{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36266/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36266","id":"gutenberg_36266","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36266","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Pentateuch -- Commentaries","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nTHE BIBLE: WHAT IT IS! BY 'ICONOCLAST'\n\nBy Charles Bradlaugh\n\nPublished By The Author\n\nSold By Holyoake And Co., 147, Fleet Street; Parker, Ridge Heath; Sharp,\nTabernacle Walk, London; J. Bates, Champton; J. B. Cooper, Manchester;\nG. Miller, Glasgow; Watson, Newcastle-On-Tyne; And Robinson, Edinburgh.\n\nBEING AN EXAMINATION THEREOF FROM GENESIS TO REVELATIONS {1}\n\n\n\nTRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:\n\nThe author states the scope of his work as \"BEING AN EXAMINATION THEREOF\nFROM GENESIS TO REVELATIONS\". My copy of the first two pamphlets give\nonly the first nine books of the 39 book St. James version--nor can I\nfind in any old book stores or on internet search any print or\nelectronic copy which goes beyond the first nine books of the Old\nTestament.  Either my nine books are but a fragment of the whole of\nBradlaugh's work, or he may not have completed it. Regardless, the\ndetail of his work here, with Hebrew and Greek references, make this a\nvaluable study.\n\nDW\n\n\n\n\nBOOK I. GENESIS\n\nThe Bible is the name by which the collection of Books beginning with\nGenesis and ending with Revelations is commonly known. It is derived\nfrom the Greek word [------] (Books), and this name is supposed to have\nbeen first applied in the fifth century by Chrysostom, before which\ntime those books were known as [------] holy writings, sacred writings,\nwritings of God.\n\nThe Bible is divided into three parts: the Old Testament, containing\nthirty-nine books, the New Testament, containing twenty-seven books,\nand the Apocrypha, containing fourteen books; making in the whole eighty\nbooks. It is only the first portion, known as the Old Testament, upon\nwhich I intend to treat at present. It professes to be translated from\nthe Hebrew, in which Language (according to the learned Parkhurst) God\ncommunicated with Adam; or, perhaps to quote the learned divine more\ncorrectly, I ought to say that 'Hebrew was the language in which God\ntaught Adam to speak.' It has been suggested by other saintly writers\nthat Hebrew will be the language spoken in Paradise by the Saints. It is\nperhaps to be regretted that God did not choose a language more copious,\nand less capable of being misconstrued; but I will not at present stop\nto question whether the fact be as above stated--it is sufficient for\nus to know that the original of the Old Testament is (with some slight\nexception) written in the Hebrew.\n\nThe Old Testament is divided by the Jews into three parts, called 1st,\n(the law)--this division includes Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,\nand Deuteronomy; 2nd, (the Prophecies)--this portion contains the Books\nof Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, which are known as the former\nprophets, and Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah,\nJonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah, and\nMalachi--of these, the three first are called 'the greater Prophets,'\nand the remaining twelve 'the lesser'; 3rd, (holy writings), comprising\nthe Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations,\nEcclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemian, and first and second\nChronicles. I have given the books in their Jewish order, which differs\nfrom our own, Chronicles being the last book of the Hebrew Bible.\n\nThe earliest complete translation into English of the whole of the Bible\nwas made in the fourteenth century by the famous John Wickliffe, who was\nborn in 1324 and died in 1384. This translation was reprinted in 1731,\nand again in 1810. Wickliffe's version {2} of the Old Testament, I\nbelieve, still remains in manuscript. Portions of the Bible had been\npreviously translated into Saxon, and it is alleged that one John de\nTrevisa had completed a translation prior to Wickliffe.\n\nThe next translation appears to have been made by William Tyndale (a\nnative of Gloucestershire, born about 1477, and cruelly murdered\nin September, 1536) who, in 1526, printed two editions of the New\nTestament, which were issued from Wittemberg; both of these were,\nhowever, bought up by the Church authorities, and committed to the\nflames. Tyndale, however, nothing daunted by this, continued his work of\ntranslation, in which he is said to have been assisted by Martin Luther;\nTyndale at this time residing at Antwerp, to which place he had been\ncompelled to fly in 1523, to avoid the persecution of the priests.\n\nIt is worthy of notice that the Bible, which is alleged by the priests\nto be God's word revealed to the people, was never revealed to the\npeople of England in their own tongue until the fourteenth century; that\nit was not until fifty-two years after printing had been introduced into\nEngland that any attempt was made to print an English edition: and that\nthe first man who was sufficiently religiously disposed to print an\nedition, had his work burnt by the very men who, if their doctrines are\ntrue, should have zealously guarded each copy. Not only were the\nBibles burnt, but every person in whose possession they were found was\nsubjected to severe punishment. Despite all this, the editions issued\nby Tyndale were eagerly bought; and efforts were then made by King Henry\nVIII., Cardinal Wolsey, and Sir Thomas More, to lure poor Tyndale back\nto England, but he was too cautious to return. His friend, John Frith,\nwho had assisted him in translating, was more credulous; and, returning\nto London upon the king's promise of safety, was arrested and burnt.\nTyndale was ultimately entrapped, and strangled and burnt at Vilvoord,\nnear Antwerp.\n\nOne would now be inclined to think that the priests well knew that to\nplace the Bible in the hands of the people would be to tear down the\nveil from the temple, would expose their trickeries, and would place in\nthe hands of the mass the means of detecting their false pretence. Under\nthe guise of preachers of a revelation from God, they had ruled the\nminds of the people; and they were fully aware or the danger which would\naccrue to themselves should the people ever examine too closely into\nthe merits of that revelation. Sir Thomas More wrote against Tyndale in\nlanguage which will startle the readers of the present day, especially\nwhen we remember that Tyndale's crime was the presenting us with a\ntranslation of the Bible admirable for its style and general accuracy.\nMore says, 'Our Saviour will say to Tyndale, Thou art accursed, Tyndale,\nthe son of the Devil, for neither flesh nor blood hath taught thee\nthese heresies, but thine own Father, the devil, that is in Hell. Ah,\nblasphemous beast, to whose roaring and lowing no good Christian man\ncan, without heaviness of heart, give ear.' {3} The next published\ntranslation was by Miles Coverdale (born 1535), who partially used\nTyndale's text. Coverdale appears only to have translated from the\nDutch and Latin into English. It does not seem at all clear that Tyndale\ntranslated from the Greek and Hebrew direct. It is quite certain that\nprior to this time the monks placed great difficulties in the way of\nacquiring either of those languages, in fact, Erasmus tells us that\nto know Greek was to be suspected, and to know Hebrew would prove you\nheretic outright.\n\nThe next is known as Matthewe's Bible, which is supposed to have been\nissued in the early part of the sixteenth century, by Richard Grafton.\nIt is merely a collation of the texts of Tyndale and Coverdale.\n\nAbout the same time were issued Cranmer's and Taverner's editions of the\nBible.\n\nThe Geneva edition, issued in 1560, is that which is commonly known as\nthe 'Breeches Bible,' on account of the translation of Genesis, c. 3, v.\n7. I have a copy of this in reference.\n\nBishop Parker's Bible was issued in 1568. This edition was completed\nby the aid of several learned men, and differs considerably from its\npredecessors.\n\nIn 1582, the Douay edition of the New Testament was issued; and, in\n1609, the Old Testament also. The former was printed at Rheims, the\nlatter at Douay; and both were issued under the superintendence of\nCardinal Allen. This brings us to the period at which what is commonly\nknown as the authorised version was issued. This being the version I\nhave to examine, I shall quote the history of it as given in an able\narticle which appeared in the _Penny Cyclop\u00e6dia_:--'Early in the\nreign of King James I., there was a conference of divines of different\nopinions, at Hampton Court, for the settling of the peace of the Church.\nIn this conference much was said concerning the imperfection of the\nexisting translations of the Scriptures. The king himself, who was often\npresent at these meetings, expressed a strong opinion on that point of\nthe debate. \"I wish,\" said he, \"some special pains were taken for an\nuniform translation, which should be done by the best learned in both\nUniversities, then reviewed by the bishops, presented to the Privy\nCouncil, and, lastly, ratified by royal authority, to be read in the\nwhole Church, and no other.\" Out of this speech of the king's arose\nthe present English Bible; for the suggestion soon ripened into a\nresolution. As this is the Bible which has for more than two centuries\nbeen the only Bible allowed to be read in the English Church, and as it\nis also the Bible universally used in dissenting communities, we may\nbe expected to give a more extended notice of it than of the former\neditions. Fifty-four of the persons in that age most distinguished for\nthat particular species of learning which such a duty required, were\nselected for the work, according to the king's suggestion; finally,\nforty-seven of them undertook it. They divided themselves into six\nindependent classes, to each of which a certain portion of the work was\nassigned. Each person in the class was to produce his own translation of\nthe whole {4} committed to them, and these several translations were to\nbe revised at a general meeting of the class. When the class had agreed\nupon their version, it was to be transmitted to each of the other\nclasses; so that no part was to come out without the sanction of the\nwhole body.\n\n'Two of the classes sat at Westminster, two at Oxford, and two at\nCambridge. The instructions which they received from the king were, that\nthey should adhere to the Bishops' Bible, which was then ordinarily\nread in the Churches, making as few deviations from it as possible.\nThey were, however, to use the other versions, and to consult the\ntranslations which had been made into other modern languages; and they\nwere to keep in the old ecclesiastical words, such as Church, etc. When\na word had divers significations, \"that should be kept which had been\nmost commonly used by the ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the\npropriety of the place and the analogy of faith.\" No marginal notes were\nto be used, except for the further explication of some Greek or Hebrew\nword. References to parallel passages might be given. They were to call\nin the assistance of any learned man who was known to have made this\nsubject his study.\n\n'They were employed upon the work for three years, namely from 1607 to\n1610; proceeding with that deliberation and care which so weighty an\nundertaking required. The names of the divines engaged in it, and the\nportions known which were committed to each class, are reserved. If we\nsay that there are few names among them which have acquired a lasting\ncelebrity, we are only saying of them what is the usual fete of divines.\nThe name of Bishop Andrews is first in place and the first in celebrity.\nIt is believed that Bancroft, then Archbishop of Canterbury, though not\none of the professed translators, had much to do in the superintendence\nof the work. It came forth from the press of Robert Barker in 1611.'\n\nI have a copy printed by Robert Barker before me which contains the\nwhole eighty books. It begins with these words, 'The first book of\nMoses, called Genesis.' Not one word of this title is to be found in\nthe Hebrew. The word Genesis is a Greek word, signifying production,\ngeneration, birth, origin, or formation. It seems curious that the\ntranslators should have given a Hebrew book a Greek title. In the\nHebrew there is no title to the book; the first word [------] (in the\nbeginning) is merely written in larger characters. The headings to each\npage and chapter are also additions made by the translators; and this\nis sometimes very important, as they are made to improperly govern\nthe meaning of the text. As to Genesis being called 'the first book of\nMoses,' I think that grave censure should be cast on those who prefixed\nthose words; they are entirely omitted in the Douay edition. Long since,\nour churchmen have been acquainted with the fact that these words,\nfixing the authorship on Moses, form no part of the original text, yet\nthey allow edition after edition to be printed bearing the same title as\nthat of 1611. Why is this? It is not that they are afraid of tampering\nwith the authorised version, for they have actually, in the later\neditions, omitted the whole fourteen books of the Apocrypha, which were\nincluded in the original edition. {5} In an edition of King James's\nauthorised version, printed in 1630, the page containing Ezekiel,\nchapter 7, is headed by mistake with the word 'Apocrypha.' This mistake\nhas been corrected in the later editions; why not also have corrected\nthose five false statements which allege Moses as the author of the\nPentateuch? There have been, also, several printers' errors corrected in\nthe later editions, yet the words in question are allowed to stand;\nwhy is this? again I ask. The persistence in an error of so important a\ncharacter would justify suspicion, and even the allegation of fraudulent\nintent on the part of those who issue the book. It is an attempt to give\nan anonymous work an undue claim on our attention. Moses himself, in no\npart of the five books, claims to be the author of them; and in no part\nof the Bible is he alleged to be the writer of the Pentateuch. It is\ncertainly alleged that Moses wrote 'the law,' 'the book of the law,'\nbut there is nothing whatever to show that that work outlived the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, and there are several express declarations to\nthe contrary (_vide_ Letter on the Pentateuch by Thomas Cooper, M.D.,\nand Esdras, chap, xiv., v. 21). I am aware of the texts quoted by those\nwho allege that Moses was the author of the whole Pentateuch; viz.,\nExodus, chap, xvii., v. 14, chap, xxiv., v. 4 and 7, chap, xxxiv., v.\n27, Numbers, chap, xxxiii., v. 1 and 2, Deuteronomy, chap, i., v. 5,\nchap, xxxi., v. 9, 13, 22, 24, 26; but do not think that they will, even\nin the hands of the most partial supporter of the Mosaic hypothesis,\nbear on the question sufficiently to decide it in the affirmative, or\neven to create a presumption in its favour. That Moses was the author\nof the Pentateuch as it now stands is a proposition which no intelligent\nman in the present day will venture to support, especially after the\nelaborate criticisms of Aben Ezra, Spinoza, Hobbes, Peyrerius, Astruc,\nPere Simon, Volney, Voltaire, Gesenius, Vater, Paine, and others. The\nwhole of the five books abound with passages which could not have been\nwritten by Moses, or during his life time. See--Genesis, chap, xii.,\nv. 6, also chap, xiii., v. 7; these verses must have been written at a\nperiod when the Canaanites had been expelled from the land of which they\nwere in quiet possession during the lifetime of Moses:--\n\nGenesis, chap, xiv., v. 14. The city of Lais, Laish, or Leshem, was\nnot called Dan until long after the death of Moses, when the Danites\npossessed themselves of it and called it after Dan, their father (vide\nJoshua, chap, xix., v. 47, and Judges, chap, xviii., v. 29):--Genesis,\nchap, xiii., v. 18, chap, xxiii., v. 2 and 19, chap, xxv., v. 27, &c.\nThese verses and several others, in which Hebron is named, cannot be\nfrom the pen of Moses, for there was no such place as Hebron in his\nday. Kirjath Arba was not called Hebron until given to Caleb, son of\nJephunneh, long after the death of Moses (vide Joshua, chap, xiv., v. 14\nand 15):--\n\nGenesis, chap, xx., v. 16, and chap, xxiii., v. 15 and 16. Of these\nverses, Voltaire writes as follows; 'Learned and ingenious men, full\nof their own talents and acquirements, have maintained that it is {6}\nimpossible Moses could have written the book of Genesis. One of their\nprincipal reasons is, that in the history of Abraham that patriarch is\nstated to have paid for a cave he purchased for the interment of his\nwife, in silver coin; and the King of Gerar to have given Sarah a\nthousand pieces of silver, when he restored her, after having carried\nher off for her beauty at the age of seventy-five. They inform us that\nthey have consulted all the ancient authors, and that it appears\nvery certain that, at the period mentioned, silver money was not in\nexistence:--\n\nGenesis, chap. xxii. v. 14. It is asserted that Mount Moriah was not\ncalled the Mount of the Lord until after the Temple was erected thereon,\ncenturies after the death of Moses:--\n\nGenesis, chap, xxxvi., v. 31. This could not have been written until\nkings had ruled over the Children of Israel, which would bring the\nauthorship to the time of Saul, even conceding the earliest date.\nVoltaire says, 'this is the celebrated passage which has proved one of\nthe great stumbling-stones; this it was which decided the great\nNewton, the proud and acute Samuel Clarke, the profound and philosophic\nBolingbroke, the learned Le Clerc, the ingenious Freret, and a host of\nother enlightened men, to maintain that it was impossible Moses could\nhave been the author of Genesis':--\n\nExodus, chap, xvi., v. 35. This could not have been written by Moses,\nas manna did not cease until after his death (vide Joshua, chap, v., v.\n12):--\n\nNumbers, chap, xii., v. 3. No man will for one moment suppose that a\nmeek man would write his own character, to be handed down to posterity\nin this fashion. Paine, quoting the verse, says, 'If Moses said this\nof himself, instead of being the meekest of men, he was one of the most\nvain and arrogant of coxcombs, and the advocates for these books may now\ntake which side they please, for both sides are against them; if Moses\nwas not the author, the book is without authority, and if he was the\nauthor, is without credit, because to boast of meekness is the reverse\nof meekness, and is a lie in sentiment':--\n\nDeuteronomy, chap, i., v. 1 and 5, and chap iv., v. 41 to 49. 'These\nbe the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on the other side of\nJordan.' Our version gives it, 'this side Jordan,' but the Hebrew word\nin each verse is [------] which even the orthodox Park-hurst translates\nas meaning over, beyond, on the other side (_vide_ Parkhurst's Lexicon,\np. 509, article [------] and Dr. Cooper's Letter, p. 41 to 44). In fact,\nthe translators of the Bible have themselves translated this very word\ndifferently in Deuteronomy, chap, iv., v. 49. It of course follows that,\nas Moses never crossed the river Jordan, he could not have been the\nauthor of the verses in which the expression occurs:--\n\nDeuteronomy, chap, ii., v. 12. This could not have been written by\nMoses, as in his day the Children of Israel had not even reached, much\nless entered into possession of the promised land:--\n\nDeuteronomy, chap, xxxiii. It is scarcely probable that Moses wrote a\nchapter containing phrases such as 'the man of God, Moses, {7} blessed\nthe Children of Israel before his death,' 'Moses commanded us a law,'\n&c:--Deuteronomy, chap, xxxiv. I do not consider it necessary to reason\nupon the proposition that a man cannot write an account of his own death\nand burial, or to endeavour to prove that he cannot relate that his\ngrave remains undiscovered to the present day. Beside which, the names\nused in this chapter are those which were given to the places after the\nIsraelites had obtained possession of the land, and which could not have\nbeen known in the time of Moses. The same remark applies to Deuteronomy,\nchap, iv., v. 43, in which the reader will at once discover a glaring\nanachronism, as it is impossible Bezer, Gilead, and Golan, could have\nbeen called Bezer of the Reubenites, Gilead of the Gadites, and Golan\nof the Mannassites, until after those tribes had conquered and taken\npossession of Bezer, Gilead, and Golan respectively, which they did not\ndo until after the death of Moses.\n\nIn Dr. Cooper's able letter to Professor Silliman, Spinoza's 'Tractates\nTheologico-Politicus,' Pere Simon's critical history of the Old\nTestament, Voltaire's 'Philosophical Dictionary,' Volney upon Ancient\nHistory, as also in the notes to Volney's 'Ruins,' and in Thomas Paine's\n'Age of Reason,' part 2, the reader will find the arguments I have used\nmore fully elaborated.\n\nIn Professor Newman's 'Phases of Faith,' pp. 83 and 84, there is an\neloquent repudiation of the attempts at argument of those theologians\nwho contend for the Mosaic Pentateuch. (The word Pentateuch is a\ncompound Greek word, meaning five books.)\n\nWhy should we acknowledge Moses as the author of Genesis, Exodus,\nLeviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy? We have positive evidence that he\nwas not the writer of very many portions, and we have no evidence at all\nto support the assertion that he wrote a single line of either of the\nfive books.\n\nIn Voltaire's dialogue between the monk and the honest man, the\nfollowing remarks occur:--\n\n'1.--It seems difficult that Moses could have written the Pentateuch\nwhich we attribute to him, in the desert. If his people came from\nEgypt, where they had lived, says the author, 400 years (although he is\nmistaken in 200 years), the book would, probably, have been written in\nEgyptian, and we are told it was in Hebrew. It must have been graven\nupon stone or wood, because, in the time of Moses, they had no other\nmode of writing. This was a very difficult art, and one which required\nlong preparations, since it was necessary to polish the wood or the\nstone. It does not appear that this art would have been exercised in a\ndesert, where, according to the book itself, the Jewish horde were not\nable to make their own clothes and shoes, and where God was obliged to\nwork a continual miracle during forty years to preserve their vestments\nwithout decaying, and the coverings of their legs and feet. It is so\ntrue that they were only able to write upon stone, that the author of\nthe book of Joshua says that Deuteronomy was written upon an altar of\nrough stones, plastered with mortar. It appears Joshua did not even\nimagine this book was durable. {8} '2.--Those men who are most versed\nin antiquity think these books were written more than 700 years after\nMoses. They found this opinion upon that which is spoken of the Kings of\nEdom and Israel, when there were no kings till a long time after Moses;\nupon the position of the cities, which is false if the books were\nwritten in the desert, and true if they were written at Jerusalem; upon\nthe names of the cities and small towns of which these books speak,\nwhich were neither built nor called by the names there given them till\nmany ages afterwards, &c.'\n\nPrevious to my analysis of the first chapter of Genesis, I shall quote\nfrom an able letter which appeared in a provincial paper a short time\nsince, and in which I fully concur.\n\n'Before entering into a detailed examination of the Mosaic narrative,\nI will glance at the order and operation of its incidents. This is the\nmore necessary, as the sequence of those operations becomes a leading\nand important feature in the final deductions.\n\n'Genesis, read in its literal sense, teaches that, on the first day God\ndirected light to be, and divided light from darkness, calling the light\nday and darkness night, 'On the second day He placed a firmament to\ndivide the waters, gathering the waters together and forming dry land,\nwhich He commanded to bring forth grass and herbs yielding seed, and\ntrees yielding fruit.\n\n'On the fourth day He placed lights in the firmament to give light upon\nthe earth; and, on the same day, He made two great lights, the greater\nto rule the day, the lesser the night; and he also made the stars, and\nplaced them in the firmament to give light upon the earth.\n\nOn the fifth day the sea was commanded to bring forth the living\ncreature that had life, and the fowl that might fly above the earth in\nthe open firmament.\n\n'The great whales were also created on that day, and every living thing\nthat moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind,\nand every winged fowl after his kind.\n\n'The first part of the sixth day opens with the creation of the beasts\nof the earth, and cattle, and everything that creepeth on the earth;\nconsummating the mighty work with the creation of man.\n\n'My task is to prove that, so far as geology and the sister sciences\nhave examined into the results of this creation, neither the order,\nthe mode, nor the period of operations can, on physical evidences, be\nsustained.\n\n'\"God said, let there be light, and there was light.\" We have here a\nfiat originating light; but from what physical source was that luminous\neffect evolved? Neither sun nor moon was yet made; not a single star had\ntwinkled in the heavens; nor was a firmament or atmosphere placed, as\na vehicle for the rays. By what natural law could there be light? The\ncommon rudiments of Physics teach us that air diffuses the solar beams,\nthereby causing the brightness of that portion of light called, from\nthe earliest recorded period, \"day.\" Without that diffusive medium, the\nheavenly bodies would be sharply {9} defined balls of apparent fire, in\nthe profoundly black vault of heaven. Science has never, hitherto, found\na substitute for the sun; nor research discovered a period since the\nearth existed, having evening and morning, without one.\n\n'The terms \"evening and morning\" of a day have, from all recorded time,\nconveyed to the mind distinct impressions; evening, that portion of sun\nlight immediately preceding and succeeding its apparent departure or\ndisappearance below our horizon; morning, that portion of light that\nimmediately precedes and succeeds its apparent rising above. They also\nimply two other divisions of time, night and mid-day. Now, we have\nthe direct conclusive evidence daily exhibited, that the sun, or its\nluminous atmosphere, by recognised laws and combinations, lights the\nworld; and that darkness, as a necessary consequence, follows its\nabsence.\n\n'If the earth had existed independently of the sun, it would have been\na wanderer in space, under circumstances which are decidedly\ninconceivable. Yet Genesis relates that there was light, without a sun\nto give it forth, or medium to diffuse its rays. We have also involved\nin this order of creation the phenomena of a diurnal rotation, indicated\nwithout any central source of light to make the period or time of\nrevolution, and a planet revolving in an orbit without a centre round\nwhich to revolve. Scientific observations and deductions, every day\nevidences of the physical laws that govern our solar system, lead\nclearly to the conclusion that the sun, 140,000 times larger than the\nearth, was the first born. Genesis asserts that our pigmy earth was its\nprecursor.\n\n'Whence, without sun or moon or stars, did this light, in accordance\nwith any known natural law, proceed; and how was the division of evening\nand morning of the first day indicated?\n\n'The second day's creation again gives us an evening and morning without\nany arrangement to measure those divisions of time, and still without\nany source from which light could proceed. What the waters were above\nthe firmament or atmosphere, I cannot discover; certainly clouds are not\n_above_ the firmament or atmosphere, but _floating in it_; and of any\nother aqueous aggregations _above the firmament_ we know nothing.\n\n'In the third day's creation we have dry land appearing, and grass and\nherb yielding seed, and fruit trees yielding fruit brought forth.\n\n'We have, as yet, had no sun to shine on the earth created, to give\ncolour to the leaves or to the flowers; to ripen the seeds of herbs\nyielding seed, or the fruit of trees yielding fruit. Neither does\nGenesis mention any other creation of plants; we must therefore infer\nthis creation originated all the vegetable world.\n\n'The present number of named species of plants is about 280,000, spread\nin provinces over the known world. The greater part of this large\nnumber are peculiar in their habits, and arbitrary in their provinces of\ngrowth. The palms of the tropics would die in the ungenial atmosphere of\nthe northern hemisphere; and the plants that flourish under the chilling\nblasts of the Arctic Regions would wither under {10} the scorching suns\nof the Torrid Zone. It is, therefore, a preliminary question--was this\na multitudinous creation, assorted to their several localities, or\na creation of one or two plants of a class from whence all the rest\nproceeded? If the former is alleged, I ask, as the ordered world was\nthen only two days old, what provision was there, by known laws, to\nmeet numerous physical wants of this immense creation? Were they created\nperfect plants, as we are informed they were, yielding seed, or only the\ngerms for future growth? If perfect plants, I apprehend the periodical\nrings, the distinctive mark of the exogens, would, by natural laws, be\nwanting; but, I suppose, added in the plants proceeding from the\nparent stem. We have, then, a _development_ process at once admitted; a\nprocess, I conceive, manifestly opposed to the Mosaic narrative.\n\n'Of the oneness of vegetable \"creation,\" \"making,\" or \"formation,\"\nGenesis leaves no doubt. Now Geology, or rather palaeontology, adduces\nmany proofs which, to unbiassed minds, I apprehend, will be conclusive,\nthat such was not the case; but, on the contrary, the vegetable world\nprogressed with the altered structural and climatic conditions of the\nearth. This is evidenced by the presence of special fossil vegetable\nproductions in certain strata, and the absence of others. Negative\nevidence may, in some cases, be inconclusive; but it must be borne in\nmind that there are certain conditions or collateral circumstances which\nimpart to _negative_ the force and conclusiveness of _positive_ and\ndirect affirmative testimony. Thus, in considering the value of that\nevidence in favour of the existence of a certain class of vegetable\nlife at any given period, if we find (says the Rev. B. Powell) that\nsome vegetable forms existed, and a fitness at the same period for the\nexistence of others, the non-appearance of the latter in such cases is\ntantamount to \"non-existence.\" On evidence thus valued we will inquire\ninto the simultaneous creation and existence of the vegetable world as\nrelated in the 11th and 12th verses.\n\n'Through nearly the entire range of the immense Silurian deposits we\nfind only traces of algae, the lowest form of plants of the Thallogens.\nSir R. J. Murchison says, \"there are _no traces of land plants_ in the\ngreat mass of the Silurian rocks.\"\n\n'The first evidence we have in the Devonian of terrestrial vegetation\nis a doubtful specimen of the fern tribe; yet, through these immense\nperiods, a large surface of dry land is evidenced by the extent of\nthe sedimentary deposits of the earlier stratified formations; for, as\nProfessor Nicoll observes, \"any sedimentary deposition implies not only\nthe existence of a sea in which its materials were deposited, but of\nlands from which they were derived.\"\n\n'When we enter on the Carboniferous, we \"are surrounded by the spoils\nof the first great woody era.\" Now, during the Carboniferous period, it\ncannot be denied that we have every requisite for supporting vegetable\nlife, and the most undeniable evidence of its existence by the\nfossiliferous preservation of near 500 species. These were peculiar to\nthe Carboniferous period. They died away and have not left one species\nspecifically the same with our present vegetation. {11} 'Further, there\nis scarcely any evidence of a true exogen up to and through the vast and\nimmeasurable periods of the coal measures; and he who dreams that, in\nthe woods of the primeval world there flourished the oak, the elm,\nand the hundreds of our other forest productions, introduces in\nthe landscape a feature equally immaginative to the wildest Eastern\nallegory. Of the great family of the leguminosae we have no trace until\nwe come to the London clay, forming a part of the eocene series. In\nthe same formation (deposited in the geological calculation tens of\nthousands of years past, and hundreds of thousands of years subsequent\nto the Carboniferous era) we have abundance of fossil fruits---palm\nnuts, custard apples, and the gourd and melon family. That the most\ndelicate and perishable parts of vegetable structure can be preserved\nthrough immense periods of time, is shown by the state of these, and\nalso of the fossil ligneous coverings of nuciferous fruits, cones of\nfirs, and even the indication of flowers. This preservation of parts of\nfructification, and the pollen of coniferae, displays the art with\nwhich nature embalms her relics. Who, having examined the fossils of the\nCarboniferous beds, can fail being struck with amazement at the\nclear and distinct tracing of leaves and forms of the most delicate\narticulation and structure? We have, also, in our coal measures, found\ntrees of species long extinct, thirty to forty feet high, with roots\nattached as they grew _in situ_.\n\n'These were of a structure far more liable to perish than the hard,\nclose grained exogens of our days. But palaeontology discloses that\nnature has been guided in her formations by certain laws pre-eminently\nevidenced by her vegetable productions.\n\n'A large portion of the earth's surface, we may infer from analogy, in\nthe Carboniferous ages had the appearance of an immense Polynesia of\nequable temperature, where her peculiar vegetable productions grew in\nimmense profusion, and, for their species, attained gigantic size.\n\n'Immediately after this period, land vegetation almost disappears; and\nnot until the deposition of the tertiaries do we find the dawning of\nnew species of varied structures. After entering thereon, an entirely\ndifferent view opens to us. Birch, pines, and evergreen shrubs, species\nof the orange and gourd families, of the leguminosae and mallows,\nabound. We have here wherewith to make a forest, a garden, a feast. Now\nall these floras depart in type more or less from their predecessors;\neach in its turn died out, as Buffon emphatically states, because \"time\nfought against them.\" They are peculiar to the days of their existence;\nbut the past and the present unite in proclaiming, trumpet-tongued, that\nthese multitudinous species had neither one centre nor one period of\ncreation. The remarkable statement of the much-regretted Professor\nEdward Forbes, in his presidential address to the Geological Society\nin 1854, of the fauna or animal life of the creation, applies more\nstrongly, if possible, to the flora. \"More evident does it become\nevery day,\" said that eminent naturalist, \"that the old notion of an\n_universal primaeval_ fauna is _untenable_, and that at {12} all epochs,\nfrom the earliest preserved to us to the latest, there were natural\nhistory provinces in geographical space.\"\n\n'Now we find that, although seeds, herbs, and flowers and plants were\nstated to have been \"created,\" \"made,\" or \"formed,\" on the third day,\nwe find no evidence of their existence during periods incalculable\nsubsequent to the appearance of animal life. Any short period of\n_non-appearance_ might not satisfy the requirements for the proof\nof \"non-existence;\" but the astounding fact or the absence of the\nvegetation specifically the same as the present, through all the\nintervening series from the earliest dawn of life to the tertiary, can\nleave no doubt on any unbiassed or candid mind of their \"non-existence\"\nin the early ages of the created world, and of their subsequent altered\nstructure. May we not fairly argue and expect that in such multitudinous\nspecies some evidence of their existence during enormous periods\n(especially when we find remains of other vegetable forms and animal\nlife abound) would appear. And if this one day's work does not disclose\nthe whole vegetable creation, when or at what period did the subsequent\none take place?\n\n'I apprehend I have shown circumstances surrounding the negative\nevidence, to give to the non-appearance of land vegetation through the\nperiods of the Silurian and Devonian the force of proof of nonexistence.\n\n'I also submit that I have shown, by direct evidence, that there was\nno oneness of creation of vegetable life, but that altered forms and\nstructure were peculiar to periods in which they flourished; and\nthat there never did exist any immense primaeval flora as narrated in\nGenesis.\n\n'I have thus far had the task of showing how negative evidence,. in the\nnon-appearance and the subsequent varied forms, contradict the order of\noneness in the creation or \"formation\" of vegetable life.\n\n'I will now produce positive evidence bearing upon the same\ndiscrepancies. We have in the third day the creation of vegetable life,\nbut _no animal life_ until the fifth day--then we have (we must be\nexcused reiteration) fish and fowl and the whales, whilst on the sixth\nand last day were brought forth creeping things. The first sign of\nanimal life yet discovered is of the radiate class, in the lowest\nzone of the lower Silurian. We have another class of animal life, the\n_articulata_,\n\nin the same zone; and we have some three hundred species of molluscs\nthrough the silurian. Nay, so large is the last named class at this\nearly period, that it is denominated by American geologists \"the age\nof molluscs.\" I must remind our readers that during the whole of this\nimmeasurable age, we have not a single authenticated _land plant_; nay,\nfurther, we have _fish_, the creation of the _fifth_ day, before aught\nof the _third day's_ creation appears.\n\n'We have, also, a reptilian vertebrate land animal in the Devonian ages\nincalculably before the appearance of any seed bearing herbs or fruit\nbearing plants. Here, then, is positive and direct evidence of the\nappearance of types of the four great groups of animal life--the\n_radiate_, the _articulate_, the molusca, and the vertebrata--not a\nfew hours {13} or days or months, or a few years, but thousands upon\nthousands of years before a single evidence of the seed-bearing and\nfruit-bearing plants of the first day's creation existed. It must not be\nsaid they might have existed yet are not preserved, for this is opposed\nto the facts previously stated of the preservation of the algae and\nfucoids during these periods, and of the immense flora during the\nsubsequent coal formation, and the pollen, flowers, fruits, leaves,\nand trees in still younger formations. Nor can it be met by an argument\nagainst the fitness of the condition of the earth at this time.\n\n'If, on the other hand, it is urged, Where are the evidences of the\nexistence of these several forms of life at the periods stated? I\nanswer, the facts bearing out my assertions will be found recorded in\nLyell, Murchison, Phillips, and Morris (the collectors from the several\nstrata named), all geological writers of repute; and the fossil forms\nthemselves can be examined in the museums of the country.'\n\nAmongst the many works which have been issued for the purpose of\nexplaining away the discrepancies between Geology and Genesis, is one by\nDommick McCausland, entitled 'Sermons in Stones,' and the following is\na portion of the mode of harmonising pursued by the author. While\nadmitting that the transactions mentioned in the first chapter of\nGrenesis could not be brought within the compass of six days, it is\nurged by Mr. McCausland that the scene of the creation was presented to\nMoses 'In a series of visions, each separate one occupying an evening\nand a morning, that is to say, an intermediate night, _the season of\nvisions or dreams_. So that, in commencing our task of making revelation\nreasonable, we are to imagine that Moses dreamed the whole of the\nhistory of the creation.\n\nBut even this hypothesis is open to objection. What 'scene' could\n'present to the vision of Moses' (if we admit Moses to be the dreamer)\nan earth without form and void, especially with darkness upon the face\nof it? It is true that, if you suppose the writer dreamed the whole\nstory of the creation, it will account for much that is otherwise most\nimprobable; for we all know what strange images are conjured before\nus in our dreaming moments, sometimes they are compounds, sometimes\nreversals, of our waking experience.\n\nMcCausland proceeds, 'It is well known that the transactions of years\nare often compressed, in a dream, into the space of a few minutes; on\nthe same principle, the operations of the divine author of creation,\nwhich _may_ have occupied a long series of years, may have been\npresented to Moses as the events of a single day.' What may have been or\nmay not have been, is hardly sufficient to base an argument upon. It is\nmost extraordinary that, in discussions upon this subject, the reverend\nadvocates arrogate to themselves the right of conjecturing 'What God\nmeant to do,' 'What God's intentions were,' 'What might have happened\nbefore this occurred or that was prevented,' 'That this is literal,'\n'That that is allegorical,' etc., etc.; and yet, while they are\nconjecturing and supposing outside the text to an unlimited extent,\nit becomes rank blasphemy to advance an opinion to the plain English\nmeaning of the text itself. I am afraid that Moses {14} is not the only\ndreamer; for a few pages further I find this remarkable sentence,\n'We know from Geology, in confirmation of Scripture, that there was\na beginning, when the universe was formed out of nothing'!! In which\nstrata or in what rock was this knowledge found? Are we to be told in\nthe present day that in the universe we find evidence which convinces\nus that there was a period when the substance of that universe did not\nexist--when there was nothing? Why, the very form of words conveys\nan absurd and contradictory meaning. It is impossible for man, in his\nboldest flights of imagination or doubting, to annihilate existence; he\nmay, in his fancy, vary its modes, but he cannot, even in his wildest\nmoods, ignore its substance.\n\nOf the fiat, 'let there be light.' the harmonizer says, 'This divine\ncommand and the result of it does not negative the previous existence\nof light. It only conveys the information that light was commanded to\nshine. The sun had sent forth his rays from the date of the creation,\nbut the black misty envelope of the deep could not be penetrated until\nthe divine fiat went forth for the advent of light to its surface.'\nQuoting Genesis, chap, i, v. 14 to 19, he says, 'With respect to this\nlanguage, all philologists agree that it does not mean that the sun,\nmoon, and stars were for the first time called into existence at this\nperiod of the creation.' This is not true; if the verses mean anything,\nthey positively do mean that the sun, moon, and stars were, for the\nfirst time, created on the fourth day, and it is only the evident\nfalsity of this statement which has compelled religious philologists to\ntwist 'the language' into a spiritual meaning.\n\nWe learn from such works as the 'Sermons in Stones,' that the warmest\nadvocates of scriptural history find so glaring a discordance as to\nimmediately compel them to relinquish the literal version; with the\nstrongest faith they cannot believe in light before the sun--they cannot\nreverse the order of the different strata as revealed by the science of\ngeology, and they therefore tell you that you must call in your fancy\n(or rather _their_ fancy) to the aid of your revelation, and, by\nsubtracting from, or liberally adding to, the words of the text, they\nwill melt the strongest contradiction. You must read prayerfully, that\nis, you must be prepared to cast away your senses every time they are\nopposed to your Bible.\n\n'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' The word here\ntranslated God is [------] (Alehim or Elohim) which is a plural noun\n(_vide_ Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon, article [------], and although\ntranslated by the singular word God, it is often associated with plural\nadjectives, pronouns, and verbs, see Genesis, chap, i, v. 26, chap,\niii, y. 22, chap, xi, v. 7; nay more, on the same orthodox authority\nwe learn, that in many other passages the translators have ignored the\nplural accompaniments for the purpose of supporting the orthodox theory,\nand yet we are told in the present day that the Bible does not want\nretranslation. It has been before pointed out that there is a double\ncreation narrated, one from Genesis, chap, i, v. 1 to chap. ii, v. 3;\nin this the only word used is the plural word Alehim, or the {15} Gods\n(that is, if Alehim be either God or Gods as it has been differently\ntranslated; elsewhere we find the expression 'God' applied to\nMoses--this would lead us to doubt as to the precise meaning of the\nword. I am told by some of my reverend friends that the meaning of the\nword God is varied according to the mode of printing; if with a capital\nletter 'God,' it means an incomprehensible anything they like, if with\na small initial, 'god,' it means an inferior anything you like). Volney,\nin the notes to his 'Ruins of Empires,' says, 'If we further observe\nthat the root of the word _Elohim_ signifies strong or powerful, and\nthat the Egyptians called their decans strong and powerful leaders,\nattributing to them the creation of the world, we shall presently\nperceive that the Book of Genesis affirms neither more nor less than\nthat the world was created by the _decans_, by those very genii whom,\naccording to Sanconiathon, Mercury excited against Saturn, and who were\ncalled _Elohim_. It may be further asked why the plural substantive\n_Elohim_ is made to agree with the singular verb bara (the Elohim\ncreates). The reason is, that after the Babylonish captivity, the unity\nof the Supreme Being was the prevailing opinion of the Jews; it was\ntherefore thought proper to introduce a pious solecism in language,\nwhich it is evident had no existence before Moses. Thus, in the names of\nthe children of Jacob, many of them are compounded of a plural verb, to\nwhich Elohim is the nominative case understood; as _Raouben_ (Reuben),\n_they have looted upon me_, and _Samaonm_ (Simeon), _they have granted\nme my prayer_, to wit, the Elohim. The reason of this etymology is to be\nfound in the religious creeds of the wives of Jacob, whose Gods were the\ntaraphim of Laban, that is, the angels of the Persians, and the Egyptian\ndecans.' The other account commences with the fourth verse of the second\nchapter, and in this the words translated 'Lord God' are [------]; what\nthese really mean it is impossible to say, unless they mean Chief of\nthe Gods. Parkhurst translates it into a trinity. The word [------]\n(rendered in our version Jehovah) simply represents time past, present,\nand future. The two accounts differ considerably; in the first we find\nwater forming an important feature, and ultimately drained off so that\nthe dry land appears; in the second we have the land dry without water,\nand it becomes necessary to send a mist to water the face of the earth.\n\nGenesis, chap, i, v. 1 to 27. Whoever wrote these verses must either\nhave been an inspired man, a dupe, or a knave--that is, he could not\nhave gathered from tradition, because here tradition is outstepped; it\ncould not have been known by man, as he was not yet made; he must either\nhave received it from God, or have been deceived by man, or must have\nintended to deceive man himself. If inspired, it is a pity God did not\nexplain the creation of light before the sun ( verse 3), the creation of\nherbs and fruit trees bearing seed and fruit before there was a sun to\nripen the fruit and bring the seed to maturity (verse 11), the creation\nof 'female-man' in his own image (verse 27), etc. By verse 29 it appears\nthat God intended man to be a vegetarian; by Genesis, chap, ix, v. 3, he\ngave them all kinds {16} of cattle for food; and by Leviticus, chap, xi,\nv. 12, he forbade man to eat certain kinds there specified; one of God's\nattributes notwithstanding all this is immutability. Chap. ii. v. 2\nand 3, he rested on the seventh day and blessed it and sanctified it,\nbecause in it he had rested:--see Deuteronomy, chap, v, v. 12 to 15;\nwhich is the correct reason for the sanctifying the sabbath day?\n\n*Chapter ii, v. 4. This, as it is translated, seems ridiculous: 'the\ngenerations of the heavens and the earth.' What is the meaning of this\nphrase? What are the generations? From a careful reading of verses? 5,\n6, and 7, it would appear that God did not make man out of the dry dust;\nand that it was not until a mist had watered the whole face of the earth\nthat he formed man. This may account for the creed of the negro, who\nbelieved that God made Adam from mud, and who assigned as a reason that\ndry dust would not stick together. In verse 9 are mentioned the 'tree of\nlife' and the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil.' If these expressions\noccurred in the 'Arabian Nights' tales, we might not regard them as\ninappropriate, for in such books, which make no pretensions to truth,\nwe expect to find tales of ghosts, witches, men carried off in fiery\nchariots, devils walking about bodily, donkeys speaking, and men passing\nthrough furnaces unhurt; but when we are told that a book is inspired by\nthe God of truth, and in its early pages find mention made of a tree, by\neating the fruit of which a man might live for ever, and that by eating\nof the fruit of another tree, a man would get knowledge of good and\nevil, with other fabulous expressions of a like nature, we cannot help a\nfeeling of astonishment.\n\nOf verses 10 to 14 Voltaire speaks as follows:--'According to this\nversion, the earthly paradise would have contained nearly a third part\nof Asia and of Africa. The sources of the Euphrates and the Tigris are\nsixty leagues distant from each other, in frightful mountains bearing no\npossible resemblance to a garden. The river which borders Ethiopia,\nand which can be no other than the Nile, commences its course at the\ndistance of more than a thousand leagues from the sources of the Tigris\nand Euphrates; and if the Pison means the Phasis, it is not a little\nsurprising that the source of a Scythian river and that of an African\none should be situated on the same spot. We must therefore look for some\nother explanation, and for other rivers. Every commentator has got up a\nParadise of his own.'\n\nDr. John Pye Smith suggests that the description is antediluvian, and\nthat the deluge changed the courses of many streams; that hence we\nmust not expect to find any spot conforming to the exact geographical\ndescription. If antediluvian, Moses did not write it.\n\n'Verse 15. \"The Lord then took the man and put him into the Garden of\nEden that he might cultivate it.\"\n\nVoltaire continues:--\n\n'It is very respectable and pleasant for a man to \"cultivate his\ngarden,\" but it must have been somewhat difficult for Adam to have\ndressed and kept in order a garden of a thousand leagues in length, even\nalthough he had been supplied with some assistants. {17} Commentators on\nthis subject, therefore, we again observe, are completely at a loss, and\nmust be content to exercise their ingenuity in conjecture. Accordingly,\nthese four rivers have been described as flowing through numberless\ndifferent territories.'\n\nVerses 16 and 17. It is a matter of great difficulty to refrain from\nridiculing the statement that there exist trees bearing such fruit, and\nafter overcoming this difficulty, it is still less comprehensible why\nGod should forbid man to acquire a knowledge of good and evil. Would not\nman's free access to this knowledge appear more in accordance with the\ncharacter of a just and merciful God? and is not knowledge necessary\nto man, especially when we find the serpent 'more subtle than other\nanimals,' plotting man's destruction?\n\nVerses 18 and 19. It is somewhat remarkable that immediately after the\nLord God had declared his intention of making a helpmeet\n\nfor Adam, that he formed all the beasts of the field and fowls of the\nair, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. This is\nopen to many objections; first, see chap, i, v. 21, but as we must admit\nthere are two distinct accounts of the creation, I will not further\nburden my work with the contradictions between them; second, the strong\nimprobability of the story of the Lord God bringing the beasts and fowl\nto see what Adam would call them; either the Lord God had fore-ordained\nthe names to be applied by Adam, or the theologians are wrong--either\nthe Lord God foreknew what names Adam would give each bird and beast,\nin which case Genesis is incorrect, or prescience, one of the attributes\napplied to Deity, is deficient; third, the immense time which this\nnaming of every bird and beast must have taken, especially when we\nremember that Adam was waiting for his wife--it almost appears as if\nverse 18 should come after verse 20 to make sense of the story. Lawrence\nsays that the account of all the animals being brought before Adam is\nzoologically impossible ('Lectures on Man,' p. 169). Voltaire says that\nif Adam had named the animals according to their various natures, he\nmust have either previously eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge,\nor it would apparently have answered no end for God to have interdicted\nhim from it. He must have already known more than the Royal Society or\nthe Academy of Sciences of Paris. The mode of manufacturing the woman\nfrom the rib of the man has been the subject of much controversy, but is\nonly noticed here as another illustration of the fabulous character of\nthe book we are dealing with.\n\nHaving passed through the two accounts of the creation contained in the\nanonymous book I am examining, I shall strive to ascertain the source\nfrom whence some of the doctrines and traditions contained in this book\nwere derived. Aware of the magnitude of my task, I will now only deal\nwith authorities to whom no exception should be taken by the religious\nreader. One is the pious and erudite Sir William Jones, the other the\nReverend Thomas Maurice. Of the claims of the first to our attention I\nwill say nothing, for every man ought to be more or less acquainted with\nthe character of {18} the great linguist; of the second I can only say\nthat I find his work issued under the countenance of the heads of the\nChurch, and supported by some of the first men of his day.\n\nWhen, at the present day, you point out to a Christian the striking\ncoincidence in many points between the Bible and the Hindoo and other\nsacred writings, he will tell you that the latter have been stolen from\nthe former. Is this the fact? I think not. Maurice, in his preface to\nhis 'Indian Antiquities,' says, 'The stupendous system of the Brahmin\nChronology, _extending back through millions of years_; the _obstinate\ndenial of a general deluge_ by those Brahmins; the perplexing doctrine\nof a trinity in the divine nature constantly recurring in the operations\nof Brahma, Vishnu, and Seeva, _a doctrine not to be traced to any\nimmediate connexion with the Jewish nation_; these were among the\n_delicate_ topics which neither the clerical nor historical functions\nin which I had engaged would allow of being passed over in silence. As I\nadvanced in my inquiries, I found that the primeval histories of all\nthe ancient empires of the earth amount to little more than the romantic\ndreams of astronomical mythology.'\n\nWeigh well this last sentence, read your Bibles attentively, and ask\nyourselves in what particular feature is Genesis superior to the Shastra\nor Bhagavat.\n\nThe following is from the Manava Sastra, the words of Menu, Son of\nBrahma, as quoted in vol. i of the 'Asiatic Researches,' page 244:--\n\n'\"This world (says he) was all darkness, undiscernible,\nundistinguishable, altogether as in profound sleep; till the\nself-existent invisible God, making it manifest with five elements and\nother glorious forms, perfectly expelled the gloom. He, desiring to\nraise up various creatures by an emanation from his own glory, first\ncreated the _waters_, and impressed them with a power of motion: by that\npower was produced a golden egg, blazing like a thousand suns, in which\nwas born Brahma, self-existing, the great parent of all rational beings.\nThe waters are called n\u00e1r\u00e0, since they are the offspring of _Nara or\nIswara_; and thence was _N\u00e1ry\u00e1na_ named, because his first _ayana_, or\n_moving_, was on them.\n\n'\"That which is, the invisible cause, eternal, self-existing, but\nun-perceived, becoming masculine _from neuter_, is celebrated among all\ncreatures by the name of Brahm\u00e1. That God, having dwelled in the egg\nthrough revolving years, Himself meditating on himself, divided it into\ntwo equal parts; and from those halves formed the heavens and the earth,\nplacing in the midst the subtle ether, the eight points of the world,\nand the permanent receptacle of waters.\"'\n\nSir William Jones admits that the Vedas are 'very ancient, and far older\nthan any other Sanscrit works,' but assigns to the Manava Sastra, and\nthe Bhagavat a later date than 'the Scriptures of Moses,' on the\nground that 'the nakedness of the Hebrew dialect, metre, and style must\nconvince every man of their superior antiquity.' On the same page Sir\nW. Jones, however, states that the Brahmans affirm that the Vedas, the\nManava S\u00e1stra, and the Bhagavat, were all {19} written in the first age\nof the world. Is it honest to reject the testimony of the Priests of\nBrahma while we are content to place our reason in the hands of the\nPriests of our own Church?\n\nMy reasons for not believing the Manava Sastra and Bhagavat were stolen\nfrom the Jews are as follows: first, the Bhagavat, admitted to be much\nmore ancient than our alleged Christian era, contains the history of\nChrishna, which is, in very many particulars, identical with that of\nChrist, and as it is absolutely impossible that the Hindoos could have\nstolen the history of Christ one thousand years prior to his existence,\nI am inclined to conceive it more probable that in our Bible we have\nthroughout appropriated from the Hindoos; second, I deny that it has\never been shown that the Jewish nation is nearly so ancient as the\nHindoo, and I am, therefore, puzzled in attempting to charge the more\nancient nation with stealing the traditions of the modern one. It would\nbe nearly as reasonable if a Frenchman were to charge the English with\nstealing the history of William the Conqueror from the Americans.\n\nSir William Jones further says, 'I am persuaded that a connexion\nsubsisted between the old idolatrous nations of Egypt, India, Greece,\nand Italy, long before they emigrated to their several settlements, and\nconsequently before the birth of Moses;' and what do we find? Why this,\nthat the religions of Egypt, India, Greece, and Italy, have a wonderful\nsimilarity to one another, and yet we are told that the religion of\nthe Jewish nation (which contains something common to them all) was not\nstolen from them, but they, the ancient religions, were stolen from the\nmore modern nation. It would be as probable were I to tell you that the\nRoyal Society in London was founded and originated in consequence of\nsomething which fell last year from the lips of Louis Napoleon.\n\nThe third chapter of Genesis contains, according to its heading, an\naccount of man's 'most shameful fall.' It will be in vain to attempt to\ntreat the contents of this chapter as a relation of actual occurrences.\nThe following is a summary: a serpent, walking erect on its tail instead\nof crawling on its belly, tempts Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, urging\nthat Adam has been deceived by God; the woman (not at all surprised at\nbeing addressed by one 'in such a questionable shape') saw that the tree\nwas good for food (how she saw this does not appear) and ate and gave to\nher husband. Upon eating, their eyes are opened, and they are ashamed\nof their nakedness, and sew fig leaves together to make breeches. This\nsewing was before the invention of needles. The species of this fruit\nhas formed the subject of much conjecture; one kind only has since been\nknown to confer on man and woman a knowledge of their nakedness after\nmutually partaking thereof, and it has therefore been suggested that\nthis chapter is an allegorical representation of the union of the sexes.\nAfter eating, Adam and Eve hear the 'voice of the Lord God walking,' and\nthey hide themselves. It is not easy to understand how either God or his\nvoice could walk in the garden, nor why he should walk in the cool of\nthe day, as we cannot suppose heat to affect him. {20} The reason Adam\ngives for hiding himself is not a correct one; he was not naked unless\nhis fig-leaf garment had fallen to pieces. God having ascertained that\nAdam had disobeyed his command, cursed the serpent and commanded it to\neat dust and go upon its belly all the days of its life; God also cursed\nthe ground. It does not appear, however, that he carried out the threat\ncontained in chap, ii, v. 17; in fact, the serpent appears to have been\nmore correct in saying to Adam and Eve, 'Ye shall not surely die.'\nSome divines would have us believe that by the sin of Adam death was\nintroduced into the world, and the Rev. Dr. John Pye Smith tells us,\n'It is probable, had not man fallen, that, after a continuance in the\nearthly state for a period of probation, each individual would have\nbeen translated to a higher condition of existence.' Unfortunately,\nthis hypothesis will not bear investigation. Professor Newman says,\nin relation to this subject, 'A fresh strain fell on the Scriptural\ninfallibility, in contemplating the origin of death. Geologists assured\nus that death went on in the animal creation many ages before the\nexistence of man. The rocks formed of the shells of animals testify that\ndeath is a phenomenon thousands and thousands of years old; to refer\nthe death of animals to the sin of Adam and Eve is evidently impossible.\nYet, if not, the analogies of the human to the brute form make it\nscarcely credible that man's body can ever have been intended for\nimmortality. Nay, when we consider the conditions of birth and growth\nto which it is subject, the wear and tear essential to life, the new\ngenerations intended to succeed and supplant the old--so soon as the\nquestion is proposed as one of physiology, the reply is inevitable\nthat death is no accident, introduced by the perverse will of our first\nparents, nor any way connected with man's sinfulness, but is purely a\nresult of the conditions of animal life. On the contrary, St. Paul rests\nmost important conclusions on the fact, that one man, Adam, by personal\ndeath, brought death upon all his posterity. If this was a fundamental\nerror, religious doctrine also is shaken.'\n\nVerse 20. 'And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the\nmother of all living.' This can hardly be the reason, as Eve was not the\nmother of anybody at that time. The word [------] (Adam) means red or\nruby, and [------] (Eve) to show, discover, or declare.\n\nVerse 21. I suppose the most enthusiastic advocate for the literal\nreading of the Bible would hardly wish us to picture God as a tailor.\nOne of the Jewish Rabbis asserts that God clothed Adam and Eve with the\nskin of the serpent who had tempted them.\n\nVerse 22. (And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of\nus.' One of whom? To whom are these words addressed? It is evident that\nthe writer of this book believed in a plurality of Gods, and had not\nany very elevated ideas in relation to those Gods, for, in the very same\nverse, he makes God express fear lest Adam should take or the tree of\nlife, and eat and live for ever. Does it mean that man's soul was not\nthen immortal? it cannot mean that man's body could become immortal. If\nman's soul was not then capable of living for ever, when did its nature\nbecome changed? {21} Verse 24. 'Cherubim!' This word is ridiculous;\ncherubim is the plural of cherub; the is merely a specimen of Bible\northography. In Walker's Pronouncing Dictionary I find the following\nsevere remark on the word 'Cherubim:'--Those who understand no language\nbut their own are apt to commit an unpardonable fault with critics, by\nmistaking this word for a singular, and writing the plural \"Cherubims.\"'\nIt is evident, therefore, that if God inspired the Bible, he did not\ninspire the grammar. But what is a cherub? the word [----] (kereb) is\nof very doubtful meaning, and seems to have been used to express an\ninferior kind of deity. In the seventh edition of Parkhurst's Hebrew\nLexicon, the correspondence between the description of the cherubim in\nEzekiel and the inferior deities in other mythologies is fully and ably\npointed out under this head. Were it not for the length of Parkhurst's\narticle, I would quote the whole, it constituting an elaborate essay\nin which the astronomical origin of every religious system is clearly\nproved. An interesting astronomical explanation of the allegory or the\nfall is given in pp. 294-5 of 'Volney's Ruins.' Some of the cherubic\nfigures are a compound of ox, eagle, lion, and man. Are we to imagine\nseveral of these with a flaming sword, guarding the way to the tree of\nlife?\n\nHaving read the third chapter carefully, we are irresistibly driven to\nthe conclusion that Adam's primitive nature was extremely frail, for he\nfell with the first temptation, and no greater evidence of frailty can\nbe given; yet Adam is the choice work of God, made in his own image.\n\n*Chapter iv contains the history of Cain and Abel, which presents\nseveral remarkable features for our consideration. Cain and Abel both\nmake sacrifices to the Lord. Why they should so sacrifice does not\nappear; they do not seem to have followed the example of Adam, as we\ncannot find any history of his sacrificing to the Lord at all. By verses\n4 and 5 we find that the Lord had respect unto Abel and his offering,\nbut unto Cain and his offerings he had not respect. Why is this? Cain's\nofferings consist of flowers and fruits, sending up sweet fragrance\nto heaven; Abel's offerings are the bleeding carcasses of slaughtered\nlambs; yet God, 'with whom there is no respect of persons' (2\nChronicles, chap, xix, v. 7--Romans, chap, ii, v. 11), respects Abel\nmore than Cain. How was this respect shown? God, by showing favour to\nAbel without assigning the least reason for the\n\nPreference, created animosity between the two brothers. God must have\nforeknown that this religious strife would end in bloodshed. Religious\nstrife always has led to war, and it is only because people are growing\nlarger than their creeds that they now do not fight quite so recklessly\nabout them.\n\nVerse 7. It is somewhat perplexing to find that, although God is\ndispleased with Cain, yet he tells him he shall rule over his brother\nAbel.\n\nVerse 13. This verse is translated in a very different manner to the\nDouay. In our version Cain complains of the severity of his punishment;\nin the other, Cain says that his sin is too great for pardon. Which is\nright? {22]} Verse 14. What does Cain mean when he says 'Every one that\nfindeth me shall slay me.' 'Every one 'can only be used when there is\na likelihood of meeting with many persons, yet Cain must have been\nwell aware that no persons were then in existence beside his father and\nmother.\n\nVerse 16. How is it possible that Cain could go out of the presence of\nthe Lord? (_vide_ Psalm cxxxix, v. 7 to 12).\n\nVerse 17. Who was Cain's wife? According to Genesis, there was only his\nmother, Eve, living. 'And he builded a city.' It must have been rather\na remarkable city, built by one man, and inhabited by one man, his wife,\nand one child.\n\nVerse 18. Who was Enoch's wife? Perhaps these were what the Mormonites\ncall 'Spiritual Wives.'\n\n*Chapter v, v. 1. 'This is the _book_ of the generations of Adam.* Books\nwere not known at the date alleged for the existence of Moses.\n\nVerses 1 and 2 contradict the previous chapters.\n\nThe fifth chapter appears to fit on after verse 3 of the second chapter;\nand it is rather curious that in the list of Adam's children, Cain\nand Abel are not mentioned. Neither are Cain's descendants in any way\nreferred to. Cain not only went out of the presence of the Lord, but\nboth he and his wife and family seem entirely to have gone out of sight\nof everybody.\n\nVerse 24. 'And Enoch walked with God, and he was not.' The Breeches\nBible, in a marginal note, says that 'to inquire what became of Enoch is\nmere curiosity.'\n\nVerse 27. Methusalem must have just died in time to save himself from\ndrowning.\n\n*Chapter vi, v. 2. 'The Sons of God.' Who are the Sons of God?; How\ncould God have Sons? Is not Jesus said to be the only Son of God?\nVoltaire says of this verse, 'No nation has ever existed, unless perhaps\nwe may except China, in which some God is not described as having had\noffspring upon women. These corporeal Gods frequently descended to visit\ntheir dominions upon earth; they saw the daughters of our race, and\nattached themselves to those who were most interesting and beautiful;\nthe issue of this connexion between Gods and mortals must, of course,\nhave been superior to other men, thus giants were produced.' But there\nis a further objection to our authorised version; the original is not\n'Sons of God,' but [----------] (Beni Alehim, Sons of the Gods). In the\nmythologies of Greece, Italy, and India, we find the same idea of Gods\nhaving intercourse with women; and it is also remarkable that, although\nin many cases the woman bears a child, yet all true believers devoutly\ncontend for her virginity. Verse 3 seems out of place, it should come in\nafter 5 or 6; but in any place it is not correct. One hundred and twenty\nyears is neither the average nor the limit of man's life. What does God\nmean when he says 'My Spirit shall not always strive with man?' What\nwas the striving about? Does the verse mean that God's spirit strove\nin vain? What does 'that he also is flesh' mean? Does it mean that the\nLord's spirit and man are both flesh? {23} Verses 5 and 6. God made\nmankind and the circumstances which surrounded them, and must have\nforeknown what would have been the effect produced upon man; why not\nhave made better circumstances? Shall we presume either that God had not\nthe power to have created things differently, or that he is careless\nof man's welfare? In what manner did God make known his repentance?\nIn Numbers, chap, xxiii, v. 19, we are led to believe that God never\nrepents. Why should God destroy the beasts, creeping things, and fowls?\nthey surely could not have been parties to man's wickedness. Why should\nGod repent that he made 'the beasts, the creeping things, and the fowls\nof the air?' What does the phrase mean in relation to God, 'it grieved\nhim at his heart?' The expressions 'repent,' 'grieve,' etc., could\nscarcely have been used if the book had been a revelation from a God who\nintended to convey to us an idea of his omnipotence and immutability.\nThe following quotation is from Robert Taylor:--\n\n'What blasphemy! thus to represent the Creator of the world. Omnipotence\nrepenting that he had made man, sitting upon a stone, and crying like\na child, wringing his hands, tearing nis hair, calling himself all\nthe fools and idiots he could think of, stamping his foot, cursing,\nswearing, and vowing vengeance, that he would not leave a dog nor a rat\nalive. We should yet have but a faint idea of the' exceeding sinfulness\nof sin, and how poor and impotent language of any kind must be, to\nconvey to us the emotions of that infinite wisdom and inconceivable\nbenevolence which repented that he had made man, and grieved that man\nwas no better than he had made him.\n\n'There can be no doubt at all that such language as this, when used in\nrelation to the Supreme Being, is used only in gracious condescension to\nour ignorance, and in accommodation to the dulness and stupidity of\nour powers of conception, which require to be stimulated ana excited by\nstrong and impassioned figures of speech, ere they can be led to form an\nidea at all on sacred subjects.'\n\nVerses 11 and 12. All flesh could not be corrupt; in the previous verse\nwe are told that Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generations.\nAll flesh being corrupt, flesh and fowl were condemned; but the fish\nwere allowed to escape. Were the birds more corrupt than the fish? or\nwere the fish allowed to escape because the concocter of this tale did\nnot conceive the possibility of their being killed by a flood? By verse\n17 it is clear that God intended to destroy every living thing; perhaps\nhe forgot the fishes.\n\nVerse 14 to chap, viii, v. 19. Of this account Professor Newman says 'It\nhad become notorious to the public that geologists rejected the idea of\nan universal deluge, as physically impossible. Whence could the water\ncome to cover the highest mountains? Two replies were attempted: 1--The\nflood of Noah is not described as universal; 2--The flood was indeed\nuniversal, but the water was added and removed by miracle. Neither\nreply, however, seemed to be valid. First, the language respecting the\nuniversality of the flood is as strong as any that could be written;\nmoreover, it is stated that the {24} tops of the high hills _were all\ncovered_, and after the water subsides the ark settles on the mountains\nof Armenia. Now, in Armenia, of necessity, numerous peaks would be seen\nunless the water covered them, and especially Ararat. But a flood that\ncovered Ararat would overspread all the continents, and leave only a few\nsummits above. If, then, the account in Genesis is to be received, the\nflood was \"universal. Secondly, the narrator represents the surplus\nwater to have come from the clouds, and perhaps from the sea, and again\nto drain back into the sea. Of a miraculous _creation and destruction_\nof water, he evidently does not dream.\n\n'Other impossibilities come forward: the insufficient dimensions of the\nark to take in all the creatures; the unsuitability of the same climate\nto arctic and tropical animals for a full year; the impossibility\nof feeding them, and avoiding pestilence; and especially, the total\ndisagreement of the modern facts of the dispersion of animals, with\nthe idea that they spread anew from Armenia as their centre. We have no\nright to call in a aeries of miracles to solve difficulties of which\nthe writer was unconscious. The ark itself was expressly devised to\neconomise miracle, by making a fresh creation of animals needless.'\n\nVoltaire says of the deluge:--\n\n'We consider it as a miracle; first, because all the facts by which God\ncondescends to interfere in the sacred books are so many miracles.\n\n'Secondly, because the sea could not rise fifteen cubits, or one and\ntwenty standard feet and a half above the highest mountains without\nleaving its bed dry, and, at the same time violating all the laws of\ngravity and the equilibrium of fluids, which would evidently require a\nmiracle.\n\n'Thirdly, because, even although it might rise to the height mentioned,\nthe ark could not have contained, according to known physical laws, all\nthe living things of the earth, together with their food, for so long\na time; considering that lions, tigers, panthers, leopards, ounces,\nrhinoceroses, bears, wolves, hyenas, eagles, hawks, kites, vultures,\nfalcons, and all carnivorous animals, which feed on flesh alone, would\nhave died of hunger, even after having devoured all the other species.\n\n'Fourthly, because the physical impossibilities of an universal deluge,\nby natural means, can be strictly demonstrated. The demonstration is as\nfollows:--\n\n'All the seas cover half the globe. A common measure of their depths\nnear the shores and in the open ocean, is assumed to be five hundred\nfeet.\n\n'In order to their covering both hemispheres to the depth of five\nhundred feet, not only would an ocean of that depth be necessary over\nall the land, but a new sea would, in addition, be required to envelope\nthe ocean at present existing, without which the laws of hydrostatics\nwould occasion the dispersion of that other new mass of water five\nhundred feet deep, which should remain covering the land. {25} 'Thus,\nthen, two new oceans are requisite to cover the terraqueous globe nearly\nto the depth of five hundred feet.\n\n'Supposing the mountains to be only twenty thousand feet high, forty\noceans each five hundred feet in height would be required to accumulate\non each other, merely in order to equal the height of the mountains.\nEvery successive ocean would contain all the others, and the last of\nthem all would have a circumference containing forty times that of the\nfirst.\n\n'In order to form this mass of water, it would be necessary to create\nit out of nothing. In order to withdraw it, it would be necessary to\nannihilate it.\n\n'What was that abyss which was broken up, or what were the cataracts of\nheaven which were opened? Isaac Vossius denies the universality of the\ndeluge; \"_Hoc est pi\u00e8 nugari_.\" Calmet maintains it, informing us\nthat bodies have no weight in air, but in consequence of their being\ncompressed by air. Calmet was not much of a natural philosopher, and\nthe weight of the air has nothing to do with the deluge. Let us content\nourselves with reading and respecting everything in the Bible, without\ncomprehending a single word of it.\n\n'I do not comprehend how God created a race of men in order to drown\nthem, and then substituted in their room a race still viler than the\nfirst.\n\n'How seven pairs of all kinds of clean animals should come from the four\nquarters of the globe, together with two pairs of unclean ones, without\nthe wolves devouring the sheep on the way, or the kites the pigeons,\netc., etc.\n\n'How eight persons could keep in order, feed, and water such an immense\nnumber of inmates, shut up in an ark-for nearly two yeare, for, after\nthe cessation of the deluge, it would be necessary to have food for all\nthese passengers for another year, in consequence of the herbage being\nso scanty.'\n\nThe dimensions of the ark, which are slightly varied according to the\ndifferent lengths assigned to the cubit, were between 450 and 574 feet\nin length, between 75 and 91 feet in breadth, and 45 and 55 feet in\nheight. An ark that size must have been a tremendous undertaking for a\nman nearly six hundred years old, even with his three sons to help him.\nThe ark was divided into three stories and many rooms, but only had\none window and one door. The situation of this door is curious, 'in the\nside;' if it gave access to all the floors it must have extended from\ntop to bottom. It is hardly possible to imagine a large number of\nanimals, civet cats, musk rats, etc., existing in an ark in which\nventilation was so badly provided for; when the door was shut and the\nwindow shut to keep out the rain and water, it must have been absolutely\nstifling. But it is impossible to imagine seven of each of the clean\nbeasts and two of each of the unclean, and seven of each of the birds,\ncrammed into so small a space. Even if there were room for it, we hear\nnothing of any food being collected for the sustenance of all these\nbirds and beasts. Did they fast? How did Noah know which were clean\nand which unclean? {26} Thomas Paine treats the account of the flood as\nfollows:--\n\n'We have all heard of Noah's flood; and it is impossible to think of the\nwhole human race, men, women, children, and infants, (except one family)\ndeliberately drowning, without feeling a painful sensation; that must\nbe a heart of flint that can contemplate such a scene with tranquillity.\nThere is nothing in the ancient mythology, nor in the religion of any\npeople we know of on the globe, that records a sentence of their God, or\nof their Gods, so tremendously severe and merciless. If the story be not\ntrue, we blasphemously dishonour God by believing it, and still more so\nin forcing, by laws and penalties, that belief upon others. I go now to\nshow, from the face of the story, that it carries the evidence of not\nbeing true.\n\n'There were no such people as Jews or Israelites in the time that Noah\nis said to have lived, and consequently there was no such law as that\nwhich is called the Jewish or Mosaic Law. It is, according to the Bible,\nmore than six hundred years from the time the flood is said to have\nhappened to the time of Moses, and, consequently, the time the flood is\nsaid to have happened was more than six hundred years prior to the law\ncalled the law of Moses, even admitting Moses to be the giver of that\nlaw, of which there is great cause to doubt.\n\n'We have here two different epochs, or points of time; that of the\nflood, and that of the law of Moses; the former more than six hundred\nyears prior to the latter. But the maker of the story of the flood,\nwhoever he was, has betrayed himself by blundering, for he has reversed\nthe order of the times. He has told the story as if the law of Moses was\nprior to the flood; for he has made God to say to Noah, Genesis, chap,\nvii, v. 2, \"Of every clean beast, thou shalt take to thee by sevens, tne\nmale and his female, and of beasts that are _not clean_ by two, the male\nand his female.\" This is the Mosaic law, and could only be said after\nthat law was given, not before. There were no such things as beasts\nclean and unclean in the time of Noah--it is nowhere said they were\ncreated so. They were only _declared_ to be so _as meats_, by the Mosaic\nlaw, and that to the Jews only; and there were no such people as Jews in\nthe time of Noah. This is the blundering condition in which this strange\nstory stands.\n\n'When we reflect on a sentence so tremendously severe as that of\nconsigning the whole human race, eight persons excepted, to deliberate\ndrowning, a sentence which represents the Creator in a more merciless\ncharacter than any of those whom we call Pagans ever represented the\nCreator to be, under the figure of any of their deities, we ought at\nleast to suspend our belief of it, on a comparison of the beneficent\ncharacter of the Creator with the tremendous severity of the sentence;\nbut when we see the story told with such an evident contradiction of\ncircumstances, we ought to set it down for nothing better than a Jewish\nfable, told by nobody knows whom, and nobody knows when.\n\n'It is a relief to the genuine and sensible soul of man to find the\nstory unfounded. It frees us from two painful sensations at once; that\nof having hard thoughts of the Creator, on account of the {27} severity\nof the sentence; and that of sympathising in the horrid tragedy of a\ndrowning world. He who cannot feel the force of what I mean is not, in\nmy estimation of character, worthy the name of a human being.'\n\nThe account of the deluge is rather complicated; according to chap,\nvii., v. 2 and 5, Noah took inseven pairs of all clean beasts, and one\npair of all unclean, as [------] (Alehim) had commanded him; while, by\nv. 8 and 9, it would appear that Noah only took in two of every kind,\nas [------] (Jeue or Jehovah) had commanded. This is another specimen\nof the confusion in the use of different originals in the manufacture of\nthe book of Genesis.\n\nDr. John Pye Smith, in his 'Relation between Geology and the Holy\nScriptures,' admits that he is compelled to the conclusion that the\nflood of Noah was not absolutely universal; and with respect to the ark\ngrounding on Mount Ararat, he says that the state of the summit of\nthat mount is such that the four men, and four women, and many of the\nquadrupeds would have found it utterly impossible to descend. The summit\nof Mount Ararat is continually covered with snow and ice.\n\nThe olive leaf mentioned in chap, viii., v. 11, is remarkable, as one\nwould be inclined to imagine it decomposed after remaining under water\nfor about twelve months.\n\n*Chapter viii., v. 21. 'The Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord\nsaid in his heart.' This is, of course, only a figurative expression;\nbut it is much to be regretted that, in a book issued from God, an\nexpression should be found so liable to misconstruction; a literal\nreader might imagine that God had a nose and heart.\n\n*Chapter ix., v. 9 and 10. These verses have been much commented on.\nVoltaire says:--\n\n'God made a covenant with beasts! What sort of a covenant? Such is the\noutcry of infidels. But if he makes a covenant with man, why not with\nthe beast? It has feeling; and there is something as divine in feeling,\nas in the most metaphysical meditation. Besides, beasts feel more\ncorrectly than the greater part of men think. It is clearly by virtue of\nthis treaty that Francis d'Assisse, the founder of the Seraphic order,\nsaid to the grasshoppers and the hares, \"Pray sing, my dear sister\ngrasshopper; pray browse, my dear brother hare.\" But what were the\nconditions of the treaty? That all animals should devour one another;\nthat they should feed upon our flesh, and we upon theirs; that,\nafter having eaten them, we should proceed with wrath and fury to the\nextermination of our own race; nothing being, then, wanting to crown\nthe horrid series of butchery and cruelty, but devouring our fellow men,\nafter having thus remorselessly destroyed them. Had there been actually\nsuch a treaty as this, it could have been entered into only with the\ndevil.'\n\nThe token of this covenant is to be the rainbow--v. 13. The Geneva\ntranslation has it, 'I _have_ set my bow;' the authorised version,\n'I _do_ set my bow;' the Douay,'I _will_ set my bow. Of this latter,\nVoltaire remarks-- {28} 'Observe, that the author does not say, I _have_\nput my bow in the clouds; he says, I _will_ put; this clearly implies\nit to have been the prevailing opinion that there had not always been a\nrainbow. This phenomenon is necessarily produced by rain; yet, in this\nplace, it is represented as something supernatural, exhibited in order\nto announce and prove that the earth should no more be inundated. It\nis singular to choose the certain sign of rain, in order to assure men\nagainst their being drowned.'\n\nIt is quite evident by the context, whichever translation be right, that\nthe meaning intended to be conveyed is, that the rainbow is to be the\nsign to remind God and the people and beasts of his covenant with them.\nThis covenant, like many treaties made with high powers, is open to\nmisconstruction. God only covenants not again to destroy _all_ flesh by\na flood, but it is quite within the terms of his covenant to overflow a\nfew rivers, and sweep flocks, herds, villages, and villagers off a large\ntract of country; this is occasionally done, and the rainbow cheers the\nsurvivors with the thought that, as everybody is not to be drowned at\nonce, they are safe till another time.\n\nVerse 16. It is implied that, but for the rainbow, God might forget his\ncovenant; surely this cannot be a revelation from an unchangeable God,\nwho could never forget.\n\nVerse 21. Noah, if he was a just and perfect man before the flood, seems\nto have soon degenerated, although he had just had cognizance of so\nfearful an example of God's vengeance. 'His tent.' The word [------]\ndoes not mean his tent; the final [--] is a feminine termination, and\nthe word should be translated 'her tent;' but to save revelation from\nseeming ridiculous, the translators have taken a slight liberty with the\ntext.\n\nVerse 25. It is hard to understand why Canaan should be cursed because\nhis father, Ham, accidentally walked into a tent and saw Noah naked. If\nHam even deserved a curse, it is no reason for cursing his son, who was\nno party to his father's offence.\n\n*Chapter x. There are scarcely any of the names contained in this or the\npreceding or following chapter, until we come to Abraham, which are now\nused amongst the Jews. Paine says, 'If they (the Jews) affix the same\nidea of reality to those names as they do to those that follow after,\nthe names of Adam, Abel, Seth, etc., would be as common among the Jews\nof the present day, as are those of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and\nAaron.\n\n'In the superstition they have been in, scarcely a Jew family would be\nwithout an _Enoch_, as a presage of his going to heaven as ambassador\nfor the whole family. Every mother who wished that the _days_ of her son\n_might be long in the land_, would call him _Methuselah_; and all the\nJews that might have to traverse the ocean would be named Noah, as a\ncharm against shipwreck and drowning.'\n\n*Chapter xi., v. 1. If the whole earth was of one tongue, what do verses\n5, 20, and 31 of the preceding chapter mean?\n\nVoltaire says, 'People have wished to know how the children of {29}\nNoah, after having divided among themselves the islands of the nations,\nand established themselves in divers lands, with each one his particular\nlanguage, family, and people, should all find themselves in the plain of\nShinaar to build there a tower, saying, \"Let us make us a name, lest we\nbe scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.\"\n\n'The book of Genesis speaks of the states which the sons of Noah\nfounded. It has related how the people of Europe, Africa, and Asia all\ncame to Shinaar, speaking one language only, and purposing the same\nthing.\n\n'The Vulgate places the deluge in the year of the world 1656, and the\nconstruction of the Tower of Babel, 1771; that is to say, one hundred\nand fifteen years after the destruction of mankind, and even during the\nlife of Noah.\n\n'Men then must have multiplied with prodigious celerity; all the arts\nrevived in a very little time. When we reflect on the great number of\ntrades which must have been employed to raise a tower so high, we are\namazed at so stupendous a work.\n\n'It is a pity that there remains not on the earth, among the profane\nauthors, one vestige of the famous Tower of Babel; nothing of this\nstory of the confusion of tongues is found in any book. This memorable\nadventure was as unknown to the whole universe, as the names of Noah,\nMethusalem, Cain, and Adam and Eve.'\n\nIt seems scarcely probable that a multitude of people, forming so many\nnations, could be got together in one plain; and if they were, why\nshould they fear being scattered?\n\nVerse 5. 'The Lord came down.' This idea pervades the book--that is,\nthat God resides in heaven, above the earth, and that he leaves heaven\noccasionally and comes down to earth, and after having finished his\nbusiness, goes up again to heaven. The writer appears to have had no\nconception that God could see from heaven to earth, but makes God come\ndown to ascertain whether the tale which had reached him in heaven be\ntrue. Unfortunately, even after ignoring the attribute of omnipresence\nin relation to God, the idea is not a correct one. That which is above\nme when I look up and pray is not above the New Zealander, if he looks\nup and prays at the same instant. The powers above to him would be the\npowers below to me. The verse implies that God could not see the tower\nuntil he came down.\n\nVerses 6 and 7. Who did God speak to? 'Let us go down;' who are 'us?'\nDid the Almighty actually fear lest his creatures should build a tower\nso high that they might scramble into heaven without his assistance? The\nwhole of this account is absurd in the extreme. Dr. John Pye Smith says\nthat 'the confusion of language was probably only to a certain point,\nnot destroying cognation.' I do not the better understand the story\nwith the aid of this comment. The only thing proved by the elaborate\ncommentaries of many divines is, that they gave God the credit of\ninspiring an inexplicable revelation, and that, instead of endeavouring\nto make it explicable, they burden the margin of the book with\nsuppositions which only increase the difficulties of the text. {30}\nVerse 26. 'And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram.'\n\nVerse 32. 'And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years, and\nTerah died in Haran.'\n\n*Chapter xii., v. 1. And the Lord said to Abram, 'Get thee out,' etc. So\nthat Abram must have been one hundred and thirty-five years old when\nhe left Haran; but, according to verse 4 it appears that Abram was only\nseventy-five years of age. This has been regarded as an inexplicable\ndifficulty by St. Jerome and St. Augustine; and I, who am not a saint,\nmust confess with Voltaire that I cannot understand how a man can be\nseventy-five and one hundred and thirty-five years of age at the same\ntime.\n\n*Chapter xii., v. 1, 2, 3, and 7; chap, xiii., v. 14, 15, 16, and 17;\nchap, xv., v. 5, 6, 7, and 18; chap, xvii., v. 7 and 8; chap, xviii., v.\n18; chap, xxii., v. 17 and 18; chap, xxvi., v. 3 and 4.; chap, xxviii.,\nv. 14.\n\nThese verses contain the solemn promise, the more solemn covenant, and\nthe most solemn oath of God; this promise, covenant, and oath all being\nto one effect--namely, that Abraham's children should be as numerous as\nthe dust of the earth, or the stars of heaven, and that this numerous\nprogeny should possess certain specified land for ever. There is a\ndifficulty in comprehending why God, who is no respector of persons,\nshould have selected Abraham and his descendants for such great reward;\nbut waiving this, we find several questions requiring answer. Who are\nAbraham's descendants? Not the Jews; their number is very limited. Where\nare Abraham's descendants? Not in the promised land, most certainly.\n\nIf Abraham's descendants are the Jews, then I say that they have never\nbeen as numerous as God promised, covenanted, and swore they should be.\nI say that they have not held the promised land for ever. It may be\nthat this promise is yet to be fulfilled; it is quite certain that it is\nunfulfilled up to the present time.\n\n*Chapter xii., v. 11 to 20. The account of the chosen of God having\nrecourse to a lie to pass off his wife for his sister, deserves notice.\nWhen this happens twice (chap. 20), it excites suspicion; and when\nit occurs a third time in the same country to the son of Abraham, it\ncreates doubt as to the truth of the whole. Voltaire writes thus of\nAbraham:--\n\n'The Scripture says that the God of the Jews, who intended to give them\nthe land of Canaan, commanded Abraham to leave the fertile country of\nChaldea, and go towards Palestine, promising that in his seed all\nthe nations of the earth should be blessed. It is for theologians to\nexplain, by allegory and _mystical sense_, how all the nations of the\nearth were to be blessed in a seed from which they did not descend,\nsince this much-to-be-venerated _mystical sense_ cannot be made the\nobject of a work purely critical. A short time after these promises,\nAbraham's family was afflicted by famine, and went into Egypt for corn.\nIt is singular that the Hebrews never went into Egypt but when pressed\nby hunger; for Jacob afterwards sent his children on the same errand.\n\n'Abraham, who was then very old, went this way with his wife {31} Sarah,\naged sixty-five; she was very handsome, and Abraham feared that the\nEgyptians, smitten by her charms, would kill him in order to enjoy her\ntranscendent beauties; he proposed to her that she should pass for his\nsister, etc. Human nature must at that time have possessed a vigour\nwhich time and luxury have since very much weakened. That which Abraham\nhad foreseen came to pass; the Egyptian youth found his wife charming,\nnotwithstanding her sixty-five years; the king himself fell in love with\nher, and placed her in his seraglio, though, probably, he had younger\nfemales there; but the Lord plagued the king and his seraglio with very\ngreat sores. The text does not tell us how the king came to know that\nthis dangerous beauty was Abraham's wife; but it seems that he did come\nto know it, and restored her.\n\n'Sarah's beauty must have been unalterable; for, twenty-five years\nafterwards, when she was ninety years old, pregnant, and travelling\nwith her husband through the dominions of a King of Phoenicia, named\nAbimelech, Abraham, who had not yet corrected himself, made her a second\ntime pass for his sister. The Phoenician King was as sensible to her\nattractions as the King of Egypt had been; but God appeared to this\nAbimelech in a dream, and threatened him with death if he touched\nhis new mistress. It must be confessed that Sarah's conduct was as\nextraordinary as the lasting nature of her charms.\n\n'The singularity of these adventures was probably the reason why the\nJews had not the same sort of faith in their histories which they had\nin their Leviticus. There was not a single iota of their _law_ in which\nthey did not believe; but the historical part of their Scriptures did\nnot command the same respect. Their conduct in regard to their ancient\nbooks may be compared to that of the English, who received the laws\nof St. Edward without absolutely believing that St. Edward cured the\nscrofula; or that of the Romans, who, while they obeyed their primitive\nlaws, were not obliged to believe in the miracles of the sieve filled\nwith water, the ship drawn to the shore by a vestal's girdle, the stone\ncut with a razor, and so forth.'\n\n*Chapter xiii., v. 7 and 18, as before observed, could not have been\nwritten by Moses, (see p. 5.)\n\n*Chapter xiv., v. 1 to 16. This victory of Abraham over four mighty\nkings is, if true, a very wonderful one. It is quite clear that\nChedorlaomer was a very powerful monarch, having other monarchs for\nhis vassals. Amraphel was the king of the mighty empire of Babylon,\ndoubtless not so grand as it afterwards became, but still one of the\nmost powerful of the then monarchies of the world. These are assisted\nby two other kings; one of whom is described as the king of nations. The\nfour allies make war upon certain kings, five in number; and, according\nto verse 10, they fight, and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fall in the\nvale of Siddim.\n\nAbraham, hearing that Lot, his relative, was taken prisoner, took three\nhundred and eighteen men, and, by night, pursued and smote the four\nallied kings, and recaptured his brother. As he went near {32} to\nDamascus in pursuit, he must have travelled more than one hundred miles,\nbeside crossing some very mountainous country; this, of course, enhances\nthe character of the victory. One of the fruits of this triumph seems to\nhave been, that the King of Sodom, who is killed in verse 10, comes to\nmeet Abraham, alive and well, in verse 17. Verse 18. 'Melchizedek;' who\nwas he? Before answering this question, read Psalm ex., v. 4, Hebrews,\nchap, v., v. 6, 10, and 11, chap, vii., and chap, viii., v. 1. In the\nverse we are examining, he is described as [------] (melekitzedek)--\n[------] (melek) [------] (shelem).\n\nWhat does this mean? Melekitzedek or Melchizedek; 'first by\ninterpretation King of Righteousness, and after that the King of Salem,\nwhich is, the King of Peace; without father, without mother, without\ndescent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life'--_vide_\nHebrews, chap, vii., v. 3.\n\nThis description does not answer to any man who ever lived on the\nface of the earth; nearly everybody claims to have had a father and\na grandfather; everybody has had a mother. Everybody was one hour old\nbefore he grew older; and after existing some few score years, more or\nless, every man has, sooner or later, died. So Melchizedek could not\nhave been a man. In Malachi, chap iv., v. 2, we find [------] (Chemesh\nzedek); this is translated _Sun_ of Righteousness, and it is only to the\nsun that the description of Melchizedek will apply. The ancients looked\nupon the sun as the everlasting source of all existence, and personified\nit in various names; Melchizedek, king of the zodiac, appears to be one\nof the Bible personifications. But supposing Melchizedek to be not a\nreal person, what becomes of the story of Abraham giving him tithes of\nhis spoils? If this story be not fact, how much is allegory?\n\nIs any portion of the history of Abraham a fact? In chap, xvi., we find\npart of the history of Hagar and Sarai; while, in Galatians, chap, iv.,\nv. 24 and 25, we are told that whole history is an allegory, and that\nHagar represents Mount Sinai in Arabia, and Sarai the City of Jerusalem,\nwhich is 'above.'\n\nIf it be taken as a relation of fact, we find Sarah, the chosen of\nGod, ill-treating a woman of her household, causing her to fly into the\ndesert when in a state of health requiring great care; and we further\nfind that God prophecies for the yet unborn child, 'That his hand will\nbe against every man, and every man's hand against him.' If all things\nare in the order and disposition of God, he did not order and dispose\nthem very well for poor Ishmael. But perhaps the God of the Jews, like\nthe slaveowner, had not the same consideration for those born in bondage\nas for their masters.\n\n*Chapter xv., v. 13. If this four hundred years refers to the Egyptian\ncaptivity, it is four hundred and thirty years according to Exodus,\nchap, xii., v. 40 and 41 (also see Galatians, chap, iii., v. 17); but,\naccording to the Bible chronology, it is only about two hundred years.\nIt is impossible to give credit to one more than the other; for Genesis,\nExodus, and Chronology, while they contradict one another, are not\nsupported by any other evidence themselves. {33} Verse 18 to end. Ten\nnations are specified here; in Joshua, chap, iii., v. 10, seven only are\nmentioned; in Deuteronomy, chap. xxii v. 17, six; in Exodus, chap, iii.,\nv. 17, and chap, xxiii., v. 23, six; 2 Chronicles, chap, viii., v. 7,\nfive only. The land from the Nile to the Euphrates has never yet been in\nthe undisturbed possession of the Jews; large portions have never been\nin their possession for a single moment, so that this promise has never\nbeen performed.\n\n*Chapter xvi., v. 13. In the Douay this is translated, 'And she called\nthe name of the Lord that spoke unto her, thou the God who hast seen me;\nfor she said, verily here have I seen the hinder parts of him that seeth\nme.' The reader will perceive a strange difference in the two texts. If\nthe Douay be the correct translation, where are the hinder parts of a\nGod who is without parts? (_vide_ thirty-nine articles).\n\n\n*Chapter xvii., v. 1. 'And the Lord appeared to Abraham.' Verse 3. 'And\nAbraham fell on his face.' Verse 17. 'Then Abraham fell on his face.'\nVerse 23. 'And he left off talking with him; and God went up from\nAbraham.'\n\nThe intent of this chapter is to induce a belief that the Lord appeared\nin person to Abraham; and that, after he had talked with him for some\ntime, he left and went _up_. It is also intended to convey that\nAbraham showed his respect to the Lord bv falling down before him; and,\naccording to the Douay, 'flat on his face.' I have before remarked on\nthis going up and coming down, which is utterly inconsistent with any\nidea of an infinite and omnipotent God. I do not wish to fill my pages\nwith mere repetitions, and shall, therefore, at once deal with Genesis,\nchap, xvii., v. 1 and 22, chap, xviii., v. 1, 2, 7, and 8, chap, xxii.,\nv. 11 and 15, chap, xxvi., v. 2 and 24, chap. xxviii., v. 13, chap,\nxxxii., v. 30, and chap, xxxv., v. 7, 9, and 13. It is quite clear\nthat the author of these verses in Genesis considered not only God was\nmaterial, and could be seen, but also considered God in the light of a\nsuperior or more powerful being than man, yet of somewhat the same form\nand passions. Man is represented as made in the image of God. Men, Gods,\nand Angels are strangely confused together; angels are spoken of in\nthree characters--viz., as intermediatory messengers, as inferior Gods,\nand as God. This would be sufficient of itself to cause great confusion.\nGod is spoken of in this book as eating, talking, walking, going up and\ndown, grieving, repenting, and swearing, making impossible covenants and\nnever keeping them, fearing lest man should eat of the tree of life and\nlive for ever, or that he should build a tower which should reach\nto heaven. In the eighteenth chapter, the terms 'Angels,' 'Men,' and\n'Lord,' are indiscriminately used in reference to the same persons.\n\nIn the twenty-second chapter, the angel of the Lord calls from heaven to\nAbraham. What are angels? Voltaire says--\n\n'Angel, in Greek, _envoy_. The reader will hardly be the wiser for being\ntold that the Persians had their _peris_, the Hebrews their _melakim_,\nand the Greeks their _demonoi_.\n\n'But it is, perhaps, better worth knowing that one of the first of {34}\nman's ideas has always been, to place intermediate beings between the\nDivinity and himself; such were those demons, those genii, invented in\nthe ages of antiquity. Man always made the Gods after his own image;\nprinces were seen to communicate their orders by messengers; therefore,\nthe Divinity had also his couriers. Mercury and Iris were couriers or\nmessengers. The Jews, the only people under the conduct of the Divinity\nhimself, did not, at first, give names to the angels whom God vouchsafed\nto send them; they borrowed the names given them by the Chaldeans, when\nthe Jewish nation was captive in Babylon; Michael and Gabriel are named\nfor the first time by Daniel, a slave among those people. The Jew Tobit,\nwho lived at Nineveh, knew the angel Raphael, who travelled with his son\nto assist him in recovering the money due to him from the Jew Gabael.\n\n'In the laws of the Jews, that is, in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not the\nleast mention is made of the existence of the angels, much less of the\nworship of them; neither did the Sadducees believe in the angels.\n\n'But, in the histories of the Jews, they are much spoken of. The angels\nwere corporeal; they had wings at their backs, as the Gentiles feigned\nthat Mercury had at his heels; sometimes they concealed their wings\nunder their clothing. How could they be without bodies, since they all\nate and drank?\n\n'The ancient Jewish tradition, according to Ben Maimon, admits ten\ndegrees, ten orders of angels.\n\n'The Christian religion is founded on the fall of the angels. Those who\nrevolted were precipitated from the spheres which they inhabited into\nhell, in the centre of the earth, and became devils. A devil, in the\nform of a serpent, tempted Eve, and damned mankind. Jesus came to redeem\nmankind, and to triumph over the devil, who tempts us still. Yet this\nfundamental tradition is to be found nowhere but in the apochryphal book\nof Enoch; and there it is in a form quite different from that of the\nreceived tradition.\n\n'It is not known precisely where the angels dwell--whether in the air,\nin the void, or in the planets. It has not been God's pleasure that we\nshould be informed of their abode.'\n\n*Chapter xvii., v. 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. According to the latter\nverse, no uncircumcised man will be admitted into heaven; so the\nMahomedans would get in and Christians be excluded. The following will\nbe found in the Philosophical Dictionary under the head 'Circumcision.'\n'\"It appears,\" says Herodotus, in his book Euterpe, 'that the\ninhabitants of Colchis sprang from Egypt. I judge so from my own\nobservations, rather than from hearsay; for I found that, at Colchis,\nthe ancient Egyptians were more frequently recalled to my mind than the\nancient customs of Colchis were, when I was in Egypt.\n\n'\"These inhabitants of the shores of the Euxine sea stated themselves\nto be a colony founded by Sesostris. As for myself, I should think this\nprobable, not merely because they are dark and wooly-haired, but because\nthe inhabitants of Colchis, Egypt, and Ethiopia, {35} are the\nonly people in the world who, from time immemorial, have practised\ncircumcision; for the Phoenicians and the people of Palestine confess\nthat they adopted the practice from the Egyptians. The Syrians, who\nat present inhabit the banks of Thermodon, acknowledge that it is,\ncomparatively, but recently that they have conformed to it. It is\nprincipally from this usage that they are considered of Egyptian origin.\n\n'\"With respect to Ethiopia and Egypt, as this ceremony is of great\nantiquity in both nations, I cannot by any means ascertain which has\nderived it from the other. It is, however, probable that the Ethiopians\nreceived it from the Egyptians; while, on the contrary, the Phoenicians\nhave abolished the practice of circumcising new-born children since the\nenlargement of their commerce with the Greeks.\"\n\n'From this passage of Herodotus, it is evident that many people had\nadopted circumcision; but no nation ever pretended to have received\nit from the Jews. To whom, then, can we attribute the origin of this\ncustom; to a nation from whom five or six others acknowledge they took\nit, or to another nation, much less powerful, less commercial, less\nwarlike, hid away in a corner of Arabia Petraea, and which never\ncommunicated any one of its usages to any other people?\n\n'The Jews admit that they were, many ages since, received in Egypt out\nof charity. Is it not probable that the lesser people imitated a usage\nof the superior one, and that the Jews adopted some customs from their\nmasters?\n\n'Clement of Alexandria relates that Pythagoras, when travelling among\nthe Egyptians, was obliged to be circumcised, in order to be admitted\nto their mysteries. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary to be\ncircumcised to be a priest in Egypt. Those priests existed when Joseph\narrived in Egypt. The government was of great antiquity, and the\nancient ceremonies of the country were observed with the most scrupulous\nexactness. (Joseph was married into the family of the Priest of the Sun\nbefore his relations had established any religious system.)\n\n'The Jews acknowledge that they remained in Egypt two hundred and five\nyears (the Bible says four hundred and thirty). They say that, during\nthat period, they did not become circumcised. It is clear, then,\nthat for two hundred and five years, the Egyptians did not receive\ncircumcision from the Jews. Would they have adopted it from them after\nthe Jews had stolen the vessels which they had lent them, and, according\nto their own account, fled with their plunder into the wilderness? Will\na master adopt the principal symbol of the religion of a robbing and\nrunaway slave? It is not in human nature.\n\n'It is stated in the book of Joshua that the Jews were circumcised\nin the wilderness. \"I have delivered you from what constituted your\nreproach among the Egyptians.\" But what could this reproach be, to\na people living between Phoenicians, Arabians, and Egyptians, but\nsomething which rendered them contemptible to these three nations?' {36}\n*Chapter xviii., v. 1. The Lord appeared, according to verse 2, in the\nshape of three men, who wash their feet and sit down under a tree, and\neat cakes, butter, milk, and veal, until the tenth verse, when they\nbecome only one, and it is 'he said.' This _he_ would, according to\nverse 13, appear to be the Lord; but, in verse 16, we go back to 'the\nmen' again, who walk with Abraham. During the walk, the Lord speaks\n(verse 17), and, in verse 22, the Lord is mentioned separately from 'the\nmen.' Verses 20 and 21. This is scarcely the language to be expected\nfrom an omniscient God. It is here stated that a report of the sin of\nSodom and Gomorrah has reached God; that God is uncertain and ignorant\nas to the correctness of the report, and that he is determined to go\ndown to the city to ascertain the truth for himself. This is just what\nan ignorant and superstitious man might fancy, but not that which we\nshould expect a God would reveal. The argumentative conversation between\nGod and Abraham, and the strange comment, that, after the conversation\nwas finished, 'the Lord went his way,' are worthy of notice. The Douay\nBible explains this chapter in a foot-note, as follows:--'The Lord here\naccommodates his discourse to the way of speaking and acting amongst\nmen, for he knoweth all things, and needeth not to go anywhere for\ninformation. Note here that _two_ of the three angels went away\nimmediately for Sodom, while the third, who represented the Lord,\nremained with Abraham.' How is this ascertained? This comment is, like\nall the rest, a barefaced attempt to make falsehood appear like truth;\nbut failing in the attempt, because, like upon the contact of fire with\nwater, a loud hiss is always raised against those who endeavour to mix\nfalsehood with truth.\n\n*Chapter xix. My original publishers and my present printer, more moral\nthan the Queen's printers, decline to print or publish any comment upon,\nor any quotations from, the obscene part of this chapter. In defence of\nthe publishers, I may observe that, if this chapter was in any book\nbut the Bible, and was published by any one not well protected by the\naristocracy, he would be most assuredly prosecuted by the Society for\nSuppression of Vice; Regent Street, a few Lords, a Duke or Marauis, a\nBishop, or the Bible, will, however, cover with mystery, and varnish\nover with fashion, that, which if stript of its tawdry gewgaws or solemn\nblack cloak, is nothing but disgusting and degrading immorality.\n\nI shall, therefore, pass with but scant notice, and without the\nslightest attempt at examination, all those chapters or verses which may\nbe classed under the head 'obscene.'\n\nIt is said that the Bible would not be an authentic history unless it\ncontained such chapters as this, and that the relation is given for the\npurpose of showing that God condemned and punished such conduct, and as\na warning and example to futurity. Now, I feel that 'evil communications\ncorrupt good manners,' and, although I regret that God made such an\nunfortunate mistake in selecting a family who trained up such bad\nchildren, when he drowned everybody beside, yet I cannot admire and\nreverence his conduct in leaving them to fall into disgusting {37}\ncrime for the purpose of furnishing us with the horrid scene of the\ninhabitants of two cities burnt alive.\n\nLot's wife being changed into a pillar of salt, is a chemical problem\nnot easy of solution. 'Looking back' seems scarcely sufficient to\naccount for the transmutation. Jesus told his disciples that they were\nthe salt of the earth; perhaps they were descended from Lot's wife.\n\n*Chapter xx. This has been before adverted to in the general remarks on\nAbraham. Newman, in his 'Phases of Faith,' asks, 'What was I to make of\nGod's anger with Abimelech, whose sole offence was the having believed\nAbraham's lie? for which a miraculous barrenness was sent on all the\nfemales of Abimelech's tribe, and was bought off only by splendid\npresents to the favoured deceiver.'\n\nAccording to verse 6, Abimelech was not free and responsible; this\nmakes the punishment still more remarkable; and why punish others for\nAbimelech's offence (if offence was really committed)? If God withheld\nAbimelech from committing sin, why is he not as merciful to every one?\nit would be more Godlike to prevent sin than to punish the sinner.\n\n*Chapter xxi., v. 12 and 14. The sending Hagar and Ishmael into the\ndesert with only one bottle of water is cruel and barbarous conduct.\nAbraham does not seem to have had much parental affection; his\nfirst-born son he turned out into the desert with a small amount of food\nand water, and he prepared to cut the throat of his second son without\nthe slightest hesitation.\n\nGod informed Abraham that in Isaac should the great promise be\nfulfilled; and on this Ishmael was sent away. Voltaire says--\n\n'It was in Isaac that the race of the Patriarch was to be blessed; yet\nIsaac was father only of an unfortunate and contemptible nation, who\nwere for a long period slaves, and have, for a still longer, been\ndispersed. Ishmael, on the contrary, was the father of the Arabs; who,\nin course of time, established the empire of the Caliphs, one of the\nmost powerful and most extensive in the world.'\n\nVerses 30 and 31. In chap, xxvi., v. 25, 32, and 33, we are told that it\nwas not Abraham, but the servants of Isaac who digged the well; and\nthat it was not Abraham, but Isaac who called the name of the place\nBeersheba. Which is correct, or were there two Beer-shebas? The\nthirty-third verse reads, 'Therefore the name of the city is Beersheba\nunto this day.' The Rev. Dr. Giles adds, 'It is sufficient to remark\nthat no city of Beersheba existed in the time of Moses; consequently,\nthe Book in which it is found could not have been written by Moses or\nany of his contemporaries.'\n\n*Chapter xxii., v. 1. 'God did tempt Abraham.' It is quite clear that\nJames, 'a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,' did not believe\nthis verse; for, in his epistle to the twelve tribes, chap, i., v. 13,\nhe says, that God never tempteth any man.\n\nVerse 2. In the Douay, Abraham is told to go 'into the land of vision,'\nin our version, 'into the land of Moriah.' The Bible is so much made\nup of dreams and visions, that we cannot wonder the preachers should\nchiefly discourse upon castles in the air and crowns {38} in heaven, not\nto be looked at in the present life, but to be enjoyed without stint in\nthe next. It is one drawback that we are all to die first, because men\nmay well doubt whether their decaying and decayed remains will rise\nagain with capacity to enjoy the good things. This influences all; per\nexample, assuming a bishop to be a sincere believer, we all know that\nhe is reluctant to retire without his five shillings in this world, even\nwhile upheld by his faith in the crown he is to receive in the world to\ncome. Any doubter can satisfy his conscience by reference to the late\ndebates on the retiring bishop's bill.\n\nVerse 4. Abraham does not speak the truth when he tells the young men\nthat he and the young lad will return after worshipping, because at that\ntime he intends to kill Isaac. I do not wish to imply by this criticism\nthat I expect to find Abraham speaking the truth, because such an\nimplication would not be justified. Abraham might have respected truth,\nperhaps did, but he kept a long way from it very often (_vide_ his\nbefore-mentioned adventures with Pharaoh and Abimelech). Abraham even\ndeceived his own son; see verses 7 and 8. On this Voltaire remarks--\n\n'It seems astonishing that God, after causing Isaac to be born of a\ncentenary father and a woman of ninety-five, should afterwards have\nordered that father to murder the son whom he had given him, contrary\nto every expectation. This strange order from God seems to show that, at\nthe time when this history was written, the sacrifice of human victims\nwas customary amongst the Jews, as it afterwards became in other\nnations, as witness the vow of Jephtha.'\n\nNewman adds, 'Paul and James agree in extolling Abraham as the pattern\nof faith; James and the author of the epistle to the Hebrews specify the\nsacrifice of Isaac as a first-rate fruit of faith; yet, if the voice of\nmorality is allowed to be heard, Abraham was (in heart and intention)\nnot less guilty than those who sacrificed their children to Molech.' See\nalso 'Phases of Faith,' p. 91.\n\nVerse 14. 'And Abraham called the name of the place Jehovah jireh;' in\nExodus, chap, vi., v. 3, God says positively that he was not known to\nAbraham by the name Jehovah; which is true? If Abraham called the name\nof the place Jehoveh jireh, he must have known the Lord by that name;\neither the account as to Abraham is untrue, or God had forgotten or made\na mistake in Exodus. Which ever supposition is adopted, the Bible ceases\nto have any claim on us as a revelation from a truthful deity.\n\nVerse 16. 'By myself have I sworn.' Can my readers imagine any form of\noath an omnipotent, eternal, and infinite God would be like to use? Is\nGod's oath to be considered more binding than his word? In our day, if\na man swear to an untruth, We call it perjury; but, although God did not\nkeep his oath, we must remember that his ways are not as our ways.\n\n*Chapter xxiii., verses 2 and 19, and verses 15 and 16 have been before\nnoticed on page 5.\n\n*Chapter xxiv., v. 1. Abraham, in his old age, was more vigorous {39}\nthan in his youth and prime of life; for, by chap, xxv., v. 1 to 3, we\nlearn that after this he took another one, and had six sons, and, by\nchap, xxv., v. 6, it would appear that he had other wives and children.\n\nVerse 3. The conduct of Abraham and of God, as previously detailed, as\nto oath-taking, is disapproved in Matthew, chap, v., v. 34 to 37, and\nJames, chap, v., v. 12.\n\n*Chapter xxv., v. 5 and 6. If Abraham gave 'all that he had' unto Isaac,\nwhat kind of gifts did his other children get?\n\nVerse 8. One would scarcely fancy when reading the life of Abraham and\nthis conclusion, that he had died younger than any of his predecessors\non record. The Douay has it, 'and decaying, he died in a good old age,\nand having lived a long time.' Why, instead of dying in a good old age,\nhe had lived a much shorter period than any of his ancestors, and the\nverse, to be in accordance with the previous chapters, ought to have\nlamented his premature death.\n\nVerse 23. God seems to have a preference for younger sons; the dutiful\nIshmael (who, though turned out into the desert to starve, forgot his\nwrongs, and attended to place his father's body in the grave) was set\naside for his younger brother Isaac. The truthful, manly, and forgiving\nelder born Esau is supplanted by the crafty, cowardly, and untruthful\nJacob.\n\n*Chapter xxvi., v. 7 to 11. Of this adventure happening a third time in\nthe history of father and son, and a second time in the same country,\nProfessor Newman says, 'Allowing that such a thing was barely not\nimpossible, the improbability was so intense as to demand the strictest\nand most cogent proof; yet, when we asked who testified it, no proof\nappeared that it was Moses; or, supposing it to be he, what his sources\nof knowledge were'--and, on chap, xxvii.,' Was it at all credible that\nthe lying and fraudulent Jacob should be so specially loved by God?'\n\nVerse 34. These wives are differently named and described in chap,\nxxxvi., v. 2 and 3.\n\n*Chapter xxviii., v. 11. Even in a dream, the idea of a ladder reaching\nfrom earth to heaven to enable God and his angels to go up and down\nis rather ludicrous. The Douay says that Jacob 'saw the ladder in his\nsleep.' A dream, in Genesis, is intended to have a stronger significance\nthan we should attach to it; we are told that God often appeared to\nvarious persons in dreams. The writer of Genesis evidently conceived a\nladder necessary to enable God to get up to heaven, in the same style in\nwhich you or I might ascend to the roof of a house.\n\nVerse 20. The inference from this conditional statement is, that if God\ndoes not keep, clothe, and feed Jacob, then he shall not be Jacob's God.\nJacob was rather a shrewd fellow; he did not want to be religious for\nnothing.\n\nVerse 22. How can a stone be God's house, and what benefit would tithes\nbe to God?\n\n*Chapter xxix., v. 5. Laban was the son of Bethuel, not the son of {40}\nNahor; see chap, xxv., v. 20. Verse 17. The Douay says that Leah was\nblear-eyed. Verse 25. The cunning Jacob was outwitted by Laban, his\nuncle.\n\nThe bickerings between Jacob and his wives, and the curious mode of\ncheating Laban (chap, xxx., v. 32 to 42), need no comment other than\nthat of surprise that a special providence should interfere to make\nwomen fruitful or barren, or to make sheep of divers colours, white,\nblack, brown, speckled, spotted, grisled, and ringstraked--extraordinary\nsheep those. In the Douay and Breeches Bibles, the word 'sheep' stands\ninstead of 'cattle' in our version. Perhaps the authorised translators\nhad never seen sheep so peculiar as those first described:\n\n*Chapter xxxi., v. 53. Who is the God of Nahor?\n\n*Chapter xxxii., v. 1. Who are the 'Angels of God?'\n\nVerses 24 to 30. If any meaning is intended to be conveyed by; these\nverses, it is that the omnipotent and infinite God and his creature\nJacob wrestled all night, and that in the morning God, finding that\nJacob was as strong and clever at wrestling as himself, unfairly puts\nJacob's thigh out of joint; notwithstanding which, Jacob refused to let\nlet go his hold of God Almighty until he had given him his blessing. I\nwill not comment on this, because, to Freethinkers, the matter is too\nabsurd, and, to Believers, too outrageous for remark.\n\nOn verse 32, the Rev. Dr. Giles remarks, 'This reference to a custom\nstill existing among the Israelites, seems decidedly to indicate a later\ndate than that of Moses. No one has ventured to assert that the Mosaic\nLaw was observed by the Jews before it was instituted by Moses. Now, the\nwords of the passage before us seem to show that the Israelites had, for\na long time, abstained from eating the sinew which shrank. Moses, being\nconscious that this custom was ordained by himself, could hardly have\nused such language, or have claimed such great antiquity as the words\nseem to indicate.'\n\nVerse 3 to 22, and chap, xxxiii., v. 1 to 15. Read this account\nattentively, and then ask yourselves which of the brothers was the more\nworthy of the promise--Esau, cozened out of his birthright, swindled out\nof his father's blessing, yet forgetting and forgiving when he had the\npower to crush and punish; or Jacob, the cheater, the liar, and the\ncoward.\n\n*Chapter xxxiii., v. 19: In the Douay, instead of 'a hundred pieces of\nmoney,' we are told that Jacob gave the children of Hamor 'a hundred\nlambs.'\n\nVerse 20 is thus translated; 'And raising an altar there, he invoked\nupon it the most mighty God of Israel.'\n\nWhether Douay or Protestant translation be correct, it is quite certain\nthat Jacob was a little too fast--there was no [--------] (al alei\nishral)--Jacob was not called Israel until chap, xxxv., v. 10--so\nthat the 'El-elohe-Israel' of our version, and the 'most mighty God of\nIsrael' of the Douay, are both out of place unless Jacob used the words\nin the spirit of prophecy, which will explain many difficult passages.\n\n*Chapter xxxiv. Upon this chapter Voltaire indulges in criticism more\npungent than before:--\n\n'Here our critics exclaim in terms of stronger disgust than ever. What!\nsay they, the son of a king is desirous to marry a vagabond girl; the\nmarriage is approved; Jacob, the father, and Dinah, the daughter,\nare loaded with presents; the King of Sichem deigns to receive those\nwandering robbers, called patriarchs, within his city; he has the\nincredible politeness or kindness to undergo, with his son, his court,\nand his people, the rite of circumcision, thus condescending to the\nsuperstition of a petty horde that could not call half a league of\nterritory their own! And, in return for this astonishing hospitality and\ngoodness, how do our holy patriarchs act? They wait for the day when the\nprocess of circumcision generally induces fever; when Simeon and Levi\nrun through the whole city with poignards in their hands and massacre\nthe king, the prince his son, and all the inhabitants. We are precluded\nfrom the horror appropriate to this infernal counterpart of the tragedy\nof St. Bartholomew, only by a sense of its absolute impossibility. It is\nan abominable romance; but it is evidently a ridiculous romance. It\nis impossible that two men could have slaughtered in quiet the whole\npopulation of a city. The people might suffer, in a slight degree, from\nthe operation which had preceded; but, notwithstanding this, they would\nhave risen in self-defence against two diabolical miscreants; they would\nhave instantly assembled, would have surrounded them, and destroyed them\nwith the summary and complete vengeance merited by their atrocity.\n\n'But there is a still more palpable impossibility. It is that, according\nto the accurate computation of time, Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, could\nbe only four or five years old; and that, even by forcing up chronology\nas far as possible in favour of the narrative, she could, at the very\nmost, be only eight. It is here, then, that we are assailed with bursts\nof indignant exclamation. What! it is said, what! is it this book--the\nbook of a rejected and reprobate people--a book so long unknown to all\nthe world--a book in which sound reason and decent manners are outraged\nin every page--that is held up to us as irrefragable, holy, and dictated\nby God himself? Is it not even impious to believe it? or could anything\nless than the fury of cannibals urge to the persecution of sensible and\nmodest men for not believing it?'\n\n*Chapter xxxv., v. 11. Although kings were to come out of Jacob's loins\nby promise, Esau's issue have been quite as successful, in fact rather\nmore so, without any of God's assistance.\n\nVerse 22, and chap, xlix., v. 3 and 4. The family to whom God promised\n'the land,' seem to have been as immoral and vicious as any on record.\nAbraham has been noticed; the conduct of Lot, his family, and neighbours\nI dare not comment on; Isaac was pretty free from blame, except in the\nmatter of Rebekah; but his goodness is overborne by the rascality of his\nson Jacob and his wife, Rachel, who (worthy partner of such a husband)\nrobs her own father--the cutthroat propensities of Simeon and Levi--and\nthe licentiousness of Reuben. {42} *Chapter xxxv., end of verse 22\nto verse 26. Dr. Giles speaks of the inaccuracy of the last verse, as\nfollows:--\n\n'\"These are the sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padan-Aram.\"\n\n'But it is well known that Benjamin was born some years after Jacob\nreturned to Canaan. The text, therefore, is incorrect, and creates a\nserious difficulty, if we suppose that Moses, writing in the presence of\nGod, could have been liable to such an error.'\n\n*Chapter xxxvi., v. 2 and 3, are contradicted in chap, xxvi., v. 34.\n\nVerses 14, 16, and 18. It is difficult to discover from this whether\nKorah was the son or grandson of Esau, as he is described in both\ncharacters.\n\nVerse 31 has been referred to on page 6. In Dr. Giles's 'Hebrew\nRecords,' page 140, the critical reader will find the matter discussed\nmore fully than my pages allow.\n\n*Chapter xxxvii., v. 1. In the Douay, instead of 'wherein his father was\na stranger,' it reads,' wherein his father sojourned;' and, in verse\n2, instead of 'seventeen,' it reads 'sixteen,' and states that Joseph\n'accused his brethren to his father of a most wicked crime.'\n\nVerses 25, 27, and 28. These verses are criticised in the 'Hebrew\nRecords' as follows:--\n\n'Here the merchants, to whom Joseph is sold, are twice called\nIshmaelites, and once Midianites. Bishop Patrick explains the\ninconsistency in the following extraordinary manner:--\n\n'\"_Ishmaelites_. They are called below Midianites. These people were\nnear neighbours to each other, and were joined together in one company,\nor caravan, as it is now called. It is the custom, even to the present\nday, in the East, for merchants and others to travel through the deserts\nin large companies, for fear of robbers or wild beasts.\"\n\n'If the passage to which these comments are annexed, occurred in one\nof the famous Greek or Latin historians--Livy, Thucydides, or any\nother--such a note would not, for one instant, be taken as sound\ncriticism, because none of those able writers would be guilty of such\nan absurdity as applying two names, known to be distinct, to the same\npeople, within the space of four lines. If some idle and weakly written\ntale contained the inconsistency, the mode of interpreting it, which\nBishop Patrick applies to the passage before us, might be passed over,\nbut, even then, more from its being of no importance, than from its\nsoundness or its propriety. But, when we find this discrepancy in a\nwork which professes to be inspired, it is highly desirable that such an\ninconsistency or discrepancy should be cleared up. Why have none of\nthe commentators remarked on the singular circumstance of there being\nIshmaelitish merchants at all, in the time when Joseph was sold into\nEgypt? Ishmael was Jacob's uncle, being brother to Isaac, Jacob's\nfather. The family of Ishmael could not have increased to such an extent\nin the time of which the history treats. The mention of Ishmaelites,\nin the text before us, indicates that the writer lived many generations\nlater, when Ishmaelitish {43} merchants were well known. Still less\nlikely is it that there were Midianitish merchants in those days; for\nMidian was also one of the sons of Abraham, and fifty-four years younger\nthan Isaac; see chap, xxv., y. 2. At all events, the variation in the\nname of this tribe of merchantmen renders it impossible that Moses could\nhave written the narrative, unless we suppose that, when he had it in\nhis power to describe the matter accurately and definitely, he rather\nchose to relate it in such a manner as to puzzle all future ages as to\nits exact meaning.'\n\nVerse 35. In the Douay, the word 'hell' is substituted for the word\n'grave.' The Hebrew is [------] (shale). Jacob believed his son devoured\nby wild beasts, and, therefore, could have hardly expected to find him\nin his grave; and, although hell might, perhaps, be the appropriate\nreceptacle for one who had been so great a rascal as Jacob, yet, I much\ndoubt whether he ever expressed his intention to go there to find his\nson. I must refer my more precise readers to the various controversial\nworks written by various shades of Catholic and Protestant divines, on\nthe words 'purgatory,' 'limbo,' 'hell,' and 'grave.'\n\nVerse 36. The word [------] translated 'officer,' means eunuch, and is\nso translated in the Douay; if this be correct, we can scarcely wonder\nat the conduct of Potiphar's wife, as detailed in chap, xxxix.\n\n*Chapter xxxviii Judah and his children are a still further illustration\nof the happy and moral family in whom all the nations of the world were\nto be blessed. The following is quoted from Voltaire:--\n\n'The Rev. Father Dom Calmet makes this reflection, in alluding to the\nthirty-eighth chapter of Genesis:--\"Scripture,\" he observes, \"gives us\nthe details of a history, which, on the first perusal, strikes our minds\nas not of a nature for edification; but the hidden sense which is shut\nup in it is as elevated, as that of the mere letter appears low to\ncarnal eyes. It is not without good reasons that the Holy Spirit has\nallowed the histories of Tamar, of Rahab, of Ruth, and of Bathsheba, to\nform a part of the genealogy of Jesus Christ.\"\n\n'It might have been well, if Dom Calmet had explained these sound\nreasons, by which we might have cleared up the doubts, and appeased\nthe scruples, of all the honest and timorous souls who are anxious to\ncomprehend how this Supreme Being, the Creator of the world, could be\nborn in a Jewish village, of a race of plunderers and of prostitutes.\nThis mystery, which is not less inconceivable than other mysteries, was\nassuredly worthy the explanation of so able a commentator.'\n\n*Chapter xxxix. is inserted, I presume, by way of contrast, to heighten\nthe effect produced by the previous chapter.\n\n*Chapter xl., v. 5, 8, 9, 12, and 16--chap, xli., v. 15 and 25. In\nLeviticus, chap, xix., v. 26, we find these words according to the\nDouay, 'You shall not divine nor observe dreams.'\n\n*Chapter xli., v. 38 and 39. One would imagine, by these verses, that\nJoseph and the Egyptians worshipped the same God, but this is not\nthe fact; Pharaoh speaks to Moses of the Lord _your_ God, and if the\nEgyptians had spoken in their usual manner, it would have been {44} not\nto have praised Joseph for the Spirit of God being in him, but rather to\nhave upbraided the infidel prisoner with having obtained his knowledge\nfrom the devil, unless, indeed, we are to assume that the religious\nEgyptians were more humane than the religious Christians. If Joseph\nhad lived a few years later, he would have stood a fair chance of being\nstoned to death, for his divinations and fortune-telling (_vide_ Exodus,\nchap, xxii., v. 18, and Deuteronomy, chap, xviii., v. 10, 11, and 12).\n\nVerses 45 and 50. Potipherah is here called priest of On; in the Douay,\nhe is denominated priest of Heliopolis. In plain truth, he was priest\nof the sun; and it might be instructive if it were possible to ascertain\nthe reasons which induced the translators to hide Joseph's close\nconnexion with sun worship.\n\nVerse 56. This famine was over the whole earth, so that the favoured\nfamily of Abraham were worse off than the Egyptians, to whom God gave\nseven years' notice, to enable them to prepare against the coming\ntrouble. We have all heard of people living on hope; and the children of\nIsaac might have hoped for the fulfilment of the promise, but such would\nbe very unsubstantial food during a seven years' famine.\n\n*Chapter xliii., v. 32. How could it be considered an abomination\nfor the Egyptians to eat with the Hebrews? the latter were only the\ndescendants of Abraham, few in number, and the Egyptians could not have\nknown of their existence until they made acquaintance with Joseph;\nand, by giving him the daughter of the high priest to wife, they had\nconferred great honour and favour on him--he was the first in the land,\nand the only Hebrew amongst them.\n\n*Chapter xliv., v. 5 and 15. Joseph, according to this, used to divine\nin a cup. My grandmother used to inspect the dregs of her tea cup, and\nprophesy wondrously; but it is really too much to expect us to find a\ncreed in such a cup.\n\n*Chapter xlvi., v. 1 to 3. God again appeared in a vision at night, that\nis, Jacob dreamed that he saw God.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Giles observes on verses 8 to 26:--\n\n'An error is found also in the other catalogue of Jacob's children,\nwho accompanied him into Egypt. The names occupy from verse 8 to 25 of\nGenesis, chap. xlvi. In verse 26 it is said:--\n\n'\"All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his\nloins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were three score and\nsix.\"\n\n'This total is erroneous, for the names, added properly, amount to\nsixty-seven; and a still greater difference is found between the Hebrew\ntext and the Septuagint, in the twenty-seventh verse; the former makes\n\"all the souls of the house of Jacob,\" to be \"three score and ten,\"\nwhereas the latter states them to have been seventy-five.\n\n'We might set aside the authority of the Septuagint as inferior to\nthat of the Hebrew in such a matter, were it not, that in St. Stephen's\nspeech, in the Acts of the Apostles, chap, vii., v. 14, the number 75\nis repeated; and an awkward dilemma is created, from which it is {45}\nimpossible to extricate ourselves, if these conflicting accounts, both\nwritten by inspiration, are to be considered as having come down to us\nin their original state. This may, with justice, be called in question;\nfor Dean Shuckford, who supposes that the transcribers have added\nsomething in chap, xxxv., accuses them of having omitted something in\nchap, xlvi., of having added a verse in xlvi., 27, of the Septuagint,\nwhich is more full than the Hebrew, and, lastly, of having altered\nseventy into seventy-five, in chap. vii. of the Acts. It is difficult\nto imagine how a book, with which such liberties have been taken, can\nproperly be regarded as an immaculate record. But the same mode of\ninterpretation is entirely inapplicable to explain the remarkable fact,\nthat, among those who accompanied Jacob into Egypt, are enumerated, in\nchap, xlvi., v. 21, ten sons of Benjamin, and, in v. 12, two grandsons\nof Judah, Hezron and Hamul. Jacob surely went into Egypt soon after\nthe famine began; and Benjamin was then a lad, if we may trust the\nchronologers, under twenty years of age. The grandsons of Judah, through\nhis son Pharez, could not have been born until many years later; for\nPharez, their father, was only two or three years old when the whole\nfamily first entered the land of their servitude.\n\n'In verse 34 it is said, as a reason for the Israelites being placed\nin the land of Goshen, that \"every shepherd is an abomination to the\nEgyptians.\" But it appears, from every other part of the history of\nJoseph and Pharaoh, that there was no such enmity between them. This\nis also the opinion of Dr. Shuckford, whose account of the matter is as\nfollows:--\n\n'\"There is, indeed, one passage in Genesis which seems to intimate that\nthere was that religious hatred, which the Egyptians were afterwards\ncharged with, paid to creatures even in the days of Joseph; for we are\ninformed that he put his brethren upon telling Pharaoh their profession,\nin order to have them placed in the land of Goshen, for, or because,\n'every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians,' Genesis, xlvi.,\nv. 34. I must freely acknowledge that I cannot satisfy myself about the\nmeaning of this passage; I cannot see that shepherds were really, at\nthis time, an abomination to the Egyptians; for Pharaoh himself had his\nshepherds, and, when he ordered Joseph to place his brethren in the land\nof Goshen, he was so far from disapproving of their employment, that he\nordered him, if he knew any men of activity amongst them, that he should\nmake them rulers of his cattle; nay, the Egyptians were, at this time,\nshepherds themselves as well as the Israelites, for we are told, when\ntheir money failed, they brought their cattle of all sorts unto Joseph,\nto exchange them for corn, and, among the rest, their flocks of the same\nkind with those which the Israelites were to tell Pharaoh that it was\ntheir profession to take care of, as will appear to any one that will\nconsult the Hebrew text in the places referred to. Either, therefore, we\nmust take the expression that every shepherd was an abomination to\nthe Egyptians to mean no more than that they thought meanly of the\nemployment, that it was a lazy, idle, and inactive profession, as\n{46} Pharaoh seemed to question whether there were any men of activity\namongst them, when he heard what their trade was; or, if we take the\nwords to signify a religious aversion to them, which does, indeed, seem\nto be the true meaning of the expression, from the use made of it in\nother parts of Scripture, then I do not see how it is reconcilable with\nPharaoh's inclination to employ them himself, or with the Egyptians\nbeing many of them, at this time, of the same profession themselves,\nwhich the heathen writers agree with Moses in supposing them to be.\n[Diod. Sic., lib. 1],'\" Though learned men have observed that there are\nseveral interpolations in the books of the Scriptures, which were not\nthe words of the Sacred Writers, some persons, affecting to show their\nlearning, when they read over the ancient MSS., would sometimes put a\nshort remark in the margin, which they thought might give a reason for,\nor clear the meaning of, some expression in the text against which they\nplaced it, or to which, they adjoined it; and from hence it happened,\nnow and then, that the transcribers from manuscripts so remarked upon,\ndid, through mistake, take a marginal note or remark into the text,\nimagining it to be a part of it. Whether Moses might not end his period\nin this place with the words, _that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen_;\nand whether what follows, _for every shepherd is an abomination to the\nEgyptians_, may not have been added to the text in this way, is entirely\nsubmitted to the judgment of the learned. Connexion Book 5, vol. i., p.\n341.\"\n\n'The learned writer of this extract is more correct in his statement of\nthe difficulty, than in its solution. It is a principle in criticism\nto consider a book as free from interpolation, until it is proved that\ninterpolations have certainly been made. The charge of interpolation is\nbrought against the books of the Old Testament for no other reason, than\nto reduce them into harmony with the preconceived opinion that they\nwere written by the authors to whom they are commonly ascribed. In the\npresent instance, there has been no interpolation.\n\nThe compiler, relating the honours paid to the family of Jacob in Egypt,\nand endeavouring to harmonise them with the state of things in his\nown times, 1,000 years later, when the Egyptians, by their religious\nabsurdities, had been made to entertain an enmity towards shepherds, has\ngiven us a description which, in this particular, is inconsistent with\nitself. In short, the Egyptians held shepherds in aversion in the fifth,\nbut not in the fifteenth, century before the Christian era.'\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to add to the above; but, if it were, it would\nbe hard to reconcile there being an abomination with the eleventh verse\nof chap, xlvii., in which it is stated that Pharaoh gave these very\npeople 'the best of the land, in the land of Rameses.'\n\n*Chapter xlviii., v. 22. Jacob's life contains no account of his wars\nwith the Amorites; in fact, had it not been for these concluding words,\nI should have looked upon him as rather likely to gain victories by\ncozening and diplomatic swindling, than by his bow and sword.\n\n*Chapter 1., v. 10 and 11. These verses could not have been {47} written\nby Moses, because Atad was not _beyond_ but on _this_ side Jordan to\nhim. Joseph did not cross the Jordan to bury his rather.\n\nBefore quitting Genesis, I will endeavour, as briefly as possible, to\nsum up the effect of my partial examination (I say partial, because\nthere are many differences in the readings of the various manuscripts,\nand in the translation of the different versions, which I passed\nwithout notice, because they have seemed to me to be of comparative\nunimportance). I have shown, in the foregoing pages--first, that in the\nauthorised version the book claims our attention under false pretences,\nthat, in fact, it is not, and in the original does not claim to be, the\nwork of Moses; many passages he could not have written, of the rest,\nsome passages are evidently taken from different manuscripts, and badly\njoined or fitted in, so as to make up the text as we have it, forming,\nin many cases, a twice or even thrice told tale, as in the accounts of\nthe creation, of the flood, the adventures of Abraham's wife, and of\nJacob's wife, etc. Second, that it is impossible the book can be a\nrevelation from God, because it contains passages in relation to deity\nwhich are in themselves ridiculously absurd, because it speaks of more\nGods than one, treating some as superior and some as inferior Gods,\nbecause it degrades the deity to the level of man, making him grieve\nand repent, and become subject to the same passions and feelings as man,\nliable to heat and cold, etc, because it treats of the deity as a finite\nbeing, occupying a small portion of space, travelling from one part of\nthe earth to another, going up to heaven and coming down therefrom\nwith the aid of a ladder; because it relates that God has, or sometimes\nassumes, a finite, substantial shape, which a man may lay hold of and\nwrestle with; because it pictures God as favouring, without apparent\nreason, some men in preference to others, and, in very many instances,\nchoosing as the objects of his divine favour the worst possible\ncharacters, rewarding fraud and knavery with lands flowing with milk and\nhoney, and discouraging and discountenancing virtuous conduct either\nby leaving it unnoticed or by depriving the unfortunate virtuous man of\nsome benefit to which he appeared to be entitled; because it represents\na just and Almighty God allowing the happiness of his own creatures to\nbe destroyed by one of the animals he had created, and then cursing\nthe tempted man and woman for being frail enough to fall at the first\ntemptation, when, in fact, he (God) was the cause of that very frailty;\nbecause it represents the same Deity pledging his oath to a promise\nwhich he either never intended to perform, or which he did not possess\nthe ability to perform, or which he afterwards wilfully broke.\n\nThird.--That it cannot be relied on as a relation of actual occurrences,\nbecause, in the account of the creation, science has enabled us to\ndetect several positively false statements in the account of the flood;\nalso several gross and palpable mis-statements occur; because, in\ndealing with dates and genealogical statements, it contradicts and\nconfuses its own narrative; because, even where it pretends to be the\nmost real, it is alleged, in another book of the same Bible, to be\npurely allegorical. {48} Fourth.---That it ought not to be used as an\neducational work for the foregoing reasons, and because of the various\nobscene passages spread throughout the book; because, also, the youthful\nscholar will find cunning, craft, and cheating rewarded and preferred,\nwhile honesty and noble conduct is unnoticed; because he will find the\npractice of sacrifice is encouraged, and sacrifice, either human or\nbestial, is degrading and debasing; because he will find cruelties\ndetailed at which his nature must revolt or become deteriorated.\n\nIn Foxton's work on 'Popular Christianity,' a quotation is given from\nthe _Prospective Review_, in which the writer suggests:--\n\n'That the Jews, like every other nation of antiquity, have framed for\nthemselves a mythical history, which, with the lapse of time, has been\nreceived for fact. This at once releases us from the necessity of any\nelaborate contrivances for reconciling their belief with probability\nand the laws of nature; and exhibits a phenomenon so universal and so\nnatural, that it would have been a miracle if the Jewish literature had\nbeen an exception to it. But the transition from regarding the first\nchapters of Genesis as an inspired record, to treating them as only a\npicture of the popular notions of the age in which they were produced,\nis too violent to be made at once by any large portion of the public.\nWe are not sorry, therefore, that, from time to time, hypotheses are\nproposed which smooth the descent from one of these opinions to the\nother, and make the gradients safer. The clerical geologists would have\nbeen suspended by their diocesans, or hooted from their pulpits, if they\nhad not been able, at first, to profess that their discoveries confirmed\nthe Mosaic account of the deluge, and did not contravene that of the\ncreation. Time has familiarised men with the idea that they are not to\nlook into Scripture for geology; and we hope that its professors will\nsoon come openly to avow this, and cease to torture the words of Genesis\ninto a conformity with their science. Public opinion is so tyrannically\nintolerant, and its penal power so fearful, that we cannot expect the\nwhole truth to be told, or even to be seen, at once. But while we admit\nthe temporary value of such intermediate stages of opinion, we are bound\nto declare our judgment that they are merely temporary, and have no\nsolid basis.'\n\nMy only object in collecting together these criticisms on the Bible,\nis to free the human family from the many evils which, in my opinion,\nattach to, and are consequent on, a belief in the divine origin of the\nBook.\n\nThe child is taught to believe the Bible is the word of God, at an age\nwhen he can scarcely read its words; he is taught to regard with horror\nevery attempt to criticise its pages; and the result is, that when his\nsenses point out a fact, and that fact clashes with his Bible, he is\nbewildered and confused, he knows not what to think, and unless he be\nof great mental power, he ends by not thinking at all, and becomes\nprofessedly a believer, but in reality a man who dares not reason.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK II. EXODUS\n\nThe title, 'Second Book of Moses,' is an interpolation, forming no part\nof the text. The remark on page four, as to titles and headings, applies\nto the whole of the Bible.\n\n*Chapter 1., vv. 6 and 7. 'Joseph died and his brethren, and all that\ngeneration and the children of Israel were fruitful, * * * and the land\nwas filled with them.' If these words mean anything, they mean that in\nthe duration of a little more than one generation, the children of one\nman multiplied so as to fill the whole of the land of Egypt, and to\nbecome exceedingly mighty. Devout believers can only wonder that this\nnumerous and exceedingly mighty people allowed the Egyptians so\nto maltreat and oppress them; or that this fruitful and abundantly\nincreasing people wno filled all the land, had only two midwives to\nattend them. The believers may also wonder why God made houses for those\nmidwives to live in, when if the Israelites were so exceedingly fruitful\nand numerous, the midwives could have but little time to live in their\nown houses, but must have been always employed in their professional\navocations. Admirers of God's truthfulness may likewise wonder why he\nrewarded the midwives for telling Pharaoh a lie, when by his power he\nmight have saved them the necessity.\n\n*Chapter ii., vv. 16, 17, 18. From these verses it would seem that the\nname of the father-in-law of Moses was Reuel, but according to chap.\niii., v. 1, chap, iv., v. 18, chap, xviii., vv. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 12, his\nname was not Reuel, but Jethro, while according to Numbers, chap, x., v.\n29, his name was neither Reuel nor Jethro, but was Raguel. On reference\nto the Hebrew text, I find the same word [------] is carelessly\nanglicised as Reuel and Raguel; this will not, however, explain the\nthird name, Jethro, and if we treat Moses as the author, it will be\ndifficult to understand how he could be mistaken in the correct name of\nhis own father-in-law.\n\nVerses 23 and 24. These verses imply that until the cries and groanings\ncame up to God, he had forgotten his chosen Israelites, and his solemn\ncovenant, oath, and promise. This view is confirmed by the Douay\ntranslation of verse 25, which adds, 'And the Lord looked upon the\nchildren of Israel, and he knew them.' As though he had refreshed his\nmemory by so looking on them.\n\n*Chapter iii., v. 2. The Douay says that 'the Lord appeared,' instead of\nthe angel. The picture of the Omnipotent and: Eternal God appearing as\na flame of fire in the middle of a bush, which burns, but is not burnt,\nand desiring Moses to take his shoes off, is scarcely calculated to\narouse a reverential feeling in our minds.\n\nVerse 6. In Genesis, chap, xxxv., v. 10, God said of Jacob, 'Thy name\nshall not be any more called Jacob, Israel is thy name,' yet we find\nhe calls himself 'the God of Jacob,' and uses the name 'Jacob' no fewer\nthan eight times in the book of Exodus alone. {50} Verse 22. This mode\nof 'borrowing' seems very much like stealing, and the translators of\nthe Breeches Bible in a note say that this example is not to be followed\ngenerally.\n\n*Chapter iv., v. 14. The anger of the Lord kindled, and why? Because\nMoses tells him that ne is not a good speaker, and that he (Moses)\ntherefore desired the Lord to choose somebody else to represent his\nwishes to Pharaoh and the Jews. But why should the Lord be angry?\nhe must have himself foreknown and foreordained that Moses should be\nreluctant to go.\n\nVerse 21. What are the miracles which are previously mentioned but so\nmany incidents in a solemn farce, if God had already determined that\nPharaoh should pay no attention to them? The serpent, rod, and the\nleprous hand, not being intended by God to move Pharaoh, of what use\nare they? In the third chapter, God tells Moses to use subterfuge to\nPharaoh, by pretending that the Jewish nation only wanted to go three\ndays' journey to sacrifice in the wilderness, and at the same time God\nsays that he is 'sure the King of Egypt will not let you go.' If God is\nthe ruler and ordainer of all things, he must have ruled and ordained\nthat his chosen people should be ill-treated by Pharaoh, whom God must\nhave created for that very purpose. Can anything be more inconsistent\nand less calculated to enable us to admire the character of a just and\nmerciful Deity?\n\nVerse 26. What does this mean? If the Lord sought to kill Moses, what\nhindered him from carrying out his desire? It is strange that he should\nseek to kill the very man whom he had selected to lead his chosen people\nout of Egypt. The circumcision of the son of Moses seems connected with\nthe story, but not very clearly. The abrupt transition from the message\nto Pharaoh, to the seeking to kill Moses, shows that something has been\nlost from the original text. The verses 22 to 27 read as they stand are\nabsurd. In our version we are told that _after_ the Lord let Moses go,\nZipporah said 'A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.'\nIn the Douay we find that Zipporah used these words _before_ the Lord\nlet Moses go.\n\nVerses 28, 29, and 30. Aaron who wrought the signs, and spoke the words\nto the people, did so without any direct communication from God. He\nmust have been more credulous than Moses, for he seems to have readily\nundertaken, upon the mere representation of his brother, that which his\nbrother had hesitated to do, although personally commanded by God.\n\nIn chap, v, we find that Moses complains to God that the Jews are\nworse off since his message, and he expresses himself in a manner which\nimplies doubt as to whether God really intend to deliver his people.\n\n*Chapter vi., v. 3 (see also page 38 of this work), Here is a positive\nstatement that God was known unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by the\nname [------] (Bal Shadi, translated, God Almighty), but not by the name\n[------] (yeue, anglicised as Jehovah). This statement, professedly\nfrom the lips of God himself, is absolutely contradicted by the book of\nGenesis, in which the name [------] occurs no less than {51} 130 times.\nIn the Douay it reads, 'and my name Adonai I did not show them,' and in\na foot-note we are told that the name Adonai is substituted for the\nfour letters [------], because the Jews out of reverence never pronounce\n\"this word. This is not true: the Jews simply do not pronounce the word,\nbecause without points it is unpronounceable. 'The nearest approach to\nthe exact utterance or pronunciation of this word will be produced by\nsuspending the action of all the organs of articulation, and making\nonly that convulsive heave of the larynx, by which the bronchial\nvessels discharge the accumulated phlegm; it is enunciated with the\nmost eloquent propriety in the act of _vomiting?_ (_Vide_ Taylor's\n'Diegesis,' chap. 22.)\n\nVerses 12 and 30. The fear expressed by Moses that Pharaoh will not\nlisten to him, because he (Moses) has not been circumcised, is strongly\ncorroborative of Voltaire's criticism given on page 35 of this work.\n\nVerses 26 and 27 could never have been written by Moses, but must have\nbeen written long after, by some one who wished to identify the Aaron\nand Moses of the genealogy with the Aaron and Moses to whom the Lord\nspoke.\n\n*Chapter vii., v. 1. What is meant by the words 'I have made thee a God\nto Pharaoh?' In what sense could Moses be considered as Pharaoh's God?\nHe was not worshipped by Pharaoh, nor did he rule Pharaoh.\n\nVerses 10, 11, and 12. Is it necessary to argue in the middle of\nthe nineteenth century that the whole account of these miracles are\nunreasonable as well as impossible? unreasonable, because even the\nmost pious Theist, if he claimed for God the power to turn a rod into\na serpent, would hardly concede the same power to the sorcerers and\nmagicians of Egypt. The throwing down the rod by Aaron, its change into\na serpent, and the swallowing the other rods, form a display without\npurpose or utility, because God has already predestined that they should\nproduce no effect whatever upon Pharaoh.\n\nVerses 19, 20, and 21. These verses, if they mean anything, mean that\nthe _whole of the water_ in Egypt was turned to blood; if so, the\ntwenty-second verse would be incorrect in stating that the magicians did\nthe same, because, _if all the water_ were already turned to blood by\nAaron, there would not be any left for the magicians to operate upon. We\nare told that this plague was throughout the whole of the land of Egypt;\nif so, the Jews must have suffered equally with the Egyptians. This for\nseven days in a warm country would have been a terrible plague. The same\nremarks apply to the following plague of frogs.\n\n*Chapter viii., w. 17 and 18. It is scarcely a matter for wonder that\nthe magicians could not turn the dust into lice, when we are told that\n_all the dust_ had been previously changed bv Aaron.\n\nVerses 22 and 23. It is evident from these verses that the Jews had been\nequal participators in all the evils attaching to the previous plagues.\n\n*Chapter ix., v. 10. What beasts could the boils break out on, when\nall were killed by murrain in verse 6? {52} Verses 19, 20, 21, and 25.\nEither the cattle which were dead in verse 6 had been restored to life,\nof which we have no account, or these verses are positively absurd as\nwell as false.\n\n*Chapter xi., v. 3. 'And the Lord _gave_ the people favour in the sight\nof the Egyptians.' The Douay reads, 'And the Lord _will give_ favour to\nhis people.' Our version is evidently incorrect, because the Egyptians\nafterwards suffered another plague, which would have been unnecessary.\n'And the man Moses was very great in the land.' Moses can scarcely be\nsupposed to have written this.\n\n*Chapter xii., v. 29. In this verse is related the horrible consummation\nof a series of plagues which God had caused to fall on the Egyptians.\nAnd why all this punishment? Was it because the Egyptians as a nation\nhad oppressed the Israelites? If so, the cattle, the trees, and the\ngreen herbs were sharers in the punishment although not in the offence,\nand the Egyptians could never have oppressed the Israelites if it had\nnot been permitted by the Omnipotent Deity who had sworn to protect\nand cherish them. Was the punishment because Pharaoh would not let\nthe Children of Israel go? If so, what had the first-born of the\n'maid-servant in the mill and of the captive in the dungeon' to do with\nhis offence? But even Pharaoh was specially controlled by God; in chap,\niv., v. 21, chap, vii., v. 3, chap, ix., v. 12, chap, x., vv. 1, 20, and\n27, chap, xi., v. 10, and chap, xiv., v. 4, we have distinct repetitions\nof the statement that God himself hardened Pharaoh's heart and prevented\nhim from allowing the Children of Israel to go. Then, why all this\npunishment? In chap, ix., v. 16, chap, x., v. 2, and chap. xiv. v. 4, we\nare told that God raised Pharaoh up for the very purpose of smiting him\nand his people, so that the name of God might be declared throughout all\nthe earth, that the Israelites might worship the Lord, and that the\nname of God might be honoured amongst the Egyptians; and to attain this\nresult, God plagues and torments the Egyptian nation with most painful\nand destructive plagues, killing the first-born in every family, from\nhim that sat on the throne to the captive in the dungeon, and ending by\ndrowning Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea. The religious thinker who\nattempts to contemplate this horrible picture, and who might, perhaps,\nbe tempted to blaspheme by questioning God's justice and goodness, will\nbe saved from this dilemma by a consciousness of the falsity of the\nwhole tale, which is manifested in a most ridiculous manner. According\nto chap, ix., vv. 3 and 6, all the cattle of the Egyptians, their\nhorses, asses, camels, oxen, and sheep, were killed by the murrain; by\nverse 10 of the same chapter, a boil breaking forth with blains is sent\nupon the same cattle; by verse 19 the Egyptians are cautioned to gather\nin _their already dead cattle_ lest they should again die from the\neffects of the hail, and those who feared the Lord amongst the servants\nof Pharaoh made his _dead_ cattle flee into the house lest they should\nbe killed again, and those who did not fear the Lord had their cattle\nkilled a second time by the hail; in chap, x., v. 25, Moses asks Pharaoh\nto give him some of his _twice killed_ cattle that he may kill them a\nthird time as sacrifices to the Lord; in chap. {53} xii., v. 29, God,\nin the night, kills the first-born of all the cattle, some of which must\nhave been _thrice_ killed; yet, despite all this (notwithstanding they\nhad all been killed by the murrain, nearly killed over again by the\nboils and blains, killed another time by the hail, and the first-born\ndestroyed in the night-time by the Lord) we find Pharaoh with an army of\nchariots, horses, and Horsemen, who are finally and irreversably got rid\nof by being drowned in the Red Sea. In Thomas Paine's 'Essay on Dreams,'\nhe makes some very severe remarks upon the contemptible picture which\nOld Testament writers give of their God in relation to these plagues\nupon the Egyptians.\n\n*Chapter xii., vv. 35 and 36. This is clearly nothing but robbery. The\nEgyptians simply lent because they could not avoid doing so; it was\nquite a Russian loan, raised by force. After saying that the Lord gave\nthe people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, the expression, 'And\nthey spoiled the Egyptians,' reads with a curious meaning.\n\nVerses 40 and 41 have been noticed on page 32 of this work. Stephen,\nin Acts, chap, vii., v. 6, says it was four hundred years. Dr. John Pye\nSmith, with all his orthodoxy, felt that there was a great difficulty to\nencounter, and writes as follows:--\n\n'Many comprehend in this reckoning the time from the communication to\nAbraham (Genesis, chap, xv., v. 13) or his entrance into Canaan ten\nyears earlier. This will leave only two hundred and fifteen years for\nthe sojourn in Egypt. Yet, during that period, the population increased\nto what would give 603,550 _warriors_, men above twenty years old, not\nincluding the tribe of Levi (Numbers, chap, i., v. 46). Hence, it is\nscarcely imaginable that the whole number of the nation could be\nless than two millions; an increase from seventy-two, which is quite\nimpossible. Supposing that they doubled themselves every fourteen years,\nthe number would have been less than half a million. But if four hundred\nand thirty years be taken, the increase is probable. We see, also, that\nthe males of the whole family of Kohath were 8,600 (Numbers, chap, iii.,\nv. 28); yet Kohath had only four sons (Exodus, chap, vi., v. 18), from\nwhom the grandsons mentioned are eight in number, none being mentioned\nfrom Hebron, who, perhaps, died childless. Also, that the father of\nMoses should have married the daughter of Levi, appears impossible.\nSurely, then, one or more generations have fallen out from the table\n(Exodus, chap, vi., vv. 17 and 18).'\n\nBy this extract from Dr. John Pye Smith's 'First Lines of Christian\nTheology,' my reader will see the manner in which orthodox divines\novercome difficulties in the text. Finding that it is impossible to\nreceive this part as true, it is suggested that one or more generations\nmay have fallen out of the table, and that it was impossible that the\nfather of Moses could have married the daughter of Levi. Exodus,\nchap, vi., v. 20, is precise on this point; but taking Dr. Smith's\nexplanation, how can we place reliance on a book as a revelation from\nGod, which is admitted to be imperfect and untruthful in {54} any part?\nIf fallible in matter of detail, it is probably the same in matters of\ndoctrine.\n\nVerse 44. This is one of the verses on which the slaveholders of America\nrely. I shall deal with the question more fully hereafter.\n\n*Chapter xiii., v. 2. By this and several other texts, it appears that\nthe first-born, both of man and beast, were devoted to the Lord. It is\nquite clear that the beasts were slaughtered as sacrifices, but it\nis not so clear as to the fate of the human beings. There are special\nregulations for their redemption, by the payment of cattle, but the\nunredeemed are not mentioned. It is apparent from Leviticus, chap,\nxxvii, w. 27 and 28, the history of Jephtha's daughter, Judges, chap,\nxii., that human sacrifices were parcel of the Jewish religious rites;\na portion of their prisoners seem to have been sacrificed to the Lord\nafter each victory, as in other idolatrous nations; and in Jephtha's\ncase, we find these remarkable words after the account of the sacrifice,\n'And it was a custom in Israel.'\n\nVerses 17 and 18. Even a devout believer might be sadly puzzled by these\nverses. Was God afraid lest the people should repent? and did he express\nthat fear to his confidant, Moses, or in what manner, and to whom did\nGod speak? Did God lead his chosen people into Egypt to avoid all wars?\nif so, how comes it that we almost immediately hear of the battle with\nthe Amalekites? (_vide_ chap. 17). God's fears seem ill-founded, for the\nJews although they had a very hard fight with the Amalekites, even with\nGod's aid, never talked of returning to Egypt, in consequence of that\nfight.\n\n*Chapter xiv., vv. 24 and 25. Our authorised translation reads, 'The\nLord looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire\nand of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, and took off\ntheir chariot wheels that they drave them heavily.' In the Douay it is,\n'The Lord, looking upon the Egyptian army through the pillar of fire\nand of the cloud, slew their host and overthrew the wheels of their\nchariots, and they were carried into the deep.'\n\nVerse 31. The Israelites' belief in the Lord and in his servant Moses\nwas of a very unstable nature, notwithstanding all the mighty miracles\nalleged to have been wrought in their presence. If the Israelites\ndoubted Moses and disbelieved in God, with the terrible series of\nplagues fresh in their recollection, can it be wondered that we, to whom\nthey are related in so incoherent a style, at this distance of time,\nshould also have misgivings as to their truth?\n\n*Chapter xv., v. 3. This expression, 'The Lord is a man of war,' is\nhardly calculated to inspire us with that love of God it is alleged to\nbe so necessary to our salvation.\n\nVerse 8. 'Nostrils.' This, we are told, is to be read as figurative.\nHow unfortunate that in a revelation words are used which are to be\nunderstood as meaning something different from the real signification.\n\nVerse 11. Who are the Gods? In the Douay the phrase is translated,\n'Who is like unto thee amongst the strong, O Lord?' The Roman Catholics\nwished to avoid the suspicion of polytheism. {55} Verse 12. Poetic\nlicence is used here; it was not the earth, but the water, which\nswallowed the Egyptians.\n\nChanter xvi., v. 3. If we may judge by the Israelites' own account,\nstarvation was not one of the phases of oppression suffered by them in\nEgypt.\n\nVerse 4. It is clear that the Deity of Moses was not an Omniscient\nDeity, for he says, 'I will rain bread from heaven for you, etc., that I\nmay prove them whether they will walk in my law or no;' so that God did\nnot know until he had proved them whether they would obey or disobey,\nand yet we are taught that he is the Infinite and Omnipotent ordainer of\nall things.\n\nVerse 8. This verse must be misplaced, as Moses had not yet been\ninformed that God intended to give the Israelites flesh. See verses 4\nand 12.\n\nVerse 15. The children of Israel did not call the bread from heaven\nmanna, but they said when they saw it, [------] (Man eua), i.e., What is\nthis?\n\nVerses 20 to 24. By these verses it appears that while the manna\ninvariably putrified if kept till the second day on six days of the\nweek, yet, if the second day happened to be the seventh, then no\nputrefaction took place. This corresponds with what I have heard as to\nsome Scotch cities, in which the Sabbath is so strictly observed, that\nif salts or jalap happened to be taken as medicine on Saturday night,\nthey refused to work during the whole of Sunday.\n\nVerse 35 has been noticed on page 6.\n\nVerse 36 must have been written when the omer had become obsolete as a\nmeasure amongst the Jews, or the verse would be unnecessary.\n\n*Chapter xvii., w. 5 and 6. This striking the rock for water is a\nmiracle; a devout man may believe in it; I confess I do not understand\nthe process, although I admit it would be very useful in the desert, if\npracticable.\n\nVerses 9 to 13. Can any man believe that if Napoleon had stood on an\neminence near the scene at Waterloo, and had held up his hand, this\nwould have influenced the success of either party? Why should a man\nbelieve that in relation to Moses to which he would refuse credence in\nthe present day? and if God was really on the side of the Israelites,\nwhy did he allow his aid to depend upon whether Moses could hold up his\nhand?\n\nVerses 14 and 16. Why was Amalek to be so punished? God the Creator must\nhave created both Amalekites and Israelites, yet he favours the latter\nand declares war against the former from generation to generation. What\na strange idea to convey in relation to an Omnipotent Deity--strife\nbetween the Infinite God and his weak and puny creature. By the\nexpression 'the Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek\nfrom generation to generation,' true believers may learn that God\npredetermined to make war upon unborn generations of Amalekites, whom he\ncreated for the purpose of exterminating.\n\n*Chapter xviii., vv. 1 to 6. Some part of the previous history must {56}\nbe lost, as we have no account of Moses sending his wife back; on the\ncontrary, in chap, iv., v. 20, we are told that he took both her and his\ntwo sons into Egypt.\n\nJethro gave his son-in-law very sensible advice, and the only matter\nof surprise is that Moses listened to it. Usually, priests of different\nreligions snarl at one another like angry, half-fed curs, growling\nover a solitary bone, and if a priest of one sect (out of the ordinary\ncourse) offered good advice to another sect, it would probably be\ntreated with neglect and contempt.\n\n*Chapter xix., w. 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 19. In these verses we have\nan account of the meeting of Moses and God. If this had been in the\nbook of Mormon or in the Koran, some Christian critic would have at once\nexclaimed, 'Why, this is all imposture! for these reasons--the man\nwho led the people, and who wished to pretend that he was to have\nan interview with God, took very great pains to keep the people at a\nsufficient distance to prevent detection of his schemes; the trumpet\nsounding, the darkness, the thunder and lightning, are so many scenic\nappliances to give effect to the delusion. Perhaps the mount was a\nvolcanic one, in which case the addition of the trumpet soundings\ncompleted the scene; and the secrecy observed as to all the transactions\non the mount protected the man from exposure. How careful are the\ndirections given to prevent any inquisitive straggler from getting\nsufficiently near to make a fatal discovery! But no man in his senses\nwill believe that God blew a trumpet, or caused a trumpet to be blown,\nto announce his coming, and that he descended upon Sinai surrounded by\nfire and smoke. In all fabulous relations we find such things, but it is\nabsurd to suppose that this refers to an Almighty and Infinite Deity. We\nare told in verse 20, 'The Lord came down upon Mount Sinai on the top\nof the mount, and the Lord called Moses up to the top of the mount, and\nMoses went up.' Can you require stronger evidence of the mythological\ncharacter of your book? Your Omnipresent and Infinite Deity is pictured\nas standing on the top of a mountain, and calling to Moses, who was down\nbelow, to come up to him.\n\nVerse 15. This is one of the verses which no amount of commentary can\nmake intelligible: 'Come not at your wives.' Why not?\n\n*Chapter xx. The second verse of this chapter begins in the first\nperson, 'I am the Lord,' and continues in the first person to verse\n6, where it merges into the third person. Verse 5 is contradicted\nby Ezekiel, chap, xviii., v. 20, 2 Kings, chap, xiv., v. 6, and\nDeuteronomy, chap, xxiv., v. 16. This is as positive and distinct\na specimen of contradiction as can be found anywhere. In the third\ncommandment we are told that God is a jealous God, visiting the sins of\nthe fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. In\nthe other three texts, we are told that the child shall not be put to\ndeath for the father, but every man for his own sin. By the following\ncontrast of the Fourth Commandment, as given in the second and fifth\nbooks of the Pentateuch, biblical students may judge how far they may\nrely on the reasons for closing the museums, mechanics' {57} institutes\nand crystal palaces, and opening churches, chapels, and gin palaces on\nthe seventh day, Chap. xx., vv. 8, 9, 10, 11.\n\n8.--Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.\n\n9.--Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:\n\n10.--But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it\nthou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy\nman-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that\nis within thy gates:\n\n11. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all\nthat in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed\nthe seventh day, and hallowed it.\n\nDEUT. Chap, v., w. 12, 13, 14, 15.\n\n12.--Keep the Sabbath-day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath\ncommanded thee.\n\n13.--Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:\n\n14.--But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou\nshalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy\nman-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor\nany of thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates; that thy\nman-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.\n\n15.--And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and\nthat the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and\nby a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to\nkeep the Sabbath-day.\n\nWhich is the correct reason for sanctifying the Sabbath-day?\n\nWas it because the Lord rested, or because the Lord brought the\nIsraelites out of Egypt on that day? The true believer will devoutly\nanswer, 'The Lord only knows.'\n\n*Chapter xxi., vv. 2 to 6. Leviticus, chap, xxv., vv. 44 to 46. In these\nverses we find slavery acknowledged, and its continuance provided for\nby the law of God. The offering a slave his liberty on condition that he\nabandoned his wife whom he loved, and his children who are of his flesh\nand blood, is a piece of refined cruelty. Perhaps God did not know that\na slave was capable of love, perhaps God was not aware that the slave\nin his hovel may have as true and as warm an affection for his wife and\nchildren as the king in his palace, or the noble in his fine mansion. Is\na slave a man with a man's passions and feelings, or is he an inferior\nanimal? If the Bible is to be examined before replying to the question,\nand if we are to govern our mode of answering by the words we find\nthere, it ceases to be a matter for wonder that there are slave States\nin Christian countries.\n\nIt is a beautiful theory this, and worthy of a place in a revelation\nfrom an all-wise and all-good God--i. e., that a man may be a religious\nman and yet keep his brother and sister as male and female slaves,\nbreeding and begetting other slaves. How did this slavery originate?\nbefore the flood slaves are not mentioned. If God made all men\noriginally free, how did any become slaves? {58} Verse 6 is contradicted\nin Leviticus, chap, xxv., w. 39 to 42.\n\nVerses 7 to 11. These verses contain a provision for the sale by a\nman of his own daughter. And for what purpose? Our translators have\nendeavoured to hide the real meaning of the text. Verse 7 reads, 'And\nif a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as\nthe _men servants_ do.'\n\nIn the Douay it is, 'If a man sell his daughter to be a servant, she\nshall not go out as _bondwomen_ are wont to go out.'\n\nThe 8th verse in our translation reads--'If she please not her master,\nwho hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed\nto sell her to a strange nation; he shall have no power seeing _he hath\ndealt deceitfully with her_.' In the Douay, 'If she displease the eyes\nof her master to whom she was delivered, he shall let her go, but he\nshall have no power to sell her to a foreign nation _if he despise her?_\nIn the Breeches Bible the whole truth is revealed, for we find the last\nwords of the 8th verse translated, '_seeing he hath deflowered her_.'\n\nLest there should be a mistake, I will further contrast the translation\nof verse 10. In our version it is, 'If he take him another _wife_ her\nfood, her raiment, and her _duty of marriage_ he shall not diminish.'\n\nIn the Douay, 'If he take another wife for him, he shall provide her\na marriage, and raiment, neither shall he refuse the _price of her\nchastity_.'\n\nIn the Breeches Bible, 'If he take him another wife, he shall not\ndiminish her food, her raiment, and _recompense of her virginity?_\n\nCan any man doubt as to the real meaning of these verses? Is it not\nclear and beyond contradiction that here is a law professedly from a God\nof truth and purity, rendering it lawful for a man to prostitute his\nown daughter. Our translators have cleverly glossed the text, partially\nhiding its disgusting meaning, but still enough was left to excite\nsuspicion. I have investigated it, and now lay the result before you,\nand ask you one and all is this the Book from which you let your little\ngirls read, and from which you expect them to acquire that knowledge\nwhich shall render them happy and virtuous?\n\nI have already remarked upon the recognition of slavery by God. We have\nseen how Ishmael was not allowed to participate in the promised land,\nbecause he was born a slave. But it remained for us to read more of\nthis Bible before we discovered that a just God, who is no respector of\npersons, who is the father of us all, who loves the whole world, and who\nlooks alike upon king and peasant, could make such a regulation as the\nfollowing:--\n\nVerses 20 and 21. 'And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with\na rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished.\nNotwithstanding, if he continue for a day or two, he shall not be\npunished, for he is his money.' We are here told that if one of God's\nchildren, whom God caused to be born free, kills another of God's\nchildren, whom God has caused to be born a slave, the murderer shall\nescape punishment, if (as the Douay quaintly expresses it) the party\nremain alive a day or two after the infliction of the punishment, which\nwas the primary cause of death. Why is this mercy? is it because {59}\nGod so loves all the world that he does not wish to shed the blood of\nany man? No: but because the slave killed is the murderer's money. He\n(the murderer) bought and paid for that slave with bright gold and the\npower of gold is recognised even in the kingdom of God. To-day\n\nthe Society for Suppression of Cruelty to Animals would prosecute and\nobtain the committal to prison of any man, who, on such prosecution,\nshould be found guilty of beating his horse or his dog, so that it died\non the second or third day. It would be no defence to urge on the part\nof the prisoner that he had paid for the ill-used animal. The whole\nauditory would hiss the advocate who raised such a defence. But in\na trial at the last day before the Supreme Judge, when a 'Legree' is\naccused of the murder of an 'Uncle Tom,' may raise a valid defence with\nthe words, 'He was my money.' The power of gold will open the gates of\nheaven to the murderer, who can look complacently down into hell upon\nthe murderers who had no money.\n\n*Chapter xxii., v. ll. Here oaths are commanded; in Matthew, chap. v.,\nw. 34 to 37, and James, chap, v., v. 12, they are forbidden.\n\nVerse 18. 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.' In the Douay,\n'Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.' Can we wonder that our criminal\ncourts occasionally reveal a scene of life in which we see one man\nparting with his hard-earned pence to propitiate another man, whom he\nbelieves to possess some supernatural power? It is customary on such\noccasions, for the presiding magistrate to deplore the ignorance of\nthe labouring classes, and to exclaim against the folly of believing\nin witches and wizards, yet he swears the complainant on the Bible,\ncontaining this verse, and would refuse to receive his evidence, if,\nafter hearing the magistrate's opinion on the folly of believing in\nwitchcraft, he should happen to remark, 'Then I cannot believe in the\nBible.'\n\nVerses 20 and 28, and chap, xxiii., v. 13. Who and what are these Gods,\nand why these commands? The sole end of this religion is the worship of\none God, yet here are other Gods referred to. If I sacrifice to them, I\nhazard destruction, and if I revile them, I shall fare no better. As for\ncursing the ruler of my people, I am one of those who deem curses to\nbe vain words, which a man had far better leave unuttered; if the ruler\ndoes wrong, let him rule no longer, but let the people place another in\nhis stead.\n\n*Chapter xxiv., vv. 9 to 14, are contradicted in chap, xxxiii., v.\n20, John, chap, i., v. 18, 1st Epistle of John, chap, iv., v. 12, 1st\nEpistle to Timothy, chap, i., v. 17, Colossians, chap, i. vv. 15. It\ncannot be urged that this is figurative, because the evident intention\nis to give a literal account of seventy-four persons going up to see\nGod. To what place they went up is not clear, it was not the mount, or\nbut a short distance on it, for Moses and Joshua left them, and went up\nfrom them into the mount.\n\nIn the Hindoo mythology we shall find several instances of Gods,\nunder whose feet paved work may be seen; but these Gods are neither\nomnipotent, infinite, nor omniscient. All enlightened Christians admit\n{60} that the whole list of Indian deities is fabulous, and while they\ngaze on the curious pictures given in the 'Asiatic Researches,' and\nother works, they feel convinced of the superiority of their own\nsystem, which is free from such ridiculous absurdities. But how do these\nenlightened Christians deal with this chapter, which tells them their\n'invisible' God was seen by seventy-four men in a fiery mount, with as\nit were, a paved work under his feet?\n\nDr. John Pye Smith, never at a loss, easily reconciles these apparent\ndiscrepancies by asserting that they refer to the different persons\nof the Father and the Messiah, but this is only 'confusion worse\nconfounded,' for it is quite clear that it was not the Messiah who is\nreferred to, either here or in the many other texts speaking of the\nappearance of the Lord to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it is also clear\nthat Jesus was not invisible; so we are left without aid from the\nReverend Dr.'s comment, and must still wonder how an 'invisible' God\never appeared to anybody.\n\n*Chapter xxv., v. 30. Here is an absurd and useless regulation. God\ncould not and did not eat this bread.\n\nVerse 40. What patterns were these, and is not Moses supposed to be in\nthe mount when these words were spoken? This verse either refers to a\nprevious interview, of which we have no account, or else this did not\ntake place in the mount at all.\n\n*Chapter xxviii., w. 40, 41, and 42. Can anything be more puerile than\nto imagine the God of the universe giving directions for the particular\ndescription of girdle, bonnet, and breeches to be worn by some\ninsignificant puny creatures, crawling on the outside of a little planet\ncalled the earth?\n\n*Chapter xxix., v. 44. At the very time that God was thus intimating\nthat he would sanctify Aaron, the latter must have been engaged in the\nmanufacture of the calf. Did God know this? If he did, it is hard to\nunderstand how he chose an idolator for his priest. If otherwise, God\nis not omniscient. The family of Levi, who were so severely cursed by\nJacob, seem the most favoured by Jacob's God.\n\n*Chapter xxx., v. 6. It is not quite clear where this altar was to be\nplaced; but from the text it appears to have been placed in the 'holiest\nof holies,' which creates a doubt as to how an altar in daily use could\nbe situate in a place only entered once a year. The text is, however,\nrather complex in its description, and I may be mistaken in my reading.\n\nVerse 15. The words 'when they gave an offering unto the Lord to make\natonement for your souls,' are totally omitted in the Douay version.\n\nVerses 22 to 38. God, who is a God of love and full of mercy and loving\nkindness, here ordains that every man who shall manufacture a particular\nkind of scented pomatum, shall be put to death. Christian Theist, you\ntell me that yours is the 'eternal, immortal, and only wise God' (_vide_\n1st Timothy, chap, i., v. 17)--do you in truth believe that he would\norder me to be utterly cut off because I might perhaps unconsciously\nmake a scented ointment of a particular character? Do {61} you believe\nif I take a certain description of perfumed pomatum, and 'smell\nthereto,' previous to rubbing some on the hair of my head, that I shall\nbe put to death? Perhaps these enactments were only meant for the Jews,\nwho seem to have required some strange laws; if so, it is a pity God has\nallowed the Book to come to us in its present state, as we find it hard\nto conceive (without any fact to reason upon) that one verse is intended\nonly for the Jews, and the following one intended for the whole world.\n\n*Chapter xxxi., v. 15. Moses would never have joined the 'Society for\nAbolition of Capital Punishment,' if it had been established in his day.\nThis verse must have since become a dead letter, an obsolete statute\nwhich God does not enforce in the present age. But if this verse is a\ndead letter, how much more of the Bible is affected in the same manner?\nWho is to tell which enactments may be safely disobeyed, and which carry\nwith them the terrible penalty?\n\nV. 17. 'He rested and was refreshed.' Although even the most faithful\nand pious believer must have great difficulty in attempting to\ncontemplate that stupendous work, the creation of the universe out\nof nothing, yet this great difficulty sinks into utter insignificance\nbeside the greater one of endeavouring to imagine the omnipotent and\nimmutable Deity resting after his labour, and being refreshed.\n\nV. 18. The expression 'finger of God' is evidently intended to be\nunderstood literally here, but the question then arises as to the\nnature of an infinite spirit without body, parts, or passions (_vide_\nthirty-nine articles), yet having fingers, hands, face, and back\nparts. Dr. Pye Smith says, on the [----------] (anthropopatheia) of\nthe Scriptures (treatment of God as if possessing a human shape\nand nature)--'This is very remarkable and very extensive, but it is\nmanifested by comparison with many other parts of the Scriptures, that\nthe terms employed are terms of _condescending comparison_ with the acts\nand effects of the thus mentioned organs of the human body, to convey,\nespecially to unpolished men a conception of those properties and\nactions of God, which to our feeble ideas have a resemblance, and that\nthey were so understood. Language had not then terms for the expression\nof abstract conceptions.'\n\nThe Christian theologian tells me that God created man and all the\ncircumstances that surrounded him, yet speaks of 'human incapacity,\nand infirmity,' and of 'the language of the Scriptures being formed in\ncondescension thereto.'\n\nIs it not remarkable that the all-wise Creator should have not foreseen\nthe time when the language of his revelation should have sunken below\nthe level of the human capacity? But it is worse than folly to put\nforward hypotheses as to God's condescension in using such language.\nThe Book itself nowhere suggests such an idea, and I ask to what mind\n(however 'unpolished' he may be) can the following words convey any\nother conception of the properties and actions of God than that of the\nliteral reading?--\n\n'And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts, but\nmy face shall not be seen.' {62} Dr. Smith says that 'metaphysical\nor philosophical preciseness is not in the character of Scriptural\ncomposition,' yet upon our precise conception of the true meaning of\nthat composition, hangs the penalty of eternal torment.\n\n*Chapter xxxii. During the absence of Moses, the Jewish people applied\nto Aaron to make them other Gods; they used very disrespectful language,\nsaying 'As for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of\nEgypt, we wot not what is become of him.' Aaron, who had been specially\nchosen by God to be his priest and Prophet, instead of reminding the\npeople of the miracles God had just performed on their behalf, instead\nof reproving them for the slighting manner in which they had spoken of\nhis brother Moses, instead even of appealing to Nadab and Abhu, and the\nseventy elders who had personally seen God so shortly before, and\nwho must all have been impressed with the awful majesty of the Deity,\nforgetting the first and second commandment contained in chapter xx.,\nw. 3, 4, and 5, and that their God is a jealous God, forgetting also the\nrepetition contained in v. 23 of the same chapter, Aaron (who alone\nhad been nominated to enter the holy of holies), without the slightest\nattempt at reason or remonstrance, asked the people for their golden\nearrings, and made a molten calf, and built an altar before it, and\nproclaimed a feast; and the people said, 'These be thy Gods, O Israel,\nwhich brought thee out of the land of Egypt.'\n\nGod was very unfortunate in his choice; his chosen people are the first\nto forget him, or to doubt and deny his power. The miracles performed\nby Moses and Aaron in Egypt--events any one of which should have been\nsufficient to have struck terror into the Israelites for the remainder\nof their lives--the interview between God and the seventy-four, only a\nfew days before, were all forgotten. God having permitted all this\nto happen, informed Moses thereof, and then uses this remarkable\nphrase--'Let me alone that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that\nI may consume them, and I will make of thee a great nation.' Is this the\nlanguage of an infinite and immutable Deity?\n\nMoses reasoned with God, and endeavoured to persuade him not to allow\nhis wrath to wax hot, and ultimately the unchangeable changed his mind,\nand 'repented of the evil he thought to do his people.' The mode of\nexpostulation adopted by Moses is very remarkable (see vv. 11, 12, and\n13); one of the chief arguments used is not as to the merits of the\ncase, but as to what the Egyptians will say when they hear about it.\n\nVv. 15 to 19. Moses, considering that he was so meek a man, soon lost\nhis temper, and the act of throwing down the tables, betrays rather the\ncharacter of a hasty petulant man.\n\nV. 20. Gold is a metal distinguished by its extreme permanence in air\nand fire, by its malleability and ductility; it might have been melted\nby the action of fire, but could not be burnt--i.e., consumed by fire.\nThe Douay says that Moses 'beat it to powder;' this would be impossible,\nas it is so malleable, that it may be beaten into leaves {63} not more\nthan the 280,000th part of an inch in thickness. Our version says,\n'ground it to powder;' this would be a difficult task, unless Moses\nhad other aids than we are aware of. The Golden Calf being reduced to\npowder, Moses strewed it upon the water, and made the Israelites drink\nof it. Unless a chloride of gold had been formed by the use of chlorine\nand nitro-muriatic acid, and of which we have no account, the gold would\nnot be soluble in water, but would sink to the bottom, leaving the water\nentirely unaffected. After this Moses collected the tribe of Levi, who\nhad been equally guilty with their brethren in the worship of the calf,\nand set them to slaughter every man his neighbour. In this slaughter\nthere fell, according to our version, 3,000 men, but according to the\nDouay, 23,000 men were slain. Whichever version is right, it is evident\nthat Aaron, who deserved the most punishment, escaped scot-free. The\nLord's vengeance was not satisfied with even this terrible sacrifice\nof human life; and we are told, in the unique phraseology of the Bible,\nthat 'the Lord plagued the people because _they made_ the calf which\n_Aaron_ made.'\n\n*Chapter xxxiii., vv. 1 to 3, and chap, xxxiv., v. 11. Judea was not\na land flowing with milk and honey, and the Lord did not drive out the\nCanaanite and the other nations mentioned (_vide_ Joshua, chap. xvii.,\nv. 12 and 13; Judges chap, i., vv. 19, and 27 to 35; chap, ii., vv\u00bb 20\nto 23, and chap, iii., vv. 1 to 6).\n\nVv. 4, 5, and 6. Why did the Lord want the children of Israel to put\noff their ornaments? If in any other book than the Bible some shrewd\nChristians would shake their heads and say, We are afraid Moses and\nAaron were not quite honest--first, they deprive the people of their\ngold earrings under one pretext, and now they defraud them of their\nremaining trinkets, under the pretence that the Lord commands them to\nput them off.\n\nVv. 9 and 10. This 'pillar of cloud' is a favourite shape, and if the\nwhole were an imposture, it would have been an easy matter for Moses\nby artificial means to have raised a 'pillar of cloud' when he pleased,\nespecially as such precautions were taken to prevent too close an\nexamination by the Israelites.\n\nV. 11. Apart from any question of contradiction (which has been noticed\non page 59), is not this verse condemned by itself? Its purpose and\nmeaning is to raise Moses in the estimation of its readers, and to\neffect this object it degrades the Deity by the very terms it uses, the\nconversation contained in verses 12 to 20 has all the same tendency,\nmaking it appear that Moses was God's favourite, and that God _knew his\nname_.\n\nIn verse 13, instead of 'show me thy way,' the Douay has 'show me thy\nface;' this accounts for the expression in v. 20, 'Thou canst not see my\nface,' but it distinctly contradicts the 'face to face' of verse 11.\n\nV. 23 needs no comment; but I defy any man to read this verse\nthoughtfully, and yet be filled with awe and admiration for a Deity,\nwho only allows his favoured Prophet to see his 'back parts.' The\n{64} absurdity is heightened by the remembrance of the many distinct\nappearances of God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and shortly before to\nMoses himself, and seventy-three other persons who all saw God.\n\n*Chapter xxxiv., v. 3. The same precaution to prevent detection, if\nimposture was really being perpetrated.\n\nVerse 6. 'The Lord God merciful and gracious.' When? where? and how? Was\nit when cursing the first man and woman, and the very ground on which\nthey stood (Genesis, chap, iii.); or when he determined to destroy\nboth man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air\n(Genesis, chap, vi., v. 7); or when he rained brimstone and fire upon\nSodom and Gomorrah (Genesis, chap, xix., v. 24); or when he slew the\nfirstborn in every family throughout Egypt (Exodus, chap, xii., v. 29);\nor when he drowned all Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea (Exodus, chap,\nxiv., v. 27); or when he swore to have war with Amalek from generation\nto generation (Exodus, chap, xvii., v. 16); or when he killed Nadab\nand Abihu with fire (Leviticus, chap. x., v. 2); or when he repeatedly\nattached the penalty of death to the infringement of almost any article\nof the ceremonial law; or when his fire consumed the people because they\ncomplained (Numbers, chap. xi, v. 1); or when he smote them with a great\nplague (verse 33); or when he ordered the man to be stoned to death who\nwas found gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers, chap, xv., v. 36);\nor when he causes the earth to swallow Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and\nall that appertained to them, and afterwards slew 250 more by fire, and\n14,700 more by plague (Numbers, chap, xvi., vv. 31 to 35, and 49);\nor when he sent fiery serpents to bite his people, so that they died\n(Numbers, chap, xxi., v. 6); or when he sent the plague, and killed\n24,000 of his people (Numbers, chap, xxv., v. 9); or when he directed\nthe terrible slaughter of the Midiantes (Numbers, chap. 31)? I might\nmultiply these texts, but have confined myself to the same Pentateuch in\nwhich 'God's mercy, graciousness, and long suffering' are proclaimed\nby himself. Any reader who wishes further to pursue the subject, is\nreferred to a pamphlet, written in answer to Bishop Watson's 'Apology\nfor the Bible,' and entitled 'The God of the Jews.'\n\nVerse 14. 'The Lord, whose name is jealous, is a jealous God.' My\ndictionary tells me that to be jealous is to be 'suspiciously vigilant,'\n'suspiciously fearful.' The omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite Deity,\nof what can he be jealous? Perhaps this phrase also is figurative.\n\nVerses 29 and 30. The Douay says that after Moses had talked to the\nLord, his face was horned, and that the children of Israel, seeing the\nhorns, were afraid to come near him.\n\nIn concluding the comments on the Book of Exodus, I ask what is the\nresult of our investigation? We have found the Book to be thoroughly\nworthless as a relation of actual occurrences, even when tested under\nthe most favourable auspices; it repeatedly and in important particulars\ncontradicts itself. It cannot be a revelation from God, because it\npictures an all-wise God choosing a man with an impediment in his\nspeech, to be a preacher, and relates that when the man {65} hesitated on account of his infirmity, God became angry at a difficulty\nof his own creation, and which Moses could not help. It represents a\njust God as seeking to kill (apparently without the slightest cause)\nthe very man whom he had just entrusted with the important mission of\nreleasing his chosen people from bondage; it speaks of an invisible God\nas becoming visible; of an immutable God as being jealous; of a loving\nGod declaring war against unborn generations of his own creatures; of\na just God as punishing the people for following (the teachings of the\npriest whom he had appointed, and yet allowing the criminal priest not\nonly to escape unpunished, but actually rewarded for his misconduct.)\nIt pictures a merciful and good God as tormenting and murdering the\nEgyptians, solely for the purpose of convincing the Jews that he is\nreally the Lord God of Israel, and afterwards plagueing and slaughtering\nthose _very_ Israelites, because all the former cruelties practised on\ntheir neighbours had not produced sufficient convincing effect on them.\nIt teaches monotheism in one verse, and polytheism in another.\n\nIt ought not to be used as an educational book amongst the children of\n_men_, because it contains doctrines and precepts only fitted for the\noffspring of _tyrants_ and _slaves_. It teaches that children may be\nborn slaves, and that their parents may sell them as slaves, and it\nplaces money at a higher value than life, virtue, honour, or liberty.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK III. LEVITICUS\n\nIn dealing with the laws of the Jews, I feel compelled to avoid very\nmany texts on account of their disgusting nature; but generally I\nmay remark that it is evident the Jews must have been an ignorant,\nviciously-inclined, unintellectual, and thoroughly-depraved people, or\nsuch laws would never have been required. If God chose the best people\non the earth, the state of the whole of the human family must have been\nvery bad indeed. My reason for avoiding the above-mentioned class of\ntexts is twofold; first, although I think them fair matter for comment,\nI have no wish to offend or insult any reader who, from his or her\nmode of education, has been taught to regard such subjects as unfit\nfor discussion; second, I am not quite certain that the 'Society for\nSuppression of Vice,' or some kindred society, may not be induced to\nagain attack works of this class, in which case I have no wish to afford\nthe counsel for the prosecution an opportunity of declaiming against my\nobscene style, but wish, if possible, to compel my most severe critics\nto admit that I have been more choice in my phraseology than the writers\nof the Book they defend.\n\n*Chapter, v. 3. The Douay reads--'If his offering be a holocaust, and\nof the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish at the door of the\ntestimony _to make the Lord favourable to him_.' It will be perceived\nthat the words italicised are not contained in, our version at all.\nThe holocaust, or whole burnt offering, is so called because the whole\nvictim was consumed with fire, and ascended, as we are told in verse 9,\n'with a sweet savour to the Lord.' What elevated conceptions {66} of the\nDeity are here conveyed; an infinite God, whose favour is granted to the\nman who burns the most sheep or oxen; a just and immutable God, to whom\nthe sweet savour of roast mutton is an acceptable expiatory equivalent\non behalf of a murderer, a robber, or other criminal.\n\n*Chapter ii., vv. 3 and 10. The priests are not neglected in this\nrevelation.\n\nVerse 13. Without salt the sacrifice would be incomplete. Query. Was\nnot the salt rather required by the priests than by God? It is easy to\nunderstand why a man wishes for salt to season his meat, but it is not\nso easy to comprehend the same requisition on the part of a God.\n\n*Chapter vi., v. 13. This fire must have been out several times,\nespecially since the last conquest of Jerusalem. Where is it burning at\nthe present time? By reference to chap, ix., v. 24, and chap, x., vv. 1\nand 2, it would seem that this fire came from God himself.\n\n*Chapter vii., vv. 23 to 27. Those are cruel and useless laws. The\npunishment of death is strangely disproportioned to the offence; and\nunless the law has become obsolete, we must wonder that God allows the\nmanufacturers and consumers of articles of food, made from the blood and\nfat of animals, to escape unpunished in the present day.\n\n*Chapter xi. It is difficult to conceive the reason why, in the list of\narticles fit for food, eels should be forbidden as having no scales, and\nclassed as unclean with hares and swans, while locusts, grasshoppers,\nand beetles are permitted. The Douay gives entirely different names to\nsome of the prohibited animals, mentioning, amongst others, the griffin,\nan animal whose existence is much doubted. No naturalist has ever yet\ndescribed it to us, it is only mentioned in a few old fables.\n\n*Chapter xvi., vv. 21 and 22. 'And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon\nthe head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of\nthe children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins,\nputting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away, by the\nhand of a fit man, into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him\nall their iniquities into a land not inherited, and he shall let go the\ngoat into the wilderness.' Is not this supremely ridiculous? and the\nabsurdity is only heightened by the inutility, for I do not find that\nthe Israelites were ever let off from any punishment by reason of the\nscapegoat. The doctrine of the scapegoat has gained considerably of\nlate; and it is the custom when an outcry is raised against the actors\nin any public grievance, to offer up some person (who generally is\ninnocent of all participation in the offence) as a scapegoat.\n\n'The Egyptians had a similar custom, as we learn from Herodotus, Book 2,\nchap. 39, who relates it in these words:--\n\n'\"After they have killed the goat, they cut off its head, but they flay\nthe animal's body, after which, having pronounced many imprecations on\nthe head, those who have a market and Grecian merchants dwelling among\nthem, carry it thither and sell it to them; but those who have\nno Grecian residents to sell it to, throw the head into the fire,\npronouncing over it the following imprecations:--'If any evil is about\nto befall either those that now sacrifice, or Egypt in general, may it\nbe averted on this head!'\" {67} 'The two customs, though not perfectly\nthe same, are so far similar that the one appears to have been derived\nfrom the other. The import of both is certainly the same; for in both\nthe goat is made use of as a substitute to draw away calamity from the\nparty sacrificing; in the one case being sent into the wilderness, and\nin the other consumed by fire.'\n\n*Chapter xvii., vv. 3 and 4. The absurdity of this command will be\napparent upon the slightest examination. If the Jews were as numerous as\nis represented when in Egypt, and continued to increase and multiply\nin the same ratio, they would have filled a very large portion of the\nearth's surface; but even allowing for biblical exaggeration, it would\nhave been impossible for a people, amounting to several hundreds of\nthousands, to have all slaughtered their cattle at one spot (the door\nof the Tabernacle); and if they had done so, judging from the appearance\nand odour of modern slaughterhouses, I can scarcely think that the\n'holiest of holies' would have been at the same time 'the sweetest of\nsweets.' It would have been still more impossible for each individual\nto have brought (perhaps from a distance of several miles) each an ox,\nlamb, or goat killed. It is not at all probable, in a nation so ignorant\nas the Jews, that the people possessed carts and waggons for the purpose\nof transporting the dead cattle to and fro, and if they had, the waste\nof labour would have been enormous. The severe penalty of death is all\nthat is required to make this essentially one of 'God's laws.' What\nwould be said if all the slaughtered cattle in England were, by Act of\nParliament, compelled, under penalty of death, to be brought to the door\nof St. Paul's Cathedral to have the fat and blood taken from them?\n\nVerse 7, chap, xix., w. 26 and 31, chap, xx., vv. 6 and 27. What are\ndevils? If God is the Creator of all things, did he create devils? If\nso, it is scarcely just to punish us for falling victims to devils, whom\nGod must have made sufficiently powerful to tempt us to the commission\nof crime. If otherwise, are devils independent existences, because in\nthat case the Deity is not omnipotent. They are neither; devils, angels,\ngods, familiar spirits and demons, all stand in the same mythological\nposition. They belong to the past, not to the present. They belong to\nthe age of ignorance, not of inquiry. We find in such verses as these\nthe clue to the superstitious fear with which the inhabitants of some\nlittle villages still regard certain old men and women; we find in them\nalso the clue to the persecutions for witchcraft in the reign of King\nJames, etc. Strong objections have been urged against the doctrine of\ndevils, demons, and familiar spirits. It is said by Theists that it is\ncontrary to all natural conceptions of the benevolence and mercy of the\nDeity; that he should have created, and should sustain in existence,\nbeings of the highest intellectual order to be the subjects of eternal\nmisery, not only to themselves, but to all humanity. It is further urged\nthat the doctrine detracts from the power of God by holding forth an\nalmost omnipotent chief of a legion of powerful and mischievous\ndevils, all bent on the destruction of mankind. It is further, and very\nreasonably, urged that the Jews, {68} especially alter their connection\nwith the Chaldean and Persian nations, had imbibed very extended, and,\nat the same time, very puerile ideas with regard to the operations of\nboth good and bad spirits. The properties of plants, of mineral waters,\nof minerals, of certain climatic conditions, the existence of any\nremarkable phenomena, the insanity of men, or animals, were all\nattributed to the presence and influence of good and bad spirits. Sound\nscience has exploded these errors; and why should not the whole mass\nof demonology be rejected as exploded also (_vide_ Farmer on the\n'Demoniacs,' and Pye Smith's 'Christian Theology')?\n\n*Chapter xxvi. It is worthy of notice that in this chapter, which\nprofesses\n\nto describe the reward for obedience to God's laws, and the punishment\nfor disobedience, no reference whatever is made to a future state.\nThe rewards are temporal--viz., good harvests, and easy victory over\nenemies, etc. The punishments are also temporal--viz., painful defeat\nin battle, sterile land, captivity, starvation, etc Not a word about the\nsoul, or about heaven, or hell; yet a chapter like this seems a place in\nwhich, if such a doctrine had been held by the writer, we should expect\nto find some traces of it; temporal punishment of a very severe kind\nis threatened, but nothing occurs wnich can in any way lead us to a\nspiritual punishment; death seems to be the highest penalty, and\nthe author of the Pentateuch did not contemplate the possibility\nof tormenting men after they were dead--this was reserved for more\nenlightened ages.\n\n*Chapter xxvii., vv. 28 and 29, has been noticed on page 54.\n\nVerses 30 to 33. The clergy are very zealous in conserving their claims\nunder these verses (which of course apply to the whole world). They act\nas the Lord's representatives, and take the Lord's share to themselves.\n\nThe Book of Leviticus only claims our attention under two phases--first,\nas a revelation from God: and second, as a code of laws. It cannot be\na revelation from an immutable God, because it alleges that God is\ninfluenced in his conduct by particular kinds of sacrifice: it cannot be\na revelation from an all-wise and just God, because it contains trifling\nand absurd commands enforced by severe penalties; it cannot be a\nrevelation from an all-powerful and infinitely good Creator, because it\ntreats of devils and bad spirits, either having independent or permitted\npower to commit evil. As a code of laws, it is utterly inapplicable to\nthe present state of society; and, in fact, seems mainly intended to\nsupport and benefit the priests (placing the government in their hands),\nbut is utterly without utility as regards the people, the punishments\nare mostly very disproportionate, and for breaches of the ceremonial law\nunnecessarily severe. {69}\n\n\n\n\nBOOK IV. NUMBERS\n\n*Chapter i., v. 14, chap, ii., v. 14. In one we find Eliasaph the son of\nReul, in the other Eliasaph the son of Deuel. In chap. vii., vv. 42 and\n47, and in chap, x., v. 20, it is also Eliasaph son of Deuel. Which is\nright?\n\nVerse 46. By this verse we learn that the number of Jews, warriors (not\nincluding the Levites), capable of bearing arms, was 603,550; and taking\nold and young into consideration, you can hardly compute these at more\nthan three out of each ten, which would leave a total of about 2,000,000\nmales, the proportion of females would be upwards of 2,000,000 more;\nthese, together with male and female slaves, and the tribe of Levi, must\nhave made upwards of 5,000,000 people. This would be an immense number\nto pass through a desert, where water and food were deficient.\n\nVerse 49, see chap, iii., v. 15. The Lord must have changed his original\nintention.\n\n*Chapter iii., v. 39. 22,000 is incorrect, it should be 22,300--viz.,\nGershonites 7,500, Kohathites 8,600, Meranites 6,200. This may seem\na trifling error, but in a revelation from God we are not prepared to\nexpect errors at all; and in this case it is a grave error, and not a\nmere slip of the copyist, or transcriber, for in verse 46 we are told\nthat the first-born were 273 more in number than the male Levites, when\nin feet they were twenty-seven less. It is very extraordinary that the\nLevites should be comparatively so few in number, especially when we\nconsider them as the most favoured by God. The whole of the Levites,\nmale and female, could not be much over 50,000, while the other tribes\naveraged 350,000 each.\n\n*Chapter iv., v. 20. The same mystery as before observed, coupled with\nthe usual threat of death to deter the uninitiated from too closely\nexamining the things of God.\n\nVerse 23. By this the Levites are to serve from thirty to fifty; in\nchap, viii., v. 24, it is from twenty-five to fifty.\n\n*Chapter v., w. 8, 9, and 10. Here is a complete identification of\nthe rights of the Lord with those of the priest, 'Let the trespass be\nrecompensed unto the Lord, even unto the priest.' Whether this Book be a\nrevelation from God or not, it is quite clear that it is the interest of\nthe priesthood to support it.\n\nVerses 17 to 27. We have read of various ordeals amongst savage nations,\nand it is customary to deplore the ignorance and barbarity of the\nnations amongst whom these customs are allowed to prevail. If we abide\nby this style of criticism, what must we say of the legislator who\nestablished the ordeal of the waters of jealousy?\n\n*Chapter vii., v. 89. 'And when Moses was gone into the tabernacle\nof the congregation to speak with him, then he heard the voice of one\nspeaking unto him from off the mercy-seat that was upon the ark of {70}\ntestimony, from between the two cherubims: and he spake unto him.' This\nvoice is uttered in the hearing of no one but Moses. The Douay reads,\n'And when Moses entered into the tabernacle of the covenant to\nconsult the oracle, he heard the voice of one speaking to him from the\npropitiary that was over the ark, between the two cherubims, and\nfrom this place he spake to him.' Is not this similar to the\noracle-consulting of other nations? It is admitted now, by all\nintelligent men, that the oracles of Delphos, of Ammon, and of Dodona,\nwere only instances of jugglery and cunning, practised by the priest on\nthe people. In what respects are the oracles of the Jews superior? In\nan able article on the word 'oracle,' in Brande's Dictionary is the\nfollowing quotation:--\n\n'The general characteristics of oracles were ambiguity, obscurity, and\nconvertability; so that one answer would agree with several various, and\nsometimes directly opposite events. Thus when Croesus was on the point\nof invading the Medes, he consulted the oracle of Delphi as to the\nsuccess of the enterprise, and received for answer, \"That by passing the\nRiver Halys, he would ruin a mighty empire.\" But whether it was his own\nempire, or that of his enemies, that was destined to be ruined, was not\nintimated, and in either case the oracle could not fail to be right. The\nanswer of the oracle to 'Pyrrhus is another well-known instance of this\nsort of ambiguity. \"_Aio, te \u00c6acida, Romanos vincere posse_\"--as it\nmight either be interpreted in favour of, or against, Pyrrhus. This\nambiguity and equivocation was not, however, the worst feature that\ncharacterised the oracles of antiquity. They were at once ambiguous and\nvenal. A rich or a powerful individual seldom found much difficulty\nin obtaining a response favourable to his projects, how unjust or\nobjectionable soever. But such and so powerful is the influence of\nsuperstition, that this system of fraud and imposture maintained\na lengthened ascendancy, and interested responses of the oracles\nfrequently sufficed to excite bloody wars, and to spread desolation\nthrough extensive States.'\n\n*Chapter ix., vv. 15 to 17. The 'cloud and appearance of fire' might\nhave been easily produced by Moses himself, and, judging by the context,\nit is a fair presumption, they being always rendered subordinate to his\nplans.\n\n*Chapter x., v. 9. Is it intended to be implied that the blowing the\nalarm with trumpets, will the more readily bring God to the aid of the\nJews? If not, what is the meaning of this verse?\n\n*Chapter xi., v. 4. It is not easy to understand how the Israelites\ncould be without flesh food, when we are told in Exodus, chap, xii., v.\n38, that they took with them out of Egypt 'flocks and herds, even very\nmuch cattle.'\n\nVerse 16. If Moses had no assistance in the government of the Jews, he\nmust have entirely neglected the advice of Jethro, his father-in-law,\nreferred to on page 56.\n\n*Chapter xii., v. 1. The following is from Dr. Giles's 'Hebrew\nRecords':--'The country to which the wife of Moses belonged, here\ncalled Ethiopia, is Cush in the original Hebrew, and may fairly be {71}\ninterpreted in a very wide sense. Ethiopia, also, in Grecian history,\ndesignated not only the modern Ethiopia, but parts of Egypt, Arabia,\nand, perhaps, other neighbouring countries. We may then freely admit\nthat the Ethiopian woman here mentioned was the same person elsewhere\ndescribed as Jethro's daughter, but the manner in which her name is\nhere introduced, is perfectly incompatible with her having been already\ndescribed, and that so fully, in Exodus ii., as the daughter to the\npriest of Midian, and married to Moses, possibly several years before\nthe strife, which Miriam and Aaron now stirred up on her account. This\nleads to the following conclusion, either that the two accounts of\nthe wife of Moses were written by two distinct authors, or that the\nEthiopian woman whom Moses married was not the same as the daughter of\nJethro priest of Midian. In the former case the whole Pentateuch, as it\nnow is, cannot be considered as the work of Moses; in the latter case,\nthe mixture of the Israelites with other tribes would appear to have\nbegun very early after the Exodus, and to have been carried to a very\ngreat extreme.'\n\n*Chapter xiii., vv. 2 to 17. Why were these people sent to spy out the\nland? God could have told his people all the particulars without this.\nIn ordering them to be sent, he must have foreknown and foreordained\nthat they should report falsely, and that the Israelites should believe\ntheir report, in which case it is difficult to justify the forty years\nwandering in the wilderness.\n\nVerse 22. 'Hebron' has been noticed on page 5.\n\nVerses 23 and 24. Bishop Patrick's note on this verse is highly sensible\nand becoming:--'_The place was called the Brook Eschol._ That is, when\nthe Israelites got possession of the land, they called this brook\nor valley \"Eschol\" in memory of this bunch of grapes, for so Eschol\nsignifies.' But the book, which relates that the place was called\nEschol, cannot have been written until the act of naming had taken\nplace.\n\nVerse 33 is meant figuratively, otherwise the sons of Anak would be of\ntremendous height and size.\n\n*Chapter xiv., w. 1 to 4. This murmuring displeases God, but grave\nconsideration is required to understand why God was so displeased,\nTwelve men, all equally trustworthy (as far as we can glean their\ncharacters from the Book), are sent to view the promised land; ten\nreport unfavourably, and two, on the contrary, give a favourable\naccount. The balance of evidence is therefore very strong, and yet God\nis displeased, because the Israelites put faith in the unfavourable\nreport. The case is even stronger than this. One of the two favourable\nwitnesses (Joshua) was a servant and partisan of Moses, and might\nwell be suspected of giving a highly coloured account of the country,\naccording to the wishes of his leader. Later historians have even\nrendered more unfavourable the account given by the ten, rather than\ncorroborate that of Joshua and Caleb. Voltaire quotes a letter from St.\nJerome, in which he speaks of the land of promise as being about 160\nmiles long, and about fifty broad, all beyond being desert, that from\nJerusalem to Bethlehem there is nothing but pebbles, and scarce any\nwater to drink during the summer season. {72} Verses 11 to 37. There is\nhere a repetition of the mode in which Moses reasoned and expostulated\nwith God, pointed out on page sixty-two, the same fear lest the\nEgyptians should hear of God's wrath against the Israelites, and\nultimately the same change is effected. In verse 20, the Lord says:\n'I have pardoned according to thy word,' and immediately notified that\ninstead of pardoning the people, he intended them all to die on their\njourney to the promised land.\n\nVerses 43 to 45. In Exodus, chap. 17, vv. 14 and 16, God swore to\nutterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven, and to\nhave war with them from generation to generation. In this chapter he\naids and assists them to destroy the Israelites.\n\nVerse 45. 'Hormah.' This verse could not have been written by Moses,\nas the city of Zephath was not called Hormah until after the death of\nJoshua (_vide_ Judges, chap, i., v. 17): in chap, xxi., vv. 1 to 3, we\nfind an account of the destruction of a city, and the naming it Hormah\n'This' (says Dr. Shuckford, as quoted in the Family Bible) 'was effected\nin the days of Joshua (Joshua, chap, xii., v. 14), or a little after\nhis death' (Judges, chap, i., v. 17). Yet Dr. Shuckford did not perceive\nthat the relation of an event, which happened in the days of\nJoshua, could not have come from the pen of Moses. The second of the\nabove-mentioned texts--namely, the first three verses of Numbers xxi.,\ndescribe the fulfilment of Israel's vow--not in a mere word or short\nsentence, such as others--which the commentators explain by saying that\nthey are interpolations. The present text is too full for us to suppose\nso: it is evidently an integral part of the main narrative, and cannot\nbe separated from it. The whole of this part of the history, therefore,\nis liable to the same observation which has been so often made, that it\nwas written by some one who lived long after the time of Moses (_vide_\nDr. Giles's 'Hebrew Records').\n\n*Chapter xv., vv. 32 to 36. These verses are the species upon which\nfanatics ground their opposition to a free Sunday. The organ blower\nmay work in the organ loft of his parish church till the perspiration\nstreams from his brow--no serious voice checks his labour, but should he\ndare take his accordion into the green fields, and there, with lighter\nlabour, beguile away his Sunday morning or afternoon, immediately the\nreverend pastor, the pious churchwarden, the devout and stately beadle,\nthe meek and humble pew opener, with a thunder-like chorus-voice shout\nafter him, 'Sabbath-breaker, thy doom is hell.' This sentence is printed\nin small capitals on a little tract--this tract does great good. John\nPhillips, of Hare Street, Spitalfields, weaver, having been at work at\nhis loom from early on the previous Monday morning until late on the\nSaturday evening, and feeling tired thereby, determines to take Mrs.\nPhillips and his three children into Victoria Park; and, preparatory to\nthis, John Phillips hammers at a small piece of leather in the endeavour\nto fix it to the sole of his boot, which is out of repair, suddenly his\nroom door opens, and a Scripture-reader enters, who solemnly hands John\nthe above-mentioned tract, and the following dialogue takes place:--\n{73} S. R.--You are now breaking the Sabbath-day.\n\nJohn P.--This is a work of necessity; the boot must be mended before I\ncan go out.\n\nS. R.--If you read Numbers, you will find that a man who gathered sticks\non the Sabbath-day was put to death; and although you will not probably\ndie to-day, you will go to hell by-and-by. You should go to church.\n\nJohn P.--If I did go there, every one would shrink from the mean dresses\nof myself and family. If the free seats were full, we should have\nto stand in the centre aisle, while those who paid to go to heaven\ncomfortably reclined on the cushions of their half-empty pews, or knelt\non their comfortable hassocks. In the green fields it is different, the\ndaisy is as bright, the grass as green, and the clover as sweet to me as\nto the richest man in England; the sun shines on me although my dress is\ncorduroy. I feel better and happier to be free for a few hours from the\ndense and smoky atmosphere of this house, and I cannot believe I shall\ngo to hell for that.\n\nThe Scripture Reader departs, and wends his way to Ebenezer Chapel.\nThis chapel is situate in a narrow street, between a sugar-baker's and a\nsoap-boiler's premises, and he cannot help regretting, as he smells the\nfoul exhalations from the sewer-grating, and the overcrowded grave-yard,\nthat it is unlawful to stroll into the green fields on the Lord's-day.\n\nThe bell-ringer, the grave-digger, the priest, the sexton, the\nchoristers, the organist, the organ-blower, the beadle, the pew-opener,\nthe bishop, the bishop's coachman, and groom, all ply on the Sunday\ntheir several avocations without fear or threat of punishment; but if\nJohn Thomas on that day, instead of driving my lord bishop to church,\nand afterwards retiring to a neighbouring mews, to smoke his pipe in\nan orthodox manner, until service is over, were to drive into the green\nfields, or wander by the river side, he would most assuredly bring upon\nhimself denunciations of future damnation. By the fruit ye shall judge\nof the tree. The fruit of this Sunday tree has been hypocritical,\noutside show, a false and empty parade of Bibles and gilt-edged\nprayer-books, grim faces, and constrained manners--this some people call\nreligion.\n\n*Chapter xvi. contains the history of a rebellion on the part of Korah,\nDathan, Abiram, and On, against the authority of Moses, connected with\nwhich there are several curious features; the rebels are swallowed up\nand consumed by an explosion and fire, which of course is sent by the\nLord; but as Moses took a whole day to make the necessary preparations,\nit is quite possible to account for the destruction of Korah and his\nparty in a more comprehensible manner. It is apparent that Moses had a\ndirect interest in the destruction of these men, who wished to share the\npower he had arrogated to himself.\n\nBy verses 29 and 30 it is clear that the manner of their destruction\nwas pre-arranged by Moses; and it is also clear that the Israelites\nthemselves took this view of the matter, for in verse 41 we find them\ncharging Moses and Aaron with having killed the people of the Lord. {74}\n*Chapter xvii., w. 1 to 8. This miracle of Aaron's rod budding amongst\nthe other rods was easy of accomplishment, when we remember how\ncarefully the tabernacle was guarded by Moses and his priests, who had\nevery facility for changing one rod for a branch from a fruit bearing\ntree. The rod, according to this account, budded, blossomed, and bore\nfruit, all within twenty-four hours.\n\nVerse 6 says, there were 'twelve rods, and the rod of Aaron was among\ntheir rods.' The Douay says, 'there were twelve rods, beside the rod of\nAaron.'\n\nVerses 12 and 13. These verses are a sufficient evidence of the\ncare taken bv Moses to prevent the people inspecting too closely his\nthaumaturgic tabernacle.\n\n*Chapter xviii., v. 15. See chap, iii., vv. 12 and 41. There is some\nconfusion in these texts, as by the latter it was only the surplus\nnumber, beyond the number of the Levites, who were to be redeemed with\nmoney--here all are to pay the five shekels.\n\nVerses 20 to 24. It is much to be regretted that our priests never\nimagined that this part of the revelation had any personal relation to\nthem; great attention has been paid to the tithe part of the Book, but\nour reverend pastors have most wonderfully overlooked the part which\nsays, 'Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land.' This, they say,\nonly applies to the Jews. On what principle, then, does any part of the\nBook apply to the Gentiles?\n\n*Chapter xix. contains a direction to the priest to burn a red heifer,\nthe ashes of which heifer become water, by a process not described; or\nrather if the writer had condescended to be explicit, I suppose he means\nthat the ashes are to be mixed with water, this water is a kind of holy\nwater, with which every unclean person is to be sprinkled, under pain\nof death. Amongst a people numbering 5,000,000, some must have had great\ndifficulty in getting access to this water, especially those residing at\na great distance from the place where the ashes were kept.\n\n*Chapter xx. In the Douay translation of v. 6, Moses and Aaron say, 'O\nLord God, hear the cry of this people, and open to them thy treasure,\na fountain of living water, that being satisfied, they may cease to\nmurmur.' These words are entirely omitted in our version, and it would\nseem that some other portion of the original account must be lost, as\nwe find the Lord reproaching Moses and Aaron for their exhibition of\nunbelief, of which we have no account here.\n\nVerses 10 and 11. This is a miracle. Voltaire says:--\n\n'A miracle, according to the true meaning of the word, is something\nadmirable; and agreeably to this all is miracle. The stupendous order of\nnature, the revolution of a hundred millions of worlds round a million\nof suns, the activity of light, the life of animals, all are grand and\nperpetual miracles.\n\n'According to common acceptation, we call a miracle the violation of\nthese divine and eternal laws. A solar eclipse, at the time of the full\nmoon, or a dead man walking two leagues, and carrying his head in his\narms, we denominate a miracle.\n\n'Many natural philosophers maintain that in this sense there are no\nmiracles, and advance the following arguments:-- {75} 'A miracle is the\nviolation of mathematical, divine, immutable, eternal laws. By the very\nexposition itself a miracle is a contradiction in terms: a law cannot\nat the same time be immutable and violated. But they are asked, cannot a\nlaw, established by God himself be suspended by its author?\n\n'They have the hardihood to reply that it cannot; and that it is\nimpossible a being, infinitely wise, can have made laws to violate them.\nHe could not, they say, derange the machine, but with a view of making\nit work better; but it is evident that God, all-wise and omnipotent,\noriginally made this immense machine, the universe, as good and perfect\nas he was able; if he saw that some imperfections would arise from the\nnature of matter, he provided for that in the beginning; and accordingly\nhe will never change anything in it.\n\n'Moreover God can do nothing without reason; but what reason could\ninduce him to disfigure, for a time, his own work?\n\n'It is done, they are told, in favour of mankind. They reply, we must\npresume, then, that it is in favour of all mankind; for it is impossible\nto conceive that the divine nature should occupy itself only about a few\nmen in particular, and not for the whole human race; and even the whole\nhuman race itself is a very small concern; it is less than a small\nant-hill, in comparison with all the beings inhabiting immensity. But is\nit not the most absurd of all extravagances to imagine that the Infinite\nSupreme should, in favour of three or four hundred emmets on this little\nheap of earth, derange the operation of the vast machinery that moves\nthe universe?\n\n'But, admitting that God chose to distinguish a small number of men by\nparticular favours, is there any necessity that in order to accomplish\nthis object he should change what he established for all periods and\nfor all places? He certainly can have no need of this inconsistency, in\norder to bestow favours on any of his creatures: his favours consist in\nhis laws themselves: he has foreseen all, and arranged all, with a view\nto them. All invariably obey the force which ne has impressed for ever\non nature.\n\n'For what purpose would God perform a miracle? To accomplish some\nparticular design upon living beings? He would, then, in reality, be\nsupposed to say--I have not been able to effect, by my construction of\nthe universe, by my divine decrees, by my eternal laws, a particular\nobject. I am now going to change my eternal ideas and immutable laws,\nto endeavour to accomplish what I have not been able to do by means\nof them. This would be an avowal of his weakness, not of his power;\nit would appear in such a being an inconceivable contradiction.\nAccordingly, therefore, to dare to ascribe miracles to God, is, if man\ncan in reality insult God, actually offering him that insult. It is\nsaying to him, You are a weak and inconsistent being. It is therefore\nabsurd to believe in miracles; it is, in fact, dishonouring the\ndivinity.'\n\nVerses 23 to 29. Aaron's death is rather curiously related; it was\ncertainly a sudden death, and the account almost conveys the idea that\nMoses and Eleazer killed Aaron in the mount. {76} *Chapter xxi., vv.\n1 to 3, have been before noticed; in addition it is only necessary to\nobserve, that the Israelites could scarcely have destroyed the cities of\nthe Canaanites, until they had entered the land of Canaan, into which it\nis alleged they did not go in the lifetime of Moses.\n\nVerses 8 and 9. See Exodus, chap, xx., v. 4. Dr. Giles observes:--\n\n'The reason why God commanded Moses to adopt this course has not been\nrecorded; but the fact would probably be susceptible of a satisfactory\nexplanation, if we were acquainted more fully with the serpent-worship\nwhich existed among the ancient people of Egypt. In the absence of\ncertain information, it may be supposed that the Israelites had been\ntaught to hold serpents in great respect whilst they were in Egypt, and\nthat Moses availed himself of their superstition to bend them the better\nto his will.'\n\nIn our version, verse 8, Moses is told to make a 'fiery serpent:' in the\nDouay, he is told to make a 'brazen serpent'--fiery serpents are very\nrare animals.\n\nVerse 14. 'The Book of the wars of the Lord.' What book is this? Who was\nthe author of it? What has become of it? Was it inspired? Was it more\nancient than the Pentateuch? In answer to all these questions, we can\nsay but little, except this, that the book referred to is one of several\nbooks quoted from in our Bible, and now lost; the authorship is unknown;\nit must have been a well-known book at the time Numbers was written,\nand, consequently, more ancient than Numbers. There are many other books\nquoted from, which are also lost.\n\nThe following is from the 'Hebrew Records,' in reference to this\nsubject:--\n\n'In St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, ix., 19, we read thus:--\n\n'\"For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people, according\nto the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water and\nscarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the\npeople.\"\n\n'The writer of this epistle must also have had more sources of\ninformation than we now possess; for the account which he gives in the\nverse before us does not exactly tally with any of the various verses in\nthe Levitical Law, where the subject is related. Nothing is said of the\n\"book\" being sprinkled with the blood, even if the other parts of the\ndescription are allowed to bear a sufficient resemblance.\n\n'Another remarkable instance bearing upon my present argument, is\nthe account which St. Jude gives of a contest between Michael and the\nDevil:--\n\n'\"Yet Michael, the archangel, when contending with the Devil he\ndisputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing\naccusation, but said, 'Lord rebuke thee!'\"\n\n'It is not known to what St. Jude alludes in this verse; nothing is said\nin the Old Testament of any contest between the Devil and the archangel\nMichael.\n\n'In St. Paul's Second Epistle to Timothy, chap, iii., v. 8, are found\n{77} the names of two of the magicians who competed with Moses in\nmagical arts in the presence of Pharaoh, King of Egypt.\n\n'\"Now, as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist\nthe truth; men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.\"\n\n'It is presumed that the names, \"Jannes\" and \"Jambres,\" not found in\nthe Books of Moses, became known to St. Paul through the medium of other\nwritings, in which many particulars of Jewish history were recorded, but\nnow no longer in existence.\n\nSeveral circumstances of the life and acts of Moses are known to us,\nonly because they are noticed in the New Testament, no mention being\nmade of them in the old Jewish Scriptures. For instance, in Acts vii.,\nv. 22, etc., we are told that--\n\n'\"Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty\nin words and deeds. And when he was full forty years old, it came into\nhis heart to visit his brethren of Israel, etc.\"\n\n'But in the Book of Exodus the account of these things is much shorter,\nand nothing is said of the age of Moses at the time referred to.\n\n'Neither is there any authority in the Pentateuch for the remark which\noccurs in Hebrews xi., 24:--\n\n'\"By faith Moses, when he came to years, refused to be called the son of\nPharaoh's daughter.\"\n\n'These circumstances make it probable that there were other original\nrecords in the time of St. Paul, which have since perished.\n\n'This conclusion is supported by the admitted fact that many books which\nhave perished are quoted in the Old Testament itself. Such are the books\nof Jasher, Enoch, the Wars of the Lord, and many others.\n\nA perplexing train of argument opens to us from a consideration of these\nfacts. If the books which have perished were of value, why have they\nperished? If they were of no value, why have valuable writers, like St.\nPaul, quoted them? It is supposed that they were of inferior authority,\nbut this point has not been proved. If the existing books are genuine\nrelics of a high antiquity, yet some of the lost books were more ancient\nstill. The same Providence which has preserved the one has suffered the\nothers to sink, even though those which have floated down the stream of\ntime are imperfect on many points, which the others would have supplied.\n\n*Chapter xxii., v. 1. 'On this side Jordan:' the Douay has it 'beyond\nthe Jordan:' the Hebrew is [------] (beyond, across, over, or on the\nother side), see also page 6. It is evident in this case either that the\ntranslators must have falsified the text to support their theory that\nMoses was the writer of the book, or that there is a very extraordinary\ncoincidence of error. The whole of this subject has been carefully\nexamined in Dr. Giles's 'Hebrew Records,' pp. 284 to 289.\n\n*Chapters xxii., xxiii., and xxiv. It is not at all wonderful that the\nbarbarous Midianites and Moabites should have looked upon Balaam as a\nprophet, whose curse or blessing would affect the success of the {78}\nJews. In the dark ages we have many instances of persons revered by\nthe people of their countries, because they were believed to possess\nsupernatural powers; but is an inexplicable matter when we find\nthe superstitions of the ignorant people shared by God himself. God\ncommunicated with Balaam. God said, 'Thou shalt not curse this people.'\nGod came to Balaam repeatedly; at first he forbade him to go to Balak,\nand afterwards gave him permission; and then God's anger is kindled\nbecause Balaam, in consequence of such permission, went with Balak's\nmessengers, and the angel of the Lord is sent to stand in Balaam's way.\nI have remarked upon angels in pages 33 and 34; those who wish to\nread more orthodox comments are referred to Dr. Pye Smith's 'Christian\nTheology,' p. 327. This angel is invisible to the wise man, Balaam, but\nis at once perceived by his ass. Is this intended as a covert sneer? Did\nthe writer mean that asses are always the first to perceive invisible\nangels? The angel has 'his sword drawn in his hand'--this sword (being\nalso only visible to the ass), must have been (like Macbeth's dagger)\nmanufactured from different material from the swords commonly in use.\nThe ass obstinately refusing to go forward (and asses very often do\nrefuse to go forward, rather staying because a church, an angel, or a\nBible stops the way, than progressing with Freethinking searchers toward\nthe truth), is beaten by Balaam. The ass indignantly remonstrates,\ninquiring why he is beaten; and as Balaam manifested no surprise\nwhatever when his ass spoke, we must conclude that the phenomenon was\nnot entirely new to him. The fable concludes by relating that Balaam\nblessed the Jews, instead of cursing them.\n\n*Chapter xxiii., v. 19. According to the Bible account, God has repented\nseveral times (Genesis, chap, vi., vv. 6 and 7; Exodus, chap. xxxii., v.\n14; 1 Samuel, chap, xv., v. xi.; 2 Samuel, chap. xxiv.,v. 16).\n\nIn chap, xxiv., v. 15, our version reads, 'The man whose eyes are open\nhath said: 'the Douay has it,' The man whose eye is stopped up hath\nsaid: 'the Breeches Bible renders it, 'The man whose eyes were shut up\nhath said.'\n\n*Chapter xxv., v. 4. See Deuteronomy, chap, iv., v. 31, 'The Lord thy\nGod is a merciful God.'\n\nVerse 9. '24,000.' In 1 Corinthians, chap, x., v. 8, the number is given\nas '23,000.'\n\n*Chapter xxvi., vv. 10 and 11. The Douay says, 'And there was a great\nmiracle wrought; that when Core (Korah) perished, his sons did not\nperish.' Our version omits the miracle, out says, that 'the children of\nKorah died not:' yet in chap, xvi., vv. 32 and 33, we are told that 'the\nearth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all\nthe men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods, they and all\nthat appertained unto them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth\nclosed upon them, and they perished from among the congregation.'\n\nVerse 12. 'Nemuel' is called 'Jemuel' in Genesis, chap, xlvi, v. 10.\n\nVerse 13. 'Zerah' is called 'Zohar' in Genesis, chap, xlvi., v. 10.\n\nVerse 16. 'Ozni' is called 'Ezbon' in Genesis, chap, xliv., v. 16. {79}\nVerse 23. 'Pua' is called 'Phuvah' in Genesis, chap, xlvi., v. 13.\n\nVerse 24. 'Jashub' is called 'Job 'in Genesis, chap, xlvi., v. 13.\n\nVerses 64 and 65. Phinehas and Eleazar at least were left, if no more\nthan they entered the promised land (_vide_ Joshua, chap, xiv., v. 1,\nand chap, xxii., v. 13).\n\n*Chapter xxvii., v. 14. We have no account whatever of any rebellion by\nMoses. In Exodus, chap, xvii., it is the people who rebel against Moses.\n\n*Chapter xxxi. gives an account of the slaughter of the Midianites, and\nthe destruction of their 'cities' and 'goodly castles' by 12,000 Jews,\nand the capture of 32,000 virgins, 675,000 sheep, 72,000 oxen, and\n61,000 asses. The number or slain is not given; but it is easy to\nascertain a minimum, if we reckon to each virgin for father, mother,\nbrother, married sisters and their husbands, and other married females\nand their husbands, an average of four persons--which I conceive will\nbe an estimate much under the true amount--we shall find 128,000 to have\nbeen slaughtered by 12,000 Jews, which is a statement rather difficult\nto believe. This difficulty is increased when we remember that the\nMidianites dwelt in 'cities' and 'goodly castles,' under shelter of\nwhich they could have contended against the attacks of the Jews. After\nall this fighting, the tired warriors must have had considerable trouble\n(especially if the captives resisted) in bringing back the spoil, which\naveraged to each man (supposing that all the Jewish soldiers had escaped\nunhurt) three virgins, fifty-six sheep, six oxen, and five asses,\nbesides gold, silver, lead, iron, tin, brass, jewels, and other spoil.\nThe Jews, however, were mighty warriors; and it has been previously\nnoticed how two men slaughtered the whole of the inhabitants of a\ncity,(see page 41). I am compelled to add, that verse 7, which says that\nthe Jews slew 'all the males,' must be positively untrue, because if all\nwere killed except the 32,000 virgins taken captive, there would be an\nend to the Midianitish nation; while in Judges, chap, vi., we actually\nfind the Midianites more powerful than the Israelites.\n\nVerse 16. This 'counsel of Balaam' is never mentioned before.\n\nVerse 18. Is not this command likely to produce a repetition of the\noffence mentioned in chap, xxv., and for which the Israelites were so\nheavily punished?\n\n*Chapter xxxii., v. 40. 'Machir' must be a mistake, as he must have been\ndead long since (_vide_ Genesis, chap. 1., v. 23); he could hardly have\nlived long enough to see his own progeny number 52,700 (_vide_ chap,\nxxvi., v. 34).\n\n*Chapter xxxiii., v. 4. 'Upon their Gods also the Lord executed\njudgments.'. What judgments were these? and, if there is only one true\nGod, were these judgments executed upon the mock gods of the Egyptians?\nIf this be so, the whole is a farce upon the face of it, without deeper\ninvestigation.\n\n*Chapter xxxv., v. 14. 'On this side Jordan:' the Douay reads, 'beyond\nthe Jordan:' the remarks on page 77 apply equally to this text.\n\nNumbers is presented to us as a history of the wanderings of the {80}\nIsraelites during nearly forty years, with an account of some of the\nwars in which they were engaged. It professes to be the work of the same\nwriter as the Book of Genesis; and in this respect its pretensions at\nonce fail, for it is not at all probable that one man would make such\nstrange variations in writing the names of the persons referred to on\npage 78. It cannot be revelation from God--1st. Because it contains a\nvariety of errors, as in the names just alluded to, or in the times of\nservice of the Levites; or in the destruction of the children of Korah,\netc., etc. 2nd. Because it pictures a God of great mercy and long\nsuffering, ordering an indiscriminate and merciless slaughter, as in\nthe case of the Midianites. 3rd. Because it assumes that the curse\nor blessing of Balaam would affect the welfare of the Israelites, and\nrepresents an omniscient and immutable Deity as forgiving or punishing\nsinners according as they sprinkled, or neglected to sprinkle,\nthemselves with water, in which had been mixed the ashes of a burnt red\ncow. 4th. Because it is wholly, or in some part, compiled from other and\nearlier writings, and, therefore, was not an original. As a narration\nof events, it must be regarded with extreme suspicion. The numberings of\nthe Jews in chapter i., I cannot help considering as suppositious; and\nthe account of the wholesale slaughter of the Midianites is evidently\nuntrue. As an educational book, it is entirely without merit, and\naffords neither instruction nor amusement to its reader, unless,\nindeed, he be of a sufficiently depraved character to enable him to find\namusement in adding together the thousands of Israelites slaughtered by\nGod, or in calculating the probable number of the Midianites slain by\nthe children of Israel.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK V. DEUTERONOMY\n\n*Chapter i., vv. 1 and 5 (see page 6), 'On this side Jordan:' the Douay\nhas i beyond the Jordan' in each instance.\n\nVerse 10. 'Ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude.' Yet we\nare told in chap, vii., v. 7, that God chose the Jews because they were\nthe' fewest of all people.'\n\n*Chapter ii., v. 30. 'The Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made\nhis heart obstinate.' The 'hardening of heart' has been remarked upon in\npages 50 and 52, in the case of Pharaoh. It is useless to fill the work\nwith mere repetitions; but I feel bound to draw attention again to such\ntexts as this, which clearly demonstrate, to even the most obtuse mind,\nthat the Book cannot be a revelation from an immutable Deity. That a\nmerciful and loving God should harden any man's heart is unreasonable\nin the extreme; and that he should do it for the purpose of affording an\nexcuse for slaughter, is a blasphemous proposition, which every Theist\nought to deny. Can men wonder that Atheists grow in number, when the\ncharacter of the Deity is delineated in such a contradictory and absurd\nmanner? A just God grossly unjust, a merciful God cruel in the extreme,\nan immutable God constantly changing; in fact, a God consistent only in\nthe attribute of incomprehensibility! {81} *Chapter iii., v. 11. '\"For\nonly Og, King of Bashan, remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his\nbedstead was a bedstead of iron: is it not in Rabbath of the children of\nAmmon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and five cubits the breadth\nof it, after the cubit of a man.\"\n\n'Dr. Pyle (in the Family Bible) remarks on this passage:--\n\n'\"It is probable that either Og conveyed his iron bedstead, with other\nfurniture of his palace, into the country of the Ammonites, to prevent\ntheir falling into the hands of the Israelites; or else the Ammonites\nhad taken it from him in some former conquest, and kept it as a monument\nof their victory.\"\n\n'Either of these cases would be probable, if it could be first proved\nthat Moses wrote this verse, and that he knew of Og's bed being kept in\nRabbath. But as Rabbath was not taken by the Israelites until the time\nof David, as we read in 2 Samuel, xii., 26, '\"And Joab fought against\nRabbah, of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city.\"\n\n'It is very unlikely that the Israelites knew anything about the\nbedstead of King Og until then. In the reign of David, five hundred\nyears had passed since Og lived, and his bedstead had consequently\nbecome an object of curiosity; like the great bed of Ware, which is\nstill shown in that town, though only three hundred years old. It is\nhardly possible that Moses knew anything about this bedstead of King Og,\nafterwards so famous.'\n\nVerse 11. 'Is it not in Rabbath, of the children of Ammon?' This could\nscarcely have been written by Moses, for the reasons just stated.\n\nVerse 24. 'What God is there in heaven, or in earth, that can do\naccording to thy work?' This is a strange phrase from the lips of a man\nwho only believed in one God.\n\n*Chapter iv., vv. 21 and 22. The Lord said, that not one of the\nIsraelites, except Caleb, and his seed, should enter the promised land\n(_vide_ Numbers, chap, xiv., v. 24). Yet here Moses says, 'I must not go\nover Jordan, but ye shall go over, and possess that good land.'\n\nVerse 40. 'The earth, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, for ever.' The\nearth, I suppose, means Judea only, and this has not been held by the\nJews to the present day, much less for ever.\n\nVerses 41 and 46. 'On this side Jordan,' the Douay reads, 'Beyond the\nJordan.'\n\n*Chapter v., vv. 12 to 15 (see page 57).\n\nVerse 22. 'These words the Lord spake.... with a great voice, and __he\nadded no more,' Yet in Exodus, chap, xx., vv. 22 to 26, and in the\nfollowing chapters, he adds a great deal more.\n\n*Chapter vi., v. 5. 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine\nheart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.' Is it possible\nthat the Jews could love a Deity, whom they had only seen amongst smoke\nand fire, as a pillar of cloud by day, and as a pillar of fire by night;\nwho had led them from the flesh-pots of Egypt into the sterile sandy\ndesert of sin? If love is a necessary consequence of punishment, the\nIsraelites would, of course, love very strongly; but I submit it is {82}\nutterly impossible they could love a God who told them he was a jealous\nGod, whose anger might be kindled against them, and who might destroy\nthem from off the face of the earth; who had tormented them with various\nplagues, for uttering complaints which they could scarce avoid. Hunger\nand thirst would tempt the most contented men to murmur; and yet for\nthese murmurings they had been terribly dealt with.\n\n*Chapter vii., v. 2. See Exodus, chap, xxxiv., v. 6., Deuteronomy, chap.\niv., v. 31, Psalms, xxxiii., v. 5, ii., v. 1, cxvi., v. 5, cxiv., v.\n8, 2 Chronicles, chap, xxx., v. 9, Nehemiah, chap, ix., v. 31, 9 Micah,\nchap, vii., v. 18, 1 Corinthians, chap, xiv., v. 33. I will make no\nfurther comment than this, that it is utterly impossible a God of mercy,\nlong suffering, gracious kindness, and goodness, could have given such\na command as this to his people: 'Thou shalt smite them, and utterly\ndestroy them; thou shaft make no covenant with them, or show mercy unto\nthem.'\n\n*Chapter viii., v. 4. 'Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee.... these\nforty years.' So that during that time a continual miracle must have\nbeen worked with respect to the clothing of the Jews, although, if\nwe admit any one miracle, of course we, to a great extent, if not\naltogether, lose our right to object to any other. I am not aware\nwhether it was from wearing their clothes for so lengthy a period that\nthe Jews obtained the epithet of 'old clothesmen of the world.'\nPerhaps the editor of _Notes and Queries_ may deem the point worthy of\ninvestigation.\n\nVerses 7, 8, and 9. This description cannot apply to Judea, and there\nmust be some error, as the digging 'brass.' Brass is an alloy of copper\nand zinc; the proportions varying, according to the required colour. It\nis made by heating copper plates in a mixture of native oxide of zinc.\nIt is not true that Judea was 'a land wherein thou shalt eat bread\nwithout scarceness,' as various famines are mentioned. See Ruth, chap,\ni., v. 1, 2 Samuel, chap, xxi., v. 1, 1 Kings, chap. xviii., v. 2, 2\nKings, chap, vi., v. 25, 2 Kings, chap, viii., v. 1, and 2 Kings, chap,\nxxv., v. 3.\n\nVerses 19 and 20. 'If thou do at all forget the Lord thy God, and\nwalk after other Gods, ye shall surely perish.' The Jews were often\nidolatrous, and yet have not perished.\n\nChaps, viii. and ix. By these chapters it is certain that the bulk of\nthe Israelites, who were to pass over Jordan into Canaan, had resided\nin Egypt, and provoked the wrath of the Lord on many occasions. The Lord\nmust, therefore, have changed his mind, and rescinded the decree made by\nhim in Numbers, chap, xiv., v. 23.\n\n*Chapter ix., v. 1. 'Fenced up to heaven.' These fences must have been\nvery high; the carpenters built tall fences, and archers drew long bows,\nin the time of Moses.\n\nVerse 16. On page 62, I omitted to notice that casting a metal calf is\nnot a very easy operation to be performed by a wandering and ignorant\npeople, in a desert without furnaces or mechanical aid.\n\nVerses 9 and 18. The pretension here made by Moses is, that he {83}\nfasted continuously eighty days and eighty nights, and 'neither ate\nbread nor drank water,' during that period. This is a very long fast,\nespecially when we consider that Moses preserved his usual strength and\nactivity, walked down the mountain, carrying two tables of stone, dashed\nthem under his feet, etc There are several cases on record, in which\nhuman beings, affected by disease, have preserved life during a forced\nabstinence; the teeth, in one instance, being quite closed for a\n\nvery considerable period; but in all the cases I have read, some\nnutriment was administered in a fluid form, with a quill, or feather, or\notherwise; in some, the patient has been in an almost cataleptic state,\nand I do not think that, in any case, the person fasting has been known\nto retain all his powers of mind and body unimpaired. There is nothing\nsaid about this fast in Exodus.\n\nVerse 20. Neither is there any mention whatever of this in the Book of\nExodus.\n\n*Chapter x., v. 6. 'Mosera. There Aaron died, and there he was buried.'\nAccording to Numbers, chap, xx., v. 28, Aaron died and was buried on\nMount Hor.\n\nVerses 6 to 9. These verses seem to have been inserted without regard to\nthe context; they have no connexion with the rest of the chapter, which\nwould read more coherently if read from v. 5 to v. 10, omitting the four\nintermediate verses. In v. 8, the words 'until this present day,' would\ndenote a considerable lapse of time from the death of Aaron.\n\n*Chapter xi., w. 23, 24, and 25. This has never been fulfilled, and the\nChristian will urge that it is not fulfilled because the Israelites have\nbeen disobedient. But this can scarcely be admitted, as neither blessing\nnor curse has been accomplished.\n\n*Chapter xii., v. 15. This is a contradiction of Leviticus, chap, xvii.,\nvv. 3 and 4.\n\nVerses 18 and 27. Here the people are allowed to eat a portion of the\ntithes and burnt offerings. While by Numbers, chap, xviii., v. 24, they\nare confined to the Levites.\n\n*Chapter xiii. Here Moses says, if 'a prophet' arise, and his prophecy\ncome to pass, 'that prophet shall be put to death.' Can we, therefore,\nwonder that the Jews put Jesus to death, the more especially as he\nendeavoured to introduce a new form of worship, and new doctrines\namongst them.\n\n*Chapter xv., v. 4, contradicts v. 11. The former stating that there\nshall be a time when 'there shall be no poor amongst you;' while the\nlatter declares that 'the poor shall never cease out of the land.'\n\n*Chapter xviii., v. 8. What is a Levite's patrimony? In Numbers, chap,\nxviii., w. 20 to 24, it is expressly stated that the Levites should have\nno inheritance in the land.\n\nVerses 10 and 11. On page 59, I have remarked upon the subject of\nwitches and wizards, and now ask, can we have a stronger argument\nagainst this book than is contained in these verses? Voltaire writes\nthus upon enchantments:--\n\n'Is not a large portion of the absurd superstitions which have {84}\nprevailed, to be ascribed to very natural causes? There are scarcely\nany animals that may not be accustomed to approach at the sound of a\nbagpipe, or a single horn, to take their food. Orpheus, or some one of\nhis predecessors, played the bagpipe better than other shepherds, or\nemployed singing. All the domestic animals flocked together at the sound\nof his voice. It was soon supposed that bears and tigers were among the\nnumber collected. This first step accomplished, there was no difficulty\nin believing that Orpheus made stones and trees dance.\n\n'If rocks and pine trees can be thus made to dance a ballet, it will\ncost little more to build cities by harmony, and the stones will easily\narrange themselves at Amphion's song. A violin only will be wanting to\nbuild a city, and a ram's horn to destroy it.\n\n'The charming of serpents may be attributed to a still more plausible\ncause. The serpent is neither a voracious nor a ferocious animal. Every\nreptile is timid. The first thing a reptile does, at least in Europe, on\nseeing a man, is to hide itself in a hole, like a rabbit, or a lizard.\nThe instinct of man is to pursue everything that flies from him, and to\nfly from all that pursue him, except when he is armed, when he feels his\nstrength; and, above all, when he is in the presence of many observers.\n\n'The charming of serpents was considered as a thing regular and\nconstant. The sacred Scripture itself, which always enters into our\nweaknesses, deigned to conform itself to this vulgar idea.\n\n'\"The deaf adder, which shuts its ears that it may not hear the voice of\nthe charmer.\"\n\n'\"I will send among you which will resist enchantments.\"\n\n'\"The slanderer is like the serpent, which yields not to the enchanter.\"\n\n'To enchant a dead person, to resuscitate him, or barely to evoke his\nshade to speak to him, was the most simple thing in the world. It is\nvery common to see the dead in dreams; in which they are spoken with,\nand return answers. If any one has seen them during sleep, why may he\nnot see them when awake? It is only necessary to have a spirit like\nthe Pythoness; and to bring this spirit of Pythonism into successful\noperation; it is only necessary that one party should be a knave,\nand the other a fool; and no one can deny that such rencontres very\nfrequently occur.\n\n'The famous Witch of Endor has always been a subject of great dispute\namong the fathers of the Church. The sage Theodoret, in his sixty-second\nquestion on the Book of Kings, asserts, that it is universally the\npractice for the dead to appear with the head downwards; and that what\nterrified the witch was Samuel being upon his legs.\n\n'St. Augustin, when interrogated by Simplicion, replies in the second\nbook of his questions, that there is nothing more extraordinary in\nwitches invoking a shade, than in the Devil transporting Jesus Christ\nthrough the air, to the pinnacle of the temple, on the top of a\nmountain.'\n\n*Chapter xix., vv. 2, 7, and 10. Here three cities of refuge are\ndirected with a condition that three more may afterwards be added;\n{85} while in Numbers, chap, xxxv., vv. 13 and 14, six are directed\nunconditionally.\n\n*Chapter ix., vv. 16, 17, and 18. By this command to 'save alive nothing\nthat breatheth,' we may judge of the mercy and loving kindness of the\nGod of the Jews. Why were the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites,\nthe Ferrizites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, to be mercilessly\nslaughtered? I am answered that they were idolaters. So were the Jews.\nAnd even if they were idolaters, the Omnipotent Deity had permitted them\nto become so, without giving them the benefit of any revelation from\nhimself or the chance of listening to any of his prophets; in fact,\nby preferring the Jews, he must, to some extent, have neglected these\nunfortunate nations; and can it be wondered that such barbarous nations\nworshipped false Gods in those dark ages, when in the enlightened latter\nmoiety of the nineteenth century, in the highly civilised country of\nEngland, there are more sects than there are books in the Bible; each\ndrawing from that Book entirely different doctrines as to the Deity,\nand each declaring that theirs only is the true faith, and that all the\nothers merit damnation (_vide_ the Reverend preachers of Surrey Gardens\non the one hand, and of Exeter Hall on the other)?\n\n*Chapter xxi., w. 10 to 14. According to this highly moral Book, if one\nof the Jewish warriors perceived a beautiful woman amongst the captives,\nhe could take her home, keep her until he grew tired of her, and then\ndesert her; he was only prohibited from selling her.\n\nVerse 15. Polygamy is evidently a recognised institution amongst the\nJews. In the present day, we are told that polygamy amongst the Mormons\nis an evidence of the grossly sensual character of Mor-monism.\n\n*Chapter xxii., w. 9, 10, 11. These verses seem to me to be too trifling\nand absurd to have a place amongst the ordinances of the infinite Deity.\n\n*Chapter xxiii., v. 3. An Ammonite, or a Moabite, shall not enter into\nthe congregation of the Lord, even unto their tenth generation. Yet\nDavid was only the third, and Solomon the fourth, generation, from the\nMoabitish woman Ruth (see Ruth, chap, iv., w. 21 and 22). Verses 1 to 6\nseem positively unjust. Why should ten generations suffer; they did not\nchoose their birth-place--whether Ammon or Judea.\n\nVerses 13 and 14. I should not notice these verses, were it not for the\ngross absurdity of the 14th. The 13th contains a very useful sanitary\nregulation, although hardly worthy of a place in a revelation from the\ninfinite and eternal ruler of the universe; but to suppose that God\nwould perceive the 'unclean thing, and turn away,' is really too\nridiculous to need further remark.\n\nVerse 18. Why is a dog an abomination to the Lord? Dogs are of all\nanimals the least likely to be an abomination to any one. They are more\nfaithful to man than any animal except, perhaps, the horse. They possess\nbetter organisations than the majority of the brute family, and one is\nat a loss to understand the reason for this dislike {86} to a dog on the\npart of the Deity, especially when we remember that the same Deity is\nalleged to be the creator of the dog, and of all other animals.\n\nVerses 19 and 20. All men ought to be considered as brethren. These\nverses are further evidence, if any were needed, that this is not a\nrevelation from 'one God and Father of us all;' if it were, he surely\nwould teach that all are brethren, and that none should be treated as\nstrangers. Until we can call each man brother, and can set aside class\ndistinctions, we shall never be able to realise a good state of society.\n\n*Chapter xxiv., v. 2. In Leviticus, chap, xxi., v. 7, it is said,\n'Neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband.' These\ncontradictory precepts can scarcely be from the same man; still less can\nthey be from the same God.\n\nVerse 16 has been referred to on page 56.\n\n*Chapter xvvii, vv. 2 to 8. Here is a command for the elders to write\n'all the words of this law,' and it is very clear that whether Moses, or\nany one else wrote, that it would be utterly impossible for a few men to\ncarry the ark about, if it were filled with as many stones as would be\nrequired to contain the whole of the Pentateuch. The plastered stones\nwould only suffice for a stationary people. Dr. Giles observes:--\n\n'That the Hebrew legislator should deliver to his countrymen two tables\nof stone on which the principal heads of the law were engraved, is\nconsistent with all the information which history supplies concerning\nthose early times and the practice of other nations. But if we suppose,\na book of such length and bulk as the Pentateuch to have been given\nat the same time to the Israelites, what becomes of the two tables of\nstone? Where was the necessity that these, also, should be given? It was\nnot that they might be set up as monuments visible to the whole people,\nand as exponents of the heads of a law, which the written books would\ndevelop more fully, for the two tables of stone were never set up at\nall; they were kept in the ark of the covenant, and there is no mention\nmade of their ever being taken out, not even when the temple of Solomon\nwas built, when they might, with propriety, have been set up in some\npublic place if this had been the use for which they were originally\ndesigned. But no such use is hinted at by the writer, nor were they\noriginally given by God for such a purpose, as is manifest from their\nsize, for when Moses came down from the Mount, he held the two tables in\nhis hand, which he could not have done if they were of the usual size of\nmonuments made to be set up in public.\n\n'But the supposition that the two tables of stone were intended to\nbe set up as monuments is refuted by the fact that other stones were\nactually set by Joshua, according to a command given by Moses, and\nthat on them was inscribed a copy of the law of Moses. The original\ninjunction of Moses is found in the 27th chapter of Deuteronomy, vv.\n1-8.\n\n'\"And Moses, with the elders of Israel, commanded the people, saying,\n'Keep all the commandments which I command you this day. And it shall be\non the day when ye shall pass over Jordan unto the {87} land which the\nLord thy God giveth thee that thou shalt set thee up great stones, and\nplaster them with plaster: and thou shalt write upon them all the words\nof this law when thou art passed over, that thou mayst go in unto the\nland which the Lord thy God giveth thee--a land that floweth with milk\nand honey, as the Lord God of thy fathers hath promised thee. Therefore,\nit shall be when ye he gone over Jordan that ye shall set up these\nstones which I command you this day in Mount Ehal, and thou shalt\nplaster them with plaster. And there shalt thou build an altar unto the\nLord thy God, an altar of stones: thou shalt not lift up an iron tool\nupon them. Thou shalt build the altar of the Lord thy God on whole\nstones: and thou shalt offer burnt offerings thereon unto the Lord\nthy God: and thou shalt offer peace offerings, and shalt eat there and\nrejoice before the Lord thy God. And thou shalt write upon the stones\nall the words of this law very plainly.\"\n\n'The fulfilment of the command is related in the 8th chapter of Joshua,\nvv. 30-32:--\n\n'\"Then Joshua built an altar unto the Lord God of Israel in Mount Ebal,\nas Moses, the servant of the Lord, commanded the children of Israel, as\nit is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones,\nover which no man hath lift up any iron: and they offered thereon burnt\nofferings unto the Lord and sacrificed peace offerings. And he wrote\nthere upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the\npresence of the children of Israel. And all Israel, and their elders,\nand officers, and their judges stood on this side the ark and on that\nside before the priests the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant\nof the Lord, as well as the stranger, as he that was born among them;\nhalf of them over against Mount Gerizim, and half of them over against\nMount Ebal; as Moses, the servant of the Lord, had commanded before,\nthat they should bless the people of Israel. And afterwards he read all\nthe words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that\nis written in the book of the law. There was not a word of all that\nMoses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of\nIsrael, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were\nconversant among them.\"\n\n'This narrative is remarkable, for it commemorates a public solemnity\nheld for no other purpose than that the laws of Moses might be impressed\non the minds of the Jewish people. The writer also tells us that it was\nheld in accordance with the book of Moses, and yet he does not tell us\nthat the book of Moses was produced on that occasion, though we are to\nsuppose that it was in existence. Yet something is then done which seems\nto prove by implication that there was no such book at all at that time.\nJoshua is said to have engraved on certain stones a copy of the law of\nMoses, and afterwards to have read all the words of the law, and the\nconcluding paragraph relates that \"there was not a word of all that\nMoses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of\nIsrael.\" Must we, then, suppose that the whole of the Pentateuch was\ninscribed on those {88} stones by Joshua? What could be the use of\ninscribing the historical parts of the Pentateuch on those stones,\nor reading them afterwards to the people if the object was simply to\nadmonish them that they should observe the law of Moses? It is more\nprobable that an inscription, much shorter than the whole of the\nPentateuch, was carved upon those stones, and as no mention is made of\nany book at all on the same occasion, we have a negative proof that no\nsuch book was in existence at that time.\n\n'The delivery of the two tables renders it unlikely that any other\nwriting was bequeathed by Moses to the Israelitish people, particularly\nas the age in wnich Moses lived precedes by many centuries the times\nin which books, as far as we know of them, can be proved to have been\nwritten.'\n\n*Chapter xxviii. The remarks on page 61 apply more forcibly here. In\nthis chapter Moses exerts himself to the utmost to depict the blessings\nattendant upon obedience to the laws; he uses the most expressive words\nhe can command to define the rewards which God will give his chosen\npeople, but he never dreams of a crown in heaven, or of an eternal life\nof happiness after death. If man possessed an immortal soul in the days\nof Moses, it is certain that Moses was ignorant of its existence. When\nthreatening the people with terrible punishments if they disobeyed the\nlaws, when using terms which would degrade the Deity into a cruel and\nhorrible monster, when speaking of events which, if they had occurred,\nwould have made life a burthen, when using the most vindictive and\ndiabolical curses, Moses never hinted at a hell fire in which men were\nburned 'for ever and ever,' by the fire which is never quenched, and,\nat the same time, further tormented by the worm that never dieth. The\ndoctrines of the existence of a soul, and of its punishment or reward in\na future state, were entirely unknown to the Jewish lawgiver.\n\nVerse 23. Here the heaven is to be 'brass,' and the earth 'iron.' In\nLeviticus, chap, xxvi., v. 19, the heaven is to be 'iron,' and the earth\n'brass.'\n\nVerse 58. Is evidently written long after the time of Moses, because at\nthe commencement of his oration, Moses tells the elders to write 'the\nwords' after they have crossed the Jordan, and this verse, therefore,\ncould have formed no part of the original speech of Moses.\n\nVerse 61. The same applies here.\n\n*Chapter xxix., v. 23. 'Admah and Zeboim, which the Lord overthrew in\nhis anger.' We have no account of this anywhere in the Pentateuch. It\nhas been assumed (but I am unable to learn on what ground) that these\ncities were destroyed at the same time with Sodom and Gomorrah.\n\nVerses 25 and 28. Dr. Giles observes that in these verses 'are described\nthe evils that should happen to the Israelites in case of their not\nobserving the law which had been given by Moses:--\n\n'\"Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the\nLord God of their fathers which he made with them when he brought them\nforth out of the land of Egypt For they went and {89} served other gods,\nwhom they knew not, and whom he had not given unto them. And the anger\nof the Lord was kindled against this land, to bring upon it all the\ncurses that are written in this Book. And the Lord rooted them out of\ntheir land in anger and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast\nthem into another land, as it is this day.\"'\n\n'Here is an allusion to the great downfall of the first Israelitish\nmonarchy, too plain to be interpreted as a supposed case, merely of a\nmisfortune which only _might_ befall them if they should be disobedient\nto God's commandments. The impression which the words irresistibly leave\non the mind is, that the calamity of defeat and transportation into\na strange country, had actually befallen them when those words were\nwritten.'\n\n*Chapter xxxi., w. 9, 19, 22, 24, and 26. These verses are, I believe,\nsometimes quoted as evidence of the authorship of the Pentateuch; but it\nhas been urged in opposition, that it is idle to quote a work, while\nits authenticity is denied (_vide_ Watson's 'Apology for the Bible,' p.\n183); and that the terms 'book' and 'volume' are not applicable to the\nage in which Moses lived (when the mode of writing was on thin slabs of\nplastered stone). Papyrus is not once spoken of, or alluded to, in the\nPentateuch, and could not have been known to Moses. It is also asserted,\nthat the 'book of the law' cannot possibly be identified with the\nPentateuch, or even with the Book of Deuteronomy. (See remarks on page\n7, and also Dr. Cooper's letter to Professor Silliman, pp. 29 and 38.)\n\n*Chapter xxxii. This is a song full of Oriental hyperboles. The language\nattributed to the Deity is absurd in the extreme, if read literally.\n\nVerse 4. The words 'He is the rock,' are omitted, both in the Douay and\nBreeches Bible.\n\nVerse 8. 'When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance,\nwhen he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people\naccording to the number of the children of Israel.' This verse is not\nvery explicit; but if it means that God had apportioned the promised\nland to the Israelites, it then becomes a curious question as to how\nthe Canaanites ever became possessed thereof. In a marginal note to my\nBreeches Bible, I find these words:--'When God by his providence divided\nthe world, he lent for a time that portion to the Canaanites, which\nshould after be an inheritance for all his people Israel.' If this\nbe true, I can only add, that when God reclaimed his loan, he, like\na modern Shylock, took a great quantity of blood as interest for his\n'pound of flesh.' It does not appear, anywhere, that the Canaanites ever\nwere informed of this strange tenure. Instead of holding the land as a\nloan, they looked upon it as their country, but suddenly found (if the\nBible be correct) that God had 'sent them a strong delusion, that they\nmight believe a lie.' (_Vide_ 2 Thessaloni-ans, chap, ii., v. 11.)\n\nVerses 12 to 15. The Israelites, according to the Pentateuch, never had\nmuch of the 'honey, oil, butter of kine, milk of sheep, fat of lambs,\nand rams, and goats, and fat of kidneys of wheat,' during the {90} life\nof Moses; on the contrary, it is alleged that they had no bread, but fed\non manna in lieu of it; that they were short of water, and were without\nflesh meat, having to substitute a diet of quails.\n\nVerses 15 and 17. These verses are remarkable as containing the singular\nof the plural word [------] (Aleim, or Elohim), and have given rise to\nmuch controversy amongst the learned Divines, because it is apparent to\neven the most prejudiced, that if the singular word [------] or [------]\n(Aloe, or Ale), signifies 'God,' the plural must mean more Gods than\none.\n\nVerses 18, 30, and 31. For the word 'rock,' in these verses, the Douay\nand Breeches Bible each have the word 'God.' The Hebrew word is [------]\n(tsorem), which, Parkhurst tells me, is a plural noun, and 'a name of\ncertain idols, representative of the heavens, under the attributes\nof compressors, givers of strength or firmness.' This would convey\nan impression that the Jewish religion was strongly connected with\nTsabaism.\n\nVerses 20 to 43. I shall not attempt to comment on the language\nattributed in these verses to the 'infinite, immutable, and merciful\nFather of us all;' it is quite sufficient for me to repeat the terrible\nthreat from a God of love, 'to devour flesh with his sword, and to make\nhis arrows drunk with blood;' and that 'the sword without and the terror\nwithin shall destroy the young man, and the virgin, the suckling, and\nthe old man with grey hairs.\n\nVerses 48 to 52. It is impossible to ascertain what offence was\ncommitted by Moses. In Numbers, chap, xx., we find that the Lord\nthreatened to punish Moses and Aaron on account of their unbelief; but\nit is evident some portion of the Book must be lost, as the particular\ninstance of unbelief is not mentioned.\n\n*Chapter xxxiii., v. i., has been noticed on page 6.\n\nVerse 2. 'He shined forth from Mount Paran.' This is an expression more\napplicable to the sun, in a Tsabaistic form of worship; so also is verse\n26. 'There is none like the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven,\nin thy help, and in his excellency on the sky. The eternal God is thy\nrefuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.' The Douay reads,\n'There is no other God like the God of the lightest; he that is mounted\nupon the heaven is thy helper. By his magnificence, the clouds run\nhither and thither; his dwelling is above, and underneath are the\neverlasting arms.'\n\nVerse 5. In our version are these words: 'And he was King in Jeshurun.'\nThe Douay reads, 'He shall be king with the most right.' The Breeches\nBible has it--'Then he was amongst the righteous people as king.'\n\nSimeon is altogether forgotten in this chapter. Although it is headed\n'The blessings of the twelve tribes,' only eleven are mentioned.\n\n*Chapter xxxiv., vv. 1 to 4, identifies the land which God swore he\nwould give (but which he did not give) to the Jews for ever.\n\nVerse 2. Which was the 'sea' mentioned here; it would have required good\npowers of vision to have seen the Mediterranean.\n\nThe following is from the pen of Dr. Giles:-- {91} 'As it is impossible\nfor a writer to relate his own death, those who maintain that the\nPentateuch is the work of Moses, make an exception in favour of the last\nchapter. Dr. Gray has the following remarks upon this subject:--\n\n'\"The account of the death and burial of Moses, and some other seemingly\nposthumous particulars described in this chapter, have been reduced\nto prove that it could not have been written by Moses; and, in all\nprobability, these circumstances may have been inserted by Joshua, to\ncomplete the history of this illustrious prophet; or were afterwards\nadded by Samuel, or some prophet who succeeded him. They were admitted\nby Ezra as authentic, and we have no reason to question the fidelity of\nthe account.\"\n\n'This language is authoritative and dictatorial. Truth, when questioned,\ncomes out purer and brighter for the ideal through which it has passed:\nwhereas error is scorched and withered by the touch of criticism. The\nchapter before us is admitted by all not to have been written by Moses.\nWhy, then, was it ever attached to the Book of Moses, without some\nstrong mark, to denote that it was only an appendix? It cannot be\nallowed that Joshua, Samuel, or Ezra, could connive at such a deception.\nThere is internal evidence that neither Joshua nor Samuel made this\naddition to the Pentateuch; for the word Nabi, rendered in English\nprophet, indicates an age later than that of Samuel. We learn from the\n1st Book of Samuel, chap, ix., v. 9, which was written after Samuel's\ndeath, that he who\n\n'Is now called a prophet was before time a seer.\n\n'If, therefore, the xxxiv. chapter of Deuteronomy had been written\nbefore, or in the time of Samuel, Moses would have been designated as a\nseer [in Hebrew, Roech], and not Nabi, a prophet. This exculpates both\nJoshua and Samuel from having added to the Book of Moses without mark of\nsuch addition. There are also other indications in the same chapter that\nJoshua could not have written it; for he would hardly have written of\nhimself that Joshua the son of Nun was \"full of the spirit of wisdom;\"\nneither would he have said, \"There arose not a prophet _since_ in Israel\nlike unto Moses;\" for there was no other prophet to whom Moses could be\ncompared except Joshua himself. The word _since_ implies that many years\nhad passed since the death of Moses, and that many prophets had arisen,\nnone of whom could be placed in comparison with him who led them out of\nEgypt. Moreover, the words, \"no man knoweth of his sepulchre\"--i.e., the\nsepulchre of Moses--\"unto this day,\" are another proof that the chapter\nwas not added by Joshua, for they imply that a considerable space of\ntime had elapsed, during which the sepulchre of Moses remained unknown.\nAs Joshua died only twenty-five years after Moses, these words coming\nfrom his mouth would lose half their force, and would, probably,\nalso convey an untruth; for we cannot believe that the great Hebrew\nlegislator was buried clandestinely; or that Joshua, the next in\ncommand, and almost his equal, could be ignorant where his body was\nlaid.' {92} The Book we have last examined professes in part to be a\nrepetition by Moses, of various events mentioned in the previous Books;\nbut as there are omissions of former statements, and additions of\nstatements, before left unnoticed, as well as positive disagreements\nbetween some portions of the various texts, we are placed in the\nposition of being compelled to deem one or the other as less worthy\nof our credence. This is at the best an embarrassing position; but\nour embarrassment is increased when we are gravely assured that both\nstatements are from the pen of the same writer. We are tempted to doubt\nwhether in an age when writing was a task of great difficulty (both from\nthe inferiority of the materials then used, and the general ignorance of\nthe people), any man would be likely to indulge in such long repetitions\nas those here found, and our inquietude is nowise allayed by the\nadditional assurance that the Book is a revelation from God, especially\nwhen we read the list of terrible curses threatened in his name, but we\nfeel that it is impossible a revelation from a loving God could include\nthe directions for wholesale slaughterings of the human family, such\nas contained in this Book; or that an immutable God could have revealed\nthat he had repented or changed his mind towards his people. There is no\nfeature connected with the Book of Deuteronomy which enables us to place\nit in a better position than the four 'Books previously examined;\nits historical and educational character stands on the same basis. In\nquitting the Pentateuch, I must ask several questions of my readers.\n1st. Are you satisfied that Moses is not its author? I have cone with\nyou carefully through every verse, and nowhere have we round anything\nwhich should induce us to regard Moses as the author of the first four\nbooks; with regard to a portion of the fifth Book, it is possible that\na few scattered phrases may lead some to conclude that Moses might have\nbeen its author. But this supposition is dissipated when we ascertain\nthat whatever books of the law the Jews possessed, were burnt either\nprior to, or during their captivity under the Persians. (See 2 Esdras,\nchap, xiv., v. 21.) 'For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth\nthe things that are done of thee, or the works that shall be done.' I\nsubmit, therefore, that there is no evidence whatever to support the\nhypothesis that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch; against the\nproposition the evidence assumes a very strong character.\n\nThere are numerous verses which I have specially noticed, which it is\nutterly impossible Moses could have written, as they relate to events\nwhich transpired after his death; and there are other passages which\nare very unlikely to have been the product of his pen, from the mode of\nreference to himself.\n\nThere are numerous passages directly contradictory one of the other, and\nwhich compel the belief that more than one man must have been concerned\nin writing the Books.\n\nThe incoherency of many portions of the Books betrays the fact, that\nthey have been compiled from various manuscripts, and that in some\npassages due attention was not paid by the compiler to the manner in\nwhich he joined the different documents. {93} The reference to the book\nof the wars of the Lord admits the existence of other documents at the\ntime Numbers was written; and the passages referred to on pages 76 and\n77, are evidence that documents have existed containing more complete\naccounts of the life and times of Moses, than those we are commenting\non.\n\nBishop Watson says:--\n\n'It appears incredible to many that God Almighty should have had\ncolloquial intercourse with our first parents; that he should have\ncontracted a kind of friendship for the patriarchs, and entered into\ncovenants with them; that he should have suspended the laws of nature in\nEgypt: should have been so apparently partial as to become the God\nand governor of one particular nation; and should have so far demeaned\nhimself as to give to that people a burthensome ritual of worship,\nstatutes, and ordinances, many of which seem to be beneath the dignity\nof his attention, unimportant, and impolitic. I have conversed with many\nDeists, and have always found that the strangeness of these things\nwas the only reason for their disbelief of them: nothing similar has\nhappened in their time; they will not therefore admit that these events\nhave really taken place at any time. As well might a child, when arrived\nat a state of manhood, contend that he had never either stood in need,\nor experienced the fostering care of a mother's kindness, the wearisome\nattention of his nurse, or the instruction and discipline of his\nschoolmaster. The Supreme Being selected one family from an idolatrous\nworld; nursed it up by various acts of his providence into a great\nnation: communicated to that nation a knowledge of his holiness,\njustice, mercy, power, and wisdom; disseminated them, at various times,\nthrough every part of the earth, that they might be a \"leaven to\nleaven the whole lump;\" that they might assure all other nations of the\nexistence of one Supreme God, the creator and preserver of the world,\nthe only proper object of adoration.'\n\nAs an Atheist, I cannot quite appreciate the analogical character of the\nargument, when I find Bishop Watson comparing the Deity with a mother, a\nnurse, and a schoolmaster. I cannot understand the maternal care for the\nchildren of Abraham, who were oppressed in Egypt, starved, plagued,\nand slaughtered in the desert of Sin, and who never enjoyed a tract of\ncountry so large as Great Britain in the whole course of their history.\nThe bishop speaks of the Jews as nursed into a great nation. When was\nthis? If God has communicated to the Jews his 'power and wisdom,' where\nare the effects shown? What is the common estimate of the Jews? That\nthey are powerful only as usurers, wise only in estimating the value of\nthe money which they lend, and the security they take for it. I do not\nendorse this estimate, because I know they have produced a few wonderful\nmusicians, and one or two men wno deserve to be in the front rank of the\nworld's Freethinkers, but even I confess that the Jews do not seem to me\nto be (or ever to have been) a great, powerful, and wise nation. Bishop\nWatson says that it is an article of faith among the Jews that the law\nwas given by Moses, and that it is well {94} known that the Jews gave\nthe name of the law to the first five books of the Old Testament; if\nso, the 'law' was burnt and forgotten at the time Ezra wrote, and no man\nknew anything about it. But whether the books were written by Moses,\nor by Ezra, or whether they were compiled from Hindoo or Egyptian\noriginals, would matter but little to us if they were of the slightest\nutility to mankind. I will not further object as to the impossibility of\ntheir being revealed by God. I think I have said enough on that point.\nI now simply ask, Why have we Bible societies for the distribution\nof Bibles all over the world? Members of the Peace Society, when you\nsubscribe your guineas, remember the 'Book of the Wars of the Lord,'\nremember the command of the Jewish warriors to 'save alive nothing that\nbreatheth.' Fathers who wish for truthful sons, remember the reward of\nthe false and cunning Jacob, who cheated the dying Isaac. Daughters,\nremember the regulation made for your sale by your parents, and the\ncareful provision of a pecuniary compensation for your lost virtue, if\nthe man who buys you becomes weary of his purchase. Anti-slavery men,\nforget not the godlike text which places a man's liberty on one side,\nand his wife and children on the other, and (with a refinement of\ncruelty worthy rather to be from a devil than from a god) bids him\ndesert his family, or be a slave for ever; bear in mind, also, the wise\nprotection of the rights of property, and do not ignore the fact that\nthe servant man or maid is a chattel, 'the money' of his or her master.\nAstronomers, recollect that the sun was created after the earth,\nand that light existed, and morning and evening, day and night,\nwere determined prior to the creation of either sun, moon, or stars.\nGeologists, what shall I say to you, except to bid you shut up your\nstone books when you open your Bibles?\n\nWe have examined five books; the following is an analysis of their\ncontents:--Genesis relates the history of the world from its\ncreation until the time of Abraham. This, according to some Biblical\nchronologists, takes in about 2,000 years, but these people do not\nreckon the seven days (?) in which the earth was made. After the time of\nAbraham, it confines itself to the Israelitish nation, whose history\nit continues to the time of Joseph, which, according to the same\nchronology, would bring us down to about a.m. 2369. From this history\nof the world, we can learn but little, except that religion must have\ncommenced its tyrannical reign very early. This is proved by the general\ndepravity of the people--a depravity often resulting from habits of\nsuperstition and ignorance. We gather the characters of the founders\nof the Jewish nation from Genesis, and we then wonder most profoundly.\nIncomprehensibility seems the proper attribute of Deity; the preference\nshown for the descendants of Abraham is, undoubtedly, a matter far\nbeyond our comprehension. We can hardly understand in what points\nAbraham was superior to other human beings. His grandson, Jacob, seems\nto have been decidedly a great rascal, and his great grandchildren\nappear much worse than their father, but it might be that God chose\nthem on account of their bad qualities so that the mystery might be more\ncomplete. {95} Exodus continues the history of the Jews, leaving the\nother nations unnoticed, except the unfortunate Egyptian nation, who\nsuffered a series of terrible punishments at the hands of the Deity.\nWe may here admire the mercy and loving kindness of the omnipotent and\nimmutable Ruler of the universe, as shown in the history of the plagues\nand drownings of the Egyptians. This book brings down the history to\nabout a.m. 2550. The chronologists slightly differ as to the exact date.\n\nLeviticus is limited almost wholly to legislative enactments. The\npurpose of many of the laws is not at all clear. No moral or physical\nevil is apparently likely to result from eating an eel, yet eels\nare prohibited as articles of food. The whole of Leviticus may be\ndisregarded without loss in an historical point of view, and of its\nstatutes we can but say, that many of them are better honoured by\nneglect than by observance.\n\nNumbers professes to contain the history of the Jews during about\nthirty-nine years, taking in that period of the wanderings in the\nwilderness, from about b.c. 1451 to b.c. 1490. These dates, as the\nformer ones, are purely hypothetical, and have their chief foundation in\nthe credulity of the people and the holiness of the priests. From this\nbook we may learn, very decidedly, that 'God's ways are not as our\nways.' _Now_, a thirsty man would ask for water, and if he were placed\nin a position where water was inaccessible, he would complain, and most\nmen would hold that his complaints were just, and it would be regarded\nas a case of considerable hardship if the man should happen to be\npunished by the civil magistrate merely because he complained. _Then_,\na thirsty people asked for water, and were severely punished by their\nmerciful and immutable Father. _Now_, a wizard at Leeds is imprisoned\nfor eighteen months, with hard labour, because the laws, the Church,\nthe jury, and the judge all disbelieve in his power to work miracles.\n_Then_, the omniscient and omnipotent Deity acknowledged the power of\nthe wizard of Pethor to work miracles, and, wishing to prevent a curse\nfrom falling on the Israelites, the angel of the Lord was sent, who made\nhimself known to the wizard's donkey, and stopped the wizard's journey.\nThe wizard lost his temper, and then, like many other enraged men,\nbecame as complete an ass as the animal he rode, and also perceived the\nangel. Numbers contains some ceremonial laws which I think have been\nalready sufficiently adverted to.\n\nDeuteronomy carries the history of the Jews on to the death of Moses,\nbut only includes a very short period of time--viz., about twelve\nmonths. Its length is caused by the repetitions of many parts of the\nprevious books. Its chief merit is, that it disagrees where it professes\nto reiterate, and as of two contradictory statements, one must be false,\nit requires considerable stretching ol the mental faculties to accept\nboth as true. The following chronological table of the chief events in\nthe Pentateuch may prove interesting to my readers. Its accuracy is not\nvouched, but it is acknowledged by many Biblical scholars:-- {96} B.C.\n4004. The world created--Adam made.\n\n     3417. Methusalem born.\n\n     3074. Adam died.\n\n     3048. Noah born.\n\n     2448. The Flood.\n\n     2093. Noah died.\n\n     1921. Abraham went down into Egypt.\n\n     1706. Jacob's family settled in Egypt.\n\n     1491. The Israelites were led out of Egypt.\n\n     1452. Moses died.\n\nThere are many other matters in the Pentateuch to which attention might\nbe usefully drawn, but my space is limited; and even with the present\nmode of treatment, it will be difficult to compress the whole of my\nwork so as to present it as a cheap volume. I am aware that some of\nmy readers will not approve of those criticisms which serve to make\napparent the many absurdities of the text, still, I trust that all will\nadmit that in no case have I misquoted or misconstrued a passage for the\npurpose of gaining a temporary effect. I have written as I have thought,\nand my fervent wish is, that my writing may be examined, and if proved\ntrue, that each word may have power, like an axe, to hew down the Upas\ntree, which, while it poisons the mind and destroys the freethought of\nthe child, yet claims to be the guide and educator of the man. {97}\n\n\n\n\nBOOK VI. JOSHUA\n\nIt is alleged by many that this book was written by Joshua, and that\nthere is internal evidence of that fact. Dr. Giles has very fully\ndiscussed this subject in pages 153 to 164 of his 'Hebrew Records,' to\nwhich I refer my readers. It is clear that the book, as a whole, was\nnot written by Joshua; and, as I cannot find anything enabling me to\ndiscover the author, it must be criticised in the same manner as other\nanonymous writings.\n\n*Chapter ii., v. 14. The command to save alive nothing that breatheth\nis soon set at nought. Here is a covenant made by the spies with a\nCanaanitish woman; this covenant is afterwards confirmed by Joshua in\ndirect opposition to the commands of God, given through Moses. (See\nchap, vi., vv. 22 and 23, and Deuteronomy, chap, vii., vv. 2 and 3.)\nBy Matthew, chap. L, v. 5, it would appear that Rahab was married to\nSalmon, so that three of God's ordinances are here broken; first, in\nsparing the lives of herself and family, second, in making a covenant\nwith her, third, in marrying her. From this lady we derive David and all\nthe succeeding kings.\n\n*Chapter iv., v. 7. 'These stones shall be a memorial unto the children\nof Israel for ever.' Where are they now? It would be some evidence in\nsupport of the genuineness of this pretended history of the Jews if\nthese twelve stones could be shown. It is no answer that the ravages\nof time, or other adverse circumstances, may have removed them. These\nstones were to be a memorial 'for ever.'\n\nVerse 9. 'And Joshua set up twelve stones in the midst of Jordan, in the\nplace where the feet of the priests which bare the ark of the covenant\nstood, _and they are there unto this day!_\n\nIf the stones had not been there a long time, the writer of the book\nwould not have used such an expression. It would have been in no wise\nremarkable that the twelve stones, or pillar, should have stood forty\nor fifty years, but the writer means that they had stood 500, or perhaps\n1000 years.\n\nVerse 13. If this means that the whole of the fighting men of the Jews\nnumbered only 40,000, they must have sadly dwindled away, as in Numbers,\nchap. i., vv. 3 and 46, they are stated at 603,550.\n\nVerse 23. 'For the Lord your God dried up the waters of the Jordan from\nbefore you as the Lord your God did to the Red Sea, which he dried up\nfrom _before us until we were passed over_,' yet in chap, v., v. 4,\nwe are told that all the people that came out of Egypt died in the\nwilderness.\n\n*Chapter v., v. 1. 'Until we were passed over.' Bishop Tomline remarks\non this passage:--\n\n'The use of the word \"we\" proves that this book was written by Joshua,\nor by some one else alive at the time.\n\n'This inference is obvious, and cannot be objected to if it can be shown\nthat the words of the text, _until WE were passed over_, are {98} a\ncorrect translation of the corresponding words in the original Hebrew\nBible. This, however, is not the case. The passage before us is one of\nthe parts of the Bible which has been corrupted by time, and the error\nhas arisen in the present instance from the great similarity between the\nHebrew words, [------] Aberanoo, \"we passed over,\" and [------] Abekoom,\n\"he caused them to pass over.\" These words are very similar, and though\nthe common text of the Hebrew Bible now reads Aberanoo, which gives\nthe sense of \"we passed over,\" yet this was not the old reading of the\npassage, but Aberoom, \"he [i.e., God] caused them to pass over,\" and\namong the various readings of the text Aberoom actually is found: but\nthe Hebrew letter [--] has been carelessly divided into two letters,\n[--] vau and [--] nun, by the copyist, and the translators of the Bible,\nnot perceiving the error, and perhaps tempted to make a choice which\ntended to attach to the book the value of a contemporary record, have\ngiven the passage that interpretation which has misled so many critics\nand on which is built so fallacious a theory.\n\n'That the error is such as I described it, and consequently that the\ntheory built upon it is fallacious, must inevitably result from the\naccuracy of our present statement, which becomes almost a matter\nof certainty from the concurrence of the Septuagint and Vulgate\ntranslations.\n\n'In the German translations of the Bible the error has been corrected,\nand the proper reading of the word restored.\n\n'It appears, then, that this passage, which has been made the basis for\nthe belief that the Book of Joshua is a contemporary writing, has been\nincorrectly translated in our common English Bibles, and consequently\nthe opinion \"built upon it must fall to the ground\".'\n\nVerse 9. On page 35 is quoted Voltaire's criticism on this text, 'I have\nrolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you.' It is evident that it\nrefers to the circumcision, which was an established ceremony amongst\nthe Egyptians from the earliest ages.\n\nVerses 13 to 15. In what manner shall I comment on these verses? Shall\nI gravely reason upon the improbability of 'a man with a drawn sword'\nbeing the 'captain of the Lord's host?' Shall I venture to doubt whether\nthe captain of the Lord's host would come to Joshua for the mere purpose\nof telling him to take off his shoes, or ought I not rather at once to\nclass these verses with such tales as 'Aladdin's Lamp,' and others of a\nlike character, dismissing them as unworthy of further criticism?\n\n*Chapter vi. relates the miraculous falling down of the walls of the\ncity of Jericho. One of two courses must be pursued when reading it;\neither the reader must discard the evidence presented by his senses,\nand, without reasoning, blindly accept the story, or he will be\ncompelled at once to reject it as absurd. I have read of the destruction\nof a suspension bridge, or bridge of boats, in consequence of vibration,\nproduced by the marching across, in regular time, of a large body of\nmen, but I am inclined to think that all the Jews in the world might\nmarch round Jericho until they were sorely fatigued, and yet have but\n{99} little effect on its walls. Walls are more likely to tumble down\nby pushing against them than by shouting at them. It is almost to be\nregretted that our Christian friends did not try the experiment at\nSebastopol; if it had succeeded, it would have struck all the world with\nastonishment.\n\n'Chap, vii., v. 1 to end. Among many nations in their rude infancy, and\nwhile gross and barbarous ideas prevailed, it has been held that sin or\noffence, particularly if of an aggravated kind, against the gods or the\nnearest relationships amongst men could never be pardoned. The Nemesis\nmust be satisfied; but satisfaction was often obtained from the\ninnocent, who were made the objects of vengeance instead of the guilty.\nThe ancient Hebrews participated in these notions of other uncultivated\nnations, hence their ideas of visiting the sins of the fathers upon the\nchildren, of the Israelitish army defeated on account of Achan, etc.\nThis idea was greatly encouraged by the Levitical priests, whose\ninterests were promoted by it, and by the practice of sacrifices, which\nwas founded upon the assumption of vicariousness and expiation. This\nidea also became thoroughly interwoven with the theocratical institution\nof the Jews, the worship of their sanctuary, their hymns, and the poetry\nof their prophets.\n\n'Verse 26. And they raised over him [Achan] a great heap of stones unto\nthis day. So the Lord turned from the fierceness of his anger Wherefore\nthe name of that place was called the valley of Achor unto this day.\n\n'Chap, viii., vv. 28, 29. And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for\never, even a desolation unto this day. And the King of Ai he [Joshua]\nhanged on a tree until eventide. And as soon as the sun was down, Joshua\ncommanded that they should take his carcase down from the tree, and cast\nit at the entering of the gate of the city, and raise thereon a great\nheap of stones, _that remaineth_ unto this day.'\n\n'The words, _that remaineth_, do not occur in the original Hebrew; they\nhave been added by the translators to make the sense complete. The\nonly inference which both these last quoted passages carry with them\nconcerning the age when they were written is that it was a very long\ntime after the death of Achan in the first text, and of the King of\nAi in the second. A similar inference is deduced from the verse which\nfollows:--\n\n'Chap, ix., v. 27. \"And Joshua made them [the Gibeonites] that day\nhewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation and for the\naltar of the Lord, _even unto this day, in the place which he should\nchoose_.\"\n\n'The \"place which the Lord should choose\" was finally Jerusalem, and,\nif the words were written in the later period of the Israelitish\ngovernment, the Lord had already chosen Jerusalem to be the site of his\ntemple and the place of his worship.\n\n'Chap, x., v. 1. \"Now it came to pass when Adonizedec, King of\nJerusalem, had heard how Joshua had taken Ai, and had utterly destroyed\nit,\" etc.\n\n'This chapter is full of names that did not exist until many years {100}\nafterwards, some more, some less. Bethhoron, mentioned at verse 10,\nwas built by an Israelitish lady after the conquest, as we learn from 1\nChron. vii., 23, 24:--\n\n'\"And when he [Ephraim] went in to his wife, she conceived, and bare a\nson, and he called his name Beriah, because it went evil with his house.\nAnd his daughter was Sherah, who built Bethhoron the nether and the\nupper, and Uzzen-Sherah.\"\n\n'The comparison of these texts involves an anachronism. Sherah was\nonly the fourth in descent from Jacob, thus:--Joseph, Ephraim, Beriah,\nSherah. If the Israelites remained 430 years in Egypt, as appears from\nseveral texts of Scripture, it is impossible that only one generation,\nBeriah, could have intervened between Ephraim, who was a child when\nJacob went down into Egypt, and Sherah, who built Bethhoron.\n\n'Chap, x., vv. 13,14. \"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed\nuntil the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this\nwritten in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of\nheaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no\nday like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the\nvoice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel.\"\n\n'Here we obtain a fact that bears with great force upon our present\nargument. The writer of the Book of Joshua quotes an earlier work, to\nwhich he refers his readers, for a more full account of the miracle\nwhich he records--namely, the arresting the sun and moon in their flight\nthat the Israelites might be avenged on their enemies. It is impossible\nto conceive that Joshua himself, who wrought that miracle, could have\nreferred his readers to another book, in which a better account of it\nwas to be found. It is far more likely that a compiler in a later age\nfinding this miraculous event well described in a book still popular in\nhis time, called the Book of Jasher, should have referred his readers to\nthat book for further information.\n\n'But this is not the only observation elicited by the mention made of\nthe Book of Jasher in this place. The same work is quoted in 2 Sam. i.,\n17, 18:--\n\n'\"And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan,\nhis son. Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the\nbow; behold it is written in the Book of Jasher.\"\n\n'Here we learn that the Book of Jasher contains the narrative of King\nDavid teaching his subjects the use of archery in war. The Book of\nJasher was, therefore, written in or after the reign of David; and the\nBook of Joshua, which quotes the Book of Jasher, must have been written\nlater still.'\n\nWhether these verses were written by Joshua, or Jasher, or by some other\nequally reliable personage, nothing can save them from condemnation as\nbeing absurd in the extreme. Paine observes:--\n\n'This tale of the sun standing still upon Mount Gibeon, and the moon in\nthe valley of Ajalon, is one of those fables that detects itself. Such\na circumstance could not have happened without being known all over the\nworld. One half would have wondered why the sun did {101} not rise,\nand the other why it did not set, and the tradition of it would be\nuniversal, whereas there is not a nation in the world that knows\nanything about it. But why must the moon stand still? What occasion\ncould there be for moonlight in the day time, and that, too, whilst the\nsun shined? As a poetical figure the whole is well enough; it is akin\nto that in the song of Deborah and Barah. _The stars in their courses,\nfought against Sisera_; but it is inferior to the figurative declaration\nof Mahomet to the person who came to expostulate with him on his goings\non:--_Wert thou_, said he, _to come to me with the sun in thy right hand\nand the moon in thy left, it should not alter my career_. For Joshua to\nhave exceeded Mahomet, he should have put the sun and moon one in each\npocket, and carried them as Guy Fawkes carried his dark lanthorn, and\ntaken them out to shine as he might happen to want them.\n\n'The sublime and the ridiculous are often so nearly related that it is\ndifficult to class them separately. One step above the sublime makes the\nridiculous, and one step above the ridiculous makes the sublime again;\nthe account, however, abstracted from the poetical fancy shows the\nignorance of Joshua, for he should have commanded the earth to have\nstood still.'\n\nVerse 14. 'The time implied by the expression _after it_, that is, after\nthat day being put in comparison with all the time that passed _before\nit_, must, in order to give any expressive signification to the\npassage, mean a _great length of time_. For example, it would have been\nridiculous to have said to the next day, or the next week, or the next\nmonth, or the next year; to give, therefore, meaning to the passage\ncomparative to the wonder it relates, and the prior time it alludes\nto it, must mean centuries of years; less, however, than one would be\ntrifling, and less than two would be barely admissible.'\n\nIt is not true, as stated in verse 14, that there was no day before or\nafter that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man. The Lord _before_\nhearkened unto Abraham (_vide_ Genesis, chap, xviii., vv. 23 to 32), and\nunto Moses (Exodus, chap, xxxii., vv. 11 to 14; Numbers, chap, xi., vv.\n11 to 23; chap, xiv., vv. 13 to 20). _After_, the Lord hearkened unto\nSamson (Judges, chap, xvi., v. 28), to David (1 Samuel, ehap. xxiii.,\nvv. 2 to 12).\n\nVerse 26. The King of Hebron is slain and hanged in this verse, and\nafterwards slain again in verse 37. In the foot note to the Douay it is\nalleged that this was a second king, but the explanation is not correct,\nas only one King of Hebron was slain by Joshua (_vide_ chap. xii., v.\n10).\n\n'The burial place of the five kings was marked out to posterity by a\nlasting monument--a heap of stones which Joshua caused to be placed over\nthe cave where they were buried.\n\n'\"Verse 27. 'And it came to pass at the time of the going down of the\nsun, that Joshua commanded, and they took them down off the trees, and\ncast them into the cave wherein they had been hid, and laid great stones\nin the cave's mouth, which remain _until this very day?_\"\n\n*Chapter xi., v. 6. 'Thou shalt hough (or hamstring) their horses {102}\nand burn their chariots with fire.' Will any man attempt to defend this\nas a command from the Deity to Joshua? Is it consistent that the eternal\nomnipotent and merciful Creator of all things should order harmless\nand unoffending animals to be cruelly and inhumanly maltreated? We\nare sometimes told that the Canaanites were murdered because they were\nidolaters, but surely their horses took no part in the worship of Moloch\nor of Baal.\n\n*Chapter xiv., 14. 'Hebron therefore became the inheritance of Caleb,\nthe son of Jephunneh, the Kenezite, _unto this day_, because that he\nwholly followed the Lord God of Israel. And the name of Hebron before\nwas Kirjath-Arba; which Arba was a great man among the Anakims; and the\nland had rest from war. (See chap, xv., 13 to 19.) 'Every part of\nthis verse shows a later writer and a later age. The city had lost its\nancient name of Kirjath-Arba, and was known by the name of Hebron: it\nhad become the inheritance of Caleb, by which is implied that Caleb\nwas dead, and his descendants were in possession of it, _until this\nday_--i.e., for a great length of time. And this is further confirmed by\nthe concluding words, \"And the land had rest from war.\" The war of the\ninvasion was over, and the children of Israel had quiet possession of\nthe country when the Book of Joshua was written.\n\n'Chap, xv., 8--10. And the border went up the valley of the son of\nHinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; _the same is Jerusalem_:\nand the border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before\nthe valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the valley of the\ngiants northward: and the border was drawn from the top of the hill unto\nthe fountain of the water of Nephtoah, and went out to the cities\nof Mount Ephron; and the border was drawn to Baalah, _which is\nKirjath-jearim_: and the border compassed from Baalah westward unto\nMount Seir, and passed along unto the side of Mount Jearim, _which is\nChesalon_, on the north side, and went down to Beth-shemesh, and passed\nonto Timnah.\n\n'The observations concerning the anachronisms which occur in the names\nof places, apply in all their force to this passage; we have three\ndistinct places here mentioned, each of them designated both by\nits ancient and modern appellation, Jebusi, Jerusalem--Baalah,\nKirjath-jearim--Mount Jearim, Chesalon. We know, also, that Jebusi did\nnot receive the name of Jerusalem until the reign of David, proving that\nthe book in which the word Jerusalem occurs was not written until the\nreign of David, or that, if written before that time, it has since been\ninterpolated. Of these two probabilities the former is the stronger:\nbecause we find it confirmed by the last verse of the same chapter:--\n\n'Chap, xv., 63. As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the\nchildren of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with\nthe children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.\n\n'It has been asserted that these words can apply only to the few\nyears which immediately followed the death of Joshua; for, say the\ncommentators, the Jebusites _were_ then driven out, as we read the\naccount in Judges i., 7, 8. We shall find, on inquiry, that they were\n{103} _not_ then driven out; at least, it is not so stated in Judges\ni., 7, 8, nor can any such meaning be inferred from the narrative there\ncontained.'\n\n'In the 1st chapter of Judges, the writer, after announcing the death of\nJoshua, proceeds to tell what happened between the children of Judah\nand the native inhabitants of the land of Canaan. In this statement, the\nwriter, having abruptly mentioned Jerusalem in the seventh verse, says\nimmediately after, in the eighth verse, by way of explanation, \"Now the\nchildren of Judah _had_ fought against Jerusalem, and had _taken_ it:\"\nconsequently, this book could not have been written before Jerusalem had\nbeen taken. In the quotation just made from the 15th chapter of Joshua,\nverse 63, it is said, that _the Jebusitea dwell with the children of\nJudah at Jerusalem unto this day_, meaning the time when the Book of\nJoshua was written.\n\n'The evidence I have already produced, to prove that the books I have\nhitherto treated of were not written by the persons to whom they are\nascribed, nor till many years after their death, if such persons ever\nlived, is already so abundant, that I can afford to admit this passage\nwith less weight than I am entitled to draw from it. For the case is,\nthat so far as the Bible can be credited as a history, the city of\nJerusalem was not taken till the time of David; and consequently,\nthat the Books of Joshua and of Judges were not written till after the\ncommencement of the reign of David, which was 370 years after the death\nof Joshua.\n\n'The name of the city that was afterwards called Jerusalem, was\noriginally Jebus or Jebusi, and was the capital of the Jebusites. The\naccount of David's taking this city is given in 2 Samuel, chap, v., v.\n4, etc; also in 1 Chron., chap, xiv., v. 4, etc. There is no mention\nin any part of the Bible that it was ever taken before, nor any account\nthat favours such an opinion. It is not said, either in Samuel or in the\nChronicles, that they _utterly destroyed men, women, and children; that\nthey left not a soul to breathe_, as is said of their other conquests;\nand the silence here observed implies that it was taken by capitulation,\nand that the Jebusites, the native inhabitants, continued to live in the\nplace after it was taken. The account, therefore, given in Joshua, that\n_the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah_ at Jerusalem unto this\nday, corresponds to no other time than after the taking the city by\nDavid.'\n\n'Chap, xix., 47. And the coast of the children of Dan went out too\nlittle for them; therefore the children of Dan went up to fight against\nLeshem [called Laish in Judges, chap, xviii., v. 29], and took it and\nsmote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it and dwelt therein!\nand called Leshem Dan, after the name of Dan, their father.\n\n'This is the same affair which is related in detail in the 18th chapter\nof Judges. According to the chronology given in the margin of our\nBibles, and generally received by the learned, this happened about\nthirty years after the death of Joshua. The anachronism is explained in\nthe following manner by the editors of the \"Family Bible,\" quoting from\nBishop Patrick and Shuckford:--\n\n'\"It is supposed that Ezra, or some other, thought good in aftertimes\n{104} to insert this verse here, in order to complete the account of the\nDanites' possession.\"\n\n'If this be received as sound criticism, history will truly be brought\ndown to a level with the most worthless pastimes that man can choose for\nhis amusement: it will be, literally, no better than an almanack, which\nis altered year by year to adapt it to the existing state of things. If\nthe Book of Joshua were indeed the work of the great man whose name it\nbears, no later historian would have ventured to impair its value by\nadding to or detracting from its contents. ( _Vide_ \"Hebrew Records\" and\n\"Age of Reason\")\n\n*Chapter xxi., v. 36. In the Douay another city, 'Misor,' is named,\nbut as this would make _five_ cities instead of _four_, as mentioned in\nverse 37, our orthodox translators have discreetly omitted 'Misor' from\nthe list.\n\nVerses 43-5. 'And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware\nto give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.\nAnd the Lord gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware\nunto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies\nbefore them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. There\nfailed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto\nthe house of Israel; all came to pass.' These verses are decidedly\nincorrect. The Israelites did not get all the promised land, they did\nnot have rest round about, their enemies did stand before them, and in\nmany places defeated them; the Lord did not deliver all their enemies\ninto their hands, and much failed which the Lord had promised.\n\n*Chapter xxii., v. 8. According to chap, vi., Achan was stoned to\ndeath for the very act now recommended by Joshua to the whole of the\npeople--i.e., preserving and keeping raiment, etc., taken from the\nenemy.\n\nVerse 22. 'The Lord God of Gods.' Lord of what Gods? Is not this similar\nto the mythology with Jove as the chief of Gods? The Jews, as has been\nbefore observed, were clearly Polytheists, recognising a variety of\ngods, but claiming the chief place for the God of Israel.\n\n*Chapter xxiii., v. 6. 'Book of the law of Moses.' See remarks on page\n86.\n\nVerse 12. Although Joshua is here cautioning the people against the\nconsequences which will result from intermarrying with the Canaanites,\nyet he allowed Rahab and her family to marry and settle amongst the\nIsraelites.\n\nVerse 14. 'Behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth.' Not\none word is said about heaven or hell, not a hint that after his death\nhe expects to live again, no expression of hope that he may reach\nheaven, and there enjoy eternal happiness, no thought about his soul.\nHe does not refer to it in any way, so that it is quite evident that if\nthere be a future state of happiness and misery, Joshua knew nothing\nof it, yet Joshua was a favoured individual; he had personally seen the\n'Captain of the Lord's host,' and ought to have known much about\n{105} heavenly things. Our translators felt the want of this spiritual\nfeeling, and have put into Joshua's mouth the words, 'Your souls.'\nJoshua, however, never uttered these words. The verse reads, 'Ye\nshall know, in all your hearts and in all your souls;' the Douay more\ncorrectly translates the same passage, 'You shall know with all your\nmind.' It simply means, 'Ye shall be in no doubt; but shall thoroughly\nknow and understand.' None of the books we have examined contain\nthe slightest reference to an immortal soul outliving the body, and\nresponsible for the acts committed during the body's life. (See pages 68\nand 88).\n\n*Chapter xxiv., vv. 2 and 3. What flood is this? In verse 3, the Douay,\ninstead of saying that Abraham came from the 'other side of the flood,'\nsubstitutes the words, 'from the borders of Mesopotamia.' We are here\ninformed, for the first time, that Terah, the father of Abraham, was an\nidolator; but we cannot ascertain how Joshua obtained his knowledge. If\nfrom other books they are lost, together with 'Jasher,' and the 'Book of\nthe Wars of the Lord.'\n\nVerses 12 and 13. If these verses are true, all the preceding accounts\nof the wars of the Israelites must be false, as we are repeatedly told\nof their battles, and hard labours, and struggles, to obtain the land.\n\nVerse 19. Moses said, that God kept 'mercy for thousands, forgiving\niniquity, transgression, and sin.' Joshua says of God: 'He is a jealous\nGod; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.'\n\nVerses 29 and 30. Dr. Giles thus comments:--\n\n'If Joshua died at the age of 110 years, and his death is recorded in\nthe Book which passes by his name, we need no further proof, that this\nbook could not have been written until after Joshua was dead. But this\nlimitation of its origin, to some period after the death of Joshua, must\nbe still further qualified; for in the next verse of the same chapter we\nread as follows:--\n\n'\"Chap, xxiv., v. 31. And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua,\nand all the days of the elders that over-lived Joshua, and which had\nknown all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel.\"\n\n'How could Joshua write, that Israel served the Lord a long time after\nhe was dead, nay, after all those who out-lived him were dead also? If\nsome later writer, as Samuel or Ezra, inserted all these additions to\nthe original work of Joshua, he would certainly have not done so in a\nclandestine or covert manner; but with a note attached, that \"so far is\nthe work of Joshua, and the continuation is by a later hand.\" Even the\nmonkish chroniclers have displayed this species of common honesty; for\nwe always, or nearly always, find a mark attached to those passages,\nwhich begin the writing of a new author:\n\n'\"Hactenus dominus Radulfus scripsit Chronica, etc.\"\n\n'\"So far is the Chronicle of Master Ralph, etc.\"\n\n'Or, \"Explicit dominus Rogerus, incipit dominus Matthaeus, etc.\"\n\n'\"Here ends Master Rogers, of Wendover, and Master Matthew Paris\nbegins.\" {106} 'Even the supposition of these additions, made by later\nwriters, goes far towards a concession of the fact, which I would\nestablish--namely, that we have not the Hebrew writings in their\noriginal state; but that they are a compilation, put together after the\nnation had returned with fresh lights, and a fresh intellectual impetus\nfrom Babylon.'\n\nVerse 33. Phineas was a Levite, and the Levites were forbidden to have\nany inheritance in the land; in what manner, therefore, did Phineas\nbecome entitled to this hill?\n\nThis Book of Joshua simply claims to be a relation of the adventures of\nthe Jews under the leadership of Joshua. It has evidently been written\nvery long after the occurrences it alleges to have taken place; and\nthe writer must have either compiled from other writings, or from oral\ntradition; if from the latter, which is the more probable hypothesis, it\nwill, perhaps, account for the anti-astronomical phenomenon, related\nin chapter x., and for the falling down of the walls of Jericho, and\nsimilar absurdities. By tradition, facts are exaggerated and distorted,\nespecially where the people are uneducated ana superstitious. As a\nhistory it is of little value, as a romance it is of less; it affords\nbut poor amusement, and nought of instruction to peruse the account of\nthe wars of the Jews. A man of martial disposition may feel a degree\nof interest and pleasure in reading the accounts of the struggles for\nfreedom of a Tell, a Washington, a Hampden, or even of the terrific\nbattles under a Napoleon or a Wellington; but of these Jews, whose best\nfighting was but a sham, who were cowards at heart; who only fought well\nwhen the Lord had paralysed the arms of their enemies; who took credit\nfor victories, which the 'hornet' had won for them; who were merciless\nscoundrels when victorious, and pitiable poltroons when defeated; who\nfought not in defence of their own land, but to rob their fellow men of\ntheir native homes; I say, reading of these, a true man feels disgust\nand sorrow; disgust at the horrible cruelties related; sorrow that men\nshould have been so ignorant as to imagine that the butcheries took\nplace under the supervision of a God of love.\n\nBishop Watson, in his fourth letter, in reply to Paine's remarks on\nJoshua, writes as follows:--\n\n'You make yourself merry with what you call the tale of the sun standing\nstill upon Mount Gibeon, and the moon in the valley of Ajalon; and you\nsay, that \"the story detects itself; because there is not a nation in\nthe world that knows anything about it.\" How can you expect that there\nshould, when there is not a nation in the world whose annals reach this\nera by many hundred years? It happens, however, that you are probably\nmistaken as to the fact: a confused tradition concerning this miracle\nand a similar one in the time of Ahaz, when the sun went back ten\ndegrees, had been preserved among one of the most ancient nations, as\nwe are informed by one of the most ancient historians. Herodotus, in his\nEuterpe, speaking of the Egyptian priests, says:--\"They told me, that\nthe sun four times deviated from his course; having twice risen where\nhe uniformly goes down, and twice gone down where he uniformly rises.\"'\n{107} The Bishop is somewhat incorrect in his criticism. 'There is not\n(he says) a nation in the world whose annals reach this era by many\nhundred years.' This is simply untrue. The alleged date of this\npretended miracle is variously stated; but it may be taken at the\noutside at about 3,500 years ago. The Hindus claim to carry their annals\nback millions of years, and Sir William Jones, after a fair criticism,\nconfesses that he traces back the Indian monarchy to a period upwards of\n3,800 years from the present time, and admits an age of 3,000 years for\nthe Vedas, or sacred writings. The age of the xajur Veda, one of the\nsacred Hindu books, is carried to a period prior to the alleged date of\nthe birth of Moses. The chronicles of Iran (Persia) claim at least an\nequal antiquity; in fact, the same learned and careful author, speaking\non this subject, says:--'If we can rely on evidence, which appears\nunexceptionable, the Iranian monarchy must have been the oldest in the\nworld.' The Tartar's 'genuine traditional history' commences 4,700 years\nago. The Arabian monarchy is traceable back 3,600 years. We have a\nbook of the Chinese, entitled 'Shuking,' containing the annals of that\nempire, commencing upwards of 4,100 years from this date. Foh, or Foni,\nis alleged to have given laws to the Chinese 4,300 years ago. We have\ntheir poetry admittedly 3,000 years of age, and professedly of a much\nmore ancient date. A very learned member of the Asiatic Society, who\ninvestigated the astronomical computations of the Hindus, as given in\nan ancient treatise (the Surya Siddhanta), allows it to contain\nastronomical observations extending over 7,200 years, a period of\nupwards of 4,800 years of which has passed since the birth of one of\ntheir most famous astronomers. This will be sufficient to dispose of\nthe Bishop's first assertion. His second, as to the quotation from\nHerodotus, fares no better. The four deviations spoken of, by the\nEgyptian priests, do not correspond to the two alleged miracles, and\nPaine's argument as quoted on page 100 of this work, remains unanswered.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK VII. JUDGES\n\n'The Book of Judges is anonymous on the face of it; and therefore, even\nthe pretence is wanting to call it the word of God; it has not so much\nas a nominal voucher: it is altogether fatherless.\n\n'This book begins with the same expression as the Book of Joshua. That\nof Joshua begins (chap, i., v. 1)--_Now after the death of Moses_, etc.;\nand this of Judges begins--_Now after the death of Joshua_, etc. This,\nand the similarity of style between the two books, indicate that they\nare the work of the same author; but who he was is altogether unknown;\nthe only point that the book proves is, that the author lived long after\nthe time of Joshua; for though it begins as if it followed immediately\nafter his death, the second chapter is an epitome, or abstract, of the\nwhole book, which, according to the Bible {108} chronology, extends its\nhistory through a space of 306 years--that is, from the death of Joshua,\n1426 years before Christ, to the death of Sampson, 1120 years before\nChrist, and only twenty-five years before Saul went to _seek his\nfather's asses, and was made king_ (the chronology of this book has been\na matter of much debate; and it is stated by various chronologers with\nvery serious difference). But there is good reason to believe, that it\nwas not written till the time of David at least; and that the Book of\nJoshua was not written before the same time.' ( _Vide_ 'Age of Reason').\n\n*Chapter i., w. 7 and 8, have been noticed on page 103.\n\nVerses 9 to 15. These verses are a mere repetition of Joshua, chap. xv.,\nw. 13 to 19.\n\nVerse 16. Who were the Kenites? We read in Exodus, that the\nfather-in-law of Moses was a priest of Midian, and by Numbers we learn,\nthat Moses had an Ethiopian (query Egyptian) wife. A Kenite may be a\nMidianite, or an Ethiopian, or, as in the case of the Trinity, all three\nmay be one. By this verse they appear to be settled in Judah, south\nof Arad, while by chap, iv., vv. 11 and 17, they are in the north by\nNapthali.\n\nVerse 17 has been noticed on page 72.\n\nVerse 19. As the verse stands, it is flatly contradicted in Mark, chap,\nx., v. 27. A devout believer in the omnipotence of the Deity would\ndoubtless wonder how chariots of iron could form serious obstacles to\nthe attainment of any object by Judah, when the Lord was fighting for\nJudah. The Septuagint renders the verse somewhat differently.\n\n*Chapter ii., vv. 1 to 5. This visit of the angel of the Lord from his\nresidence at Gilgal does not seem to have been attended with any good\nresult; the Jews wept, but they must have shed what are commonly known\nas crocodiles' tears.\n\nVerses 6 to 10 These verses are simply repetitions of verses 28 to\n31, of the last chapter of Joshua, and are inserted here in a confused\nmanner, having no connection with the earlier or later verses of he\nchapter. The whole of this chapter is confused and incoherent.\n\nVerse 22 contradicts the attribute of foreknowledge, commonly ascribed\nto Deity.\n\n*Chapter iii., v. 1. 'These are the nations which the Lord had left.'\nThat is, we are told, that the Lord spared the Canaanites, or rather a\nportion of them, 'to prove the Israelites.' The omniscient Deity could\nhardly have needed to prove his people, as he must have known what\ncourse of conduct they would pursue. To ordinary readers the matter is\nsurrounded with difficulty. God had originally issued a series of loving\ncommands with reference to these Canaanites; one was, 'Spare alive\nnothing that breatheth.' The Jews might well imagine that, as God had\nabandoned this portion of the commandments without special directions\nas to the others, that they (the Jews) were at liberty to make treaties\nwith the Canaanites, and marry amongst them. {109} Verse 3. 'All the\nCanaanites.' This is not true. The inhabitants of Jericho and Ai were\nCanaanites, and these were 'utterly destroyed.'\n\nVerses 15 to 26. The Douay says, that 'what Ehud, who was judge and\nchief magistrate of Israel, did on this occasion, was by a special\ninspiration from God; but such things are not to be imitated by private\nmen.' There is no statement in the Book that God specially inspired Ehud\nto kill Eglon; yet if Eglon was a tyrant who deserved death, and if the\nact of Ehud was a praiseworthy act in him, why should it not be so\nin another? Verger doubtless was equally inspired when he killed the\nArchbishop of Paris, Felton when he killed the Duke of Buckingham,\nand Pianori when he tried to kill Louis Napoleon. The question is\ntwo-fold--1st. Is it lawful to destroy tyrants? 2nd. If a man is almost\nunanimously accursed, and accused as a tyrant (as Louis Napoleon for\nexample), is it lawful for one man to constitute himself judge, jury,\nand executioner?\n\nVerses 29 and 31. These round numbers betray the fallibility of the\nwriter. A revelation from Deity would have been more precise. Shamgar\nmust have been an extremely valiant warrior. To kill 600 men with only\nan ox-goad is no trifle. The record does not say whether or not they\nwere all killed in one day, or during a lone period; or whether in a\nmass together, or separately. They could scarcely have been all killed\nin one day, and tne probability is, that Shamgar did not attack the\n600 men in a mass. I can only hope that Shamgar did not waylay the\nPhilistines, simply killing them unawares. The Douay says, that the\nweapon used was a 'plough-share,' not an 'ox-goad.'\n\n*Chapter iv. Voltaire thus comments on this chapter:--\n\n'We have no intention here to inquire at what time Baruch was chief of\nthe Jewish people; why, being chief, he allowed his army to be commanded\nby a woman; whether this woman, named Deborah, had married Lapidoth;\nwhether she was the friend or relative of Baruch, or, perhaps, his\ndaughter, or his mother; nor on what day the battle of Thabor, in\nGalilee, was fought between this Deborah and Sisera, Captain-General of\nthe armies of King Jabin, which Sisera commanded in Galilee, an army\nof three hundred thousand foot, ten thousand horse, and three thousand\nchariots of war, according to the historian Josephus.\n\n'We shall at present leave out of the question this Jabin, King of a\nvillage called Hazor, who had more troops than the Grand Turk. We very\nmuch pity the fate of his grand vizier Sisera, who, having lost the\nbattle of Galilee, leaped from his chariot and four that he might fly\nmore swiftly on foot. He went and begged the hospitality of a holy\nJewish woman, who gave him some milk, and drove a great cart-nail\nthrough his head while he was asleep. We are very sorry for it; but this\nis not the matter to be discussed. We wish to speak of chariots of war.\n\n'The battle was fought at the foot of Mount Thabor, near the river\nKishon. Mount Thabor is a steep mountain, the branches of which,\nsomewhat less in height, extend over a great part of Galilee. Betwixt\n{110} this mountain and the neighbouring rocks there is a small plain\ncovered with great flint stones, and impracticable for cavalry. The\nextent of this plain is four or five hundred paces. We may venture to\nbelieve that Sisera did not here draw up his three hundred thousand\nmen in order of battle; his three thousand chariots would have found it\ndifficult to manoeuvre on such a field.\n\n'We may believe that the Hebrews had no chariots of war in a country\nrenowned only for asses; but the Asiatics made use of them in great\nplains.\n\n'Confucius, or rather Confutze, says positively that from time\nimmemorial each of the viceroys of the provinces was expected to furnish\nto the emperor a thousand war chariots drawn by four horses.\n\n'Chariots must have been in use long before the Trojan war, for Homer\ndoes not speak of them as a new invention: but those chariots were\nnot armed like those of Babylon; neither the wheels nor the axles were\nfurnished with steel blades.\n\n'This invention must at first have been very formidable, in large plains\nespecially, when the chariots were numerous, driven with impetuosity\nand armed with long pikes and scythes; but when they became familiar\nit seemed so easy to avoid their shock, that they fell into general\ndisuse.'\n\n*Chapter iv., v. 2. Hazor was burnt and thoroughly destroyed by Joshua.\n\nVerse 4. We have no account of any of the prophecies of Deborah.\n\nVerse 11. 'Hobab, the father-in-law of Moses.' This is an error. Hobab\nis described in Numbers as the son of Raguel, the latter being the\nfather-in-law of Moses. (See page 49).\n\nVerses 17 to 22. After reading these verses, Professor Newman wrote as\nfollows:--\n\n'In various attempts at compromise--such as conceding the scriptural\nfallibility in human science but maintaining its spiritual perfection--I\nalways found the division impracticable. At last it pressed on me that\nit I admitted morals to rest on an independent basis, it was dishonest\nto shut my eyes to any apparent collisions of morality with the\nScriptures. A very notorious and decisive instance is that of Jael.\nSisera when beaten in battle fled to the tent of his friend Heber, and\nwas there warmly welcomed bv Jael, Heber's wife. After she had refreshed\nhim with food and lulled him to sleep, she killed him, by driving a nail\ninto his temples, and for this deed (which now-a-days would be called\na perfidious murder), the prophetess Deborah, in an inspired psalm,\npronounces Jael to be \"blessed above women,\" and glorifies her act by\nan elaborate description of its atrocity. As soon as I felt that I was\nbound to pass a moral judgment on this, I saw that as regards the Old\nTestament the battle was already lost.'\n\n*Chapter v. This Song of Deborah, like other oriental songs, is strongly\nfigurative.\n\nVerse 8. Instead of 'They chose new gods, then was war in the gates,'\nthe Douay has it, 'The Lord chose new wars and himself overthrew\nthe gates of his enemies.' {111} Verse 12. There were no captives to\nlead--all were killed. (See. chap, iv., v. 16.)\n\nVerse. 23. Where and what was Meroz? Was it a city or a country? Were\nits inhabitants Israelites or Canaanites? No one knows. It is the only\ntime it is mentioned throughout the whole of the Bible.\n\nVerse 26. The Douay in this Terse says nothing about smiting off\nSisera's head, neither does chap, iv., v. 21.\n\n*Chapter vi. On page 79 I remarked on the account of the total\ndestruction of the Midianitish nation, and I have now to submit that one\nof the accounts must be positively untrue. If 'every male' was killed\nby the Israelites, there can be no foundation for the statement that the\nMidianites 'came as grasshoppers for multitude, for both they and their\ncamels were without number.'\n\nVerses 8 to 10. This prophet was a shrewd fellow; he only related the\npast, but did not attempt to foretell the future. Why is he called a\nprophet? The whole of this chapter is very confused. In vv. 11 and 12\nthe 'angel of the Lord' appears, but in vv. 14 and 16 it is 'the Lord,'\nand in vv. 20 and 21 the 'angel of the Lord' again, and this is rendered\nstill more confused by vv. 22 and 23, as it is nowhere said to be death\nto see an angel.\n\nVerse 21. This is quite a type of modern conjuring--to set on fire the\nflesh and cakes by touching them with a magic wand. The Douay, to make\nthe matter more complete, says that the angel 'vanished.'\n\nGideon seems to have been very unbelieving, and to have required many\nmiracles before he would accept God's message.\n\n*Chapter vii., v. 3. This fact speaks volumes in favour of the\nIsraelites. They must have been a noble race, when more than two-thirds\nof an army in the face of an enemy pleaded guilty to the suggestion of\ncowardice, and ran away.\n\nVerses 13 and 14. This is scarcely probable. If Gideon was an unknown\nand mean man amongst his own people (see chap, vi., v. 15), it is\nunlikely that he would be so famous amongst the Midianites; beside which\nthe Midianites worshipped a different God from the Israelites, and the\nman would not have used the kind of language here attributed to him. The\nwords are not the words of a Midianite at all, but such as a Jew would\nbe more apt to utter.\n\nVerses 16 to 22. This battle of the 'trumpets, lamps, and pitchers,' is\na most glorious one. The Midianites and Amalekites are 'as the sand by\nthe sea shore for multitude.' 300 men surrounded their camp unobserved\nby the sentinels, who ought to have been more than ordinarily wakeful,\nhaving only just been relieved. These three hundred men, who have each\na lamp concealed in a pitcher, suddenly break all their pitchers with a\ngreat crash, blow their trumpets, and shout out loudly. The Midianites\nand Amalekites, who must have been timid and nervous people, are much\nfrightened, and begin to kill one another, and to run away as fast as\npossible. This is the more remarkable, as the 300 men all held their\n{112} lamps up, so that it would have been easy to have distinguished\nfriends from enemies.\n\nThe 300, not satisfied with their easy victory, pursued the flying\nenemy, and slew 120,000 of them, being 400 to each man, then attacked\ntheir two Princes, Zebah and Zalmunna, who were at the head of an army\nof 15,000 men. These the 300 Israelites of course routed easily, after\nwhich they returned, and on their way back, tore the elders of Succoth\n(who refused to aid them in their pursuit) with thorns and briars, and\ncut the men in pieces. (Vide Douay translation, chap, viii., v. 16).\nAfter this they beat down the fortified tower of Penuel, and slew the\ninhabitants of that city. The 300 did not neglect the plunder, but\nbrought back 1700 shekels of gold, beside the golden chains which were\nabout the camels' necks, and ornaments and jewels, and I do not find\nthat they were stoned to death like Achan for so doing. Although Gideon\nand his 300 followers were so valiant, yet his first-born son, Jether,\ndid not inherit the bravery of his father (Vide chap, viii., v. 20).\nI have, in several places, discussed the commands to extirpate the\nCanaanites given in the previous books, and in noticing this terrible\nslaughter, I cannot help quoting a few words in defence from Dr. J. Pye\nSmith:--\n\n'The extreme cruelty and abominable crimes of those nations were\nundoubtedly just and sufficient causes, under the righteous government\nof God, for their being cut off, as they were (not by pestilence or\nearthquake, but) by a people sent, and avowedly coming, with this\nexecutive commission from the only Sovereign of all men and all nations.\nYet there was also another and a weighty reason in the case. It was the\nuniversal belief that the greatness and honour of a Deity were to be\njudged of by the standard of great and signal victories which he gave\nto the nation which he had taken under his protection. The conquest\nof Canaan, therefore, was a demonstration to the Canaanites of the\nfeebleness, and even nothingness, of their own gods, and of the superior\npower of the God of Israel. And this impression would be strengthened\nby the fact of success and reverses occurring in exact proportion to the\nfaithfulness or the disobedience of the Israelites towards their God,\ntheir natural leader, protector, and king.'\n\nWhere is the record of the 'extreme cruelty' and 'abominable crimes'\nof these nations? Were they more cruel than the Israelites, or did they\ncommit more abominable and cruel crimes than those of Lot, of Onan,\nof Jacob, of Judah, of Reuben, of Simeon, and Levi, of the people of\nBenjamin, or of the many other Israelitish men and women whose names\nwe fortunately cannot pollute our pages with, but the record of\nwhose horrible and detestable enormities are still to be found in the\nlegislative enactments which the Deity found it necessary to make for\nthe guidance of his chosen people? And why did the Deity give way to the\n'universal belief' of an ignorant and vicious people? Cannot the great\nJehovah win men by his mighty and irresistible will rather than by sword\nand fire? 'The conquests,' says Dr. Smith,' were a demonstration to\nthe conquered of the power of the Deity.' Not so, for in a wholesale\nmassacre, they took away from the {113} Canaanites the capability for\nappreciating any demonstration however clear; logic has little effect on\na man whose throat is cut from ear to ear.\n\n*Chapter ix., v. 5. By chap, viii., verses 30 and 31, we find that\nGideon had seventy sons, besides Abimelech; yet here are seventy killed\nby order of Abimelech, and the youngest escapes, and this youngest son\nmakes the confusion worse confounded, when speaking against Abimelech;\nfor he mentions his seventy brethren slain on one stone (verse 18); and\nthe number is again repeated in verses 24 and 56.\n\nIt is evident that Jotham entertained very different ideas of the Deity\nfrom those held by John the Evangelist, for he speaks of the olive, of\nwhose fatness both gods and men make use (_vide_ Douay), and of wine\nwhich cheereth God and man.\n\nVerse 23. 'God sent an evil spirit.' Out of perfect good, evil cannot\ncome, yet perfection is alleged to be an attribute of the Deity, who\nsent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem.\n\n*Chapter xi., v. 1. According to Deuteronomy, chap, xxiii., v. 2,\nJephtha was debarred from entering into the congregation of the Lord.\n\nVerse 15. 'Thus saith Jephtha, Israel took not away the land of Moab,\nnor the land of the children of Amnion;' yet according to Joshua, chap,\nxiii., v. xxv., Moses gave to the tribe of Gad 'half the land of the\nchildren of Ammon.'\n\nVerse 24. Here we have the fact revealed, that each tribe or nation had\na God peculiar to itself: one worshipped Chemosh, another Baal, another\nJehovah, and each tribe believed that its particular Deity fought its\nbattles, and that when a battle was lost, then the God was displeased,\nand a sacrifice was wanting to restore favour.\n\nVerses 30 to 40. Voltaire says:--\n\n'It is evident from the text, that Jephtha promised to sacrifice the\nfirst person that should come out of his house to congratulate him on\nhis victory over the Ammonites. His only daughter presented herself\nbefore him for that purpose; he tore his garments, and immolated her,\nafter having permitted her to go and deplore, in the recesses of the\nmountains, the calamity of her dying a virgin. The daughters of Israel\nlong continued to celebrate this painful event, and devoted four days in\nthe year to lamentation for the daughter of Jephtha.\n\n'In whatever period this history was written, whether it was imitated\nfrom the Greek history of Agamemnon and Idomeneus, or was the model from\nwhich that history was taken; whether it might be anterior or posterior\nto similar narratives in Assyrian history, is not the point I am now\nexamining. I keep strictly to the text. Jephtha vowed to make his\ndaughter a burnt offering, and fulfilled his vow.\n\n'It was expressly commanded by the Jewish law to sacrifice men devoted\nto the Lord:--\"Every man that shall be devoted shall not be redeemed;\nbut shall be put to death without remission.\" The Vulgate translates it:\n\"He shall not be redeemed but shall die the death.\"\n\n'It was in virtue of this law that Samuel hewed in pieces King {114}\nAgag, whom, as we have already seen, Saul had pardoned. In fact, it\nwas for sparing Agag that Saul was rebuked by the Lord, and lost his\nkingdom.\n\n'Thus, then, we perceive sacrifices of human blood clearly established;\nthere is no point of history more incontestable: we can only judge of a\nnation by its own archives, and by what it relates concerning itself.\n\n'What is the natural meaning of the phrase, \"he did to her as he had\nvowed.\"\n\n'What had Jephtha vowed? What had he promised by an oath to perform? To\nkill his daughter; to offer her up as a burnt offering; and he did kill\nher.\n\n'Read Calmet's dissertation on the rashness of Jephtha's vow, and its\nfulfilment; read the law which he cites, that terrible law of Leviticus,\nin the twenty-seventh chapter, which commands, that all which shall be\ndevoted to the Lord shall not be ransomed, but shall die the death. _Non\nredimetur, sed morte morietur_.\n\n'Observe the multitude of examples by which this most astonishing truth\nis attested. Look at the Amalekites and Canaanites; look at the King of\nArad and all his family, subjected to the law of devotion; look at the\npriest Samuel slaying King Agag with his own hands, and cutting him into\npieces as a butcher cuts up an ox in his slaughterhouse?\n\nVerse 39. 'And it was a custom in Israel.' What meaning can we attach to\nthese words? Our translators have prefixed the word '_That_' to the next\nverse, to make people believe the custom to refer to the weeping for\nJephtha's daughter; if this were the correct reading, then the phrase is\nincorrect; it is in the past tense, and after relating the fulfilment\nof Jephtha's vow, adds 'it was a custom.' What? The only answer is, that\nhuman sacrifice was a custom. In feet, if it had not been an established\ncustom, the whole nation would have cried out as one man against the\nmurder of Jephtha's daughter. (See also page 54.)\n\n*Chapter xiii., v. 5. 'No razor shall touch his head;' yet despite this\nimperative command of the Omnipotent Deity, a razor did touch Samson's\nhead. (_Vide_ chap. xvi. v. 19.)\n\nVerse 9. God hearkened to the voice of Manoah. (See Joshua, ehap. x., v.\n14, which contradicts this.)\n\nVerse 19. This is a repetition of the conjuring referred to on page 111;\nhere the angel vanishes in the flame.\n\n*Chapter xiv., vv. 8 and 9. Bees do not usually rest on carrion at\nall, much less store honey in a rotting carcass; but it is not more\nsurprising that this should happen, than that Samson should tear a young\nlion asunder with nothing to aid him but his naked hands.\n\n*Chapter xv., v. 4. Foxes must have been very plentiful in the country,\nwhere Samson then was; but they must have taken some time to catch. The\nfollowing is a foot-note to the Douay, 'Being judge of the people, he\nmight have many to assist him to catch with nets or otherwise a number\nof these animals.' It is difficult to conceive why the Philistines\nso neglected their own interests, and quietly {115} allowed Samson\nto capture and turn loose these 300 foxes amongst their crops; and I\nconfess that I cannot quite discover the utility and morality of the\ncourse pursued by Samson in burning the corn fields. Verses 14 and\n15. Shamgar's feat, commented on in page 109, sinks into utter\ninsignificance beside this. 1000 men all killed with the new jaw-bone\nof an ass--these evidently slain at one time as they fell in 'heaps upon\nheaps.' If Samson killed the Philistines at the rapid rate of one per\nminute, which would be good work considering the weapon employed, the\nslaughter, if conducted without cessation, would then occupy nearly\nseventeen hours; and we cannot wonder that Samson was 'sore athirst.'\nThe water flowing from the jaw-bone is a miracle. As to miracles, see\npages 74 and 75.\n\n*Chapter xvi., v. 1. If the rulers of the Israelites were so immoral,\nthe Israelitish people must have been similar in character.\n\nVerses 7 and 11. Truthfulness does not seem to have been one of Samson's\nqualifications.\n\nVerse 27. I should like to have seen the house which Samson threw down;\nit must have been a curious specimen of ancient architecture. We are\ninformed that it had an immense roof, supported by two pillars, rather\nclose together, between which Samson stood, and we are also informed,\nthat 3,000 men and women were on that roof 'beholding Samson's play'\n(_vide_ Douay translation), although, unless the 3,000 could see through\nthe roof, this must have been another miracle, as Samson would be\nentirely hidden from their sight by the roof and pillars.\n\nI cannot discover the most remote moral connected with the history of\nSamson; nothing but robbery, wanton destruction of property, immorality,\nand murder. 1st. He enters into a wager with his wife's friends; having\nlost his wager, he robs and murders thirty men, to enable him to pay his\nloss. This career of useless crime and bloodshed is continued, but his\nown profligacy is ultimately the cause of his being taken prisoner, and\npunished by the Philistines; yet this is a judge of God's chosen people.\n\n*Chapter xix. The number 'nineteen' is badly connected in this book. The\nremarks on page 36 apply here, but I cannot pass the matter thus. These\nare God's chosen people, men of the tribe of Benjamin, people whom God\nhas visited personally, men for whom he has slaughtered the unfortunate\nCanaanites by thousands, and yet so horribly, basely depraved. Where was\nthe fire from heaven this time? Fathers! do you place this book in the\nbands of your sons and daughters, and tell them that it is the Holy\nBible? If you do, will they not learn the horrible state of society\namongst God's own selected people? Will they be elevated and improved by\nthe knowledge thus conferred? Will it make them better men and women?\nI say, no; and every man who devotes thought to the subject will be\ncompelled to echo my denial.\n\nIs it possible that events, so similar as those related in Genesis,\nchap. xix., vv. 7 and 8, and w. 23 and 24 of this chapter, could have\ntwice happened in the world's history? It cannot be true. If it be true,\n{116} surely there could never have been a God regulating the affairs\nof the universe, predestining and permitting such terribly disgusting\nobscenities and cruelties as those here detailed.\n\nVerse 29. If the twelve pieces were intended for the twelve tribes, this\nwould include the offending tribe of Benjamin, which does not seem to be\nthe meaning of the text.\n\n*Chapter xx., v. 28. Phinehas, the grand-son of Aaron, could not have\nbeen alive at this period, if we suppose the occurrences related in\nchronological order. Divines overcome the difficulty by alleging that\nthe last chapters of the book should be the first, as they refer to\nevents immediately succeeding the death of Joshua. A devout believer\nwould reverently admire the mysterious manner in which God revealed his\nHoly Word upside down; but a thinking man would recognise in this error\nconclusive evidence against the assertion that the book is a revelation\nfrom God.\n\n'The name of this Book is taken from the title of the functionaries,\nwhose actions and administration it principally relates. This name is\n[------] _shophetim_, plural of [------] _shophet_, a judge. This word\ndesignates the ordinary magistrates, properly called judges; and is here\nalso applied to the chief rulers, perhaps because _ruling_ and _judging_\nare so intimately connected in the East that sitting in judgment is one\nof the principal employments of an Oriental monarch.\n\n'The book is easily divisible into two parts; one ending with chap.\nxvi., contains the history of the Judges, from Othniel to Samson,\nand the other, which occupies the rest of the book, forms a sort of\nappendix, relating particular transactions, which the author seems to\nhave reserved for the end. If these transactions had been placed in\norder of time, we should, probably, have found them in a much earlier\nportion of the work, as the incidents related seem to have occurred not\nlong after the death of Joshua.\n\n'The author of the Book is unknown. Some ascribe it to Samuel, some\nto Hezekiah, and others to Ezra. The reason which has principally\ninfluenced the last determination of the authorship is found in chap,\nxviii., v. 30:--\"He and his son were priests to the tribe of Dan, until\nthe day of the captivity of the land.\" But this may have referred to\nthe captivity of the ark among the Philistines, or to some particular\ncaptivity of the tribe of Dan; or rather of that part of the\ntribe settled in the north; or the reference may have been to both\ncircumstances. It is also possible that the clause, \"until the day\nof the captivity of the land,\" may actually have been added after the\ncaptivity. That the book itself was written after the establishment of\nthe monarchical government, appears from the habit which the author\nhas of saying,that the event he is relating happened in the time when \"\nthere was no king in Israel,\" which renders it evident that there was a\nking when he wrote.' ( _Vide_ 'Hebrew Records.')\n\nThe recital of the adventures of Samson, of Micah, etc., with so many\nslight particulars fully enlarged upon, is conclusive evidence against\nthis Book as a history, for it is impossible to conceive such minute\nparticularity of detail in individual cases, and yet such an utter\nneglect of even the most general dates in the history of the nation.\n{117}\n\n\n\n\nBOOK VIII. RUTH\n\nIn the Hebrew Bible this book, as mentioned on page 1 occupies a later\nplace.\n\n'The Book of Ruth is properly part of the Book of Judges, from which it\nhas been separated for no very obvious reason. From its brevity it is\nnot likely to contain many passages to aid us in our present inquiry.\nThose which I have discovered are the following:--\n\n'\"Chap. i., v. 1. Now it came to pass in the days when the Judges ruled\nthat there was a famine in the land.\"\n\n'This was written after the Judges had ceased to rule; and consequently\nthe work is not contemporary with Ruth, who lived \"when the Judges\nruled.\"\n\n'\"Chap, iv., v. 21, 22. And Salmon begat Boaz, and Boaz begat Obed, and\nObed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David.\"\n\n'Bishop Patrick's note to this is worthy of notice:--\n\n'\"Salmon married Rahab, and therefore lived at the time of the\nIsraelites' first entrance into Canaan. Now between this period and the\nbirth of David are computed 366 years. Thus, as only four generations\nare mentioned, we must either suppose that some names of persons who\ncome between are omitted (for which we have no warrant), or that, as is\nmore probable, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse all had their children born\nto them at a very advanced period of their lives.\"\n\n'I propose to adopt a different and more natural solution of the\ndifficulty. In 1 Chronicles ii., 11, Salmon is named \"Salma,\" which\nshows that there are some doubtful points in this genealogy. This was\nlikely to be the case; for the book being compiled out of original\npapers, like all the rest of the Jewish History after the captivity of\nBabylon, the compilers were likely to be puzzled by many discrepancies\nof this nature, and choosing to preserve as much as possible the form\nof their original sources, they have retained even their errors also.'\n(_Vide_ \"Hebrew Records.\")\n\n*Chapter i., v. 15. It seems unlikely that a Jewish woman would\nrecommend her daughter-in-law to commit idolatry.\n\nVerse 22. Ruth did not _return_ to Bethlehem, never having been there\nbefore.\n\n*Chapter iv. v. 17. Obed was the son of Ruth, the Moabitish woman. He\nwas the father of Jesse, and grandfather of David, and, by the law of\nMoses, the descendants of a Moabite for ten generations shall not enter\nthe congregation of the Lord (see page 85), so that David, 'the\nman after God's own heart,' and Solomon, his son, and six of their\nsucceeding generations, were barred out of the congregation. I wonder\nwhether David knew this when he 'danced before the Lord;' or Solomon\nwhen about to erect the temple.\n\nPaine spoke of the Book of Ruth as 'an idle bungling story, {118}\nfoolishly told, nobody knows by whom, about a strolling country girl,\ncreeping slily to bed to her cousin Boaz.' Bishop Watson thus comments\non this:--\n\n'As to Ruth, you do an injury to her character. She was not a strolling\ncountry girl. She had been married ten years; and being left a widow\nwithout children, she accompanied her mother-in-law returning into her\nnative country, out of which with her husband and her two sons she had\nbeen driven by a famine. The disturbances in France have driven many\nmen with their families to America; if, ten years hence, a woman,\nhaving lost her husband and her children, should return to France with a\ndaughter-in-law, would you be justified in calling the daughter-in-law a\nstrolling country girl? But she \"crept slily to bed to her cousin Boaz.\"\nI do not find it so in the history. As a person imploring protection,\nshe laid herself down at the foot of an aged kinsman's bed, and she\nrose up with as much innocence as she had laid herself down. She was\nafterwards married to Boaz, and reputed by all her neighbours a virtuous\nwoman; and they were more likely to know her character than you are.\nWhoever reads the Book of Ruth, bearing in mind the simplicity of\nancient manners, will find it an interesting story of a poor young woman\nfollowing in a strange land the advice, and affectionately attaching\nherself to the fortunes, of the mother of her deceased husband.'\n\nThe Bishop is apparently indignant that Ruth should be accused of\n'creeping slily to bed,' but the Bible account is certainly that without\nthe knowledge of Boaz 'she came softly and uncovered his feet and laid\nher down.' I cannot find the Bishop's authority for the statement that\nRuth lay down at the foot of 'an aged kinsman's bed.' Boaz is not stated\nto be an old man. He evidently considered that it was necessary to keep\nRuth's visit a secret, and appears to have been young enough to have\nchildren after his marriage. As for her neighbours reputing her 'a\nvirtuous woman,' that is nothing, for they were not aware of her\nnocturnal visit to the bed-chamber of Boaz. This book scarcely needs\nfurther comment at my hands. It is ridiculous to suppose it to be a\nrevelation from God, and with the exception of Ruth's devotedness to her\nmother-in-law, there are no points raised in it worthy of a prolonged\nnotice.\n\n\n\n\nBOOK IX. SAMUEL\n\n'The two Books of Samuel form but one in the Hebrew Canon. In the\nSeptuagmt and Vulgate translations they are called the First and Second\nBooks of Kings, and those which we call the First and Second Books of\nKings are termed the Third and Fourth Books of Kings. This diversity is\nto be regretted; ancient histories should at far as is possible be\nkept in their original form. There seems to be no adequate reason for\nclassifying these books, as they are classified in {119} our Bibles; for\nthey contain quite as much of the history of David as of Samuel. But the\nimpression prevailed that Samuel was their author; and as Protestants\nin endeavouring to run counter to Roman Catholics, have magnified the\nimportance of the Old Testament exactly in proportion as they have\ndecried the use of reason, the translators have so arranged the Books\nas to produce the most striking effect; and thus an individual existence\nhas been given to that which has none, but which really is only a part\nof the whole. Yet, notwithstanding first, the separation of Samuel from\nKings, and then its division into two parts, the work bears on the face\nof it the strong fact that it could not have been written by Samuel: for\nthe twenty-fifth chapter of the first book begins with the words:--'And\nSamuel died!' Thus more than half of the whole was obviously composed by\na later writer. But we shall see by an examination of the book in\norder that the whole of it owes its origin to a date later than that of\nSamuel.' ( _Vide_ 'Hebrew Records.')\n\n*Chapter i., v. 5, says that Elkanah gave Hannah 'a worthy portion.' The\nDouay renders it 'But to Anna he gave one portion with sorrow.'\n\nVerse 6. What 'adversary' is this? The phrase may possibly refer to\nthe other wife, but of this there is not the slightest evidence in the\nwording of the text; sterility has been a subject of reproach amongst\nthe Jews, as also amongst the Arabs, and some other nations.\n\nVerses 6 to 19. It is probable that in the country district, where the\nfamily of Elkanah dwelt, that the barrenness of Hannah was a matter of\nnotoriety. The vow also could not fail to be divulged, and its apparent\nsuccess to create a great sensation. The superstitious people who traced\nthe hand of God in everything, would of course say that Samuel was his\nspecial sift.\n\n*Chapter ii., v. 5. 'The barren hath born seven.' If Hannah here\nreferred to herself, she must have spoken in the spirit of prophecy, and\neven then must have erred in her prophetic dreamings, as by verse 21\nshe only appears to have had five children, and, excluding Samuel from\namongst those, it would still leave one short of the number.\n\nVerse 8. What are these pillars upon which the world is set? How many\npillars are there, and upon what do they rest? Or is this an oriental\nfigure of speech not capable of a literal interpretation?\n\nVerses 1 to 10. It is scarcely probable that Hannah the wife of a\ncountry farmer composed this song--it is more likely to have been\ncomposed by a Levite, or perhaps by the writer of the story.\n\nVerses 13 to 16. 'This narrative presents various subjects of\ninstruction: at first it pictures the simplicity, or rather the\ngrossness of the manners of the times very analogous to the age of\nHomer. This Hebrew people were mostly composed of rustics, living on\ntheir little properties, which they had cultivated with their own hands,\nas the Druzes do now. The only class, a little elevated, a little less\nignorant, was the tribe of Levi--that is, the priests, who lived idle,\nsupported by the voluntary, or forced offerings of the nation; this\n{120} class had more time than means to employ the mind. This shows\nitself here in the tone and style of the narrator, who, by his knowledge\nof the duties of the priests, evinced himself a man of the craft. We\nmight compare this Levite to the monks of the eighteenth and nineteenth\ncenturies, writing: their holy histories under the auspices of\nsuperstition and credulity. In this relation we see the essential\ncharacter of the priest, whose first and constant object of attention is\nthe pot or kettle, on which his existence depends; and this reveals\nthe motives of all that display of victims and sacrifices which play so\ngreat a part among the ancients.\n\n'Until now I could not conceive the advantage of converting the courts\nand the porches of temples into slaughter-houses. [ _Vide_ remarks on\npage 67.] I could not reconcile the idea of the hideous spectacle of the\nchoking of sensitive animals, of the shedding of oceans of blood, of\nthe filthiness of entrails, with the ideas which we were taught of the\ndivine majesty, of the divine goodness that repels to a distance the\ngross necessities which these practices suppose. In reflecting on that\nwhich has just been noticed, I perceive the solution of the enigma. I\nsee that in their primitive state the ancients were as one; as are\nyet the Tartars of Asia, and their brothers, the savages of America,\nferocious men, contending constantly against dangers, and struggling\nwith those necessities--the violence of which raises all the\nsensibilities; men accustomed to shed blood in the chase, on which their\nsubsistence depended. In this state, the first ideas which they had--the\nonly ones they entertained of the divinity--represented him as a being\nmore powerful than themselves; but reasoning and perceiving like them,\nhaving their passions and their character. The whole history shows the\ntruth of this.\n\n'By this mode of reasoning, these savages thought that every unlucky\naccident, every misfortune which happened to them, was the consequence\nof the hate, the resentment, the envy of some concealed agent, of some\nirascible secret power, vindictive, like themselves, and consequently\nsusceptible like them to be appeased by prayers and gifts. From this\nidea originated the spontaneous habits of religious offerings, the\npractice of which shows itself amongst all savages, both ancient and\nmodern. But, as in all times and in all societies, there were men more\nsubtle and more cunning than the multitude, there was soon found some\nold savage, who, not entertaining this belief, or being undeceived,\nconceived the idea of turning it to his profit. Supposed to possess\nsecret means, particular recitations for calming the anger of the gods,\ngenii, or spirits, and to render them propitious, the vulgar, ignorant,\nand always credulous, especially when bound by fear, or stimulated\nby desire, addressed itself to this favoured mortal. Hence a mediator\nconstituted between man and the divinity: hence a seer, a juggler, a\npriest, as all the Tartars have, as have most savages and the negroes.\nThese jugglers found it convenient to live at the expense of others,\nand perfected their art by causing delusions and deceptions. This it was\nwhich gave birth to the sacerdotal phantasmagoria. At present, as these\nphysical means are understood, we perceive these {121} artifices in the\nprodigies of the ancient oracles, and in the miracles of the ancient\nMagi.\n\n'At the time when the trade became advantageous an association of adepts\nwas formed, and the rules of the association became the basis of\nthe priesthood; but as these associations of divines, of seers, of\ninterpreters, and of ministers of the gods, employed all their time in\ntheir public functions, and in their secret practices, it was necessary\nthat their daily and annual subsistence should be provided for by\na regular system. The practice, until then casual, of offerings and\nvoluntary sacrifices, was constituted an obligatory tribute; conscience\nwas regulated by legislation; the people led to the altar and the porch\nof the temple the choice of their flocks, of their lambs, their beeves,\nand their calves; they brought corn, wine, and oil. The sacerdotal\ninstitution had the income, the nation had the ceremonies, the prayers,\nand everybody was content. The rest does not require explanation; I only\nremark that the division of animals into pure and impure appears to be\nderived from their goodness for eating, or the disadvantage as injurious\nor disagreeable when eaten. Hence the reason why the rank he-goat was\nrejected in the desert; why the old tough ram was entirely burned; why\nthe measly and scabby hog was despised; but this is saying enough of the\nkitchen of the priests of Israel.' (_Vide_ Volney.)\n\nThe priests of the Israelites are similar in some respects to the\npriests of the Christian Church. The Jew-priest took all that he could,\nif not by fair means then by force; our priests follow their example.\nThey have seized a poor old woman's family Bible to pay tithes; they\nhave pocketed tithes until unable to sign their names to the receipts\nfor their income, and then when nearly at the point of death, they have\nbargained for a handsome retiring pension before they would resign their\npriesthood; yet these are the men who 'lay up for themselves treasures\nin heaven, where neither moth nor mot doth corrupt.' Voltaire says:--\n\n'Priests in a state approach nearly to what preceptors are in private\nfamilies: it is their province to teach, pray, and supply example. They\nought to have no authority over the masters of the house; at least\nuntil it can be proved that he who gives the wages ought to obey him who\nreceives them.\n\n'Prayer is not dominion, nor exhortation despotism. A good priest ought\nto be a physician to the soul. If Hippocrates had ordered his patients\nto take hellebore under pain of being hanged, he would have been more\ninsane and barbarous than Phalaris, and would have had little practice.\nWhen a priest says--Worship God, be just, indulgent, and compassionate,\nhe is then a good physician: when he says--Believe me, or you shall be\nburnt, he is an assassin.\n\n'The magistrate ought to support and restrain the priest in the same\nmanner as the father of a family insures respect to the preceptor, and\nprevents him from abusing it. The agreement of Church and State is of\nall systems the 'most monstrous.' (_Philosophical Dictionary_) {122}\nVerse 22. The nation must have improved rapidly in morals when its\njudges and priests were so extremely virtuous. It is instructive to a\ndevout believer to observe that the Church has not degenerated, and that\nthe priests appointed by God were as vicious as those since appointed by\nthe State.\n\nVerse 25. 'Because the Lord would slay them.' What terrible cruelty this\nseems to harden people's hearts in order to destroy them. But to whom\ndid God make known his intentions? Was it to one man only; to the priest\nwho repeated it? Have we not, then, good reason to attribute it rather\nto the bearer of the message, to the self-styled interpreter of God's\nwill? It is clear that this could never come from a loving and just\nGod, but rather from a Jewish mouth, from the heart of a fanatic\nand ferocious Hebrew, full of the passions and prejudices which he\nattributes to his idol.\n\nVerses 30 to 36. When the _immutable_ Deity decreed that the house of\nAaron should be his priests for ever, did he foresee the offences of Eli\nand his children? If not, his attribute of foreknowledge is taken away;\nif he did, then the whole story is absurd.\n\n'In this account we have first a conversation divulged. But by whom? Eli\nwould not have boasted of it; it was the man of God who made it known.\nWhat interest had he to prepare the minds for a change desired by many,\neven by the greatest number? In his quality of prophet and preacher this\nman of God must have known the successor announced. Might he not act\nalready in concert with him? His prediction is found to be in favour of\nSamuel. Might not Samuel play a part in this affair? The axiom rightly\nsays:--He has done it, who had an interest to do it. Should it not have\nbeen Samuel in this case? Observe that Eli was blind, and that any one\nmight have spoken to him, and he not have known the person. There is\nhere the management of knavery. Samuel is not impeached; but he is\narraigned. As to the prediction against the two sons of Eli on the\nsame day, it is evident how easy it was to the writer or copyist to\ninterpolate afterwards.' (_Vide_ Volney.)\n\n*Chapter iii., v. 1. 'And the word of the Lord was precious in those\ndays; there was no open vision.' What this means I do not profess to\nexplain, but I take the opportunity of allowing Voltaire to deal with\nthe subject generally:--\n\n'When I speak of vision I do not mean the admirable manner in which our\neyes perceive objects, and in which the pictures of all that we see are\npainted on the retina. This matter has been so learnedly treated by\nso many great geniuses that there is no further remnant to glean after\ntheir harvests.\n\n'My subject is the innumerable multitude of visions, with which so many\nholy personages have been favoured or tormented; which so many idiots\nare believed to have seen; with which so many knavish men and women\nhave duped the world, either to get the reputation of being favoured by\nheaven, which is very flattering, or to gain money, which is still more\nso to rogues in general. 'Calmet and Langlet have made ample collections\nof these visions. {123} The most interesting in my opinion is the one\nwhich has produced the greatest effects, since it has tended to reform\nthree parts of the Swiss--that of the young Jacobin, Yetzer. This Yetzer\nsaw the Holy Virgin and St. Barbara several times; who informed him of\nthe marks of Jesus Christ. He received from a Jacobin confessor a host,\npowdered with arsenic, and the Bishop of Lausanne would have had him\nburnt for complaining that he was poisoned. These abominations were\none of the causes of the misfortune which happened to the Bernese, of\nceasing to be Catholic, Apostolical, and Roman.\n\n'I am sorry that I have no visions of this consequence to tell you of.\nYet you will confess that the vision of the reverend father Cor-delius,\nof Orleans, in 1534, approaches the nearest to it, though still very\ndistant. The criminal process which it occasioned is still in manuscript\nin the library of the King of France, No. 1770.\n\n'The illustrious house of St. Memin did great good to the convent of the\nCordeliers, and had their vault in the Church. The wife of a Lord of St.\nMemin, provost of Orleans, being dead, her husband, believing that his\nancestors had sufficiently impoverished themselves by giving to the\nmonks, gave the brothers a present, which did not appear to them\nconsiderable enough. These good Franciscans conceived a plan for\ndisinterring the deceased, to force the widower to have her buried again\nin holy ground, and to pay them better. The project was not clever,\nfor the Lord of St. Memin would not have failed to have buried her\nelsewhere. But folly often mixes with knavery.\n\n'At first, the soul of the lady of St. Memin appeared only to two\nbrothers. She said to them--\"I am damned, like Judas; because my husband\nhas not given sufficient.\" The two knaves who related these words\nperceived not that they must do more harm to the convent than good. The\naim of the convent was to extort money from the Lord of St. Memin, for\nthe repose of his wife's soul. Now if Madame de St. Memin was damned,\nall the money in the world could not save her. They got no more; the\nCordeliers lost their labour.\n\n'At this time there was very little good sense in France: the nation\nhad been brutalised by the invasion of the Franks, and afterwards by the\ninvasion of scholastic theology; but in Orleans there were some persons\nwho reasoned. If the Great Being permitted the soul of Madame de St.\nMemin to appear to two Franciscans, it was not natural, they thought,\nfor this soul to declare itself damned like Judas. This comparison\nappeared to them to be unnatural. This lady had not sold our Lord Jesus\nChrist for thirty deniers; she was not hanged; her intestines had\nnot obtruded themselves; and there was not the slightest pretext for\ncomparing her to Judas.\n\n'This caused suspicion; and the rumour was still greater in Orleans,\nbecause there were already heretics there who believed not in certain\nvisions, and who, in admitting absurd principles, did not always fail to\ndraw good conclusions. The Cordeliers, therefore, changed their battery,\nand put the lady in purgatory.\n\n'She therefore appeared again, and declared that purgatory was her\n{124} lot; but she demanded to be disinterred. It was not the custom\nto disinter those in purgatory; but they hoped that Monsieur St. Memin\nwould prevent this extraordinary affront by giving money. This demand\nof being thrown out of the Church augmented the suspicions. It was\nwell known that souls often appeared; but they never demanded to be\ndisinterred.\n\n'From this time the soul spoke no more, but it haunted everybody in the\nconvent and church. The brother Cordeliers exorcised it. Brother Peter,\nof Arras, adopted a very awkward manner of conjuring it. He said to\nit--If thou art the soul of the late Madame de St. Memin, strike four\nknocks; and the four knocks were struck. If thou art damned, strike six\nknocks; and the six knocks were struck. If thou art still tormented in\nhell, because thy body is buried in holy-ground, knock six more times;\nand the other six knocks were heard still more distinctly. If we\ndisinter thy body, and cease praying to God for thee, wilt thou be\nthe less damned? Strike five knocks to certify it to us; and the soul\ncertified it by five knocks. [Spirit-rapping is therefore more ancient\nthan is generally supposed.} 'This interrogation of the soul, made by\nPeter, of Arras, was signed by twenty-two Cordeliers, at the head of\nwhich was the reverend father provincial. This father provincial the\nnext day asked it the same questions, and received the same answers.\n\n'It will be said that the soul having declared that it was in purgatory,\nthe Cordeliers should not have supposed that it was in hell; but it is\nnot my fault if theologians contradict one another.\n\n'The Lord of St. Memin presented a request to the king against the\nfather Cordeliers. They presented a request on their sides; the king\nappointed judges, at the head of whom was Adrian Fumee, master of\nrequests.\n\n'The Procureur-General of the commission required that the said\nCordeliers should be burned; but the sentence only condemned them to\nmake the \"amende honorable,\" with a torch in their bosom, and to be\nbanished from the kingdom. This sentence is of February 18th, 1535.\n\n'After such a vision, it is useless to relate any others: they are all a\nspecies either of knavery or folly. Visions of the first kind are under\nthe province of justice; those of the second are either visions\nof diseased fools, or of fools in good health. The first belong to\nmedicine, the second to Bedlam.'\n\nVerse 3. 'Before the lamp of God went out.' I presume this refers to\nsome lamp kept burning in the tabernacle; but it is a strange mode of\ndescription.\n\nVerses 4 to 21. 'Now to appreciate this narrative, I do not intend to\nreason on its leading features: God comes into a chamber, stands before\na bed, speaks as a person of flesh and bones. What should I think of\na person who would believe such a fable? I shall confine myself to the\nconduct and character of Samuel. And first, I demand who saw, who heard,\nall that was said; who related it, who made it public? It could not\nbe Eli; it could be only Samuel, who was {125} actor, witness, and\nnarrator. He alone had an interest to invent and promulgate. Without\nhim who could have specified the minute details of this adventure? It\nis evident that we have here a scene of phantasmagoria, resembling those\nwhich took place among the ancients in the sanctuaries of the temples,\nand for the responses of the oracles. The young adept was encouraged to\nit by the physical and moral feebleness of the high-priest Eli; perhaps\nby the instigation of some person concealed behind the curtain, and\nhaving interests and passions which we cannot now ascertain; though\nit is most probable that Samuel trusted to no one. What remains to be\nafterwards seen of his dissimulation, seems to fix the balance on this\nside. Divulging was not so difficult; he might have been satisfied\nwith the confidence of a servant, a devoted friend, an old or a young\npriestess, that the apparition of God, the oracle of the holy ark might\nbe rumoured, acquiring from mouth to mouth an intensity of certitude and\nbelief.\n\n'\"But Samuel increased (says the text) and God was with him, and none of\nhis words fell to the ground: and all Israel knew that he was become a\nprophet of God; and God continued to appear in Shiloh.\" As to the word\n_prophet_ the historian tells us that, at this epoch, the Hebrew term\n[------] (_nebiah_) was unknown: that the word [--------] (_raeh_) was\nused, which signifies _seer_. Here, then, we have a posthumous writer,\nwho connected at pleasure the memoirs which Samuel, or some other\ncontemporary, had composed. It pleased him to set down, as a positive\nfact, the belief of all Israel in this fable, while he himself knew\nnothing of the matter. If we had memoirs of those times from several\nhands, we should have materials for reasonable judgment. It is said in\nthe text, that for some time the word of the Lord had become scarce, and\nthat there appeared no more visions. Why was this? because there\nwere some incredulous; because there had happened bad examples, false\noracles, divulging of sacerdotal knavery, which had awakened the good\nsense of the higher class among the people. The blind and fanatic\ncredulity remained, as it always happens, among the multitude; it was\non them that Samuel calculated, and we shall see on the installation of\nSaul, that he had always against him a party of unbelievers, powerful\nenough to compel him to use management, and even to oblige him to\nabdicate.' (_Vide_ Volney.)\n\n*Chapter iv., v. 4. 'The ark of the covenant of the Lord of Hosts\nwhich dwelleth between the cherubims.' The Douay translates the same\nthus:--'The ark of the covenant of the Lord of Hosts sitting upon the\ncherubims.' As to cherubim see page 21. The word translated ark is\n[------] (_aroun_). In Parkhurst, under the root [----], I find the\nfollowing remarks which are worthy of consideration:--\n\n'Thus _Tacitus_ informs us that the inhabitants of the north of\n_Germany_, our _Saxon_ ancestors, worshipped _Herthum_ or _Hertham_,\nthat is, the _Mother Earth_ (Terrain Matrem), and believed her to\ninterpose in the affairs of men, and to visit nations; that to her,\nwithin a sacred grove in a certain island of the ocean, a vehicle,\ncovered with a vestment, was consecrated, and allowed _to be touched\nby the priest alone_, {126} who perceived when the goddess entered\ninto this her _secret place_ (penetrali), and with profound veneration\nattended her vehicle, which was drawn by cows. While the goddess was\non her progress, days of rejoicing were kept in every place which she\nvouchsafed to visit. They engaged in no war, they meddled not with arms,\nthey locked up their weapons; peace and quietness only were then known,\nthese only relished, till the same priest reconducted the goddess,\nsatiated with the conversation of mortals, to her temple. Then the\nvehicle and vestment, and, if you will believe it, the goddess herself\nwas washed in a secret lake.\n\n'Among the _Mexicans, Vitziputzli_, their supreme god was represented in\na human shape sitting on a throne, supported by an _azure globe_, which\nthey called _heaven_. Four _poles or sticks came out from two sides of\nthis globe_, at the ends of which serpents' heads were carved, the whole\nmaking a _litter_, which the priests carried on their shoulders whenever\nthe idol was shewed in public'--_Picart's Ceremonies and Religious\nCustoms_, vol. 3, p. 146.\n\n'In Lieutenant Cook's voyage round the world, published by Dr.\nHawksworth, vol. 2, p. 252, we find that the inhabitants of _Huaheine_,\none of the islands lately discovered in the South Sea, had \"a kind of\n_chest or ark_, the lid of which was nicely sewed on, and thatched\nvery neatly with palm-nut leaves; it was fixed upon _two poles_, and\nsupported on little arches of wood, very neatly carved. The use of the\npoles seemed to be to remove it from place to place, in the manner of\nour sedan-chairs; in one end of it was a square hole, in the middle of\nwhich was a ring touching the sides, and leaving the angles open so as\nto form a round hole within, a square one without. The first time _Mr.\nBanks_ saw this coffer, the aperture at the end was stopped with a piece\nof cloth which, lest he should give offence, he left untouched. Probably\nthere was then something within; but now the cloth was taken away,\nand upon looking into it it was found empty. _The general resemblance\nbetween this repository and the ark of the Lord among the Jews is\nremarkable_; but it is still more remarkable, that upon inquiring of the\n(Indian) boy what it was called, he said Ewharre no Eatua, the House of\nGod; he could, however, give no account of its signification or use.\" In\nthe neighbouring island of _Ulietea_ \"were also four or five Ewharre no\nEatua, or Houses of God, like that we had seen at _Huaheine_.\"' p. 257.\n\nVerse 11. The presence of the ark seems rather to have increased the\nmisfortunes of the Israelites in the previous battle; without the ark\nthey lost 4,000 men, in this they lost 30,000 men, beside also losing\npossession of the ark.\n\n*Chapter v., w. 3 and 4. 'The ark of the God of the Jews was in the\nprofane hands of the Philistines. The people might have profited by the\nopportunity to destroy the talisman which had so often frightened them;\nbut at this time superstition was universal, and among all nations\nthe priests had a common interest to maintain it, lest contempt for\na strange deity should lead their ferocious warriors to examine too\nclosely their own idol. The ark is respected, the priests of the {127}\nPhilistines place it in the temple of their God Dagon, in the city of\nAzot (or Ashdod). The following day on rising, the people of Azot found\nthe idol Dagon fallen upon its face (the posture of adoration), before\nthe ark; but they raised it up and replaced it. The next day they found\nit fallen again, but this time the hands and the head were separated\nfrom the body, and placed on the threshold of the temple. Whence, I\nwould ask, came this act of audacity and secret knavery? Did some Jew\nintroduce himself into the city with that artifice, that pickpocket\nstratagem of which the Arabs and the peasants of Egypt and Palestine\ngive, even in our days, astonishing examples? This might be possible;\nfanaticism might lead to it. The temple had no sentinels; it was even\nopen, and decisive victory might have banished all vigilance. On the\nother hand, might it not have been the priests of Dagon, who resorted\nto this knavery from the motive already pointed out? Their subsequent\nconduct, altogether partial, renders this extremely probable.\n\n'The people of Azot could not believe their God so powerless as to be\ntreated so by human force; they would say, \"it is Dagon himself who\ndeclares his will, who shows his respect for his brother, the God of\nthe Jews; he did not wish to hold him captive.\" The alarm spreads, the\npriests announce some calamity, the effect of the celestial anger, and\nepidemic disease of the intestines takes place (in that country ruptures\nand dysenteries are common); then an eruption of rats and field mice was\nvery destructive. The people are confounded, all is attributed to\nthe captivity of the ark. They demand its release, The inhabitants of\nanother town where they take it learn the motive and become alarmed; the\ndisease spreads by contagion, and terror thus becomes general. Finally,\nafter seven months' delay, the military chiefs of the Philistines call\nbefore them their priests and divines, and demand of them what they\nshall do with the ark? It was proposed to burn it, but mark the reply;\nthey advise not only to send it back, but also to offer an expiatory\noffering for the sin of the warriors. These (as is commonly the case),\nnot less credulous than brave, ask what offering should be given?\nThe priests reply, \"make five golden emerods and five mice of gold,\naccording to the number of your principalities, to appease the God of\nthe Hebrews. Why have you hardened your hearts like the King of Egypt?\nYou have been smitten like him; send away also the ark of the God of the\nHebrews.\" Here the spirit and system of the priests are evident; they\nnourish the public credulity in favour of their particular power, at the\nexpense even of the interests of their own nation. Is there not reason\nto believe that the trick played by Dagon came from their hands?'\n(_Vide_ Volney.)\n\nVerse 5. '\"Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come\ninto Dagon's house, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod unto this\nday.\"\n\n'Bishop Patrick has a note on the words \"unto this day:\"--\n\n'\"The day when Samuel wrote this book: when the events happened he was\na youth: but the book was written when he was advanced in years.\" {128}\n'The space of time between this event and Samuel's death was about forty\nyears--not long enough to justify the expression \"unto this day.\" It\nmust not be taken for granted that Samuel wrote this book; and the verse\nbefore us tells as plainly as words can express, that Samuel must have\nbeen dead many years, perhaps centuries, when it was written. But the\ncommentators have not seen the natural force of the words, on account of\nthe erroneous opinion that Samuel was the writer, with which they would\nmake the narrative harmonise.' ( _Vide_ 'Hebrew Records.')\n\nVerse 9. The Douay adds--'And the Gethrites consulted together and made\nthemselves seats of skins.'\n\n*Chapter vi., v. 5. It is difficult to understand how the Deity could be\npropitiated by a direct violation of the second commandment.\n\nVerse 19. Psalm 103, v. 8. 'The Lord is slow to anger,' yet 50,070\npeople slain in an instant for a mere act of indiscretion.\n\n'Bethshemesh was a village belonging to God's people, situated,\naccording to commentators, two miles north of Jerusalem.\n\n'The Phoenicians having in Samuel's time beaten the Jews and taken from\nthem their ark of allegiance in the battle in which they killed thirty\nthousand of their men, were severely punished for it by the Lord:\n\n'\"He struck them in the most secret part of the buttocks; and the fields\nand the farm houses were troubled.... and there sprung up mice; and\nthere was a great confusion of death in the city.\"\n\n'The prophets of the Phoenicians or Philistines having informed them\nthat they could deliver themselves from the scourge only by-giving to\nthe Lord five golden mice and five golden emerods, and sending him back\nthe Jewish ark, they fulfilled this order, and according to the express\ncommand of their prophets, sent back the ark with the mice and emerods\non a waggon drawn by two cows, with each a sucking calf, and without a\ndriver.\n\n'These two cows, of themselves, took the ark straight to Bethshemesh.\nThe men of Bethshemesh approached the ark in order to look at it; which\nliberty was punished yet more severely than the profanation by the\nPhoenicians had been. The Lord struck with sudden death seventy men of\nthe people and fifty thousand of the populace.\n\n'The Reverend Doctor Kennicott, an Irishman, printed in 1768 a French\ncommentary on this occurrence, and dedicated it to the Bishop of Oxford.\nAt the head of this commentary he entitles himself Doctor of Divinity,\nMember, of the Royal Society of London, of the Palatine Academy, of the\nAcademy of Gottingen, and of the Academy of Inscriptions at Paris.\nAll that I know of the matter is, that he is not of the Academy of\nInscriptions at Paris. Perhaps he is one of its correspondents. His vast\nerudition may have deceived him; but titles are distinct from things.\n\n'In this pamphlet he pretends to prove that the Scripture text has been\ncorrupted. Here we must be permitted to differ with him. Nearly all\nBibles agree in these expressions: seventy men of the people, and fifty\nthousand of the populace. {129} 'The Reverend Doctor Kennicott says to\nthe Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Oxford, that formerly there were\nstrong prejudices in favour of the Hebrew text; but that for seventeen\nyears his lordship and himself have been freed from their prejudices,\nafter the deliberate and attentive perusal of this chapter.\n\n'In this we differ from Dr. Kennicott; and the more we read this chapter\nthe more we reverence the ways of the Lord, which are not our ways.\nIt is impossible (says Kennicott) for the candid reader not to feel\nastonished and affected at the contemplation of fifty thousand men\ndestroyed in one village--men, too, employed in gathering the harvest.\n\n'This does, it is true, suppose a hundred thousand persons at least in\nthat village; but should the Doctor forget that the Lord had promised\nAbraham that his posterity should be as numerous as the sands of the\nsea?\n\n'The Jews and the Christians (adds he) have not scrupled to express\ntheir repugnance to attach faith to this destruction of fifty thousand\nand seventy men.\n\n'We answer that we are Christians, and have no repugnance to attach\nfaith to whatever is in the Holy Scriptures. We answer with the Reverend\nFather Calmet, that \"if we were to reject whatever is extraordinary and\nbeyond the reach of our conception, we must reject the whole Bible.\"\nWe are persuaded that the Jews being under the guidance of God himself,\ncould experience no events but such as were stamped with the seal of the\ndivinity, and quite different from what happened to other men. We will\neven venture to advance that the death of these fifty thousand and\nseventy men is one of the least surprising things in the Old Testament.\n\n'We are struck with astonishment still more reverential when Eve's\nserpent and Balaam's ass talk; when the waters of the cataracts are\nswelled by rain fifteen cubits above all the mountains; when we behold\nthe plagues of Egypt, and the six hundred and thirty thousand fighting\nJews, flying on foot through the divided and suspended sea; when Joshua\nstops the sun and moon at noon-day; when Sampson slays a thousand\nPhilistines with the jaw-bone of an ass..... In those divine times all\nwas miracle, without exception; and we have the profoundest reverence\nfor all these miracles; for that ancient world which was not our world;\nfor that nature which was not our nature; for a divine book, in which\nthere can be nothing human.\n\n'But we are astonished at the liberty which Dr. Kennicott takes of\ncalling those _Deists_ and _Atheists_, who, while they revere the Bible\nmore than he does, differ from him in opinion. Never will it be believed\nthat a man with such ideas is of the academy of medals and inscriptions.\nHe is, perhaps, of the academy of Bedlam, the most ancient of all,\nand whose colonies extend throughout the earth.' (_Philosophical\nDictionary_.)\n\nVerse 19. The Douay renders this--'He slew of the people seventy men,\nand fifty thousand of the common people;'\n\n*Chapter vii., v. 1. What were the men of Kirjathjearim, that they\nshould enjoy complete immunity from the ills which attended the {130}\nother unfortunates who came in contact with the ark, and what gave\nthem the right to sanctify Eleazar? Kirjathjearim was a city of the\nGibeonites. (Joshua, chap, ix., v. 17.)\n\nVerse 6. 'Drew water, and poured it out before the Lord.' This is a mode\nof sacrifice, or rather of offering, to the Lord which I do not find\nmentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament.\n\nVerse 13. It is not true that the Philistines came no more into the\ncoast of Israel. (_Vide_ chap, xvii., v. 1.)\n\nVerse 15. 'And Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life.' Bishop\nPatrick's interpretation of this stubborn verse may be quoted, but to\nbe as speedily rejected; because it perverts the plain meaning of words,\nfor the purpose of making them support a preconceived theory:--\n\n'\"As Samuel was the author of this book, he could not speak literally\nof 'all the days of his life;' the sense probably is, that he was so\ndiligent in the discharge of his office, that he gave himself no rest,\nbut sat to judge causes every day.\"'\n\n'It is almost a waste of words to reply to such a manifest perversion of\nthe meaning. \"All the days of his life\" means \"the whole of his life,\"\nnot \"every day:\" and the use of these words shows that Samuel could\nnot have been the author of the book. But the commentator, taking for\ngranted that Samuel was the author of the book, has twisted the meaning\nof words to suit this preconceived notion.' (Dr. Giles.)\n\n*Chapter viii., v. 3. The sons of Samuel seem to have been equally as\nvicious as the sons of Heli, yet Samuel escapes punishment.\n\nVerses 6 to 9. 'The thing displeased Samuel,' doubtless it did, he\ndisliked having to resign the supreme power. Volney says:--\n\n'A conspiracy was evidently formed; for, according to the historian,\na deputation from the sages of Israel came to find Samuel, at his\nresidence at Ramatha, to demand from him a king--a royal government,\nconstituted like that of the neighbouring people, to whose example\ngenerally his attention was directed. The answer which he gave to this\ndeputation, and the details of his conduct in this affair, disclose\nthe anger of disappointed ambition, of a pride deeply wounded. It was\nnecessary for him to bend to force, to yield to necessity. But we shall\nsee him in the execution exhibit a cunning intellect, even to perfidy,\nwhich, by its analogy to the adventures in the temple, his pretended\nvisions and nocturnal revelations, discovers all his character.\n\n'They forced Samuel to name a king. He might, he ought to have chosen,\nthe man the most capable by his talents and by his resources, to fill\nthis eminent post. But this he avoided. Such a man would reign by\nhimself, and not obey him. A docile subject was necessary. He sought him\nin a family of low degree, without adherents; but having that exterior\nwhich would impose on the people. His choice was that of one who,\nhaving just enough sense necessary to transact ordinary business, was\nconstantly under the necessity of recurring to a benefactor, who could\npreserve a strict hand over him. Samuel, in a word, selected a handsome\nman of war, who should possess the executive, and be his lieutenant,\nwhile he would continue to hold the {131} legislative reigning power.\nHere is the secret of all the conduct which we shall see him pursue\nin the elevation of Saul, in the disgrace of this king, and in the\nsubstitution of David, another trait of sacerdotal Machiavelism.'\n\n*Chapter ix., v. 1. The Douay substitutes for 'mighty man of power'\nthe words 'valiant and strong.' By verse 21, according to Saul's own\nstatement, his family was least amongst the families of Benjamin.\n\nVerses 6 to 8. So that the fortune-tellers of the Jews, like those of\nthe present day, were inaccessible, unless you had money. The servant\nknew that with the piece of silver he would be a welcome visitor to the\nman of God.\n\nVerses 9 and 10. (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of\nGod, thus he spoke:--'Come, and let us go to the seer;' for he that is\nnow called a prophet, was beforetime called a seer.) Then said Saul to\nhis servant, 'Well said; come, let us go.' So they went unto the city,\nthey found young maidens going to draw water, and said to them, 'Is the\nseer here?'\n\nIn explaining this passage, the editors of the Family Bible try to\nmake it appear that the words 'now' and 'beforetime' imply no greater\ninterval of time than that which passed in Samuel's own life-time. They\nquote as follows from Bishop Patrick, Pyle, and Dr. Gray:--\n\n'The word now refers to the time when this book was written, probably\nthe latter part of Samuel's life. The verse explains that, at the time\nwhen Saul was appointed king, the Hebrew word Roeh, \"a seer of secret\nthings,\" was usually applied to inspired persons; but that afterwards\nthe word Nabi, or \"prophet\" (which had been very anciently known, as\nappears from the books of Moses), came into common use. (Bishop Patrick,\nPyle.) The word Nabi, 'prophet,' was in use in the time of Moses, or\nAbraham. (See Genesis, chap, xx., v. 7.) But then it only implied a man\nfavoured of God; whereas in the time of Samuel it was appropriated to\none who foresaw future events.\n\nThese remarks contain both what is true and what is false. It is evident\nthat the word Roeh, seer, is the older term of the two, and we find that\nit is the word which Saul and his companions actually used--'Is the seer\nhere?' The word seer, therefore, was used in Samuel's life-time, and\nthere is no proof that the word Nabi, 'prophet,' superseded it during\nthe life of Samuel. Indeed, there is a verse in the Second Book of\nSamuel which shows that the old word seer was still in use after the\ndeath of Samuel.\n\nThe king (i.e., David), said also unto Zadoc, the priest, 'Art not\nthou a seer? return into the city in peace, and your two sons with you,\nAhimaaz thy son, and Jonathan the son of Abiathar.' Chap, xv., v. 27.\n\nThe book of Samuel was, consequently, not written by Samuel. The words\nnow and beforetime denote too long an interval to allow room for such a\nsupposition. But yet the word Nabi, 'prophet,' not in use in the time\nof Samuel, actually occurs in the Pentateuch, and other books of the Old\nTestament; as for example, in Genesis, chap. {132} xx., v. 7; Exodus,\nchap, vii., v. 1; chap, xv., v. 20; Numbers, chap. xi., v. 29; chap,\nxii., v. 6; Deuteronomy, chap, xiii., vv. 1,5; chap. xviii., v. 15;\nchap, xxxiv., v. 10; Judges, chap, iv., v. 4; chap, vi., v. 8; 1 Samuel,\nchap, iii., v. 20; chap. ix. v. 9; 2 Samuel, chap, vii., v. 2; 1 Kings,\nchap, xiii., v. 11. In the later of these passages it is not to be\nwondered that the word rendered 'prophet' should be found, because the\nwriter of the First Book of Samuel tells us that it had come into use\nin his time, and therefore must have been a common word afterwards; but\nthat it should occur in the Book of Genesis proves either that Genesis\nwas written after the introduction of the word into the Hebrew language,\nor that the writer of the First Book of Samuel is wrong in describing\nthe word as modern, or that the meaning of the word had changed. I\nbelieve that the word was actually a new word in the Hebrew language,\nintroduced after the Babylonish captivity, and consequently that the\nFirst Book of Samuel, as well as the Pentateuch, were written after that\ncaptivity. ('Hebrew Records.')\n\nVerse 15. In a note to Home's 'Deism Refuted,' Bishop Middle-ton is\nquoted, in favour of, the simplicity of the style of the Bible; the\nstyle here is undoubtedly simple enough: 'The Lord had _told Samuel in\nhis ear_ a day before Saul came.'\n\nVerse 24. According to the Hebrew it is not Samuel, but the cook, who\nspeaks in this verse to Saul.\n\n'What are we to think of all this? Can we believe that it was by\naccident that the asses of Kish disappeared, and that Saul was led to\nthe house of Samuel? Let those believe this who have faith in seers,\nfortune-tellers, the gods of the heathen, and a particular Providence\nin finding lost asses; but to those who have not lost or abjured their\nsenses, it is clear that all this is a crafty manoeuvre, secretly\ncontrived to attain a particular object. We cannot doubt that Samuel,\na man so acquainted throughout Israel, had already known the person of\nSaul. He thought his character suited to his end; but, to be assured\nprecisely of it, it was necessary to talk with him. He could not\ndecently go to see him; he must send for him. He says to a devotee (as\nmen of that caste always had them), \"God wishes to prove his servant\nKish; go, take away his asses, and lead them to such a place.\" The man\nobeys. Behold Saul seeking them. He does not find them. In such a case,\nhow many Swiss, Bavarian, Tyrolese, Breton, Vendean peasants would go\nto see the fortune-teller? But nothing was easier to this divine than\nto bribe people on the route which Saul was to take. It was foreseen by\nSamuel. He projected the sacrifice and the feast after this calculation.\nThe portion set apart for an absent guest proves it. When he had Saul in\nhis house he employed the evening to sound him in every way; he\nprepared him for his new part; finally he sends off the servant,\nand mysteriously, without witness, performs the grand, the important\nceremony of pouring a little oil on his head [mark well the\ncircumstance; he anoints him without witness in secret for a public\neffect]; he kisses him, says the text; he tells him that from this\nmoment God has consecrated him unchangeable, irremovable king of Israel.\n{133} 'At this stage of their intimacy, it is evident their confidence\nwas complete. Saul knew and accepted the propositions and conditions of\nSamuel. He who had measured the mind of his pupil, in order to subjugate\nhim more and more, uttered several predictions to be accomplished\nimmediately. \"In returning home (says he) you will meet at such a place\ntwo men, who will tell you that your father has found his asses; further\non you will find three men going to Beitel (or Bethel), they will say to\nyou such things; they will make you such a present. Again, at the hill\nof the Philistines, you will find a procession of prophets, descending\nfrom the high place, to the sound of the lyres, of drums, of pipes, and\nof guitars. The spirit of God will seize you; you will prophesy with\nthem; you will be changed to another man. When these signs shall happen\nto you, you must do that which you wish. God will be with you; you must\ncome and find me at Galgala to sacrifice: I shall go down there to offer\npacificatory sacrifices; you must wait my arrival seven days, and I\nwill let you know what you must do. Saul went, and all that Samuel had\npredicted came to pass!\" Now, what was there miraculous here? It was\neasy for Samuel to organise all these meetings, and even to calculate\nthe time and place of the procession of the prophets--a religious\nceremony which had its fixed days and hours.\n\n'Saul, dismissed by Samuel, met the procession of prophets, and at sight\nof the train, seized with the spirit of God, he set himself to prophesy\nwith them. The people inquired if Saul had become a prophet. Those who\nknew it asked what had happened to the son of Kish to have also become\na prophet? Others observed, what is their father to them? His\nfather-in-law having questioned him on the details of his journey,\nSaul told him all except the affair of the royalty. Behold, then, a\nconnivance between Saul and Samuel.\n\n'There remained a public scene to play to gain the respect and credulity\nof the people. For this purpose, Samuel convoked at Maspha a general\nassembly. After some reproaches on the part of God (for nothing can be\ndone without his name), you wish to have, says he, another king than\nyour God; you shall have him. In the meantime he began to draw by lot\nthe twelve tribes of Israel, to know from which tribe should issue their\nking. The lot fell upon the tribe of Benjamin: he drew them by lot,\nand the lot fell upon the family of Matri; and finally on the person of\nSaul. Assuredly if there is any juggling, it is that of drawing lot on a\nthing already determined. As to the trick of directing the lot, we know\nthat it requires but very little address to play the sleight of hand: it\nhas been seen everywhere; we yet see examples of it\n\n'It is necessary that the Hebrew people should believe that God himself\nhad made choice of Saul, in order that his choice might impose obedience\nupon all, and respect to the malcontents, which the opposition had not\nyet let be seen. By an addition to the jugglery, Saul was not present:\nit is clear that Samuel had concealed him; they seek him; they soon find\nhim in the hiding-place which the seer had the merit of divining. The\npeople were surprised to see so fine a {134} man; and, according to the\nliteral account, they cried 'God save the King.' Then Samuel read to the\npeople the statutes of the kingdom, and he wrote them a book, which he\ndeposited, without doubt, in the temple. Alter the ceremony the people\nwere dismissed. Saul returned to his house at his farm; and to form an\narmy he assembled around him men whose hearts God had touched; that is\nthe sycophants and partisans of Samuel; but the evil one's exclaimed,\nWhat! is this he who is to save us? And they carried him no presents.\n\n'These last expressions point out a party of malcontents. Their spirit\nand tone of disdain indicate the low rank and condition in which Saul\nwas born, and perhaps also the mediocrity of his talents already known\nto his neighbours, without exposing a secret infirmity, which we shall\nsoon see developed. We perceive, then, that these malcontents were of\na class distinguished by birth and by wealth, who are in the text\ndenominated \"evil ones,\" because the writer was a believer, a devotee,\nimbued with the ideas of the priest, his hero, and that of the\nsuperstitious majority of the nation.\n\n'The book of royal statutes, written by Samuel, is worthy of some\nattention. The Hebrew word mashfat [------] which it is designated,\nsignifies sentence rendered--law imposed. What was this law, this\nconstitution of royalty? The answer is not doubtful. It was the same\nmashfat mentioned in the 8th chapter and 11th verse, where Samuel being\nangry, says to the people--Here is the mashfat of the King; who will\nreign over you: he will take your children; he will employ them in the\nservice of his chariots and his horses; they will run before him and\nbefore his chariots of war; he will make them captains over thousands\nand captains of fifties; he will employ them as labourers in his fields\nto gather his harvest, to make his instruments of war, and his chariots.\nHe will take your daughters and make them perfumers (or washerwomen),\nhis cooks, and his bakers. He will take your corn fields, your olive\norchards, and your vineyards; he will give them to his servants; he will\ntake the tenth of your grain and of your wine to give to his eunuchs\nand servants; he will take away your slaves, male and female, as well\nas your asses; and the best of your goods will be for his use; he will\ndecimate your cattle, and of your own persons he will make slaves.\n\n'Those will be deceived who take this for menaces only. It is simply the\npicture of what passed among the neighbouring people who had kings. It\nis an instructive sketch of the civil, political, and military state of\nthose times when we see chariots, slaves, eunuchs, tithes, tillages\nof different kinds, companies and battalions of thousands and fifties,\netc., as in later periods. Such were the evils resulting from the\ntheocratic _r\u00e9gime_, or government of priests in the name of God, that\nthe Hebrews preferred to it a military despotism, concentrated in a\nsingle person; who at home had the power of maintaining peace, and\nabroad to repel aggression and the intrusion of strangers.\n\n'If Samuel had been a just man he would, in establishing the rights of\nthe king, have also fixed the balance of his duties, what constituted\nthe rights of the people: he would have imposed upon him, {135} as\nis practised in Egypt, the duties of temperance in all things, of\nabstinence from luxury, of repressing his passions, of overseeing his\nagents, of discountenancing flatterers, of resolution to punish, and of\nimpartiality to judge between his subjects. But the priest Samuel was\nirritated at having wrested from him the sceptre which his knavery had\nobtained. The most to be regretted in this affair is, that Saul was not\nendowed with sufficient means or sufficient spirit to counteract this\nperfidious protector. He could, by feigning to hold Samuel strictly to\nhis order, by obliging him to explain it clearly, have thrown back upon\nhim the checks which he imposed, and thus, in the eyes of the people,\nhe would have had the merit of liberating them. David did not fail; but\nSaul, altogether a brave warrior, and not suspecting the policy of the\ntemple, became the dupe and the victim of a consummate Machiavelism.\n\n'According to Samuel, the royal statute was a pure and severe despotism,\na genuine tyranny. According to Moses, it was quite another thing. To be\nconvinced of this, it is sufficient to read the precept recorded in the\n17th chapter of Deuteronomy, verse 14, etc. It says, literally, \"When\nyou shall have entered into the land which Jehovah your God has given\nyou, and which you shall possess and inhabit, and you shall say I will\nestablish over me a king like all the people that surround me, you shall\nestablish him who shall choose Jehovah your God; you shall take him from\namong your brethren (Jews); you shall not take a stranger who is not\nyour brother; and this king shall not possess many horses; he shall\nnot make the people return to Egypt to have many horses; he shall\nnot multiply wives, that his heart turn not away; he shall not amass\ntreasures of gold and silver, and when he shall sit upon the throne he\nshall write for himself a copy of the law in a book before the priests\nand the Levites, and this copy shall be in his hands; he shall read it\nevery day of his life to learn to fear Jehovah his God, and to practise\nall his precepts.\" What a difference between this statute of Moses\nand that of Samuel! Mark well the words: the king shall be one of your\nbrethren, a man entirely as one of you; and he shall be submissive to\nthe will of the nation. How happens it that Samuel was not intimate\nwith, or did not mention, a single word of an ordinance of the\nlegislator so precise and radical? How was it that no person made the\nleast mention of it? Was this law of Moses unknown or forgotten? or was\nit by some chance not yet inserted? These are reasonable suspicions in\nthis respect.' (_Vide_ Volney.)\n\nDr. Giles observes that:--\n\n'The description of a king (Deuteronomy xvii., 16--20), presents nothing\noffensive to the feelings or injurious to the happiness of the people:\nnor does it seem to imply that the Almighty would disapprove of the\nIsraelites choosing for themselves a king when they should, be settled\nin the land of promise. On the contrary, it conveys an idea that the\nrequest would be a natural one, and it explains the mode in which the\npetition should be complied with. Is it, then, likely that Samuel\nhad read this description, when he cautioned the people {136} against\nchoosing a king by giving that forcible picture of his tyranny and his\nrapacity?\n\n'The words of Samuel will seem highly reasonable to those who know the\nnature of Oriental despotism, if we only suppose that Samuel had never\nread the 17th chapter of Deuteronomy, which deals so much more leniently\nwith the same contingency.\n\n'It is something, also, to our present point that neither does Samuel\ncause Saul to copy out the book of the law as before alluded to, and\nthis seems to prove that there was no book of the Law besides the two\ntables of stone then in existence.'\n\n*Chapter x., v. 5. 'The hill of God, where is the garrison of the\nPhilistines.' So that, according to this, the God of the Israelites, who\nhad brought the Jewish nation into the land promising to cast out all\nopposers, not only failed in the promise, but actually suffered the\nindignity of having the hill designated _par excellence_ as the 'hill of\nGod,' occupied by a hostile garrison.\n\nThe musical accompaniments to the prophesying, prove that a very\ndifferent meaning must attach to the word than the one usually given;\nsome allege that the word means poet. It is used in many places in a\nmanner entirely unconnected with the foretelling of future events. In\nthe epistle to Titus the word prophet is used in reference, probably\nto a heathen poet. By Chronicles, chap, xxv., v. 123, the word\n'prophesying' clearly denotes musical performances 'under order of the\nking.' The Douay in a foot-note tells me that prophesying is singing\npraises to God by divine impulse.\n\nI am inclined to consider the word prophet as synonymous with that\nof _bard_. Our ancient bards recited the events of the past, and in\nstirring poetical phraseology gave forth their hopes and conjectures of\nvictories in the future.\n\nVerse 12 has no connection with the rest of the chapter, and it is not\nconsistent in itself. There is no connection between the question\n'Who is their father?' and the following words, 'Therefore it became\na proverb, is Saul also amongst the prophets?' Besides which, in chap,\nxix., v. 24, we get a totally different version of the origin of the\nproverb.\n\nVerse 25. This book is lost, I presume. It is never referred to\nafterwards. Was it a revelation from God?\n\nVerse 26. Why did not God touch the hearts of every man.\n\n*Chapter xi., vv. 4 to 7. Although Saul was the anointed king of Israel,\nhe seems to have been ploughing in a field, and to have killed the very\noxen he had been using. The king at that time, therefore, was not so\nwell off as the priest.\n\nVerses 8 to 15. 'The Hebrew version says, thirty thousand men of Judea,\nand three hundred thousand of the eleven tribes. The Greek, on the\ncontrary, says, seventy thousand of Judea, and six hundred thousand of\nthe others. Such variations, which are often repeated, show the credit\nthat is due to these books of morals. According to the Greek version,\nby supposing every six persons to furnish one man-of-war, there would\nbe three millions of inhabitants on a {137} territory of nine hundred\nsquare leagues; consequently more than three thousand persons to the\nsquare league; which is against all probability. The most reasonable\nnumber, perhaps, is twenty thousand picked men for a _coup de main_,\nwhich moreover demanded rapidity. Saul departs like an arrow; arrives at\nbreak of day, and pours on the camp of the Ammonites, who, accustomed\nto the sluggish manner of the Jews, expected no such movement. Saul\nsurprises, destroys them, and delivers the town. The people, charmed\nwith this beginning, come uncovered, and propose to Samuel to slay\nthose who do not recognise and salute the king. Saul brave, and for this\nreason generous, opposes it. This once Samuel is satisfied, and gives\norders that there snail be a general assembly at Gilgal to renew the\ninstallation, which was done. But why this second ceremony? Was it to\ngive the opponents and malcontents an opportunity to rally with the\nmajority of the people, and to stifle a schism which had more partisans\nthan are indicated? for we see symptoms of it when in the approaching\nwar with the Philistines there were found in their camp many Hebrew\ndeserters, bearing arms against the party of Samuel and Saul. This was\nthe first apparent motive, and it was quite ingenious. But we shall\nsoon discover that Samuel, always, profound and full of deception, had\nanother secret intimately connected with his interests and character.\nThe text tells us, chap, xii., that the assembly being formed, Samuel\nstanding before all the people, made a speech, the substance of which\nwas that he had managed their affairs with perfect integrity; that he\nhad taken no one's ox or ass; that he had oppressed or persecuted no\none; that he had not taken bribes; and that nevertheless he had been\nforced to put a king in his place. He attributes this step as against\nGod. But why God? It was himself. As, by the nature of the royal\n_r\u00e9gime_, such as he has pictured it, Saul could not fail to cause\nsimilar vexations, a contrast was created which even at this time tends\nto diminish the credit he had just, acquired, and shows the jealousy\nthat actuated Samuel.\n\n'The priest insisted that God had, until then, governed the nation by\nhis special servants, such as Moses, Aaron, Gideon, Jephtha, etc.; and\nthat the people, now rebellious, wished to govern themselves by men\nof their own choice. But as this new system took away the supreme and\narbitrary power from the priests of whom Samuel was the head, we\nsee whence came the deep hatred which he entertained for it; and his\nsacerdotal arrogance in setting himself up as the chief interpreter and\nrepresentative on earth of the Divinity. Here the writer (a priest also)\nhas joined a remarkable circumstance: \"You see,\" says Samuel to the\npeople, \"that we are in the time of harvest [the end of June, or\nbeginning of July.] Well, I will invoke God, and he will answer me in a\nvoice of thunder and rain, and you shall know your sin of disobedience.\"\nSo there came thunder and rain, and the people were seized with fear;\nthey knew their sin and demanded pardon of Samuel, who (generously)\nanswered that he would not cease always to pray for them.\n\n'This recital is very well, but we have a right to ask for the {138}\nevidence of its truth? Who has seen the occurrence? Who has told it to\nus? A narrator at second hand. Was he a witness of it? He is the only\none; he is partial. Besides, a crowd of facts and similar accounts are\nfound among the Greeks, the Romans, and all the ancient barbarians. Are\nwe to believe that their seers, that their divines had also the gift of\nmiracles? But admitting the recital and the fact, we have yet the right\nto say that Samuel, more knowing than a multitude of superstitious,\nignorant peasants, had perceived the sign, or forerunner of a storm,\nwhich is not rare at that time of the year. I myself, while travelling,\nhave seen it in the last days of December, when the case is still\nmore singular. The result was, the people placed greater confidence in\nSamuel; and that was what this ecclesiastical king wanted, in order not\nto lose the tutelage of his royal lieutenant.' ( _Vide_ Volney.)\n\n*Chapter xii., v. 11. 'Bedan.' \"It is remarkable,\" says Bishop Patrick,\n\"that there is no such name as Bedan mentioned in the Book of Judges.\"\n\n'Dr. Hales, with a singular boldness of criticism, observes on the same\npassage:--\n\n'\"Perhaps Barak may be meant.\"\n\n'This supposition might pass if it were certain that the Book of Judges\ncontained a full history of all that period of the Jewish national\nexistence; but as it certainly is a very brief history, and occasionally\nchanges with great abruptness from one subject to another, it is most\nprobable that other writings once existed which perished before the\npresent Book of Judges was compiled.' (_Vide_ 'Hebrew Records.')\n\n*Chapter xiii., v. 1. The Douay translates this--'Saul was a child of\none year when he began to reign.'\n\n'It was natural for this new king to be elated with his first and\nbrilliant success, and with his sudden and high fortune. We find him\nalso a little while after declare war against the Philistines. Several\nincidents mentioned give cause to suspect that this was contrary to the\nwish of Samuel, and that hence began the misunderstanding which we shall\nsoon see break out. Samuel might with reason represent to Saul \"that the\nPhilistines were powerful, warlike, and formidable; that their maritime\ntrade rivalled that of Sidon and Tyre, giving them the means of industry\nsuperior to those of the Hebrews; who, although left in peace under\ntheir own government, were not in a state fit for independence or\nresistance, since they had not even the liberty of having smiths to make\ntheir axes, their ploughshares, and still more their lances, and that\nit was, therefore, better to temporise.\" This is all very true and wise.\nBut Saul went farther; full of confidence in the ardour of the people,\nhe could answer that God would benevolently provide, as in the time of\nGideon and Jephtha. He chose three thousand men to remain on duty with\nhim, and sent away the rest. Of this light corps he gave one thousand\nto his son Jonathan. This young man soon attacked a post of the\nPhilistines, who called to arms and gathered together. Saul, seeing them\nnumerous, summoned the {139} Hebrews. According to the historian\nthe Philistines detached thirty thousand war chariots, six thousand\nhorsemen, and a multitude of foot soldiers, as numerous as the sand of\nthe sea shore. We ask, who counted these chariots and horsemen? There\nis, besides, a shocking contradiction, for the whole territory of the\nPhilistines was not more than one hundred leagues square, which does not\nanswer to more than two hundred thousand inhabitants. We must suppose,\naccording to the narrative, there was more than one hundred thousand\nwarriors. It is a very remarkable circumstance that in the books of the\nJews the numbers are generally exaggerated beyond belief, and almost\nalways in round numbers by decimals. Fear seized the Hebrews; the\ncountry people dispersed, and hid themselves in the mountains and caves.\nSaul found himself in a great straight; he called upon Samuel, who\ndesired him to wait seven days (he wished to see how it would turn).\nDuring this time the people contrived to desert. Saul, believing that\nsuccess depended upon a propitiatory sacrifice, ordered preparations,\nand seeing the enemy ready to attack him before Samuel's arrival, he\ndetermined to make the sacrifice himself, which was the duty of the\npriest. Finally Samuel arrived: \"What have you done?\" says he to\nSaul. The king explains his reasons. Samuel answers, \"You have acted\nfoolishly; you have not observed the orders which God gave you; he had\nestablished your kingdom for ever: now your kingdom shall not stand;\n_God has chosen a man after his own heart_ (this phrase must be borne\nin mind when criticising David's life); he has made him chief over his\npeople;\" and Samuel went away.\n\n'Such a sudden change of conduct could not take place without serious\nmotives. We must suppose that some dissention had arisen between them;\nsome serious dispute of the kind which I have pointed out. If, however,\nthat should not suffice to explain a part so decided, or justify so\nmuch insolence, I can perceive another motive. The course of public and\nprivate actions of Saul, show that he was subject to a nervous disease,\nthe symptoms of which are those of epilepsy. Might it not be that this\ndistressing disease being ordinarily concealed, Samuel did not know of\nit when he made choice of Saul; but having discovered it, he perceived\nhimself to blame in public opinion and before his enemies, and then\nsought occasion and means to disown him? It is no less true that in\nthis his conduct is wicked and blameable, inasmuch as he destroys the\nconfidence of the people in their chief, and encourages them to desert\nand lay open the country to the enemy.\n\n'This priest thought all success impossible, and by immolating his\nvanquished pupil he wished to insure for himself a compromise with his\nenemies, both within and without. Chance defeated his calculations. Saul\nremained with six hundred men, courageous and determined like himself.\nHe takes post before the enemy's camp, prohibiting all attack. Several\ndays passed. His son, Jonathan, stealing under cover (of the night,\nprobably), followed by one only squire, he presents himself before a\nPhilistine post, situated on a high rock; he is taken for a refugee\nHebrew, such as had arrived in great numbers for several days before; he\nclimbs up with his squire and is received. {140} In a moment they\nboth attack the enemy with so much boldness and good fortune that they\nstretch twenty men dead upon half an acre of ground. Confusion and\nterror spread through the camp.' [In fact, Jonathan's exploit exercised\nsuch a wonderful effect that, we are told, the earth quaked and trembled\nwith fear. The Douay says, that 'it was a miracle from God;' our\nauthorised text does not notice the miracle, but it is quite certain\nthat the last word of the Hebrew verse is [------] (Alehim or Elohim),\nfor which I find no equivalent in our version. Why is this omitted?] The\nPhilistines think themselves betrayed, either by one another or by\nthe refugee Hebrews. One man strikes another: Saul, hearing the noise,\nadvances with his men, and the rout became complete. Carried away by his\nexcessive courage, the king imprudently forbids the eating of anything\nbefore the end of the day, and of the slaughter and pursuit. His son,\nignorant of this, refreshes himself with a little honey; his father\nwould have immolated him to his oath (like Jephtha), but the people\noppose it, and save Jonathan. [I confess that I do not quite understand\nhow the Israelites smote the Philistines without weapons; but God's\nways are not as our ways. Nor do I understand how it was that the Lord\nallowed the people to escape, who ate the flesh with the blood thereof.}\n'Here is a second victory of the new king; but this happened contrary to\nall expectations, and must have disconcerted Samuel, who does not appear\nupon the scene of action. The Philistines being vanquished, retire to\ntheir own country. It would appear that a truce must have been made,\nsince the historian does not speak any more of war on this side. He\nmentions that Saul turned his arms against other nations; \"that he\nattacked one after another: the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Idumeans,\nthe Syrian kings of Sobah, to the north and beyond Damas; and that it\nwas not until then that he turned again against the Philistines and\nAmalekites.\" Everywhere he was fortunate and conquered. It is evident\nthese different wars must have taken several years; at least each of\nthem one campaign. The narrator likewise seems to terminate here\nhis history in numbering and naming the wives whom Saul married, the\nchildren he had, and the man whom he made commander of his guard and\ngeneral of his troops. 'From the manner in which the fourteenth chapter\nis terminated!' a reader used to the style of these books would believe\nthat the history of Samuel is really finished; for the ordinary form in\nclosing the history of the other kings, is by recounting their wives,\ntheir children, and the prominent personages of their reign. The\nfifteenth chapter, however, which follows, seems to commence another\nportion of the reign of Saul, containing the details of the consecration\nand substitution of David, which may be dated from a scene of the final\nrupture, which took place between the king and Samuel. May it not have\nbeen that the last compiler, presumed to have been Esdras, in arranging\nthe manuscripts originally written by Samuel, Nathan, and God, according\nto the testimony given in Chronicles i., 29, sewed the narratives\ntogether without much care, as was generally done among {141} the\nancients? We shall see the proof of this in the presentation of David to\nSaul.' ( _Vide_ Volney.)\n\n*Chapter xv., vv. 2 and 3. Christian, contrast these with Daniel, chap.\nix, v. 9, and then consider well how your Deity has entitled himself to\nthe attribute of a God of love, shewing mercy and forgiveness to all,\neven to those who have rebelled against him.\n\nVerse 9. If only as a measure of policy, Saul's conduct is worthy of\napproval; he acted far more wisely than Samuel.\n\nVerse 29 is contradicted by v. 35 of this chapter, and in Jeremiah,\nchap, xv., y. 6; and of all the parts of the Bible this is the most\nabsurd, for the whole transaction arises from his having repented that\nhe had set up Saul as king. (See V. 11.)\n\nVerse 32. The Douay says that Agag was 'very fat;' if the Jews were\ncannibals this would doubtless be a sufficient reason for the sacrifice.\n\nVolney thus comments on this chapter (the reader ought to bear in mind\nthat Volney scarcely ever quotes from the Protestant version):--\n\n'Several years, perhaps eight or ten, were passed in the wars of\nSaul without any mention of Samuel. Without doubt the successes and\npopularity of the king affected the prophet. At last he reappears on the\nscene; he seeks an occasion favourable to his views; he finds Saul; he\nopens by recalling to his mind that he consecrated him king. This was to\ninduce obedience, through a sentiment of gratitude, to what he was going\nto say. \"Behold,\" he observes, \"what that God now ordains who formerly\nordered me to consecrate you. I recollect what the people of Amalek did\nagainst my people at the coming up from Egypt. (It was 400 years before;\nAmalek had opposed the passage of the Hebrews, and had slain many.) Go\nnow, strike Amalek; destroy all that belongs to them; spare nothing;\nyou must slay men, women, children, oxen, sheep, goats,\" etc Who is not\nchilled at such a command? To make God order the extermination because\nof a quarrel 400 years before, in which the Hebrews were the aggressors,\nfor they wished to force a passage through the territory of Amalek. But\nwhat was the object of Samuel? He had a design in view, and an occasion\nwas wanted to execute it. Samuel saw a popular cause for war and seized\nit\n\n'Saul formed an army. The Hebrew text says 10,000 men of Judah and\n200,000 foot soldiers of the other tribes. The Greek says 400,000 men of\none and 30,000 of the other. The Alexandrian manuscript says only 10,000\nof each, which is the most probable. Why these contradictions? Why these\nabsurdities? For it is absurd to collect 200,000 men to take by surprise\na small tribe of Bedouins. Saul departs and surprises the Amalekites in\nthe desert; he kills all those who fall into his hands; takes their king\nalive; guards him together with the beasts and other booty. Returning\ntriumphant to Mount Carmel, he descends to the valley where there is an\naltar, and prepares, says the text, to offer a sacrifice to God of the\nbest among the spoil, according to the rites of the Greeks and Romans.\nSamuel arrives; but, says the historian, God had spoken {142} to the\nseer (during the night) and had said, \"I repent of having made Saul\nking, for he has turned from me and does not obey my orders.\" This, it\nis said, frightened Samuel, who cried to the Lord all night. Here again\nis a vision, a conference, a repentance from God! Could our negroes and\nsavages hear such fables without laughing? The Jews believe all; they\ndo not ask any proof of Samuel; he however is the only evidence; he only\ncould have written such details. He is here author, actor, judge, and\nparty. Who would be a Jew to believe upon his word? Yet it is a proverb,\n\"as unbelieving as a Jew.\"\n\n'Samuel arrives and advances to Saul. \"What means,\" says he, \"this noise\nof cattle that I hear?\" Saul answers, \"The people have spared the best\nof the effects of Amalek to offer to the Lord our God; we have destroyed\nthe rest.\" \"Allow me (replies Samuel) to relate what God said to me last\nnight.\" \"Speak,\" says Saul. \"When you was little in your own eyes (says\nthe Lord) did not I make you king of Israel, and now have I not sent\nyou against Amalek directing you to exterminate him; why have you not\nfulfilled my commandment? Why have you sinned and kept the spoils?\" \"I\nhave obeyed (replied Saul); I marched, I destroyed Amalek, and brought\naway the king alive, but the people have kept back these spoils and\nthese victims of beasts to offer on the altar of God at Galgala.\"\nSamuel answers, \"Does God demand these offerings and victims rather than\nobedience to his orders? You endeavour to ascertain good fortune by\na victim, by inspecting the fat of rams; but know that the sin of\ndivination is rebellion, a falsehood, an idolatry; but since you reject\nthe commands of God he rejects your kingdom.\"\n\n'Saul, feeble and superstitious, confesses himself culpable; he\nsupplicates the ambassador of God to pray for the removal of his sin;\nthe priest rejects his prayer, reiterates his deposition, and turns to\nleave him. Saul seizes the skirt of his coat or cloak to retain him; the\npriest, implacable, makes an effort by which the part is torn. \"God (he\nrepeats) has torn from you the kingdom of Israel, and has delivered it\nto a better; he has so decreed; is he man to repent?\" Saul insists,\n\"I have sinned, do not dishonour me before my people and before their\nchiefs; return to me, and I will humble myself before thy God.\" (These\nwords seem remarkable; there were, then, among the Hebrews, other\nacknowledged Gods who lived on an equality with Jehovah.) And Samuel\nreturned, and Saul humbled himself before Jehovah. Samuel then said,\n\"Bring me Agag, king of Amalek;\" and Agag being come, Samuel said to\nhim, \"What you have done to the children of our mothers that shall be\ndone to yours;\" and Samuel cut him in pieces [it seems with an axe].\nHaving performed this exploit, Samuel returned to Ramatah, and during\nhis life did not visit Saul.\n\n'What a barbarous scene! horrible it must be confessed; but I know some\nmore horrible still pass before eyes in our day. Suppose that Samuel had\nbrought Agag to Ramatah; that there he had confined him in a dungeon\nat the bottom of a cistern; that he had come {143} every day with an\nattendant to make him undergo various tortures, to burn his feet--his\nhands, to stretch him upon a wooden horse, to dislocate him, etc. etc.;\nall this with honied terms, saying that it was all for his good; would\nnot the lot of the victim have been a thousand times more dreadful? Ah!\nmuch better the open cruelty of the Hebrew priest, compared with the\ncharity of the priests and monks which bless Rome! Yet the European\nGovernments authorise and suffer such abominations! But did Samuel\ncommit such an act without motive--without a projected object? That\nwould not be in conformity to his deep and calculating character. We\nwill examine these motives.\n\n'For ten or twelve years Saul, by his victories, did not cease to\nflourish and strengthen his credit in the minds of all the nation.\nSamuel, finding himself eclipsed, took occasion to flatter the\nvindictive passion of the Hebrews against the Amalekites. The victory\nof Saul, and taking king Agag in disobedience to the command of God, who\nhad ordered the extermination of the Amalekites, furnished Samuel with\na pretence for striking the audacious blow of anointing a substitute to\nrival Saul. He thought it necessary to strike terror into their minds\nby a preliminary imposing step, which would make Saul dread the falling\nupon him of some new celestial anathema. It is certain that this\nmanoeuvre of Samuel succeeded, since Saul did not dare to use any act of\nviolence against him.\n\n'In considering the action of Samuel in a general point of view,\npolitical and moral, it presents an astonishing union of pride,\naudacity, cruelty, and hypocrisy; a little orphan upstart, to decree\nfrom his caprice the extermination of a whole nation, even to the last\nliving being! to insult--to abuse a king covered with laurels, become\nlegitimate by his victories, and by the assent of the nation grateful\nfor the peace and respect which he had procured for them! a priest to\ntrouble this whole nation by a change of the prince, by the intrusion\nof a new elect of his choice. Here is found the first germ of that\npolitical division of the Hebrews which, suppressed under David and\nSolomon, broke out under the imprudent Rheoboam, and prepared the fall\nof the nation by rending it into two kingdoms.\n\n'We see here the fruits of that divine or visionary power imprudently\nallowed by a people, stupified by superstition, to a king, otherwise\nworthy of esteem, but feeble-minded. We see an impostor, who dared to\ncall himself the sent of God, the representative of God, finally, God\nhimself (for such is the transition of ideas which will not fail to\noccur when the first is tolerated), turning all this to his profit.\nThe plain historian achieves, without knowing it, the tracing of the\nportrait and character of Samuel, in saying, \"Samuel did not see Saul\nany more; but lamented his misfortune that God had rejected him.\"'\n\n*Chapter xvi., v. 2. Here the Lord directs Samuel to tell a lie, yet\nin Proverbs, chap, xii., v. 22, we are told that lying lips are an\nabomination unto the Lord.\n\nVerse 4. Our version says the elders 'trembled,' the Douay says {144}\nthey 'wondered,' and the Breeches Bible says they were 'astonished.'\n\nVerse 7. The choice of Saul, whose height was so great (_vide_ chap,\nx., v. 23), being an unfortunate one, this time the selection is made on\ntotally different principles.\n\nVerse 14. 'An evil spirit from the Lord.' If read literally, these words\nwould occasion, in the minds of pious theists, grave doubts as to how\nan evil spirit could come from an infinitely pure and good God; but Hugh\nFarmer, in his essay on Demoniacs, says that Saul's disorder was a deep\nmelancholy, and that this appears by the mode of cure--i.e., music, a\nproper method of exhilirating the animal spirits.\n\nVerse 18. It is clear that this servant, if he spoke the words here\nalleged, spoke untruly. David was a young lad who kept his father's\nsheep, who was regarded as too young to go to battle, and who did not\nknow how to wear armour.\n\n*Chapter xvii., v. 4. Goliah must have been at least nine feet six\ninches high.\n\nVerse 5. This coat of mail would weigh about one hundred and fifty-six\npounds four ounces avoirdupois, allowing half an ounce to the shekel,\nwhich I believe is under the weight.\n\nVerse 7. The spearhead at the same rate would weigh about eighteen\npounds twelve ounces.\n\nverse 12. David is here introduced as if he had never been mentioned\nbefore. 'The days of Saul;' these words indicate a writer subsequent to\nthe death of Saul.\n\nVerse 17. 'What can we think of this? Jesse hardly recalled his son from\nthe honourable post of armour-bearer to the king! It is not likely that\nhe was turned off, since we afterwards find him playing on the harp to\nthe king as before; neither was it a proper employment for the King's\narmour-bearer to be feeding sheep when the army was in the field, and\nhis majesty with them in person! Why, the most easy method is to take\nit as we find it, to suppose it to be right, and go quietly on with the\nstory.'\n\nVerse 34. Instead of 'a lion _and_ a bear,' the Douay reads 'a lion or a\nbear.'\n\nVerse 35, Instead of 'I caught him by his beard and smote him,' the\nDouay has 'I caught them by the throat, and I strangled and killed\nthem.'\n\nVerse 49. The helmet which afforded no protection to Goliah's forehead\nmust have been of a very curious pattern. The fact of David's going\nunharmed except with a sling and stones would induce one to suppose that\nhe intended to keep a long distance between himself and Goliah. If so,\nhe would incur no danger in the combat, as the heavily-armed Goliah\ncould not run after him, and all that was necessary was for David to\navoid coming within the reach of the giant's spear. When Goliah and\nDavid talked, they must have been a very long way from each other,\nfor we find that David afterwards ran and hasted toward the Philistine\nbefore he got sufficiently near to sling a stone at him....\n\n\n     REMAINDER OF THE PAGES IN THE PRINTED BOOK ARE MISSING\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"The Bible: What It Is!","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":78606}