suc
cessful issue; they are, in a word, appeals to fortune,
or if it be preferred, to chance, which consists in an
auspicious concatenation of extraneous conditions.
It may be that in many cases prayer, by producing
a calm confidence, enhances the energy of man, and
contributes to his success; but it does not exercise
that influence because it is in reality efficacious, but
because he who prays believes it to be so. Therefore,
rational men will prefer earnest reflection, or any
other means of rousing their activity, to a ficti
tious help founded upon delusion |and prompted by
weakness. Men have indeed at all times wavered
on this point. Intelligence and a sense of independ
ence urged them to expect their happiness from their
own exertions, but inertness and indolence led them
to rely, at least partially, on prayer. This fluctua
tion gave rise to utterances like this, “ Trust in the
Lord and do good,” (Ps. xxxvii. 3), or the timehonoured injunction ora et labora, and many similar
adages. In the Bible we read, on the one hand,
“ Whatsoever thy hand finds to do, do it with all
thy might” (Eccl. ix. 10); and on the other hand,
“ Cast thy destiny upon the Lord and He will
sustain thee,” (Ps. lv. 24), or “ unless the Lord build
the house they labour in vain that build it; unless
the Lord guard the city the watchman wakes in
vain ” (Ps. cxxvii. 3); and progressing almost to the
verge of paradox, the same text continues, “It is
vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late . . . for
He (God) gives it to His beloved in his sleep.” The
Bible indeed attaches prominent weight to reliance
and faith, as might be expected from its eastern
�0.6
Theology of the
origin and from the childlike stage of intellectual
development which it represents ; and it is, on this
account, especially foreign to our present modes of
viewing life and the government of the world.
Kindred with prayers are the blessings and curses
pronounced upon others : the blessing of Isaac, even
supposed it were not written post eventum, was power
less to secure the prosperity of Jacob’s descendants,
who had to depend on their own conduct and the
favour of circumstances ; nor could the curses of
-Balaam have exercised any influence upon the career
of the Israelites. The belief in the efficacy of bless
ings and curses, though often emanating from the
laudable desire of securing the good wishes of the
pious, or from the well-founded fears of a guilty
conscience, is, in fact, based on that fatal confusion
of the moral and the material world, which is the
prolific parent of deplorable and most dangerous
superstitions.
That which is true of prayer, the purest and most
spiritual form of devotion, applies with increased
force to all other pious exercises, as sacrifice and fast
ing. There is no connection between these practices
and the ordinary affairs of human life. No degree of
self-castigation can avert a calamity inevitably result
ing from a chain of events or from physical conditions.
It cannot be too often repeated—to expect an effect
without a corresponding cause, is superstition. Yet
the Biblical narrative constantly introduces or recom
mends prayer, sacrifice, and fasting, and attaches to
them a profound and mysterious reality. . Who will
deny, that any ceremony, however unmeaning in
itself, if performed in a spirit of earnestness and
humility, may serve the best and holiest ends of
religion, by rousing the soul and directing it to
right and duty ? But here again, it is not the cere
monies which work so beneficially, but the frame
of mind which they tend to call forth; however,
this frame of mind, very different in different wor
�Past and the Future.
27
shippers, can be produced in many other ways,
and is, in fact, more surely engendered by means
better consistent with the true nature of man and
his place in creation. Even the so-called good works,
as charity and alms-giving, truly ennobling and
elevating if exercised from a consciousness of the
obligations which man owes to man, and from a
feeling of single-minded self-denial, are noxious and
perverse, if performed in the selfish hope of obtain
ing the favour of the deity and thereby securing
temporal or eternal happiness; not only do the
good works thus lose their chief merit and grace, not
only do they cease to be the brightest glory and most
precious ornament of man’s life, but they contribute
to foster both egotism and superstition (Luke xiv.
12-14). We must advance even a step farther and
weigh the value and force of penitence,. If the
destruction of a town as Nineveh is all but impend
ing, and is yet averted by the repentance of its
inhabitants (Jonah iii.); we are justified in asking,
how such an effect can be wrought by such a cause ?
(Jer. xxvi. 13, 19). We are far from undervaluing
the supreme merit and wonderful power of repent
ance, which is to be prized as the chief means of
purification and peace of mind, because it is alone
able to counterbalance our inherent weakness, or at
least to mitigate its baneful operation : but we can
not attribute to it any practical or outward in
fluence ; for the confession of sinful or wicked
acts cannot make them undone; a deed cannot be
effaced by a thought, but only by another deed, or
by uncontrollable circumstances; on the contrary,
experience and reflection teach us alike that no
penitence, however sincere and unremitting, can
wipe out a transgression; sin must be expiated
by suffering; but the sufferer is upheld by the
conviction that, as his vice, his indolence, or his
imprudence has plunged him into distress and
sorrow, so his virtue, his energy, or his thought-
�28
Theology of the
fulness can restore him to happiness and harmony
of mind.
4. Revelation.
The principles above laid down enable us to assign
its due place to another group of notions affecting the
very groundwork of the Scriptures—revelation, in
spiration, and prophecy.
The main precepts of the Pentateuch claim to be
directly communicated by God to Moses ; and both
the earlier patriarchs and distinguished men of later
times are represented as having enjoyed God’s per
sonal intercourse at decisive epochs of their lives. Let
us examine the dogmatic foundations upon which such
conceptions were built up. It is true that the incorpo
reality of God is theoretically taught in the Pentateuch;
yet He appears in human form (Gen. xviii. 2, 17),
and is seen in the visions of the prophets (Is. vi. 1);
He speaks distinctly and intelligibly, and thus com
municates His thoughts and designs to His elected
mediators (Ex. xxxiii. 18-23). There is but one
step from these views to the doctrine of incarnation;
and thus theology almost returns, as if by a circular
movement, to the point from which it at first started—
to the notion of personal gods with human attributes.
But how can a Spirit that pervades the universe, and
which is only accessible to our intellects by the
works that fill the world, and by the laws that
govern it, commune bodily or personally with men,
and reveal to them commands or doctrines 1 The
most Divine power of which we have knowledge
and consciousness, is human reason, and this suffices
to secure man’s dignity and his happiness. Wise
and good men, intending to convey to their fellow
beings what they regarded as irrefutable truth,
clothed their teaching in the form of a revelation,
because this is the most impressive, and was there
fore, for such purposes, the most usual and familiar
mode of communication.
�Past and the Future.
29
Let us analyse a clear instance of revelation or theo
phany ; we choose one distinguished by simplicity and
grandeur, and composed by Isaiah who is unquestionably
to be counted among the noblest and most gifted of
the ancient Hebrews. “ In the year that king Uzziah
died,” he writes (Is. vi. 1-13), “I saw the Lord sitting
upon a throne, high and lofty, and His train filled
the Temple. Above Him stood seraphs ; each one
had six wings ; with two he covered his face, and with
two he covered his feet, and with two he did fly.
And one cried to another and said, Holy, holy, holy,
is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His
glory. . . . Then said I, Woe to me ! for I am
undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I
dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips ; for my
eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts ”—after
which a seraph touches the prophet’s lips with a live
coal, and God charges him with the mission of preach
ing to the Israelites. Has this narrative literal
truth ? Can it have reality ? Isaiah sees God. Can
God be seen ? Would the prophet in sober earnest
ness admit the possibility ? Can he then fear in
stantaneous death on that account 1 He sees God
sitting on a throne. Can a spirit be so conceived,
and is it tied to the conditions of space ? The
train of God is noticed. How is this to be under
stood ? And has He any form that admits of the
contrast between above and below ? The prophet
observes that the train filled the Temple. Is God
enclosed within the walls of an edifice ? And in
what manner can the garment of a spiritual being
fill a circumscribed space ? He sees, moreover,
seraphs with six wings. What are seraphs ? Are
they not, like all angels, demons, and spirits, both
good and evil, pure and impure, which are so promi
nent in all parts of the Bible and most so in the
latest, are they not beings of eastern mythology,
creatures of fancy, without possible reality 1 Yet he
sees them “ standing above God.” What does it
�30
Theology of the
mean “ above God ? ” What can there be above Him
who fills the heaven and the heaven pf heavens, and
the whole universe ? Then the seraphs speak, and
God speaks, and Isaiah answers, and the angels per
form a symbolical act. How is communion between
God and man possible by means of language? Does
an incorporeal being utter articulate speech intelligible
to man ? Can an enlightened person in addressing
God expect a verbal reply ?—Now in what light are
we to look upon this vision of Isaiah? The idea of
deception or imposition must be utterly discarded,
and is at once banished by the loftiness and purity
of Isaiah's character. Is the vision, then, the result
of wild self-illusion and religious ecstasy ? The usual
calmness and clear-sighted penetration of the writer
would fainly make us abandon this alternative. Is
it, therefore, merely and simply a poetical invention,
a form of composition designed to describe interest
ingly his vocation as a teacher and his initiation as a
prophet? The earnestness and depth of the author
forbid us to suppose frivolous playfulness in relating
the holiest and most important event of his life. What
view, then, remains ? Though the narrative evinces
prominently neither the fervour of .religious enthu
siasm, nor the beauty and effectiveness of poetry,
it appears to imply a combination of both. Isaiah,
in common with his time and people, believed
the possibility of a direct revelation ; and he had
ardour enough to persuade himself that the powerful
impulse which stimulated him to his great work,
might be hallowed or confirmed by a solemn theo
phany. On the other hand, he could scarcely deceive
himself so far as to imagine that he had actually re
ceived such revelation by the personal appearance
and address of God; yet he might well describe, his
initiation in a form which was familiar to his con
temporaries, and which he was able to employ with
clearness and impressiveness.
Visions, usual in works of eastern theology, and
�Past and the Future.
31
naturally varying according to the disposition and
talent of the authors and the taste of their times,
grew more and more in favour among the Hebrews;
they are found with increased frequency in the later
writings, especially in the Book of Daniel and the
Revelation of St John, till they were overloaded with
an exuberant, if not extravagant, admixture of
symbolism and allegorical adornment. Narratives like
that under examination, have, therefore, a very high
psychological interest, but they can be fully under
stood and appreciated only if viewed as an illustration
of the age in which they were written, or to which
they refer. This applies pre-eminently to the most
important of all revelations, those of the Pentateuch.
The authors of these compositions, living many cen
turies after the events they narrate, and imbued
with the idea that God appears personally to His
messengers to charge them with His commands, of
course, believed that Moses had above all other
men been deemed worthy of receiving Divine reve
lations; and that as his legation was more moment
ous than that of all his successors, so the personal
manifestations of God had, in his case, been more
direct, more striking, and more grandly communicated than on any previous or later occasion. Eager
to exalt his mission, they enlarged and, it may be,
exaggerated the notions of their own time with regard
to theophanies; and their narratives are, therefore,
the combined result of conviction and of logical in
ference. Hence it is futile in the extreme to reduce
all visions of the Bible to suggestions by dreams, as
has been attempted by Maimonides and others. - Much
nearer the truth are those who refer them to the
working of the imagination, a faculty which they
require even more than superiority of mind. But
this is sufficient to determine the degree o-f their
reliability. “ By what laws of nature those visions
happened,” observes Spinoza, “ I confess my inability
to decide. I might indeed say, like others, that they
happened by the power of God; but this I should con-
�3 2.
Theology of the
sider as idle nonsense; for it would be like attempt
ing to explain the nature of some extraordinary thing
by a transcendental term.” But we must not stop
here; we can, in our age, not rest satisfied with re
signedly declaring, “ It is not necessary that we
should know the source of prophetic knowledge,
and we have no concern in fathoming the principles
of the Biblical documents.” By knowing that visions
are, in a great measure, the result of an active irnagination, we know their source or principle, and are
perfectly enabled to estimate their value. We must
therefore question the philosophical truth of the re
mark, “As the prophets received the revelations
of God by the help of imagination, it cannot be
doubted that they were able to conceive many truths
that lie beyond the limits of the intellect:” imagination, which is by Spinoza himself called vague
and inconstant, and declared unfit to understand the
things accurately, cannot really and of itself suggest
higher truths than calmly weighing reason; and
indeed the same thinker, perhaps advancing too
far on the other side, maintains, “ Those who desire
to learn from the books of the prophets wisdom and
knowledge of natural and spiritual things, are entirely
in error,” because imagination, without the judgment
of reason, involves no certainty; and he proves elabo
rately that “ prophecy never made the prophets more
learned, but left them in their preconceived opinions,
and that we are, therefore, in no way bound to believe
them in merely speculative matters;” that the pro
phets were ignorant of the causes of the phenomena
of nature; “ that they have taught nothing new
about the Divine attributes, and held the vulgar
notions of God, to which they adapted their revela
tions.” But if imagination is understood as a medium
of “ Divine revelations,” the argument is not advanced
a single step, as it would still move within the sphere
of the supernatural, especially if it is clearly con
tended that “ the revelations pass beyond the reach
�Past and the Future.
33
of human capacity;” though it is, on the other hand,
averred with strange inconsistency, that “ the doctrine
of the Scriptures does not teach sublime speculations
and philosophical tenets, but the simplest things
which are accessible to the dullest understanding.”
The books that are called revealed have, in fact,
disclosed nothing that reason and experience are un
able to suggest; they contain many truths which
reflecting minds of all nations have concurrently dis
covered ; they abound in errors which, in many
instances, almost destroy the beneficial effects of those
truths, and which the persevering exercise of reason
and of observation has alone been able to notice
and to correct. But even if their human origin were
not sufficiently disclosed by internal evidence, if they
did not, by innumerable tests, betray themselves
as the compositions of fallible, imperfectly informed,
though mostly noble-minded and gifted men, we should
not be able to accept them as anything else. The
writers indeed considered as reality and fact what
they supposed to be possible or what appeared to
them desirable, because it was a necessity in their
age, and was therefore not likely to be questioned by
their contemporaries. But they could not have been
aware of the incredible mischief which their pretended
“revelations” have produced. For they professed to
proclaim final truths, “ to which nothing was to be
added, and from which nothing was to be taken off
and thus they fettered thought and research, and re
tarded human progress in its most important spheres.
Moreover, as their words were considered as the
utterances of Divine wisdom, itself, every opposition or
even deviation was looked upon as blasphemy and
crime punishable by human authorities; heresy
was no more an error, but rebellion against the
supreme Lawgiver; and thus were caused those
fearful struggles and appalling persecutions, which
will for ever remain a dark stain in the history of
the human race, and which, for fierce and merciless
C
�34
Theology of the
cruelity, are unparalleled even in the annals of pagan
superstition.
Instead of directing man to exert his own facul
ties, the Bible dictates to him what he is to
consider as the end of all research and knowledge;
it makes him a passive recipient of truth, whereas
he feels the unconquerable impulse of searching
for truth himself; and instead of leaving to him the
triumphs of well-employed reason, it claims them en
tirely for a Being immeasurably above him. Revela
tion, therefore, in so far as it coincides with reason,
might work beneficently, and has fortunately worked
so in a considerable degree; but it derogates materially
from the moral value of the actions which it prompts;
for actions, not performed from spontaneity and choice,
but in obedience to an authoritative command from a
higher power, not only lose the noblest attribute of
virtue, but are open to thousandfold evasions and per
versions : this double danger is effectually avoided
by leaving the sovereignty to reason itself, instead of
delegating it to revelation, its temporary and imper
fect embodiment. Morality does not deserve its
name, unless it flows from pure and free motives.
Works of charity, benevolence, and good-will, per
formed because they are commanded with the promise
of reward and the threat of punishment, cease to be
meritorious. In short, revelation, based upon a de
fective notion of the Deity, enslaving human reason
and slighting its strength and dignity, enforcing the
dangerous surrender of human enquiry in favour of a
supernatural code, unjustifiably converting cosmic or
anthropological truths into theological dogmas, and
boldly pronouncing, in the name of an invisible spirit,
as eternal law what is no more than the emanation of
human thought, and what, therefore, is liable to
error and capable of improvement, depending on the
intellect of man for all it utters, and then presumptu
ously demanding the mastery over him, and hence
fostering sophistry and casuistic distortion, which
are required to harmonise the later advancements of
�Past and the Future.
35
truth with its own immovable dicta—the idea of
revelation combines all that is objectionable and
preposterous in positive religion, and manifests at a
glance its weakness and its fallacy. The term revela
tion which, in its essence, precisely coincides with
human knowledge and wisdom, can therefore be
dispensed with altogether, and ought only to be em
ployed conventionally for describing the traditional
view of orthodoxy.
The greatest confusion is, however, created by an
indiscriminate use of that word as well in its dog
matic or technical meaning and also in a figurative
sense as merely synonymous with enlightenment or
the productions of genius. This may often arise from
indistinctness of thought, but it is, we are afraid, not
unfrequently the result of insincerity and equivoca
tion. Yet it is highly objectionable unfairly to attri
bute a new notion to an old term which unsuspecting
readers naturally understand in the vulgar sense. An
honest mind will shun a duplicity designed to con
ciliate opposite views, but really satisfying neither
the believer nor the critic, and enveloping the most
important questions in deluding haziness. How little
either religion, philosophy, or history gains by such
unmanly and allegorising playfulness, may be best
proved from Lessing’s treatise on the Education of
the Human Race, which, composed in the deceptive
form of a fictitious logic, in no manner advances the
subject which it endeavours to elucidate. We shall
briefly review its leading ideas. “ That which edu
cation does for individuals, revelation works for the
whole human race” (Sec. 1). Here the term revela
tion is manifestly employed in its usual or orthodox
acceptation. But we pass to the following clause “ Education is revelation which is imparted to indi
vidual men; and revelation is education, which has
been imparted, and is still being imparted, to the
human race” (Sec. 2). In what manner is it “still
being imparted?” Theologians are agreed that re-
�2,6
Theology of the
velation, in its dogmatic meaning, has completely
ceased many centuries ago; nor is education a super
natural disclosure conveyed from beings of a superior
species or order to those whom they educate. Reve
lation must then, in that clause, not be taken in its
traditional, but in a metaphorical sense, as increase
of knowledge or wisdom. In what mazes of perplexity
are we thus intricatedl In reading the essay, we
must be on our guard wherever the word revelation
occurs, and try whether the one meaning or the other
suits the context; the term is therefore an indistinct
hieroglyphic to be modified and interpreted at plea
sure.—“ Education conveys to man nothing which he
might not learn from his own mind; it conveys it to
him only more rapidly and more easily. Just so
revelation conveys to the human race nothing that
human reason, left to its own resources, would not
also discover, only it conveyed and conveys to him
the most important of these truths earlier” (Sec. 4).
Can the confusion go farther ? That revelation”
which teaches nothing except the suggestions of
human reason, is not the revelation of orthodoxy
which is beyond human reason and often opposed to
it; for orthodox faith acknowledges the principle, “1
believe it, because it is absurd,” and it insists upon
the reality of all Biblical miracles, which are absolutely
contradicted by human reason. Yet that revelation
is asserted to teach certain truths “ earlier.” Then it
is, after all, some supernatural communication which
anticipates the operation of human reason. This
idea of revelation is entirely novel, and has little in
common with the dogmatic definition of the term;
for according to the former, it merely accelerates the
discoveries of man’s intellect, while, according to the
latter, it unfolds new truths not attainable by un
aided reason. So then, to complete the chaos, we have
a third definition of revelation more vague than either
the traditional or the figurative acceptation; for we may
ask, which are “the more important truths” which
�Past and the Future.
37
‘•'revelation” communicates to men “ earlier?” and
would nations and tribes, not favoured with these
revelations, arrive of themselves at the same results in
the course of time ? Orthodoxy attributes to revela
tion the disclosure of all truths necessary to “ make
wise unto salvation,” and “ profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous
ness” (2 Tim. iii. 15, 16) ; and it contends that these
truths can on no account be derived from any source
except the revealed or inspired Books. Inaccuracy
so wavering and so shifting necessarily engenders the
grossest fallacies ; and indeed Lessing thenceforth
mainly develops the vulgar and absolutely unhistorical
view of the progress of human civilization. “ God has
seen fit to keep a certain order in His revelation, and
to remain within certain limits” (Sec. 5). He furnished
the first man with the notion of one universal
Creator; but man, then left to his own reason, soon
misunderstood that notion, and divided the one
Infinite God into many finite beings, each with
peculiar attributes ; and this was the origin of poly
theism or idolatry ; “ and who knows, how many
millions of years human reason would have strayed
on these false paths, although some individuals in
every land and at all times knew that they were
false paths, if it had not pleased God to give human
reason a better direction by a new impulse?”—namely
by singling out the Israelites for His immediate care
and guidance, in order to effect, through them, the
education of mankind (Secs. 5-9, 18). The sentences
quoted contain all the current elements of error and
absurdity. They are as unphilosophical as any
other system of orthodox theology. God is suddenly
introduced as a real deus ex machina, whenever the
author sees no other means of helping him out of
historical difficulties. How has this working of God
or the whole process of education attributed to Him
been arrived at? Exclusively through the Books
which arc supposed to contain “revelation.” But no
�38
Theology oj the
proof of the reality or possibility of a revelation has
ever succeeded. We move, therefore, in a narrow
circle which entirely shuts out the exercise of logical
deduction. The first man, it is maintained, was fur
nished with a correct notion of the indivisible unity
of God. This assertion is against all psychological and
historical probability. We know that, for many ages,
religion consisted in the deification of nature, because
untutored generations, awed by her powers, were
unable to comprehend her laws; and it is certain
that many ages passed by before the abstract idea of
one all-comprising God was conceived and maintained.
The course of development was, therefore, exactly
the reverse of that stated ; for how is it possible that
the errors of polytheism and idolatry should have
taken such deep roots all over the globe, if the know
ledge of one God had once been known, especially
as it is admitted that “ some individuals in every land
and at all times knew that they were false paths?”
Surely, if revelation, as was before contended, im
parts nothing but what human reason is of itself
able to discover; and if, moreover, the notion of one
Deity had once been revealed to man, and was thus
stamped as a truth consonant with his reason and
attainable by its efforts, he could not so utterly have
lost it, as to require “millions of years” to return
to it anew. And as the great Lessing was, by the un
warranted use of the term revelation, misled to con
clusions unworthy of his acumen and philosophical
genius, and elaborately carried out through a lengthy
chain of biassed reasoning, in which biblical history,
allegory, and reflection are fancifully commingled ; so
the same mistakes were repeated and aggravated by
men determined not to pass beyond certain self
imposed boundaries, and often blindly disinclined to
attach weight to the lessons of history and to the
methods of philosophic thought. A similar obscurity
is caused by Spinoza’s terminology, which renders an
exact appreciation of his views extremely difficult;
�Past and the Future.
39
he speaks of the “ commands of God ” (jussa Dei)
and the “ Divine Law ” (lex divina), but he is far
from attributing to these terms their traditional sense ;
“ the means required by the end of all human actions,
that is, by the knowledge and love of God, may, in
asmuch as the idea of Him is in us, be called com
mands of God, because they have been prescribed to
us as it were by God Himself, in so far as He exists
in our minds ; and the mode of living which has that
aim in view, might very well be called the Divine Law.”
We believe, certainly not “very well,” but to the
serious detriment of clearness in the most important
questions. The Divine laws and commands, as the
Bible understands them, are not those which flow from
our divine reason, but those which a power above, and
distinct from our reason, is said to have proclaimed.
Even with respect to the notion of God, Spinoza con
tinues the same ambiguity; he observes, on the one
hand, that God “ can be called King, Lawgiver, just,
merciful, and the like only in adaptation to the imper
fect capacity of the people, and from defective reason
ing, since all those attributes appertain to human nature
only, and must altogether be kept removed from
the Divine nature ; ” yet he maintains, on the other
hand, that “ God acts according to the necessity of
His nature and perfection, and directs all things ;
that, in fact, His decrees and volitions are eternal
truths, and ever involve necessity.” The impersonal
character of the Deity, conveyed with sufficient clear
ness in the first remark, is almost hidden in the
second, and will only be detected by those who are
thoroughly familiar with the philosopher’s system.
5.
Inspiration.
It would be needless, after the preceding remarks,
to characterize minutely the term inspiration. Those
who, in our age, persist in regarding it as a suggestion
from some superhuman source, have forfeited the
�4°
Theology of the
right of speaking in matters of historical research.
Inspiration is in reality nothing bnt intellectual or
moral elevation of man himself striving to rise to
the utmost greatness and purity of his nature ; there
fore the word, if employed at all, may with equal
propriety be applied to the earnest and noble effusions
of any gifted mind. The point has indeed been
virtually surrendered even by orthodox divines. “ A
doctrine of inspiration,” observes Tholuck, at the
conclusion of his exposition of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, “ which assumes uniform correctness of the
words of Scripture cannot be accepted in accordance
with the results here obtained.” “ The treatment of
the Bible in conformity with the theory of literal in
spiration,” says Dr Doellinger, “would render all
theology impossible;” and Dean Stanley writes, “This
doctrine of literal inspiration can henceforth no more
be imposed on the English Church.” If there is a dif
ference between the so-called “ inspired Books” of the
Bible and “ profane” works, it arises from the circum
stance that the Scriptural Canon includes, on the whole,
such writings only as are either directly designed to
elucidate religious doctrines, or are at least composed
from a spiritual or theocratic point of view, and
may therefore be considered in the light of religious
text-books. But the Hebrew Canon represents very
imperfectly the wealth of the literature of the ancient
Hebrews ; for its compilers, pursuing a special object,
narrowed the scope of the collection to one particular
class of writings, though they were not quite con
sistent in their plan, for they admitted several
portions entirely “profane” in tendency, as the
erotic “ Song of Solomon ” and the worldly forty
fifth Psalm. Hence it follows, on the one hand, that
Hebrew literature was both more varied and less
severe than would appear from the Hebrew Canon;
and on the other hand, that the works allowed to form
a part of the Volume possess, even in doctrinal
matters, no higher authority than they deserve on a
critical examination of their contents.
�Past and the Future.
41
But in this respect we notice two different stages.
Some divines admit historical errors and internal dis
crepancies in the Bible, and hence refuse to accept
the facts and narratives which it includes ; but they
maintain the immutable and eternal truth of the
Biblical doctrines and dogmas, and look upon them as
indispensable and all-sufficient for happiness, wisdom,
and salvation; therefore they yet attribute to the Bible
a Divine or supernatural origin, and declare that the
doctrines, and not the facts, were the end of revelation.
Others again believe that the manifest historical
errors of the Bible indeed compel us to ascribe to it
an ordinary human authorship ; but they nevertheless
hold or would seem to hold that the spiritual and
religious views laid down in the Scriptures, are the
highest and purest at which human reason is able to
arrive in its search after truth, and that they must,
therefore, be for ever adhered to as the standard of
faith. We do not know which of the two views
is the more inconsistent. If one part of a book,
however subordinate that part is declared to be,
abounds with errors, the book is not infallible, and
cannot, therefore, be considered Divine ; moreover,
it is an unfounded assumption that the portions of
the Bible which contain narratives are unessential; it
is a misconception of the spirit of the Scriptures, to
regard, for instance, the account of the Creation, of
the Flood, or the wanderings of the Israelites in the
desert, as collateral or indifferent; the Bible itself
makes no distinction between important and unim
portant parts; it insists, on the contrary, that no
single word ought to be added or taken away
(Deut. iv. 2); either the whole of the Bible is Divine
or the whole is not Divine; any intermediate opinion
is a feeble and unavailing compromise, whether
arising from insincerity or, from a conviction too
timid to follow out its own consequences. On the
other hand, if the Scriptures are the work of human
reason, it is difficult to understand, why human
�42
Theology oj the
reason should never be able to pass beyond them, and
produce something more perfect; it is against all
historical evidence to assume that man reached some
thousands of years ago the pinnacle of enlight
enment of which he is capable, and that ever after
wards his only task consists in preserving and
guarding the intellectual treasures then discovered.
This theory is devoid of all foundation ; for we know
that man has, since those times, largely advanced in
every valuable acquirement; that he has in particular
made marvellous progress in those branches of know
ledge which disclose the depths of the human mind
and the mechanism of the universe, in philosophy and
the natural sciences; and even now he feels that he has
scarcely mastered more than the rudiments of either.
As men wrote the books of the Bible, so men may, at
subsequent periods, write books that surpass the Bible;
and later again, works superior to the books that
surpass the Bible ; and till the genius of mankind is
degenerated or exhausted, every following generation
will attempt to outstep the efforts of anterior ages.
6. Prophecy.
The gift of prophecy which all ancient nations
attributed to elected favourites of the deity, is again
nothing else but the gift of human reason and judg
ment, striving to penetrate through the veil of the
future, and hence naturally liable to error. We are
far from denying the peculiar importance and the
most beneficent influence of'the Hebrew “ prophets.”
They were the ever movable element of Israel’s
religious training; and they counteracted, and for a
long time successfully, the dangerous stagnation en
gendered by the growth of the Levitical spirit. They
fought with undaunted courage against the narrow
ness of the priesthood, and often against the pre
sumption of kings; and they vindicated the right of the
spirit against the lifeless rigour of formulas, and
�Past and the Future.
43
the claims of morality against the encroachments
of ritualism and the dogma. They appealed with
fervid eloquence to the hearts and consciences,
not to the fears and prejudices of their hearers. They
loved their country with almost enthusiastic patri
otism. Uplifted by the feeling of a higher impulse
and assistance, they were enlightened teachers in re
ligion, and clear-sighted counsellors in politics. These
objects—the purification of faith, the improvement of
morals, and the advancement of national prosperity—constituted their chief mission ; prediction of the
future was only their subordinate function. The erro
neous translation of the Hebrew word navi by prophet,
while it means “ overflowing speaker,” has frequently
caused its innermost import to be misunderstood and
distorted; for it raises the accessory feature to almost
exclusive importance. The prophets of the Hebrews,
high-minded and unselfish, unequalled as a class in
singleness of motive and purity of aim, in perse
verance and intrepidity, practical experience and
literary ability, were indeed superior to the seers
of any other nation; they showed, moreover, greater
sagacity in the delineation of impending events,
since, as a rule, they were politicians, moving in
the very current of public life : but they were not the
less fallible ; their activity was tied to the common
and ordinary limits of the human mind; and therefore,
they occasionally predicted occurrences which either
were not fulfilled at all, or happened in a different
manner. Thus the prophet Amos (vii. 11) foretold
that “Jeroboam would die by the sword, and Israel
would surely be led away captive out of their own land;”
whereas, according to the historical account, “ Jero
boam slept with his fathers, and Nadab his son reigned
in his stead” (1 Kings xiv. 20). Jeremiah (xxii. 18,
19) prophesied of king Jehoiakim, that “ he would be
buried in the burial of an ass, and drawn and cast
forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (Jer. xxxvi. 30);
but history records that “ he slept with his fathers”
�44
Theology of the
(2 Kings xxiv. 6). Again, Jeremiah (xlix. 7-22) an
nounced concerning the Edomites, that all their towns
would be given up to eternal desolation, that in fact
the whole of their territory would be converted into
a dreary and uninhabited desert, the horror and
mockery of all strangers, like Sodom and Gomorrah,
and that the people themselves would be helplessly
carried away by Nebuchadnezzar; and gloomy pre
dictions of a similar nature, likewise suggested by deep
and implacable hatred, were uttered by Ezekiel,
Obadiah, and other writers. Now the Edomites were
indeed subjugated by the Babylonians, and suffered
considerable afflictions ; but they remained in their
own land; they succeeded even in appropriating to
themselves a part of southern Judea including
Hebron, which was, therefore, frequently called
Idumea; they took an active part in the Maccabean
wars, in the course of which they were compelled by
John Hyrcanus (about b.g. 130) to adopt the rite of
circumcision, and were incorporated in the Jewish
commonwealth. Ezekiel promised the political re
union of the empires of Israel and Judah (Ezek.
xxxvii. 22), which was never realised. The total
destruction of Gaza is repeatedly predicted in dis
tinct terms (Amos i. 6, 7) ; yet the town exists
to the present day. The coincidences are certainly
much more numerous than the failures; but the
prophecies were commonly framed in general, and
often in vague terms; the poetical elevation and the
rhetorical emphasis with which they were set forth,
were even unfavourable to nice accuracy; precise de
tails were avoided, names of persons were never men
tioned, and dates usually stated in round numbers,
or altogether omitted. Moreover, many professed pro
phecies are in reality nothing but history in the form
of prophecies, and were composed after the events to
which they relate; for ancient writers of all nations,
anxious to furnish a comprehensive survey of the past,
or to endow national institutions with a higher autho
�Past and the future.
45
rity, were accustomed to make pious and renowned
men of earlier ages pronounce the facts as prophecies,
which, however, the authors desired to be regarded as
real predictions of the men to whom they ascribed
them—a style of writing which recommends itself by
impressive solemnity, and to which Hebrew literature
owes some of its finest and noblest compositions.
Besides, the Bible teaches that false prophets may ven
ture predictions which God allows to be realised in
order to try the Hebrews whether they love Him with
all their hearts (Deut. xiii. 4); and to crown the con
fusion, the truthful or fraudulent nature of prophecies
uttered in the name of Jehovah, was according to the
Law to be tested by their realisation; predictions
proclaimed in the name of Jehovah, but not justified
by the event, were regarded as criminal deceptions to
be punished by the death of the impostor (Deut. xviii.
20-22): thus the practical value of prophecies as such
was extremely precarious and almost nugatory. In
short, the belief in prophecy has the same origin as
the doctrines of revelation and inspiration—namely,
the impossible supposition that the deity enters into
a direct and personal intercourse with some men
specially chosen.
These notions are, moreover, the source of other
errors, widely diffused in ancient times, and also shared
and recognised by the authors of the Scriptures—the
faith in oracles and dreams. Minds unaccustomed to
strenuous efforts and self-reliance, and untrained in
tracing cause and effect, were led to suppose that, in
perplexing situations, they might be enlightened and
guided by an immediate communication from the
deity, whether conveyed through the medium of some
remarkable person, or through the instrumentality of
some consecrated object. Who can contemplate, with
out grief and pity, the fraud and the mischief neces
sarily caused by so irrational a belief? The most
important private and public enterprises were made
dependent on the heart or liver of a sacrificial animal,
�46
Theology of the
on the smoke or flame that rose from the altar, on the
flight or cry of birds, the movement of serpents, or
the neighing of horses, on the figures formed in the
water of a goblet, on lightning or an eclipse of the
sun or moon, on comets and meteors, on the position
of rods or arrows thrown on the ground, the decision
■ of lots, the persons first seen or met in the morning
or just after deliberating on some enterprise, and on
thousand similar chances which possess no conceiv
able connection with the matter at issue, and the
interpretation of which was left to the shrewdness or
cunning of the official expositors. Soothsaying be
came a trade, and the soothsayers were used as tools
of the powerful, if they did not serve their own avarice
and ambition. Auguries often checked the most pro
mising, and encouraged the most pernicious schemes.
Oracles were consulted for private and for public
purposes, and they helped not seldom to produce the
effects which they predicted. Now, the Bible forbids
indeed the Israelites to consult the heathen gods and
their ministers (2 Kings i. 3, 6, 16), and to indulge in
divination, magic, or necromancy, but it unreservedly
sanctions oracles obtained of the God of the Hebrews
(Ex. xxviii. 30) through prophets (1 Sam. ix. 9)
I and by the Urim and Thummim (Num. xxvii. 21), or
granted by dreams (Num. xii. 6) or by the lot (Josh,
vii. 14-18).
7. Conclusion.
Let us now try to sum up the result of the preced
ing remarks.
It is not sufficient to appeal from the letter of the
Bible to its spirit; indeed the one “kills,” but even the
other is no longer life and truth to us. The spirit of
the Bible is not the spirit of our time; it is not the
light that illumines our path and points to our goal.
Many suppose they have removed all difficulties by
urging that religion must be separated from philosophy;
that “there exists between both neither community nor
relationship,” because, as they contend, the one aims
�Past and the Future.
at obedience and piety, the other at truth, and the
foundations of the former are Scripture and revela
tion, of the latter nature and general principles; that
the Bible is not intended to teach science, and con
demns disobedience but not ignorance ; that therefore
all speculations which do not directly make men obey
God, whether they relate to the knowledge of God or
the knowledge of natural things, do not concern
Scripture, and are to be kept apart from revealed reli
gion. But we adjure those who adopt this view of
Bacon, Spinoza, and others, earnestly to weigh its scope
and tendency. What, in the name of truth, is left
for religion to achieve, if it refrains from teaching the
knowledge of God and the knowledge of natural
things 1 How can it satisfy man’s nature, and be to
him all in all, if it disregards and leaves untouched
his most essential interests ? how can it claim to
direct manly and intelligent minds, if it excludes
truth from its sphere, overlooks nature, and banishes
from its doctrines general principles ? If some declare
that religion needs not to enquire what is God,
“ whether Fire, Mind, Light, Thought, or anything
else, nor to examine in what sense God is the proto
type of true life, whether because He has a just
and merciful heart, or because all things exist and act
through Him, and man therefore also thinks through
Him and discerns through Him what is right and
good, for it is indifferent what view people hold on
these mattersif, more questionably still, they as
sert, that faith is in no way concerned whether
people believe “ that God is omnipotent by virtue of
His essence or of His power, whether He governs all
things by liberty or the necessity of nature, whether
He prescribes laws as ruler or teaches them as eternal
truths, whether man obeys God from liberty of will
or from the compulsion of a divine decree, and whether
the reward of the good and the punishment of the
wicked is natural or supernatural in its mode: ” if,
we repeat, religion admits such notions, it works
its own destruction; it can have no importance for
�48
Theology of the
man, as it eschews his deepest and most sacred pro
blems. Viewed in this manner, religion and philo
sophy are not sisters, but are forced to become deadly
rivals. The separation of both does not involve their
conciliation but their hostile opposition. That fatal
contrast bears the guilt of the unhappy confusion
which convulsed many centuries. Safety and peace
do not lie in the division but in the union, or rather
in the identity of both. Truth is one and indivisible.
It is a paradox to assume a religious truth in contra
distinction to a philosophical truth. Faith has no
power and no reality, unless it flows from our rational
conviction and is at one with it and our philosophy
is imperfect, sterile, and unprofitable, unless it leads
to a “religious” life, that is, a life of love and justice,
of serenity and active benevolence. Philosophy and
religion must henceforth not mark out two different
provinces, but two chief divisions of the same pro
vince ; the joint aim of both is truth and moral train
ing ; and while philosophy has strenuously to search for
principles and first causes, religion must conscientiously
apply them in practical life. And inasmuch as virtu
ous action is the ultimate aim of all human efforts, it
matters little if we call philosophy the “ handmaid”
of religion, provided we remember that it is also its
“ torchbearer.”
Those who assign distinct spheres to philosophy
and religion, however sincerely disposed to acknow
ledge the rights of reason, drift unavoidably towards
views very nearly approaching those traditional
opinions which they mean to combat. Thus De
Wette arrives at the conclusion, that as “we require
a certain external unity and fundamental standard ”
of faith, it is indispensable “ to recognise the authority
of the confessions, in which Biblical interpretation
finds a safe support ”—which result is distinguished
from the orthodox creed only by its vagueness ; for
the author does not desire to have the Bible ex
plained “ according to the letter,” but “symbolically,”
�Past and the Future.
49
that is, so that the literal truth and accuracy of the
Scriptural narratives may be denied and abandoned,
provided the ideas they were intended to convey are
upheld and acknowledged. The separation between
form and thought in the Bible is indeed not only
justified, but imperative ; but if our confidence in
the correctness of the former is shaken, it is impos
sible for us to consider the latter as infallible, and
as eternally unalterable.
Head and heart, reflection and life, are identical•
true philosophy is, by its nature and tendency, prac
tical ; it does not only include religious elements, but
is itself religion.
Again, it is not enough to admit that there is in
Scripture “ a Divine and a human element,” a phrase
which occurs a thousand times in recent works of
speculative theology ; the “ human element ” is a
concession reluctantly wrung from reflecting minds
by the implacable force of facts ; but the concession
is rendered illusory and worthless by the supposition
of a Divine element, which is conceived to be above
the capacity and nature of man, and which is com
patible with assertions like these: “ The Holy Scrip
tures differ from every other book, because they
alone contain a guaranteed revelation, which lifts the
veil, so far as needed, from both the earliest past and
the remotest future, to disclose the motive, the sanc
tion, and the law of man’s labours, and because the
Holy Spirit, which watched over the delivery of that
revelation, filled the spirits of the writers with a
more complete and pervading presence than ever
presided over the execution of a merely human
work.” This passage is a tissue of fallacies and
groundless assumptions; the revelation embodied in
Scripture is no more “ guaranteed ” than any other
alleged supernatural communication ; it is philo
sophically impossible and historically undemonstrable; it has taught men nothing reliable whether
with regard to the history of his race, the origin
�5°
Theology of the
of the universe, or the development of our planet ■
it can teach him nothing certain with regard to
his future ; for prophecy is subject to error like every
other human speculation; it “ discloses the motive,
the sanction, and the law of man’s labours” from
points of view which have been essentially modified
by later convictions ; and there is no “ Holy Spirit ”
distinct from the intellect of man. The books which
compose the Bible must, therefore, be measured by
the ordinary standard of human faculties ; and the
result of an impartial enquiry will be that they pos
sess indeed those peculiar merits which fitted them
to serve as religious guides during many generations,
but that they have been eclipsed by other works in
accuracy of historical facts, in depth of philosophy,
and exactness of science.
It is true, in a certain sense, that “ opinions taken
absolutely without regard to actions involve neither
piety nor wickedness, and that a man has a pious or
an impious belief only in so far as his opinions move
him to obedience, or afford him a pretext for sin and
rebellion;” but, in the first place, the great questions
of our time do not simply relate to the practical
results of faith, but at least as much to its truth
and intrinsic credibility; for else we should arrive at
the paradox that in itself the darkest superstition
is unobjectionable ; and in the second place, dearly
bought experience teaches, that the only safe guarantee
of practical virtue lies in the enlightenment of reason
and the clearness of general notions ; nay, that a
mistaken obedience to a law ostensibly divine has
led to the most execrable enormities which it is dif
ficult to recall without a feeling of shame, such as the
criminal burning of witches, the fiendish tortures of
the inquisition, the sanguinary persecution of the
Jews,.and the implacable cruelty of religious wars; of
such excesses of horror and frenzy, even Christianity
was capable, because Christianity also ventured to des
pise the rule of reason, and to cast it into the fetters
�Past and the Future.
51
of unfathomable dogmas. Hence there is an internal
impossibility in the proposition, that “whosoever,
while believing the truth, becomes disobedient (that
is, depraved), has in reality an impious faith, but
whosoever, while believing falsehood, becomes obe
dient (that is, virtuous), has a pious faith;” or in the
maxim, “ Not he shows the best faith who shows the
best arguments of reason, but he who shows the best
works of justice and charity.” Within certain limits,
and under favourable circumstances, simplicity of heart
may indeed exercise virtue and self-denial, but it is
only the “true faith,” that is, enlightened conviction
or obedience to reason, which ensures the practice of
rectitude and kindness in all relations of life; and as
a rule, those will show the best works of justice and
charity, who can show the best arguments of reason.
It is, therefore, not only an erroneous, but also a most
dangerous opinion, that “faith requires pious doctrines
rather than true ones, and though there be among
them many which have not even a shadow of truth,
they are harmless, provided that he who adopts them
is not aware that they are false.” For without truth
genuine piety is impossible. The root of error and
falsehood cannot bring forth fruits of justice and
benevolence. Error, though believed to be truth,
necessarily manifests its fatal traces in deed and
thought. Our faith will be more perfect, and our
life more righteous, more honourable, and more useful,
the farther we advance in true knowledge.
Religion must become a reality in life ; but this it
can become only if it is understood; if it buds forth
from our own reflection and feeling; if it is neither
above nor below our nature ; if it is as far removed
from mystic speculation, as from the low impulses
of selfishness and pride. It must, therefore, on
the one hand, discard all unintelligible and sterile
notions, such as revelation, inspiration, and pro
phecy, and renounce uncertain traditions, fictitious
narratives, and lifeless ceremonies; but it must, on
�52
Theology of the
the other hand, foster the purest and highest virtues
of the human heart, and it must lead to an active life
of devotion, love, self-control, and cheerful sacrifice.
This feeling of ready abnegation and useful work must
be regarded as the only precious reward to be coveted.
The writers of the Bible not unfrequently describe such
a religion with force and beauty; it may suffice to
insert a few of their utterances, as it is impossible to
adduce all. “ God has shown thee, 0 man, what is
good; and what does the Lord require of thee, but
to act justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly
with thy God V’ (Mic. vi. 8). “ Let not the wise man
glory m his wisdom, neither let the mighty man
glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his
riches ; but let him that glories glory in this, that he
understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord who
exercises loving kindness, judgment, and righteous
ness on the earth; for in these things I delight” (Jer.
ix. 22, 23). “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy,
peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meek
ness, temperance, against such there is no law” (Gal.
v. 22, 23). “All things whatsoever you would that
men should do to you, do you even so to them; for
this is the Law and the prophets” (Matt. vii. 12).
“All the Law is fulfilled in one-word, even in this :
Thou shaft love thy neighbour as thyself” (Gal. v.
1^)Lo\e is the fulfilling of the Law” (Rom. xiii.
8-10). “ Let us love one another; for love is of God,
and every one that loves is born of God, and knows’
God; he that loves not knows not God, for God is
love . . . If we love one another God dwells in us,
and His love is perfected in us . . . He that dwells
in love dwells in God, and God in him.” (1 John iv.
7, 8, 12, 16). These and similar principles form the
eternal and indestructible kernel of the Bible; they
are the secret of its intellectual conquests and of its
civilising power; they contain, indeed, the germs of
a universal faith, and every progress in religion
must be marked by their zealous realization in life.
�Past and the Future.
53
If they are taken as guides, the complaint will cease,
that “ men who boast of professing the Christian re
ligion, that is, love, joy, peacefulness, moderation, and
fidelity towards all, wrangle with reckless harshness,
and constantly act against each other with the bitterest
hatred, so that from these contentions rather than from
those virtues the creed of each is discernible.” For
“what does it profit, though a man say he has faith,
and have not works, can faith save him 1 . . . Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone . . . You see
then, that by works a man is justified and not by faith
only” (Jas. ii. 14, 17, 20, 24). Yet all these beautiful
fruits of religion are never safe and reliable, unless
that faith is derived from the light of man’s own
mind ; to be practically efficient, it must be the result
of his own reflection, experience, and individuality;
it will help to extend the empire of charity and morals
on earth, not if it is merely handed down to him from
the distant past and from bygone ages, but if it is
the creation of his own nature, of his own wants, and
his own ideals.
The views here propounded may create, in some
minds, a twofold apprehension—first, of a confound
ing diversity of religious creeds, and secondly, of in
tellectual intolerance and persecution. But on every
essential point, the religious convictions of all will be
identical or kindred ; for they follow from the essence
of human nature, which is virtually the same under all
zones and all conditions of existence, which shows
everywhere the like aspirations, hopes, and endeavours,
the like spiritual needs and efforts; and however varied
the speculations, practical morality tends invariably to
the same end. And as regards intellectual toleration,
nothing is so certain to lead to gentleness, humility,
and forbearance, as honest research; for every step
onward discloses to us our limits ; and if the wisest
has finished his labours, he knows only that he
“ knows nothing,” and—to use a well known simile
of one of England’s greatest philosophers—he feels
�54
Theology of the
that he resembles the child that gathers pebbles on
the beach, while the ocean of truth lies all unex
plored before him.
Henceforth, therefore, we do not desire a religion
of fear which is the fruit of delusion, but of love
which flows from intelligence; not a religion of severity
which breeds servitude, but of joy which is the wit
ness and seal of freedom of mind and heart; not a re
ligion of strife which persecutes others through the
haughty assumption of infallibility, but of peace
which respects all honest convictions that can show
works of charity and unselfish devotion. Above
all reason, instead of being slighted and denounced
as feeble, fallacious, perverse, and corrupted, must be
restored to its right and functions as the supreme
tribunal; its light alone can dispel the darkness of
folly, pernicious illusion, and superstition; without
it, religion is hardly more than “ credulity and wretch
edness.” Occasionally the Bible also expresses
similar views (Prov. ii. 3-5); yet it insists that the
revealed Law alone is true wisdom and understand
ing (Deut. iv. 5, 6 ; Prov. ix. 10). It avails little to
proclaim reason as the highest judge in matters of re
ligion, unless it be consistently treated and respected
as such. There is, however, a class of honest thinkers
who timidly take back with one hand what they have
liberally conceded with the other. Thus it is declared
that history is not itself religion, because it employs
the purely intellectual and critical, and none of the
moral and spiritual faculties, and because thus the in
tellect, and not the soul, would be the first authority
in religion. Nobody, we presume, has ever identified
history and religion; but if a religious influence is
attributed to the study of history, it is not on account
of the faculties employed in ascertaining the facts,
but of those engaged in examining and estimating the
facts so ascertained ; not the learned labour of histo
rical criticism, but the philosophical use made of the
results of that criticism enlarges our sympathies and
�Past and the Future.
55
elevates our views; and in this respect history, or
the intellect working for its pragmatic survey, is in
deed not without a strong religious influence. Be
sides, the strict contradistinction between intellect
and soul must be rejected, as it tends to produce
the utmost confusion in the chief branches of
moral philosophy. The two notions do not exclude
each other ; for the true intellect includes soul; the
intellect that does not include soul is defective and
unsound; a well-balanced intellect cannot possibly act
coldly, selfishly, or cruelly ; it is noble, magnanimous,
and gentle ; it is conscious of its own boundaries, and,
therefore, unassuming and humble ; it knows too well
what it owes to others to be otherwise than indulgent
and charitable ; an intellect which does not possess
these. attributes, hardly deserves the name, for it
lacks its most essential characteristics. The apparent
exceptions which are occasionally found, will, on close
scrutiny, reveal some radical defect in the organiza
tion of the mind, or in the philosophical system it has
worked out or adopted.
Not obedience to doctrines imposed by extraneous
commands must be the rule of our actions, but free
dom of will and choice, or obedience to our reason
and our conscience. Not a number of books tradi
tionally handed down, and singled out by fallible
judgment from a vast multitude of works, is the true
source of religion, but the spirit which thirsts
after truth, and the heart which yearns for love;
the “ word of God ” was not merely heard dur
ing a limited period of human history; it has not
been mute for thousands, of years ; it was proclaimed
at all times when intelligence and moral excellence
uttered their thoughts and aspirations; and it will be
heard as long as the instinct to great and noble deeds
lives in mankind. There is therefore considerable
force.and propriety in the following remark : “ His
tory is neither likely to be the source of our religious
knowledge, nor actually capable of being satisfactorily
�56
Theology of the
established as such. Let us face this truth candidly.
Let us renounce the false ground at once and for ever,
and build as well as we may on what remains. True
that with the claims of history we renounce the hope
of obtaining an infallible creed. True that the con
sciousness which remains for basis is often obscure
and variable. . . . Still, still we say, let it be done !
It is worse and more dangerous to stand still than to
go forward. If an historical religion be built on the
sand, the sooner we learn it, ere the storms beat it
down and overwhelm us in its fall, the safer shall we
be.” When the law is engraven on the tablets of the
mind, it cannot be lost, it cannot be destroyed, it is
living and working, and blossoms forth incessantly in
deeds of charity and good-will. If the voice of rea
son is hushed, man is certain to sink into idolatry;
does it matter whether the idol is a figure of stone
or a Book that demands unreasoning reverence? That
Book was sacred and Divine as long as it represented
men s innermost emotions, and was honestly acknow
ledged by them as the chief guide of their lives ; it
ceased to be sacred and Divine when it began to fall
upon our minds with a strange accent, and reflected a
world which we felt had passed away. We may still
study it for understanding a most remarkable phase
of human civilization ; we may cull from its pages
many a practical and spiritual truth conveyed in
language wonderfully apt and impressive; but, as a
whole, it cannot edify us ; it cannot uplift us to
the height of our nature. It will always be che
rished with deep gratitude as the educator of many
generations; but it must yield the precedence to
the new light which the exploration of the forces
of nature and the powers of the human mind have
thrown upon the general economy of the world. Its
blessing is changed into a bane if it presumptuously
claims to be the sole legislator for all times ; it has,
in a great measure, fulfilled its mission; it can hence
forth only be an individual element among numerous
means of human culture.
�Past and the Future.
57
Yet many have argued, that the Bible, with all
its deficiencies, ought for ever to be maintained in
authority, because it offers great consolation to the
less strong-minded, is useful to the State, and can in
no way be injurious to the believer. Its truth can
indeed not be proved ; but this matters little, as
most human actions are uncertain and full of fluc
tuations—an opinion which necessarily involves the
most serious errors, and leads to the obnoxious distinction between a creed for philosophers and a creed
for the vulgar mass ; as if that which is illusion and
falsehood for the former could be truth and light for
the latter. A belief which does not satisfy the most
acute enquirer, can by honest men never be deemed
sufficient for the simple-minded. Many pretend that
the distinction is demanded by policy and expediency;
but it is generally prompted by pride and arrogance,
and always engenders hollowness and hypocrisy.
These characteristics are almost glaringly manifest
in the singular observation, that “the Law was given
for those only who are devoid of reason and the sup
ports of natural intelligence : ” the pride lies in the
assumed superiority over the bulk of mankind, and
the hypocrisy in the ostensible profession of “ re
velation ; ” for if revealed truths were sincerely
believed in, they would not, with evident contempt,
be described as important for the silly only, but
would be prized as no less valuable to the most gifted.
Every man is, by his nature, subject to supersti
tion, because he is, by his nature, subject to fear;
but by knowledge he must subdue fear and super
stition ; he must, on the one hand, rise to the con
sciousness of his dignity and power; and he must, on
the other hand, modestly subordinate himself as a
serving link of universal creation. But how does he
rise to his full dignity 1 If his mind strives to pene
trate into the first causes and the essence of things ;
if his heart conquers selfishness and all base emotions;
and if his actions, guided by love, aim at promoting
�58
Theology of the Past and the Future.
the welfare of his fellowmen. Therefore, truth,
virtue, and active love—these three form the
creed of the Future ; but the greatest of these is
truth (1 Cor. xiii. 13); for enlightenment leads to
gelf-control and to self-denying deeds; and knowledge
alone is able to keep man on the path of moderation
and thoughtfulness, and thus to secure, through
virtue, his inward peace and happiness.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Theology of the past and the future
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Kalisch, M. M. (Marcus Moritz) [1825-1885]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 58 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from Preface. Annotations in ink. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection and from the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Reprinted from 1 of his 'Commentary on Leviticus' [1867]. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1832
N423
G5751
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theology
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 (Theology of the past and the future), 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-Controversial literature
Bible-O.T.-Leviticus
Bible. O.T.-Criticism
Conway Tracts
NSS