1878

28-37
THE BIBLE TRUE;
OR,
ARGUMENTS, ARTICLES, PAPERS, EXTRACTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO PROVE THAT
THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE RECORDS OF DIVINE REVELATION,
AND THE ONLY SOURCE AT PRESENT AVAILABLE TO MAN OF TRUE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING A FUTURE LIFE, AND THE WAY BY WHICH IT IS TO BE SECURED.
“Concerning Thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. Thy word is true from the beginning.”—(Psalm 119:152, 160.)
“Come hither, and hear the word of the Lord your God.”—(Jos. 3:9.)
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is the chaff (dreams) to the wheat?”—(Jer. 23:28.)
“When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.”—(1 Thess. 2:13).
“The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”—(2 Peter 1:21.)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in times unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son.”—(Heb. 1:1).
“The sword of the Spirit is the word of God.”—(Eph. 6:17).
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”—(2 Tim. 3:16).
“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed.”—(Prov. 13:13).
“Their root shall be as rottenness and their blossom shall go up as dust, because they have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”—(Isaiah 5:24).
How the Ancient Inscriptions Were Deciphered
“THE development of the hieroglyphics which constitute the language of ancient Egypt, rests mainly upon a document, of which most of you have probably heard—the Rosetta Stone. This remarkable monument, discovered by the French in 1799, and shortly afterwards brought to England, is one of the main treasures of the British Museum. It contains three copies of the same proclamation or decree—one written in hieroglyphics, one in a running hand or cursive character, known as the Hieratic, and one in very clear and legible Greek. Setting aside the Hieratic column, which did not help the decipherment, I may say briefly that the entire power of reading the Egyptian hieroglyphics grew out of the study of this stone, and a comparison of the hieroglyphic with the Greek version. The document is a long one, the Greek version consisting of 54 long lines, each containing on an average 125 letters. By its aid the discovery was soon made that the hieroglyphical signs or pictures were (with few exceptions,) phonetic, and the alphabetic value of each was in a short time determined. The hieroglyphical inscription was in this way read, and then it was analysed minutely; the grammatical forms of the old Egyptian language were determined, a considerable vocabulary was collected, and a solid beginning was made, from which by careful study, all other hieroglyphical inscriptions might be made out. Such was the case with respect to the hieroglyphics. With regard to the cuneiform inscriptions the case is different. Here no ‘Rosetta Stone’ has come to light, rendering the work of decipherment comparatively speaking, easy. The whole process was one, in the first instance, of conjecture. The investigators set to work as they would to discover a cypher. The groups of characters which, by their frequent occurrence, and by the positions that they held, appeared to be proper names, were assumed to be such, and it was asked what names in the known lists of Oriental monarchs they could possibly represent. The experiment was especially made upon a list of three names, apparently those of a father, a son, and a grandson, each quite different from the other two, and it appeared that in the known royal pedigrees of the East, there was but a single list of three which fitted the cuneiform series, the recurring letters being all in the right places. These names were Hystaspes (or Vishtaspes), the Gustasp of the later Persians, Darius, and Xerxes (or Khshayarsha), the Ahashverosh (Ahasuerus) of the Hebrews. The powers of twelve letters were obtained from these names. From the pedigree of Darius, found at Behistun, the previous guesses were most of them confirmed; while four more identifications of letters were made in addition. An application of the sixteen letters thus identified to cuneiform inscriptions of the same class, revealed three long lists of geographic names, some of which were read wholly by means of the previous identifications, while others helped to determine fresh letters. In this way, from personal and geographical names, the alphabet was guessed; and this alphabet, being applied to long inscriptions, it was found that they were readily intelligible to those who understood Sanskrit, Zend and modern Persian, three cognate tongues belonging to the part of Asia in which the inscriptions were found. In this way was deciphered and interpreted one kind of cuneiform writing—that which was found to have been used by the ancient Persians, the subjects of Cyrus and Cambyses, of Darius Hystaspes and Xerxes of the three Artaxerxes, known as Longimanus, Mnemon and Ochus, of Darius Nothus and Darius Codomannus, the antagonist of Alexander the Great. Hitherto, however, nothing had been done towards the decipherment of the Assyrian or Babylonian inscriptions. These were written in an entirely different species of cuneiform, far more complicated than the Persian, one containing from three to four hundred characters—impenetrable as a cipher, unless some clue could be obtained to it. A clue, however, was not wanting. The inscriptions previously deciphered, were accompanied, in almost every instance, by a transcript, in a character which was seen at a glance to be identical with that on the bricks of Babylon and on the slabs discovered in the Royal Palace of Nineveh. It was laborious, but it was not difficult, to make an analysis of one of these Babylonian transcripts, and, by means of the proper names, to fix the values of the several characters, after which it became possible to read phonetically the entire inscription. When this was done, the result was found to be no strange or uncouth tongue, but one readily intelligible to those acquainted with Hebrew, Chaldee and Arabic—a mere dialectic variety of the well-known Semitic speech. Such is the mode in which the inscriptions of Assyria have been read.”—(Canon Rawlinson, brother to Sir Henry Rawlinson, who played a prominent part in the discoveries described.)
Revelation Speaks Where Science is Silent
In his work, just published, Dr. Drysdale says, “All that can legitimately be deduced from science is simply that we cannot by it prove the existence of God—a conclusion entirely negative—and which, by no means, excludes knowledge from other sources. If some are willing to accept negative Atheism as their creed here, and feel no repugnance to the prospect of annihilation hereafter, others are far differently constituted. To them the idea of a universe, without plan and moral purpose, and the sight of a being like man with such transcendant mental capacities, weltering on from age to age in sorrow and suffering, with nothing at the end but a meaningless extinction, is perfeetly overwhelming, and they are irresistibly impelled to escape from it. Even the bloody and pedantic Robespierre was fain to fall back upon his ridiculous and theoretical rehabilitation of the Etre Supreme, when he saw speculative Atheism translated from the easy chair of the philosopher to the anarchy of an ignorant and starving populace. And J. S. Mill recoiled, in the latter part of his life, from the outcome of his own teaching; and to this is, no doubt, owing his revulsion into Deism. It was probably owing to still existing early prejudices against Christianity that a man of such profound intellect and candour of heart should have been compelled to be satisfied—though had he lived, we may imagine it would not have been for long—with a God mutilated in power, and with the conclusion, in respect to ourselves, that there is no assurance whatever of a life after death on the grounds of natural religion.”
“Dr. Drysdale’s splendid defence of an historical Christ,” says the Liverpool Mercury, “and his contention that ‘revelation is the only escape,’ leave nothing to be desired; while there is something finer than eloquence in a passage like this, about which there can be no possible mistake:” Our attitude in this category may be compared to that of the humble publican, who prostrates himself on the floor of the Temple and cries aloud in agony, overwhelmed by the cruel and crushing power of natural laws and the blank emptiness of all visible signs of the presence of God in nature. Is the cry to go up to heaven for ever and no answer to be vouchsafed? No! a thousand times, No! For from the depths of the unseen world the voice of the Almighty Himself has been heard, declaring His will and His nature and purpose, so far as seemed to Him good and as we are fitted to comprehend. Surely, therefore, even altogether apart from the transcendant importance of the purpose fulfilled by the divine interposition, the very knowledge the revelation brings to fill up the fearful gap in natural science, must make it a message indeed of glad tidings.”
The Uncertainties of Modern Science
(Continued from page 553, Vol. XIV.)
“Gravitation, then, is no blind necessity, but a law of nature, proved by a combination of experience and deductive reasoning, and which thus implies and requires the choice of a Divine Lawgiver. But is it mediate or ultimate? If mediate, so as to have some other physical cause, what is the medium on which it depends? If ultimate, which is the true conception of it, universal attraction or universal appetency? Here we find the nucleus of certain truth surrounded by a large and ample nebula of rival theories and doubtful speculations.
Newton has been careful to remark that he gives no decision on the physical cause of gravity, if such there be. ‘I use the words,’ he says, ‘attraction, impulse, propensity, promiscuously and indifferently one for another. Wherefore the reader is not to imagine by these words I anywhere take on me to define the kind or manner of any action, the causes or reasons thereof, or attribute forces in a true and physical sense to certain centres, when I speak of them as attracting, or endued with attractive powers.’
Of this general view there have been three varieties. First, that of Le Sage, that it depends on the impact of ultramundane corpuscles, flying in streams in all directions through space. He conceives them to come from beyond the limits of the known universe, and to produce attraction by impact on the molecules of matter, each screening its neighbour from some part or fraction of this celestial bombardment. A most grotesque machinery for securing the desired result! But there is a plain and fundamental objection. If the molecules of matter are perfectly elastic to their etherealassailants, the differential effect would cease, and the action be equal on all sides. If their motion is quenched after the impact, the energy thus transferred from the ether to the matter on which it impinges, must raise the whole universe to a white heat in a few seconds.
A second theory, hinted at, rather than proposed, is of this kind. ‘If we suppose all space filled with a uniform, incompressible fluid, and that material bodies are always generating and emitting this fluid at a constant rate, the fluid flowing off to infinity, or else absorbing and annihilating it, the fluid flowing in from infinite space, the result would be an attractive tendency between any two bodies as the inverse square.’ On this suggestion of Sir W. Thomson, Professor Maxwell justly observes, that such an hypothesis, of a fluid constantly flowing out with no source of supply, or flowing in without any escape, is so contrary to all experience that it cannot be called an explanation. But, with all deference to two mathematicians so eminent, I believe that the hypothesis is self-contradictory and impossible. If each particle of matter is surrounded by a plenum, nothing could flow out of it, for no room would be left into which it could flow. If by a fluid not a plenum, but homogeneous, as the hypothesis requires, it must cease to be homogeneous from the first moment when the overflow began.
A third hypothesis assumes that gravitation results from unequal pressure of the ether on the inner and outer side of each pair of masses or atoms. This is the view modestly proposed in Newton’s 21st query. But his mind could not have found rest in it, since later on he inclines to a different and very opposite view. The one thing of which he seems to be sure is the exact converse of modern materialism. The main business, he says, of Natural Philosophy is to argue from phenomena, and deduce causes from effects, ‘till we come to the First Cause, which is certainly not mechanical.’
But this attempt to explain gravity, either by vibrations of ether, or differences of ethereal pressure, in spite of the high names which have inclined to it or adopted it, seems to me open to decisive and fatal objection.
But ‘whether thus these things, or whether not,’ whether gravitation be mediate or immediate, attraction or appetency, I think it must be plain that the nucleus of solid truth, even in Newton’s great discovery, is encompassed to this hour with a vast nebula of what is doubtful, indeterminate, and obscure.
II.—The nature of matter is the next subject to be considered. Are modern materialists fully agreed in the nature of this new divinity, which is their only substitute for the God of the Bible? When we look closely, what do we find? Nothing but obscurity and contradiction, clouds and thick darkness.
And first, this matter, which, according to Dr. Tyndall, has ‘the promise and potency of all terrestrial life,’ does it really exist at all? The leaders of the new philosophy are not agreed, even as to its bare existence. The doctrine of Berkeley, which denies an objective material world, and reduces everything to mental ideas and sensations, has had many disciples down to our own day. Mr. Mill speaks with scorn of those who profess to see in this theory any contradiction of reason and common sense. He adopts it fully, and would baptize all material objects by a new name. They are things no longer, but only ‘permanent possibilities of sensation.’ But how can feelings and sensations be possible, if there is nothing to be felt, and no person to feel? The whole universe of thought becomes a multiplied heap of sentences, in which the copula only is left, and both the subject and the object are stolen away.
Such is the first variety in that sensational creed, which is to replace Christian faith and belief in the Bible. Mind, perhaps, may exist, and at least a compromise is proposed. ‘The wisest thing is to accept the inexplicable fact (of memory) without any theory of how it takes place; and when we speak of it in terms which assume a theory, to use them with a reservation as to their meaning. No such difficulties attend the theory in its application to matter. That is, in plainer words, we may speak of minds as existent, reserving a secret doubt whether they exist or not. But in the case of matter the reserve is needless, and we may safely adopt the theory of its non-existence, as anything apart from a percipient mind.
It is the striking remark of Gibbon on the history of Bajazet: ‘The savage would have devoured his prey, if in the fatal moment he had not been devoured by another savage stronger than himself.’ And here we have a sign that, while Materialism is prophesying its victories and seeking to engulf both morality and religion within its ravenous jaws, Nihilism, another form of error, is lying in wait for it to destroy it in its turn, and replace it by a negative creed of nothingness and utter darkness.
Let us turn to Mr. Spencer and see there another form of the materialising theory. His doctrine may be summed up in two or three principles. First, matter is indestructible, and this indestructibility is an a priori truth, since no demonstration of it a posteriori is possible. Secondly, matter, as an absolute reality, is some mode of the unknowable, related to the matter we know as cause to effect. Thirdly, phenomenal matter, the relative reality we know is made up of the phenomena or sensations we experience from material objects.
We are thus involved, a second time, in a hopeless contradiction. Phenomenal matter is constantly destroyed. The candle burns away and disappears. The gunpowder explodes and vanishes, and the sensations it gave to our touch and sight come to an end. The cloud melts away into the blue sky, and is no more. But non-phenomenal matter—the absolute reality—by the theory, is one form of the unknowable. Of this we cannot know, then, whether it can or cannot be destroyed. And still the indestructibility of matter is to be reckoned a fundamental, a priori truth. What contradiction can be more complete? How can we found an all-conquering, all-inclusive philosophy on the basis of a palpable contradiction?
But this is only the first step in the internal antagonisms of this material philosophy. First, physicists are not agreed whether matter is to reign alone, or whether there is an ether also to share its dominion. M. Comte, Justice Grove, and some others, hold the first alternative, but nine-tenths of scientific students adopt the other view. In this, I believe, they are fully justified by the facts of science. But then we have, in this one fact, a barrier which the tide-wave of Materialism can never surmount, and though its waves may toss themselves, they can never prevail against it. It is hard and impossible to conceive of millions or trillions of atoms creating themselves. But it is harder and still more impossible to conceive that each of them chooses, in the moment of its birth, whether it shall become an atom of matter or one of ether.
Let us briefly compare our knowledge and ignorance on this question of the nature of matter, so fundamental in the philosophy of Materialism. We know, first, in spite of Mr. Mill’s dissent, that matter does exist, is an objective reality, and no mere possibility of mental sensations. We know, next, in contrast to Mr. Spencer, that some knowledge of its properties is attainable, and that it does not belong to an Absolute Something, wholly unknowable. We have strong reason to believe that it is composed of ultimate atoms, whether finite in size or force-centres and points, whether of various shapes or spheres only. My conviction is that we may know further that the vortex atoms of Helmholtz are impossible figments, and the hypothesis, instead of being self-consistent, involves more than one direct and essential contradiction. But what do we know beside concerning its nature? Almost nothing. We do not know certainly whether these atoms are finite in size or force-centres, whether various in shape, if finite or spheres; whether the chemical elements have atoms essentially distinct or convertible into each other; whether or not these atoms have any powers at all, except change of place, attraction and repulsion, or appetency and aversion. In their laws, as detected by science, there is nothing at all which can explain either their number, why they are not fewer or more numerous; or their position, why they are at such and such distances and in such directions and not in others; or their distinctive laws of mutual action, in approaching to or receding from each other. For all these there is and can be no key or reasonable explanation, but in the decree and will of an all-wise Creator, the Supreme Lord and Architect of the material universe.”
(To be continued.)
Proved Trustworthiness of the Writings of Moses (Known as the Pentateuch)
(Continued from p. 555, Vol. XIV.)
“THE testimony of Ezekiel is overlapped by that of Jeremiah, who was partly his contemporary and partly his predecessor; whose writings, also, with a few exceptions to which it is not necessary now to refer, have stood the test of modern criticism. If Jeremiah knew a Divine law, it must be that known to Ezekiel, and therefore, that known to us. That a law was known to him is certain. He mentions it expressly, and often quotes it. Thus, in 9:13 (12), the Lord says, ‘They have forsaken my law which I set before them;’ and 16:11, ‘They have not kept my law;’ and 11:19, ‘They have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but have rejected it;’ and again, 32:22, the prophet says, ‘They have not obeyed Thy voice, neither walked in Thy law.’ But some will perhaps say, as some have said, that of course the law was known to Jeremiah, as in his days the Book of the Law is said to have been found in the Temple; but that, before that book was found, it was unknown, and therefore, fabricated by Hilkiah and his fellow priests, and imposed upon Josiah. The reasoning upon which former sceptics arrived at this conclusion is absurd. They argue thus: A book was found, or pretended to be found, by the priest, who said, ‘I have found the Book of the Law,’ which never existed, and of course was unknown to the king and the people; and yet, though utterly unknown, it was instantly received by the king and all the people, without suspicion or enquiry, and all submitted to the extirpation of the idolatries then practised, and to the burdens which it imposed; and, according to this unknown book, reformed Church and State; and although they had never before heard of its enactments, believe that it had been observed by their fathers from the days of Moses. This is plainly impossible. That the king and the court, and many of the people, might have been, and probably were, ignorant of the contents of the law, is highly probable. The two preceding reigns had been decidedly hostile to true religion. Manasseh was both a seducer and a persecutor. ‘He seduced them to do more evil than did the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the children of Israel.’ He reared up altars for Baal and Asherah, and worshipped all the host of heaven in the courts of the Lord’s house, and filled Jerusalem with innocent blood. Amon, his successor, walked in the ways that his father walked in, and served the idols that his father served; and these kings were followed by priests, prophets and people, as we find Jeremiah complaining, ‘The priests said not, Where is the Lord? . . . The pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal . . The house of Israel is ashamed: they, their kings, their princes, their prophets, saying to a stock, Thou art my father! and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth!’—(Jer. 2:8, 26). Even of Jerusalem itself he says, ‘There is not one that seeketh the truth.’—(5:1). No wonder, then, that they permitted the Temple to go to ruin, and the copy of the Law, belonging to it—perhaps the very autograph of Moses—to be lost. No wonder if Josiah, with such a father and grandfather, such priests and such a court, had been ignorant of the denunciations of the Law. Hilkiah, on the contrary, was not astonished. He says, ‘I have found the Book of the Law.’ He knew, therefore, that there was such a book, and says, ‘I have found it.’ As Thenius, who is certainly no believer in inspiration, says in his Commentary, ‘The expression, the Book of the Law, shows plainly that the question here is not about something that was already known.’ It is true that this commentator does not believe that the book found was our present Pentateuch, but he believes that what was found was not something new, or something never heard of before, but a written law, previously known. He believes that such a written law had existed, just as Hitzig asserts in his Commentary on Jeremiah (page 60), that a written law had always existed in Judah. But as the law known to Ezekiel was our present Pentateuch, that known to Jeremiah before the finding of the book, can be proved by his prophecies, delivered at the beginning of his ministry. He began to prophesy in the thirteenth year of Josiah. The Book of the Law was not found until the eighteenth year of that king. Now even Hitzig admits that chapters 2:1—8:17 were written before the eighteenth year, and the second chapter probably in the thirteenth year of Josiah, that is the first of Jeremiah’s ministry. Both testify to the existence of the Law. In Jer. 2:8 it is said, ‘they that handle the law (התורה תפשי) know me not;’ and in 8:8, ‘How say ye, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us?” Before the finding of the book, therefore, ‘the law’ existed, and was called ‘The Law of the Lord.’ These chapters also contain references and quotations which serve to identify it with the present Pentateuch. Thus, chap. 2:6: “Neither said they, where is the Lord that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, that led us through the wilderness, through a land of deserts and pits, through a land of drought, and of the shadow of death, through a land that no man passed through, and where no man dwelt? And I brought you into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof and the goodness thereof: but when ye entered ye defiled my land, and made mine heritage an abomination.’ Here are allusions, either in sense or word, or both, to Deut. 8:15; Numb. 14:7, 8; Lev. 18:25–28; Numb. 35:33, 34. In verse 28 the prophet says, ‘where are thy gods, that thou hast made thee? let them arise if they can save thee in the time of trouble,’ evidently a quotation of Deut. 32:37, 38. Chapter 33:1 is an undoubted reference to Deut. 24:3, 4. Chapter 3:16 refers to a number of places in the Pentateuch, and the chief features in the Mosaic worship: “In those days, saith the Lord, they shall say no more, the ark of the covenant of the Lord; neither shall it come to my mind; neither shall they remember it, neither shall they visit it, neither shall that be done any more.’ This tells us that there was a covenant. Exod. 24:7, 8; Deut. 5:2, 3, that there was an ‘ark of the covenant of the Lord’—the very words found Numb. 10:33, and Deut. 31:26, that the Israelites used to visit it—words to be explained only by the commands, to go up three times in the year—(Exod. 23:17; Deut. 16:16.) In the days of Jeremiah, before the finding of the book, therefore, the whole history of the covenant, that is, in fact, of the giving of the laws, all the directions about the ark, the three great feasts, is presupposed, and, without the existence of the Pentateuch, would be unintelligible. Chapter 4:4, ‘Circumcise yourselves to the Lord,’ is a quotation from Deut. 10:16, and an allusion to Deut. 30:6, and contains a figure found in no other sacred writer. Chapter 5:15, ‘Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the Lord God. . . . a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say,’ is a quotation from Deut. 28:49; and verse 17, ‘they shall eat up their harvest,’ &c., from Lev. 26:16, and Deut. 28:31. Again, in chap. 7:6, ‘Oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt: then will I cause you to dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers,’ are unmistakeable allusions to Exod. 22:21; Deut. 19:10, 6:14, 15, 4:10; Gen. 15:18, 17:8, 26:3, &c. The prophecies written subsequently to the finding of the book also contain numerous undoubted allusions to, or quotations from the Pentateuch; but those written before that time prove abundantly that Jeremiah, like Ezekiel, was well acquainted with the letter and the spirit of that law, which we now know as the Pentateuch. There can, therefore, be no doubt that ‘The Law’ of which he speaks as the Law of the Lord, existing at the same time as that known to Ezekiel, must be identical with it, and also with ‘The Book of the Law’ found in the Temple. And thus the existence of the Pentateuch from the days of our Lord to the thirteenth year of Josiah is firmly established. But it was not then invented nor written for the first time: it was not any thing new. Jeremiah had known it from his youth, for he was called at an early age. The people knew it as well as the prophet; and therefore it could not have been invented any very short time preceding that in which Jeremiah began to prophesy. Neither could it have been invented in the days of Amon or Manasseh. Theirs were not days for trying to introduce a new religious system of laws, of which the great object was to extirpate idolatry. And therefore we must pursue our inquiry to the time of Hezekiah.”
(To be continued.)
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
(Continued from page 558, Vol. XIV.)
“THUS, then, do the arguments against the authenticity of Daniel, whether drawn from external facts or internal statements, fail in impugning the evidence that this book was an ancient Jewish writing, known and received as authoritative from before the Maccabean times. The investigations of these arguments have, however, not a mere negative value, for they lead us to the internal proof of the genuineness of the book.
A strong evidence of this kind has just been given. I shall not elaborate others in their detail, but I will give the heads of argument which might be dwelt on at great length, in proof that in the Book of Daniel we have to do with that which has proceeded from no forger’s hand.
1.—The names of kings are so introduced as to appear as if the account proceeded from one who was familiar with the subject, and who did not consider explanations of who persons were and of historic connections to be necessary. All these things seem to exhibit a contemporary writer, whose book was primarily intended for contemporaries.
2.—A forger would have been but little likely to commence his book with an account of Nebuchadnezzar, ‘in the third year of Jehoiakim,’ which cannot, without difficulty be identified with any invasion of which we know from other sources. To give this introduction was only natural on the part of the real Daniel.
3.—A forger in the Maccabean age would hardly have stated (1:7) that Daniel and his companions received and bore names taken from the idols of Babylon.
4.—The omission of any reason being stated why “the portion of the king’s meat” (1:8) would defile is what could not have been expected from a pseudo-Daniel.
5.—The date at the beginning of chap. 2. can only be accounted for, standing as it does without explanation, on the supposition that all was clear to the writer, and the original readers, from their knowledge of the circumstances.
6.—In this chapter we are told how it was that Daniel and his fellows were not brought before the king with the other wise men of Babylon, when yet they were sought for to be destroyed with them. Had not this proceeded from the genuine Daniel, more pragmatism might have been expected.
7.—So, too, in chap. 3., Daniel does not appear on the scene at all. Had the book been forged with a purpose, this surely would not have been the case.
8.—Also in case of such forgery, it would be, at least, remarkable that the three who were cast into the fiery furnace should disappear from the scene, and that this deliverance was not made the basis of a further history.
9.—In chap 4. Daniel was not called on to interpret the king’s dream until after the others had failed; and yet in chap. 2. he only had been able, in a similar case, to reveal what the king needed. This looks more like historic truth, leaving many things unexplained, than a mere product of imagination.
10.—Chap. 5. is remarkable for the points in which it accords with the accounts subsequently current, and for the particulars in which it contradicts them. There is no explanation who Belshazzar is, or to whom he succeeded; the reigns of Evil-Merodach (B.C. 562–560), his brother-in-law Neriglissor (B.C. 559–556), and Laboraso-archod (nine months) are passed by, and then this last king is introduced by a name wholly different from that which he bears in profane historians. His origin, too, is here boldly stated as being the son (or descendant) of Nebuchadnezzar; while some profane historians represent him as not allied to the royal house. Would a forger have contradicted the accounts current in his days in so marked a manner?
11.—So, too, as to the death of this last king, which this chapter distinctly states: would a writer of a supposititious book have introduced this, so as to differ from Berosus and Abydenus? Would he have gone out of his way to invent a contradiction?
12.—It would be remarkable to find a Median Darius spoken of as ruling in Babylon,—a reign almost unknown to profane history,—unless the book was genuine and contemporary.
13.—So, too, as to the promotion of Daniel, a Jew, and one who had been with the destroyed dynasty.
14.—Daniel was the first of three presidents, and yet in the history, as it stands, Darius receives the presidents and princes without Daniel, and puts forth a decree as coming from them unitedly, of which Daniel had not heard. This does not look like a planned fiction.
15.—Daniel, in chap. 8:2, says, ‘I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan, in the palace, which is in the province of Elam.’ He does not explicitly state whether he was there personally or in vision. Difficulties have been drawn from this verse, as to whether Elam was at all under the rule of Belshazzar, and thus whether Daniel could have been there personally; also, it has been questioned whether Shushan (Susa) was built at that time. Are these difficulties marks of authenticity or of imposture?—of authenticity which leaves points to be understood by the reader, or of imposture, which naturally would avoid stating anything, without explanation, to which objection could be made?
16.—Chap. 9. contains Daniel’s prayer for the restoration of his people: chap. 10. commences with the third year of Cyrus; and yet not a word do we find about the restoration of Daniel’s people, in the first year of Cyrus, in answer to his prayer. This silence, as to a leading fact, argues the real Daniel, and not an impostor.
17.—The mention of superhuman powers, called the prince of Persia and the prince of Grecia, in chapters 10. and 11., without explanation, is an indication of the absence of all fraudulent design. We are inclined to ask who and what they were. These powers are able to hinder the angel of God (or at least are permitted to do so) for a time; and that in a book which so specially sets forth the supremacy and omnipotence of the God of Israel. This has not the mark of a book constructed for a purpose by an ingenious impostor.
These are some of the internal points which might be made the basis of lengthened argument. The particular passages might be greatly multiplied, and the combined force of this kind of evidence would show, that if the external testimony to the genuineness of Daniel be not true, then the book presents phenomena wholly inexplicable—difficulties to be accounted for, which vanish when the truth of the received account is admitted, in accordance with the external evidence that the book was written by Daniel in the captivity.”
(To be continued.)

72-77
THE BIBLE TRUE;
OR,
ARGUMENTS, ARTICLES, PAPERS, EXTRACTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO PROVE THAT
THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE RECORDS OF DIVINE REVELATION,
AND THE ONLY SOURCE AT PRESENT AVAILABLE TO MAN OF TRUE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING A FUTURE LIFE, AND THE WAY BY WHICH IT IS TO BE SECURED.
“Concerning Thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. Thy word is true from the beginning.”—(Psalm 119:152, 160.)
“Come hither, and hear the word of the Lord your God.”—(Jos. 3:9.)
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is the chaff (dreams) to the wheat?”—(Jer. 23:28.)
“When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.”—(1 Thess. 2:13).
“The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”—(2 Peter 1:21.)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in times unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son.”—(Heb. 1:1).
“The sword of the Spirit is the word of God.”—(Eph. 6:17).
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”—(2 Tim. 3:16).
“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed.”—(Prov. 13:13).
“Their root shall be as rottenness and their blossom shall go up as dust, because they have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”—(Isaiah 5:24).
Fulfilled Prophecy and Scientific Opposition
WE are indebted to brother Henderson, of Aberdeen, for the following notice of a lecture delivered there by Professor Porter, of Belfast, on “Palestine and Prophecy.” After describing the country’s physical features, he spoke of the rich nature of the soil and its products, re marking that nobler crops of grain than those that were raised there he had never seen in England or even on the richest prairies of America. Then, in eloquent and picturesque terms, he described the desolation which filled the land. There were many, he said, in those days, who denied the reality, and there were a few who denied even the possibility of prophecy as the prediction of future events. There were others who confined prophecy to what might be called its moral department in the revelation and development of truth; but independent of all other evidences, he confessed that he could not possibly hold such views as these after visiting Palestine, and comparing the land with the Bible. One saw there at every footstep how prophecy anticipated the future. In passing over these desolate fields, in passing through these ruined cities he had constantly before his eyes irrepressible proof that men who lived from 25 to 30 centuries ago uttered and wrote predictions which science could not have taught them, which human wisdom could not have foreseen—which time had converted into facts of history. These old Jewish seers sketched the progressive ruin of that country and people with a vividness, and described their state as it is in our own day with a graphic power which the historian could not possibly surpass, showing, as the lecturer believed, that their eyes must have been opened and their pens guided as they wrote, by that God who alone is omniscient and omnipotent. Palestine is emphatically a land of ruins, and every ruin in that land is a fulfilled prophecy. He then proceeded to place before his hearers, as far as it was possible within the limits of a lecture, that evidence of the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies which, he confessed, had carried conviction to his mind. Amongst the ruined cities which he described were Jerusalem, Ekron, Ashdod, and Askelon, and in referring to the last, expressed his belief that ere the present century was finished, the very site of the city will have been blotted out, so fast is the sand of the desert covering it. Having finished his instructive and attractive sketch, Professor Porter, in conclusion, said we had heard much, in recent times, of the opposition of science and scientific research to revelation; but he maintained it was not science—it was speculation and unsupported theory under the name of science—which was opposed to the Bible. Let the language of the Bible be only interpreted and the facts of science honestly investigated, and he predicted then the fullest harmony. From the most minute scientific investigation, whether conducted by the historian, the antiquarian, the geographer, or the ethnologist, he maintained the Bible had nothing to fear.
The Verbal Accuracy of Scripture
“The denial of verbal inspiration to the Scriptures may seem a light thing; but let it be remembered that it is founded on the assumption of their verbal accuracy; and it is almost superfluous to say that inaccuracy of words involves inaccuracy of thought and of statement; so that, according to the deniers of verbal infallibility, the Bible, though its author is God, contains inaccurate language, deals in inaccurate statements, and utters inaccurate thought. Other books are admitted to speak correctly the words and sentiments of their authors; but this alone does not convey either the words or thoughts of its author, but many things inconsistent with truth, and at variance with the author’s mind! The denial of verbal inspiration may facilitate the Rationalist in evading all that he is not inclined to believe, and may free him from certain trammels which are felt to be irksome and oppressive; but founded as it is on the assumption of inaccuracy in word and opinion, it can only lead to an utter denial of the whole book itself, if not to a denial of Him whose revelation it professes to be.
If the Koran does not contain Mohammed’s words, and does not accurately represent his sentiments, of what virtue is it as an exposition of Mohammedanism? If the Bible does not utter the words of God, and if it does not accurately represent his mind, of what use is it as a revelation from God? And what becomes of his love and truth, if he could give to His poor blind creatures a volume professing to come from himself, yet wanting in that most essential of all things in authorship—a true statement of facts, and an accurate representation of the author’s mind.”—Bonar.
“It is not without reason that one would contend for the accuracy of Scripture, even in its words. Accurate precision forms the very perfection of Euclid’s ‘Elements,’ and Newton’s ‘Principia;’ nor is it any disparagement of these to pronounce them stereotyped and unalterable. A modern German has, indeed said, that ‘everything noble loses its aroma as soon as men restrict it to an unchangeable from;’ yet no one supposes that Euclid or Newton have lost their nobility because they are unchangeable in their form and truth. It is the glory of science, that each proposition in these works is as true to-day as it was when first demonstrated by its author. Truth never changes. It advances, it expands, it multiplies; but does not change. It may be added to, but it cannot be taken from. In acquiring new territory, it does not surrender the old. Its annexations are all genuine additions. No mathematics, however advanced, give up old territory; so no theology, however ‘advanced,’ can renounce the dogmatical acquisitions of the past, unless on the ground that they are false. To call them obsolete, is childish; to say they are not suited to the age, is a condemnation of the age more than of them. Mathematics cannot advance save by a perpetual recurrence to first principles; and it is only thus that theology can advance. Nor can anything be more suspicious than this disposition to make progress by leaving truth behind. No one feels himself shocked by the full belief in the ‘Principia.’ His adherence to these is no hindrance to progress; much the reverse. Nor does our adherence to the accurate and unchangeable forms of thought and theology, given us in Scripture, prevent us making constant additions to our knowledge. Love does not grow by giving up the past; nor does faith; nor does knowledge; nor does theology.
Not willingly would anyone admit the inaccuracy of a favourite author; not without a sigh would he bring himself to believe that the words of ‘Paradise Lost’ were not Milton’s words. So, not willingly can any one concede the inaccuracy of Scripture; not without a sigh can anyone bring himself to believe that its words are not the words of God. If the atheist be really sincere, it must have been with a sorrowful heart that he relinquished the idea of the existence of an infinitely perfect and blessed being; and it must have been with no ordinary feelings of terror that he discovered that the world’s great arch was without a keystone. And if the deniers of verbal accuracy to Scripture be thoroughly sincere, it must have been with no common bitterness of soul that they discovered that the Bible was inaccurate, and that its words were not the words of God. What struggles it must have cost them to believe this! With what reluctance they must have come to this sad conclusion! With what fear they must enter upon all speculation, knowing that they are thus shut out from the great source of certainty! And with what tenderness should they bear with the scruples of those who are still clinging to the words of Scripture, and resting themselves on the belief that God has spoken, that God has written, not thoughts merely, but words—unerring words—which they find to be no chain, no trammel, but a lamp unto their feet, and a light unto their path!
The most original thinker is not the man who speculates or dreams; but the man who studies the processes of nature, outer and inner—and on these grafts his thoughts, and out of these originates his propositions, or axioms, or deductions. For all these processes are the visible expression of thoughts far higher and wider than those of man. So the most original and advanced theologian is not the man who flings abroad new opinions, gaily clothed (as those notable errorists Pusey, Newman, Joanna Southcote, Alexander Campbell, Joe Smith, William Miller, and so forth); but the man who studies every word of Scripture, and every truth and fact contained in these (‘Not by bread alone shall man live; but by every word proceeding from the mouth of God’). So said Moses and Jesus; for these words and facts are of all others the most pregnant and fruitful, seeing they are the embodiments of divine, and therefore infinitely profound thought; thought which, if carefully deposited and honestly cherished, will prove the parent of endless offspring—true, original, and progressive, though not of course like itself, perfect and divine.”—Eclectic Review, quoted in the Herald of the Kingdom.
Proved Trustworthiness of the Writings of Moses (Known as the Pentateuch)
(Continued from p. 35.)
As “the Book of the Law” existed at the beginning of Josiah’s reign, and could not have been forged in the days of Amon or Manasseh, it must have existed in the time of Hezekiah. But it is not necessary to depend on inference in this matter. There are four unimpeachable witnesses of the fact—the prophets Isaiah, Micah, Amos, Hosea, who bring us back beyond the days of Hezekiah to those of Uzziah and Jeroboam the Second. Three of these expressly mention “The law of the Lord.” Two testify that it was written in a book. All cite the contents of that book sufficiently to identify it with that which we possess. Thus, in Isaiah 5:24, we read, “They have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts;” and, again 30:9, “Children that will not hear the law of the Lord.” Amos says (2:4), “They have despised the law of the Lord; ” Hos. 4:6: “Seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children;” and, again, (8:1): “They have transgressed my covenant and trespassed against my law.” These passages prove that there was a law well known to the people, acknowledged as the law of God, which it was a sin to transgress; and, as appears from the last passage, obligatory in the nature of a covenant. The title, also, appears to have been in these days “The Law of the Lord,” as in Jer. 8:8. That it was written is testified by Hosea (8:21), “I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing.” And, therefore, Isaiah speaks of it as “The Book,” just as we speak of the Bible. In chap. 29:18, it is said: “In that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book,” which even Gesenius interprets of the Law. There could have been only one book of the Law called “The Book;” and, therefore, this book, mentioned by Isaiah as so well known as to require no further description, must be identical with “the Book of the Law” found in the time of Josiah. But, as we have shown, that that Book was our present Pentateuch, it follows that the Pentateuch existed in the days of Hezekiah; indeed, the words of Hosea 8:12, show that it was known in the days of Uzziah and Jeroboam the Second. Even if these prophets had quoted nothing from “The Book,” the identity stands fast; but they have references amply sufficient to satisfy all impartial minds, that they were well acquainted with the Pentateuch as known to us. In the first place, they are acquainted with the history. They know of the sin of Adam. “Like Adam”11 they have transgressed the covenant” (Hos. 6:7); they know of the sentence on the serpent. “They shall lick the dust like the serpent: they shall move out of their holes like creeping things of the earth.”—(Micah 7:17.) But we have here not only a reference to Gen. 3:14, but a quotation of certain words found in Deut. 32:24. The Hebrew word for creeping things occurs only here, in Deut and in Job 32:6. The references to Sodom and Gomorrah are frequent: Isaiah 1:9, 10; 3:9; Amos 4:11; and Hosea 11:8. The promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are also referred to, Micah 7:20. Hosea refers to the history of Jacob. “He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God; yea he had power over the angel and prevailed; he wept and made supplication unto him. He found him in Bethel.” Here are three allusions to Gen. 25:26; Gen. 32:24; and 28:11. Perhaps also to 31:11. The bringing up out of Egypt and the wandering in the wilderness are spoken of in the very language of the Pentateuch, as Micah 6:4, “I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron and Miriam.” Compare 7:15. Hosea (2:15) says: “She shall sing there as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of Egypt,” referring both to the exodus and to the song of Moses and Miriam And again 11:1, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt”—alluding particularly to the language of Ex. 4:22, 23: “Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, my firstborn; and I say unto thee, Let my son go that he may serve me.” Amos (2:10) says: “Also I brought you up from the land of Egypt and led you forty years through the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite. Besides the exodus and sojourn in the wilderness, there is also a reference to Gen. 15:16. Compare also Amos 3:1, and 5:25. Micah (6:5) refers to the history of Balaam.
These prophets also show an accurate acquaintance with particular precepts. Thus, when Isaiah says, “I am full of the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks or of lambs, or of he-goats;” in the original, the names of the animals are all masculine, because, according to the Mosaic Law, the males alone were lawful for burnt offerings. In the next verse, “When ye come to appear before me,” he uses the language of Ex. 34:24, respecting the three great feasts. In the thirteenth verse: “Bring no more vain meat offerings; incense is an abomination to me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn day of assembly,” Isaiah not only refers to several Mosaic precepts but shows the same exact knowledge. Thus he puts meat-offering together with incense, because for the former the latter was required.—(See Lev. 2:1, 16, and 6:14, 15.) And, next to new moons and sab-baths, he mentions calling of assemblies or holy convocations, because these convocations were held at those times as well as on the great feasts.—(See the whole of the 23rd chapter of Leviticus). And along with these holy convocations, he speaks of what is translated “solemn assembly,” but means particularly the seventh day of the feast of Passover and the eighth of that of tabernacles.—(See Lev. 23:36; Num. 29:35; Deut. 16:8. Again, in chap. 2:7, Isaiah complains, “Their land is full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots;” and in 31:1, pronounces a woe against them “that go down to Egypt for help and stay on horses, and trust in many chariots, and in horsemen because they are strong.” Without the Pentateuch, it would be difficult to explain the sin of having horses and chariots. Deut. 17:16, tells us, that to have them, or to send down to fetch them, was forbidden by the Lord. Isa. 3:14, “Ye have eaten up the vineyard,” in an allusion to Exod. 22:5. “If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his own beast, and shall feed in another man’s field; of the beast of his own field, and of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution.” The Hebrew word for eat is peculiar, and the same in both places, so as to leave no doubt of the allusion.
But we must hasten on to the other prophets. In chapter 9:3, &c., Hosea refers to a number of the Mosaic commandments, “They shall eat unclean things in Assyria. They shall not offer wine-offerings unto the Lord, neither shall they be pleasing to Him: their sacrifices shall be unto them as the bread of mourners; all that eat thereof shall be polluted: for their bread for their soul shall not come into the house of the Lord. What will ye do in the day of the appointed assembly (מוער), and in the day of the feast of the Lord?” And again, 12:9 (10), “I will yet make thee dwell in tabernacles, as in the days of the appointed feast” not feasts as in some English Bibles. In like manner Amos says (8:10), “I will turn your periodical feasts into mourning.” The Hebrew word is used especially of the Passover, Exod. 34:25; and of the feast of Tabernacles, Lev. 23:34. He uses the same word, chap. 5:21, and couples with it that peculiar word, which we have translated above, “day of solemn assembly.” The new moons and sabbaths are also mentioned, Hosea 2:11 (13), and Amos 8:5. In Amos 2:11, 12, he speaks of the Nazarites in conformity with the command (Numb. vi). In 3:14 he mentions “the horns of the altar,” commanded to be made—(Exod. 27:2.) Amos threatens, “The horns of the altar shall be cut off and fall to the ground.” But how is this a threat? What damage was likely to ensue because the ornaments of the altar were removed? To understand this, it is necessary to remember, that, according to the Mosaic law, in order to effect an anointment for individuals or for the nation, it was necessary the blood of the sacrifice should be put on the horns of the altar, as we find in Lev. 4:7, “The priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of incense before the Lord, which is the tabernacle of the congregation:” and again, Exod. 30:10, “Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year, with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement. Once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations.” This one threat presupposes that the people threatened were well acquainted with these ordinances and valued them so highly as to think deprivation a punishment.
These references may suffice to convince us that as these prophets are acquainted with the law of the Lord, a written law, called “The Book,” and at the same time, refer to the history and ordinances; to the periodic feasts generally and the feasts of tabernacles specially; to the new moons and sabbaths, to the accurate distinction of the sacrifices, into burnt-offerings, sin-offerings and thank-offerings; the nature of the animals required; the tithes; the distinction of clean and unclean food; the Nazarites; the construction of the altar; the mode of atonement, &c., and all this in the language of our present Pentateuch, the law of which they speak is the same as that known to us, even if there were no other records in the world but the Pentateuch and the writings of these prophets. But when we remember that the Pentateuch has been traced up to the days of Hezekiah, when these prophets exercised their ministry; and that, besides, there are historic books recording such a state of things as the Pentateuch must necessarily have produced, we can entertain no doubt as to the existence of that book in the days of these prophets—that is, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and Jeroboam, king of Israel.1
A book received in the days of those kings, and by such men as those four prophets, so intimately acquainted with the history of their people, so bold in contending against error and sin, and so zealous for the truth, could not have been a forgery of their own days, nor of those immediately preceding. It must have been received of old as the law of the Lord. Indeed, the fact that in their days, and long before, there were two rival kingdoms, two rival priesthoods, and two different systems of worship, makes it impossible that any new system of law could have been imposed by either of the kingdoms on the other. The priests in Bethel were not likely to receive a new law branding themselves as impostors, and their worship as idolatry, nor were the kings of Israel more inclined to acknowledge a law, which, if firmly believed, must put an end to their royalty. As, therefore, the Pentateuch existed in the days of Uzziah and Jeroboam II., and could not have arisen during any period of the schism, it must also have existed in the days of Rehoboam and Solomon.
(To be continued.)


162-167
THE BIBLE TRUE;
OR,
ARGUMENTS, ARTICLES, PAPERS, EXTRACTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO PROVE THAT
THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE RECORDS OF DIVINE REVELATION,
AND THE ONLY SOURCE AT PRESENT AVAILABLE TO MAN OF TRUE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING A FUTURE LIFE, AND THE WAY BY WHICH IT IS TO BE SECURED.
“Concerning Thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. Thy word is true from the beginning.”—(Psalm 119:152, 160.)
“Come hither, and hear the word of the Lord your God.”—(Jos. 3:9.)
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is the chaff (dreams) to the wheat?”—(Jer. 23:28.)
“When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.”—(1 Thess. 2:13).
“The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”—(2 Peter 1:21.)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in times unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son.”—(Heb. 1:1).
“The sword of the Spirit is the word of God.”—(Eph. 6:17).
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”—(2 Tim. 3:16).
“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed.”—(Prov. 13:13).
“Their root shall be as rottenness and their blossom shall go up as dust, because they have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”—(Isaiah 5:24).
The Evolution Theory Scientifically Impossible
THE evolution theory finds great favour among the respectable and educated people, who go as much, if not more, than the poor to make up the present evil world. The reason is that it excludes God from the universe, or reduces the idea of Him to a form in harmony with their moral prejudices. They think it is more “scientific,” or more accordant with the visible facts of creation. In this they are mistaken. There are scientific obstacles to their view that they have not taken into account. This is well shown in an article in Design and Work, sent us by a correspondent. It consists of extracts from a book just published, History of Creation, by Professor Haeckel, and remarks thereon.
Professor Haeckel says:—“Darwin’s theory, as well as that of Lyell, renders the assumption of immense periods absolutely necessary. . . . If the theory of development be true at all, there must certainly have elapsed immense periods, utterly inconceivable to us, during which the gradual historical development of the animal and vegetable proceeded by the slow transformation of species . . . the periods during which species originated by gradual transformation must not be calculated by single centuries, but by hundreds and by millions of centuries. Every process of development is the more intelligible the longer it is assumed to last.”
Does physical science permit the assumption of such enormous periods? On this the contributor says: Statements more utterly opposed to the present state of modern science on this subject than those current among the Darwinian believers could hardly be made. Not only have physicists fixed a limit to the extent of time available to the evolutionists, but they have fixed it within very narrow boundaries.
“Everyone will admit that the organic history of our globe must have been limited by the age of the sun’s heat. The extent of time that the evolutionist is allowed to assume depends, therefore, on the answer to the question, What is the age of the sun’s heat? And this again depends on the ulterior question, From what source has he derived his energy? The sun is losing heat at the enormous rate of 7,000 horse-power on every square foot of surface. And were it composed of coal its combustion would not maintain the present rate of radiation for 5,000 years. Combustion, therefore, cannot be the origin of the heat.
“Gravitation is now almost universally appealed to as the only conceivable source from which the sun could obtain his energy. The contraction theory advocated by Helmholtz is the one generally accepted, but the total amount of work performed by gravitation in the condensation of the sun from a nebulous mass to its present size could only have afforded twenty million years’ heat at the present rate of radiation. On the assumption that the sun’s density increases towards the centre, a few additional million years’ heat might be obtained. But on every conceivable supposition, gravitation could not have afforded more than twenty or thirty million years’ heat. One who believes it inconceivable that matter can either be created or annihilated, may be allowed to maintain that the sun existed from all eternity, but he cannot be permitted to assume that our luminary has been losing heat from all eternity.
“If 20,000,000 or 30,000,000 years do not suffice for the evolution theory, then either that or the gravitation theory of the origin of the sun’s heat will have to be abandoned.
“But the gravitation theory of the origin of the sun’s heat is as irreconcileable with geographical facts as it is, according to Haeckel, with those of evolution, and there must, therefore, have been some other source, in addition, at least, to gravity, from which the sun derived his store of energy.”
So that the declaration of the Bible that God made heaven and earth is quite as intelligible, rational and satisfactory, on scientific grounds, as all the jargon of the proud scientific schools, to whose case the words of Paul are not inapplicable: “Professing themselves to be wise, they have become fools.”
Proved Trustworthiness of the Writings of Moses (Known As the Pentateuch)
(Continued from page 78.)
In the kingdom of Judah, to which the whole body of the Levites gave in their adhesion, distinct traces of the Pentateuch may be found. In 2 Kings 14:6, it is related that Amaziah slew the murderers of his father, but the children of the murderers he slew not. The historian adds, “according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the Lord commanded, saying, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, or the children for the fathers.’ But if the historian had omitted this reference, and only stated the fact, every attentive reader would have thought of Deut. 24:16, especially as Amaziah was a pious king, “who did that which was right in the sight of the Lord.” In the reign of Joash there are several obvious allusions, to the Pentateuch. Thus, 2 Kings 12:16, “The trespass-money and the sin-money was not brought into the house of the Lord: it was the priests’,” is in conformity with the laws in Lev. 5:15, 16; 7:7; Numb. 5:18. Again, in ver. 4 we read, “And Joash said to the priests, All the money of the dedicated things that is brought into the house of the Lord, even the money of every one that passeth the account, the soul-money of his valuation, all the money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring into the house of the Lord, let the priests take it unto them.” Here are three sorts of money reckoned: first, “that of him who passeth”—our translators have put in “the account.” The language is that of Exodus 30:13, “Every one that passeth among them that are numbered;” the money is the half shekel. As here for the temple, so in Exodus this money was destined for the tabernacle of the congregation. Secondly, the money at which the persons or souls, were valued, (Lev. 27:2–8, ) “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons (Heb. souls) shall be for the Lord by thy estimation;” and thirdly, the freewill-money. Without the Pentateuch this verse would be unintelligible. Again, in describing the elevation of Joash to his kingdom, it is said, “And he brought forth the king’s son, and he put the crown upon him, and the testimony.” The word testimony here means “the law,” as Thenius says, “The law, a book in which the Mosaic ordinances were written. After the king had been adorned with the diadem, this was held over his head in a symbolical manner.” In this sense the word testimony occurs in Ps. 19:7 (8), where it is parallel to Torah, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;” on which words Hupfeld thus comments; “Testimony, common expression in the Pentateuch for the Mosaic law, properly a testimony, inasmuch as it testifies the will of God, especially against sin.” Thus a book of the law existed in the time of Joash; and as it also existed in the days of Uzziah, as we have already proved, it must have been identical with it, that is, it must be identical with our present Pentateuch. About thirty years before, we find this book also mentioned. In 2 Chron. 17:7, 9, we are told that Jehoshaphat sent five princes, nine Levites, and two priests to perambulate the cities of Judah, and teach the people, and they had the Book of the Law of the Lord with them. We have just seen that Thenius admits that there was such a book. Bertheau makes a similar admission here. He says, in his Commentary on the place, “The Book of the Law of the Lord was probably, in the opinion of the historian, our present Pentateuch. But if this book did not exist in the time of Jehoshaphat in its present form, there did certainly exist a collection of Mosaic laws; and it is possible that to make them known to the people was the task to be executed by those whom Jehoshaphat sent forth.” But, as there was a collection of Mosaic laws in the days of Joash, only thirty years distant from this time, it is highly improbable that it was different from that which had been taught to the people by the command of Jehoshaphat. That book which existed in the days of Jehoshaphat must have existed before. It could not have been new. It could not have been fabricated in the days of Ahaziah or Jehoram, and must, therefore, have existed in the days of Asa; and accordingly we read—(2 Chron 15:12, 13), that in the reign of Asa, Judah and Benjamin, and many out of the other tribes, “entered into the covenant, to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul, that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death.” Now the idea of the nation entering into covenant with God is plainly taken from the Pentateuch. But here, it is said, not merely that they entered into a covenant, but, as the Hebrew has it, into the covenant; and the great features of the covenant are described, “to seek to the Lord God of Israel,” and “to put to death those who would not.” A known covenant must, therefore, have existed between God and the people. That covenant is described—(Exod. 24. and Deut. 29.), and the substance of the covenant thus described is the same as that here recorded. The beginning of the words of the covenant in Exodus is the first commandment, requiring Israel to worship God and none else. And amongst the words of the covenant (Exod. 22:20) is found the same sanction, “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” That described in Deu. 29. is precisely similar. They entered into covenant to have the Lord for their God, and to renounce all other gods—(verses 12, 21). In the description of Asa’s zeal, the historian describes in some places in the very words of the Pentateuch that which the Pentateuch requires: “to seek the Lord God of their fathers, and to do the law (התורה) and the commandment.” Asa brings us to the time of Jeroboam, the setter-up of the new kingdom and the new worship that existed in Israel from the days of the separation to the times of Hosea and Amos; and in all its institutions Jeroboam paid an involuntary homage to the Pentateuch. The object of worship was the golden calf, which the Pentateuch tells us was loved by the Israelites in the wilderness. The worship itself was inaugurated by the king in the very words used by Aaron on a similar occasion:—“Behold thy gods, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt.” The chief place of worship, “the king’s sanctuary,” was at Bethel, consecrated as “the house of God,” by Jacob’s vision and his vow. The priests were of the lowest of the people; as the Levites, living amongst the ten tribes, remained faithful to the ancient worship of the law. The greatest feast was an imitation of the Feast of Tabernacles; and the reason for its appointment, lest the people should go up to Jerusalem, as the law required: so that every circumstance of the new religion of Jeroboam is a reference to the Pentateuch. Even the king’s residences at Shechem and Penuel have their reminiscences of the law. Thus, in all his arrangements he appears to have had the history and ordinances of the Pentateuch before his eyes. Jeroboam brings us to the time of Solomon, and Solomon to that of David; and here the allusions to the Pentateuch are many.
(To be continued.)
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
(Continued from page 37.)
The book of Daniel has been transmitted to us as one work: the additions in the Apocrypha form no part of the volume to which the transmissional evidence applies: they have not come to us from what might be technically termed the proper custody; and external and internal grounds alike demand that we should reject them as spurious legends. Not so the Hebrew and Chaldee book.3 Some, however, have sought to divide this, and thus to reject the first six chapters as an accretion. As a ground for this remarkable and uncritical mode of treating an ancient book, it has been said that Christ and his apostles do not, by citation, sanction the former part of Daniel. Certainly, if this had been true, and if the canon of criticism thus asserted were sound, we could prove the genuineness of scarcely any ancient book whatever by external testimonies. Who can expect that, in citing a book, it must be done by making quotations from every part? The citation of passages, and the diplomatic transmission of the united whole, is sufficient. Before an objection can be grounded on the silence of Christ and the apostles, it must first be shown that Daniel was not at that time a united book; if not, then the citation of part is a sanction of the whole.
But is it true that our Lord and His apostles have given us no proof of their acquaintance with the former half of Daniel? In Matthew 21:44, Jesus says, “Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” What is this last clause but an allusion of the plainest kind to Daniel 2:34, 35? Indeed, unless we saw that it was taken from the prophet, the words would be enigmatical. Thus our Lord knew, used and sanctioned the former half of Daniel.
In Hebrews 11., we have the enumeration of those who had obtained a good report through faith; and amongst others, we read, in verse 33, 34, of those “who stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire.” Does not this indubitably refer to Daniel in the lions’ den (chap. 6.), and to his three companions in the fiery furnace (chap. 3.)? This, then, is a proof of the use of the former half of the book. But, it may be objected, what sanction of its authority does such an allusion prove? Do not the words of the next verse, “others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection,” refer to the second book of Maccabees? And might not this ground of allusion (if sound) be applied to both books equally?
It seems to me that this passage does refer to the narrative in the second book of Maccabees, where (in chapter 7.) the account is given of the seven brethren and their mother, put to death by Antiochus. The second of the brethren (verse 9, ) says to the king, “Thou, O accursed one, takest away from us this present life, but the King of the Universe will raise us up, who have died for His laws, to live again for ever.” The fourth brother says (verse 14), “To be put to death by men, is to be chosen to look onward for the hopes which are of God, to be raised up again by Him; but for thee there is no resurrection to life.”
Thus does the Epistle to the Hebrews recognise the existence of the Maccabean narrative: are we, then, to make more of the mode in which it refers to Daniel? I reply unhesitatingly, yes; and for this simple reason, Daniel is a book which claims to be a divine revelation: an allusion, therefore, to it sanctions that claim; whereas the second book of Maccabees expressly disclaims inspiration and authority; an allusion to it, therefore, could not put it on a different ground to that which it thus takes. The case is just as if I were, in the same sentence, to quote from Scripture and from some Christian writer; the knowledge which the reader possesses would hinder his making any mistake. I cannot but regard it as a thing ordered by the providence of God, that the writer of the second of Maccabees should disclaim inspiration and authority; for this prevents our making the mistake of supposing that the book is sanctioned as divine in the New Testament.
It is the more important to give the proofs of the general sanction which the book of Daniel has in the New Testament, because the form of opposition to its authority, with which we may have the most to do in this country, is in the way of partial attack. The New Testament, then, distinctly sanctions chapters 2., 3., 6., 7. and 9., besides containing many allusions to the general phraseology: who then can refuse to receive the entire book without first casting aside the whole of the New Testament?
I have, then, considered the objections made to the genuineness of this book, and have put them in contrast with the evidence in its favour; and thus the conclusion drawn on grounds of merely historic criticism, such as may be applied to any ancient book, are, that so far from being written in the Maccabean age, it was then known and received as a book long accredited as being what it professes to be—the work of the contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus—that its transmission is duly vouched for, and that the objections, whether separately or unitedly, cannot invalidate one of the proved points. The line of external evidence (in full accordance with which is the internal) is such as would accredit any writing of antiquity; such is the evidence (to use the words of Augustine), ut hinc dubitare dementis sit, that to doubt would be to act the part of a madman.
Thus, as a mere historical investigation, we may be fully satisfied with the evidence; the believer in the New Testament, however, goes farther, for he knows that Christ and his apostles have given a sanction far beyond human testimony: he will not, however, undervalue the historic proofs, for they enable him to answer the doubts of inquirers, and to remove difficulties from the way of others. The historic evidence will be to him a manifest example of the absolute accuracy of all that the New Testament teaches: all that we learn thence must be true; and all oppositions, direct or indirect, must sooner or later show the weakness of those who engage in them.
Here, then, I might conclude; for I have proved the point under discussion, both on historic grounds, which sufficiently meet the understanding, and on the authority of revelation, which is binding on the conscience. But there is one other theory to consider; it is, that Daniel is indeed a divine book, rightly used as an authority in the New Testament; but that it was given forth, not to a prophet in Babylon, but to an inspired prophet in the days of the Maccabees.
If we admit the book to possess any authority at all, then the writer was a prophet; as a prophet the Jews have ever owned him, and by the name of prophet does our Lord designate him. On this theory, then (which professes to admit the authority of Scripture), a prophet he certainly was. But in the Maccabean days there was no prophet at all. When Judas Maccabæus purged the Temple from the pollutions of Antiochus (B.C. 165), and removed the idol which had been erected on the altar, “they took counsel concerning the altar of burnt-offering which had been polluted, what they should do with it. And they determined, with good counsel, to pull it down, lest it should be a reproach unto them, because the Gentiles had defiled it: and they pulled down the altar, and laid up the stones in the mountain of the house, in a fitting place, until there should be a prophet to answer the question concerning them.”—(1 Mac. 4:44–46). Twenty-two years later (B.C. 143), when Simon, the last survivor of the sons of Mattathias, was the chief of the Jewish people, “it pleased the Jews and the priests, that Simon should be leader and high-priest for ever, until there should arise a faithful prophet.”—(1 Mac. 14:41) Thus certain is it that the Maccabean age knew of no prophet. Nor had there been one for a long time: “There was great tribulation in Israel, such as was not from the time that no prophet appeared amongst them.”—(1 Mac. 9:27.)
To be continued.
221-223
THE BIBLE TRUE;
OR,
ARGUMENTS, ARTICLES, PAPERS, EXTRACTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO PROVE THAT
THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE RECORDS OF DIVINE REVELATION,
AND THE ONLY SOURCE AT PRESENT AVAILABLE TO MAN OF TRUE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING A FUTURE LIFE, AND THE WAY BY WHICH IT IS TO BE SECURED.
“Concerning Thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. Thy word is true from the beginning.”—(Psalm 119:152, 160.)
“Come hither, and hear the word of the Lord your God.”—(Jos. 3:9.)
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is the chaff (dreams) to the wheat?”—(Jer. 23:28.)
“When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.”—(1 Thess. 2:13).
“The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”—(2 Peter 1:21.)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in times unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son.”—(Heb. 1:1).
“The sword of the Spirit is the word of God.”—(Eph. 6:17).
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”—(2 Tim. 3:16).
“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed.”—(Prov. 13:13).
“Their root shall be as rottenness and their blossom shall go up as dust, because they have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”—(Isaiah 5:24).
The Exhumed Assyrian Archives and the Bible
THE Liverpool Free Library and Museum have just acquired possession of a series of tablets obtained from the ruins in the neighbourhood of Babylon, consisting mostly of documents of a commercial nature, which have been buried for ages in the debris of Babylonian greatness. The Liverpool Courier has some remarks on the subject, from which we extract the following:
“The discoveries in the region of cuneiform decipherment during the last few years, have done much to bring to our knowledge the life, religion and history of the people of Assyria and Babylonia. By means of the numerous Assyrian historical inscriptions we are enabled to trace, in almost one continuous line, the history of the Ninevite monarchs from the thirteenth to the seventh century, B.C. (1300–625). Documents dealing with almost every phase of the life of this great people have now been discovered, and a large number of them read, and their contents made known. By means of the religious hymns and prayers, and of the tablets of laws and law cases, we gain an insight into the religious, moral and social condition of the Assyrians. The numerous texts of the historical events, such as the cylinders and the mural tablets, enable us to trace the conquests and the triumphs of the kings of Assur. The numerous commercial documents discovered at Nineveh (Koyunjik) and at Kalakh (Nimroud) enableus to see that there was a great and flourishing market at Nineveh for all the commodities of the traders of Western Asia. The commerce of Nineveh referred to in the Scripture (Ez. 27:23–24), show that there was trade between Assyria and Phœnicia; and the numerous Phœnician legends on the edges of commercial tablets show that the Tyrians and Sidonians were great frequenters of the marts of Nineveh. The commerce of Nineveh was regulated by fixed and inviolable laws of trade and exchange, which governed the sale and purchase of land, of houses, and of various materials, including slaves.
From the oblivion of a Mesopotamian sand heap it has happened that the Arabs have rescued the records, deeds and documents of one of the greatest commercial firms of ancient Babylon, by a study of which we are brought into contact with the civilisation and the transactions which prevailed so many long centuries ago.
In the early part of the reign of Esarhaddon, the son of Sennacherib, King of Assyria, there flourished at Babylon a commercial house called the Egibi firm—that is, their clan name was the Egibi. These people, whose varied business was carried on with successive changes of principals and partners, through several reigns, have left most interesting records of their negotiations, some of which will be found to be illustrated in the series just appropriated by the Liverpool Museum. It would be of little interest to attempt to follow all these tablets in detail, for the description of them without their presence in illustration would be tedious and monotonous. It is almost sufficient to say that they throw vivid light upon the civic and financial forms and operations of the immediate subjects of Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Nabonidus and others.
The reign of Nabonidus lasted for seventeen years, ending in B.C. 539, and was one of the greatest commercial reigns in the Babylonian period. By far the greater number of tablets of the Egibi firm are dated in this reign, which was terminated by the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, King of Persia. Nabonidus associated with himself in the throne of Babylon his son, Bel-sour-azar (Bel protects the king), the Belshazzar of Daniel, who is mentioned in one of his father’s inscriptions, at present in the British Museum.
Of the reign of Cyrus there are two representative tablets in the Liverpool collection, the first of which is a very interesting document, being a receipt for 3,700 puzur from the plantation, which is probably to be rendered by the generic term of gathered fruits. The second tablet of this reign is dated in the month Tammuz, the fourth month, on the 16th day of the month, in the third year of Cyrus, ‘King of Babylon and Nations.’ This is a loan of three manas of silver by a person named Iddina Merodach, son of Basa, son of Nur-sin, a member of a younger branch of the Egibi house, whose name often appears as witness to contracts.
The reign of Cyrus lasted nine years, terminating in B.C. 530; and on his death, Cambyses, his son, came to the throne. Of the reign of Cambyses there are in the Liverpool collection three tablets. The first of these is a large one in moderate preservation, which bears date in the month Tammuz, on the 27th day, in the second year of Cambyses. This tablet is registered at Babylon, and is a title-deed to some land in that city, which was sold before the great gate of the temple of Zamama, in Babylon. This temple-gate was the usual place for commercial transactions, especially for those relating to land. To this document are appended the names of six persons as witnesses; and on the top and bottom edges of the tablet are six thumb-nail marks, as attestation to the deed, from which we see that the expression ‘given under the thumb’ was a legal phrase even in those days.”
The Uncertainties of Modern Science
(Continued from page 553, vol. XIV.)
“Next, the existence and nature of ether is a third subject on which there rests a still greater obscurity. If it really exists, the knowledge of matter and ether must plainly be the two pillars on which the science of physics must rest. But doubts are greater, and the conflicts of opinion still more various than before.
And first, does this ether exist? Such is the general opinion of physical students, and for myself, I have no doubt of its truth. But the dissentients are not few. M. Comte denounces the theory as an equal illusion with the vortices of Descartes; Mr. Lewes, his disciple, shares the same view. Mr. Mill, in his Logic, inclines to the same side. The hypothesis, he says, is not without an analogy to that of Descartes, only that ‘it is not entirely cut off from the possibility of direct evidence in its favour.’ He has the strange idea that there can be some evidence of an hypothesis, besides that of accounting for the phenomena it has to explain. Mr. Justice Grove, in his ‘Correlation and Continuity,’ holds strongly to the negative view. But the idea that the immensely diluted and attenuated matter of the planetary spaces can have the intense elasticity implied by the speed of light seems to me wholly incredible.
Next, if ether exists, is it of one kind only, or more than one? By way of compensation to the last opinion, some theorists affirm that there are two kinds of ether, one called electric, the other luminous. Others go further. The authors of the Unseen Universe seem disposed to suggest a series of ethers, more and more subtile, of which the second may have nearly the same relation to the first which the first bears to common matter. This is very like a reproduction of the œons and genealogies of the early Gnostics in a physical and material form.
Again, is the ether continuous, or discontinuous and atomic? Professor Challis holds strongly the former, but Newton, Young, Fresnel, Airy, Cauchy, Stokes, and most other physical philosophers, the latter view.
Is this ether attractive or self-repulsive? The latter, the usual opinion, seems to me essential to a just conception of its nature. But Professor Bayma, in his Molecular Physics, maintains that it must be atractive. And Sir Geo. Airey, in private, once told me that, in his opinion, the phenomena of light required the notion of attractive or contractile forces, and stretched strings rather than repulsive force centres, though this must imply some kind of fastening or attachment to walls of the universe.
Again, what is the relation between ether and common matter? Newton suggests that ether is denser outside of solids, and less dense within them. This would imply that they exert on each other a repulsive power. But Mosotti, Norton and most other modern theorists make the mutual action attractive, so that it would be denser within bodies and at their surface, than in free space.
Once more, if the ether is self-repulsive and intensely elastic, how is elasticity maintained? Must it not diffuse itself into empty space? Or are we to conceive of the universe bounded by a solid wall, able to resist an almost infinite pressure? Sir John Herschel has remarked: ‘Under no conception but that of a solid can an elastic and expansible medium be self-contained. If free to expand it would require a bounding envelope of sufficient strength to resist its outward pressure. To evade this by supposing it infinite in extent is to meet the difficulty by words without ideas, and to take refuge in a negation of that which constitutes the difficulty.’
Thus, from Newton to the present day, all these various doctrines about ether have been held by men of eminence: that there is no such ether distinct from matter; that there are two kinds or many, each rarer than the one before it, or one kind alone; that it is a solid and fluid, attractive and repulsive, a continuous plenum, or made up of discontinuous atoms; that these are solid and finite, or points and force-centres only; that it is attracted by matter, that it is repelled by it, and that it is neither attracted nor repelled, but merely is shut out from the space this occupies; that it is finite in extent and that it is infinite, a repulsive variety of material substance, or a bridge between the visible worlds and an unseen universe.
Physical science, with regard to the nature of matter and ether, its two constituent elements, is thus in its merest childhood. It has yet to decide which is true out of a dozen or score of rival theories. Its teachers, then, and still more its disciples, will do wisely to assume a far more modest tone in dealing with moral and religious questions than has been their practice of late years. It is ridiculous for those to declaim on the diversity of religious creeds, and the controversies and strifes of theologians, who can hardly agree in laying a single stone in the foundations of their own philosophical system.”
(To be continued.)
363-369
THE BIBLE TRUE;
OR,
ARGUMENTS, ARTICLES, PAPERS, EXTRACTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO PROVE THAT
THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE RECORDS OF DIVINE REVELATION,
AND THE ONLY SOURCE AT PRESENT AVAILABLE TO MAN OF TRUE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING A FUTURE LIFE, AND THE WAY BY WHICH IT IS TO BE SECURED.
“Concerning Thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. Thy word is true from the beginning.”—(Psalm 119:152, 160.)
“Come hither, and hear the word of the Lord your God.”—(Jos. 3:9.)
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is the chaff (dreams) to the wheat?”—(Jer. 23:28.)
“When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.”—(1 Thess. 2:13).
“The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”—(2 Peter 1:21.)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in times unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son.”—(Heb. 1:1).
“The sword of the Spirit is the word of God.”—(Eph. 6:17).
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”—(2 Tim. 3:16).
“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed.”—(Prov. 13:13).
“Their root shall be as rottenness and their blossom shall go up as dust, because they have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”—(Isaiah 5:24).
A Sceptical Criticism Refuted
IN the Record of March 8, 1878, a correspondent thus reviews a statement previously appearing from “A Candid Freethinker.” The “Candid Freethinker’s” statement was that the idea of predictions uttered centuries before the birth of Jesus, being fulfilled in his history and nowhere else, will not bear the light of educated investigation. “One by one,” he said, “these positions are yielded. Thus the supposed prophecy ‘Behold a virgin shall conceive,’ is shown by a modest knowledge of the language in which it is written, and of the historic facts of the period, to have a direct explanation in the birth of the son of the prophet and prophetess in the time of Hezekiah. To give a second sense to a plain bit of history is an expedient familiar to theologians, but not acceptable to grammarians or logicians. But in order to give this second sense, a meaning is attributed to the Hebrew word which is inaccurate. The idea which we attach to the word virgin is altogether absent from the Hebrew, which is as applicable to a married woman as to a maiden. On that simple bit of grammatical knowledge being attained, the whole imaginative attribution of a predictive sense falls to the ground.”
The correspondent’s answer is as follows:—‘The ‘Candid Freethinker’ has here merely occupied Gesenius (a fellow-sceptic) totidem verbis, in his objection to accepting Isaiah’s prophecy of Jesus Christ’s birth—our Emmanuel—as the true Catholic Church, in the proper sense of that much-abused term, has done ever since the day of Pentecost. In opposition to Gesenius’s opinion, I will merely quote the opinions of three eminent Hebraists of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries—viz., Lightfoot, Gill, and Tregelles, who distinctly contradict the bold assumption of this ‘Candid Freethinker,’ when contending that the prophecy if interpreted as Messianic ‘will not bear the light of educated investigation.’ The following specimen of Gesenius’ reasoning ought to shake the “Candid Freethinker’s’ confidence in the reed on which he relies. There are two words used in the Old Testament to denote a virgin—בתוּלה and עלמה. The latter is used by Isaiah 7:14 in the prophecy already referred to. It is derived from a word signifying ‘to hide’ or ‘conceal,’ as was the custom in the East with maidens before marriage, ‘concealed’ from the sight of the other sex. It is never used in the Old Testament other than to express ‘unspotted virginity.’ Gesenius says ‘the notion of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys, for which the proper word is בהוּלר so that in Isaiah 7:14 the LXX have incorrectly rendered it παρθένος.’ (This also is rather a venturesome assertion to make that the Jews of the third century B.C. did not understand the language of their own prophets!) Gesenius thus endeavours to set aside the Messianic interpretation by implying that Isaiah ought to have used בתוּלה if he had meant an unspotted virgin;’ and he refers to the description of Rebekah in Gen. 24:6, when that word is used, and translated in A. V. ‘a virgin;’ but Gesenius skilfully omits to notice that in verse 43, where she is again spoken of under the term ‘the virgin,’ the other word עלמה is used. Gesenius at the same time admits that בתוּלה is ‘also used of a woman newly married.’—(Joel 1:18.) The question then remains to be considered, have we any proof from Scripture that the one word, which Gesenius considers Isaiah ought to have used with the intention of describing ‘unspotted virginity,’ is employed to denote the contrary? The answer is clear and decisive against Gesenius. If the reader will refer to Ezekiel 24:3 and 8, be will see that this word is so employed. And thus the accusation either originated by Gesenius, or taken by him from some earlier sceptic, and copied by Mr. Maitland and his freethinking critic, entirely falls to the ground. The whole of our controversy with sceptical critics of the Bible may remind us of what Bacon so truly says in his Novum Organum, —‘Undoubtedly a superficial tincture of philosophy may incline the mind to atheism, yet a further knowledge brings it back to religion.’”
Proved Trustworthiness of the Writings of Moses (Known as the Pentateuch)
(Continued from page 165.)
“Solomon was an author, and some of his writings have been preserved; and in those universally received as genuine, there are plain references to our Pentateuch. Thus, in Prov. 13:13, ‘Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed, but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded.’ Here ‘the word’ is parallel to ‘the commandment,’ and proves that Solomon knew of a divinely-revealed law, sanctioned by reward and punishment. Ewald translates somewhat differently, but acknowledges that ‘word’ and ‘commandment’ mean revelation, saying in his note, ‘Who despises the word, that is revelation and its doctrine, loses his true liberty.’ And again, 19:16, ‘He that keepeth the commandment keepeth his own soul: but he that despiseth His ways shall die.’ Here, again, ‘commandment’ is used in the same sense and in the singular number, just as it is repeatedly in the Pentateuch to express the whole revelation. Thus in Deut. 8:1, ‘the whole commandment [not commandments, as in our English version] which I command thee this day ye shall observe to do.’ And again, 7:11, ‘Thou shalt keep the commandment, both the statutes and the judgments.’ Besides these general references to the great sanctions of the Mosaic law, there are particular allusions to different places of the Pentateuch, as, for instance, to Gen. 2. Thus, 13:12, ‘When the desire cometh, it is a tree of life;’ 15:4, ‘A wholesome tongue is a tree of life.’ Again, Prov. 10:18, ‘He that uttereth slander is a fool,’ uses the peculiar phraseology of the Pentateuch. The expression only occurs here and in Numb. 13:32; 14:36, 37. In like manner, 10:23, ‘It is sport to a fool to commit impurity’ (זִמָּה), can only be understood by reference to Lev. 18:17; 14:29. I n Solomon’s declaration, that ‘a false balance is an abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is His delight’ (11:1); and again, ‘Divers weights and divers measures, both of them are an abomination to the Lord’ (20:10, 23), the very words are taken from Lev. 19:36, and Deut. 25:13. The expression, ‘abomination to the Lord,’ is particularly to be observed. It occurs again 15:8, 26, and is taken from the Pentateuch (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Deut. 7:26; 12:31, &c.) Again, the words, ‘He that walketh a talebearer revealeth secrets’ (11:13, 20:19), are taken from Lev. 19:16, ‘Thou shalt not walk a talebearer among thy people,’ and do not occur elsewhere, except Jer. 6:28, and 9:3. Again, in Prov. 11:26, we have the verb Shabar (שבר) used in the sense ‘to sell corn.’ In this sense it occurs in no book written before Proverbs, except in the Pentateuch, and there it is found frequently, both in Genesis and Deuteronomy. But here in Proverbs, the words, ‘Blessing shall be upon the head of him that selleth,’ contain a beautiful allusion to the blessing of Joseph, that great seller of corn.—(Gen. 49:26.) Again, 17:15, ‘He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord,’ is the very language of the Pentateuch.—(Exod. 23:7, and Deut. 25:1.) Again, 20:20, ‘He that curseth father or mother,’ are the very words of Exod. 21:17. Again, 20:25, ‘It is a share to a man who devoureth that which is holy, and after vows to make inquiry,’ is a plain reference to Deut. 23:21, ‘When thou vowest a vow, thou shalt not be slow to pay it,’ and to the numerous laws (Lev. 27:9, 10, 14, 21) which forbid the alienation of any thing consecrated to the Lord.
These specimens (and more might be furnished) are sufficient to prove that both the contents and the language of the Pentateuch, as we possess it, were familiar to Solomon; and as from the history it is certain that a written Book of the Law existed in his days, this agreement in substance and diction proves beyond a doubt that our Pentateuch was extant in the days of the wise king; and if in the days of Solomon, then undoubtedly in the days of David and Samuel. Let us, then, see if there be traces in the books of Samuel and the Psalms of David. But here the references are so many, that we can only select a few. In the first place, there are several references to the coming up out of Egypt. In 1 Sam. 15:2, we find in Samuel’s address to Saul, ‘Thus saith the Lord, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way when he came out of Egypt;’ and again, in the message of Saul to the Kenites (ver. 6), ‘Go, depart you, get you down from the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them; for ye showed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt,” the Exodus is distinctly mentioned; and the command to Saul, and Saul’s message to the Kenites, are necessary parts of the narrative. The extirpation of the Amalekites is accounted for by the history of their ancient enmity and cruelty; and the preservation of the Kenites by their former kindness. Both are connected with the coming up out of Egypt, and the historic narrative of the Pentateuch. A second feature in this history deserving of notice is, that Israel is described as having a public worship dependent upon a tabernacle and an ark of the covenant. The manner in which the ark is spoken of shows that it was well known. It is called ‘The ark of God’ (1 Samuel 3:3); ‘The ark’ (1 Samuel 6:13.); ‘The ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts;’ ‘The ark of the Lord of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubim.’—(1 Samuel 4:3, 4.) At the same time, these descriptions of the ark can only be understood by remembering what is told us in the Pentateuch, that there was a covenant between God and Israel; that the Ten Commandments are called the words of the covenant, and that stone tables of the covenant were deposited in the ark. The mention of the Cherubim, without any explanation, also refers the reader back to Exodus 25:18; 37:7; and Numbers 7:89; and without these references we cannot tell who or what the Cherubim were. Then, as to the tabernacle, we find there were priests to minister and Levites to serve, and that the place of its location was visited annually by Israelites from a distance, as in the case of Elkanah and his family, a circumstance easily explained if we remember the commands in the Pentateuch, and inexplicable without them. There were sacrifices, also, and the various observances relating to them agree minutely with the ordinances of the Pentateuch. . . . The anxiety of the sacrificer, as described in the book of Samuel, that they ‘should not fail to burn the fat presently,’ as well as the sin of Eli’s sons, is explained by the ordinances of the Pentateuch; and yet it is quite evident that the mention of all these particulars is incidental, though a natural and necessary part of the narrative.
In the account given in this book of the use to which the ephod was applied, is contained one of the most convincing proofs of the existence and knowledge of the ordinances of the Pentateuch. In 1 Samuel 14:37, it is related that ‘Saul asked counsel of God.’ But how that was done we are not told; only we learn from verse 36, that the priest said, ‘Let us draw nigh hither unto God,’—and from verse 3, that Ahiah, the son ot Ahitub, was the Lord’s priest in Shiloh “wearing an ephod.” In chap. 22:9, Doeg tells Saul, that Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub, had inquired of the Lord; and from chap. 23. we know that he did so by means of an ephod. In verses 2, 3, we are told that David twice inquired of the Lord, and in the following verses this is explained: ‘It came to pass, when Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, fled to David, to Keilah, that he came down with an ephod in his hand.’ And at verse 9, we are told, that when David knew that Saul secretly practised mischief against him, he said to Abiathar, ‘Bring hither the ephod.’ Then it is said, that David inquired and the Lord answered him; and again, in 30:7, 8, David said to Abiathar, ‘I pray thee, bring me hither the ephod. And Abiathar brought hither the ephod to David, and David inquired at the Lord.’ Now here is an use of the ephod not mentioned in the Pentateuch, in any of the passages where the making and purpose of the ephod are described. Numbers 27:21, helps to solve the difficulty and explain the mystery. There, speaking of Joshua as Moses’ successor, it is said, ‘And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the Lord.’ Here, the mode of asking counsel, namely, by the Urim, is made known, but there is no mention of the ephod. Exodus 28. 30 informs us, that the Urim and Thummim were in the priest’s breastplate; and verse 28, that this breastplate was inseparable from the ephod. ‘They shall bind the breastplate by the rings thereof unto the rings of the ephod with a lace of blue, that it may be above the curious girdle of the ephod, and that the breastplate be not loosed from the ephod.’ When, therefore, Abiathar brought the ephod, he brought also the breastplate of judgment, and therefore the Urim and Thummim, by means of which the answer was given. Thus, the incidental mention of the ephod requires and presupposes an intimate knowledge of the ordinances of the Pentateuch, not found together, but scattered about in various places of that book. At the same time it is to be observed that the historian, though he does not mention the Urim and Thummim here, does mention them expressly in chapter 28:6, where he says, that ‘when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.’ There are allusions to many other ordinances of the Pentateuch, as 1 Samuel 21:3, 4; to the difference between the common bread and the shewbread, Lev. 24:5, &c. Exodus 25:30. In 1 Samuel 14:32, to the prohibition to eat blood, Lev. 7:26; and 17:10. 1 Samuel 20:5, 18, 27, to the feast of the new moon: in verse 26 also, to Deut. 23:11, and Lev. 7:20, and 15:5, 8–11. In 1 Samuel 28:3, to the Pentateuchal prohibition against consulting those who had familiar spirits, Deut. 18:10, 11, and Lev. 20:27, &c. In fact, in this book we find all these ordinances of the Pentateuch: the tabernacle of the congregation, the ark of the covenant, the early visitation, the rejoicing with the whole household, the duties of the priests and Levites, the altar, the incense and the ephod, the Urim and Thummim, the priests’ dues, and the manner in which they were to be received, the inquiring of the Lord by the priests, the new moon, the laws concerning ceremonial uncleanness, wizards and possessors of familiar spirits; and many of those described in the exact and peculiar language of the Pentateuch: and when to this we add, that the Pentateuch existed in the days of Solomon, to what other conclusion can we come, than that it existed in the days of David also?
But, side by side with these historic records, there was from the time of David a series of hymns used in the public worship of Israel’s God, and in the private devotions of His worshippers; and the total impression left by their perusal is, that the sweet singers of Israel were thoroughly imbued with the sentiments and the language of the Pentateuch. Many of them sing the praises of the Law of the Lord, and many more refer to the history and the great principles of the Pentateuch, so that, if judged after the manner of human writings, one would say that the Pentateuch is the source and parent of that devotional literature which stands alone in the history of the ancient world. This grand impression no microscopic criticism can remove. The devotions of Israel all testify to the existence and power of the Pentateuch.”
(To be continued.)
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
(Continued from page 167.)
“In support of this theory, it has been said that no state or kingdom could be the subject of a prophecy, unless it was actually existent when the prediction was delivered. With this supposed canon another has been conjoined, that we ought never to extend the contents of a prophecy beyond the horizon of the prophet himself.
These canons would require proof; and, until such proof were given, they never could be the bases of legitimate argument:—one assumption can never strengthen another. But these canons can be distinctly met by Scripture, which is on this theory admissible in proof without discussion. Now, the New Testament tells us, as well as the Old, that prophets of God spoke and wrote, not in their own name, or by their own authority, but as the messengers of the Most High. ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ was the principle of their communications. Prophecy comes then from God, who ‘calleth things that are not as though they were,’ who ‘seeth the end from the beginning;’ and we have not to think of the scope of observation before the prophet’s eye, but of the extent of God’s prescience, unbounded like Himself. He told Abraham, when He showed him the stars of heaven, ‘So shall thy seed be,’ though as yet he had no child: He anticipatively stated what would be the history of that nation, which should spring from Abraham, before he had even a son. He also declared that a nation should descend from Ishmael; and He enabled his servant Isaac to prophesy of the future history of the nations of Edom and Israel. Thus, even in the early days of prophecy, it had to do with nations as yet non-existent.
The prophet’s own horizon had little or nothing to do with the subjects of his predictions: whoever admits Daniel to have any authenticity whatever, might see this; for he again and again gives predictions, which he says he did not understand. The measure of their prophetic scope was not that of their personal knowledge, but of the mind of the Holy Ghost Himself, by whom they were moved.
The book of Daniel professes to be written by a prophet in Babylon; how, then, can this profession be reconciled with a theory which represents it as written by a Maccabean prophet—not an imposter of that age, but a real messenger of God.
The mode in which this difficulty is avoided, shows the entire want of an appreciation of the reality of Scripture inspiration, to which I referred above. It seems to be thought by those who hold such theories, that a prophet or other writer of Scripture had a kind of general commission to write; but that the form of what he wrote,—the clothing of the thoughts which he had to communicate—was left wholly to his own judgment. And thus the name of Daniel, and the Babylonian and Medo-Persian circumstances in this book, are regarded as mere drapery, used for the purpose;—just like the figures in a parable. But what in this book resembles a parable? If there be aught, it is the symbolic visions, first shown and then interpreted; but to compare the narrations of this book to parables is wholly beside the mark. This book is as little a parable as the miracles and teaching of St. John’s Gospel. No doubt that in Maccabean times this book was very valuable in sustaining the faithful Jew to resist idolatry (the dying words of Mattathias show this,)—but its force lay in its truth. It may be said, indeed, that the occurrences did take place as narrated, but that they were not written till the Maccabean age; but nothing of any kind is gained by this complicated theory: it would only suppose a mystic re-inspiring of another prophet (and that in an age when there were none) with what had been revealed to an actual prophet some ages before, and which that actual prophet says that he wrote.
It is not thus that Scripture teaches. The Word of God came from Him, as pure and absolute truth; and it possesses such plenary authority as we find ascribed in the New Testament to the Old. ‘The Scripture cannot be broken,’ and ‘the Holy Ghost saith,’ are our sure principles of guidance in understanding how the Word of God is addressed to us. This could not be if a writer of Scripture received only some general instruction from God, and in all other things employed merely his own ability and skill. This would admit of mistake and mis-statement in all minor points.”
(To be continued.)


462-466
THE BIBLE TRUE;
or
ARGUMENTS, ARTICLES, PAPERS, EXTRACTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO PROVE THAT
THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE RECORDS OF DIVINE REVELATION,
AND THE ONLY SOURCE AT PRESENT AVAILABLE TO MAN OF TRUE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING A FUTURE LIFE, AND THE WAY BY WHICH IT IS TO BE SECURED.
“Concerning Thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. Thy word is true from the beginning.”—(Psalm 119:152, 160.)
“Come hither, and hear the word of the Lord your God.”—(Jos. 3:9.)
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is the chaff (dreams) to the wheat?”—(Jer. 23:28.)
“When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.”—(1 Thess. 2:13).
“The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”—(2 Peter 1:21.)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in times unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son.”—(Heb. 1:1).
“The sword of the Spirit is the word of God.”—(Eph. 6:17).
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”—(2 Tim. 3:16).
“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed.”—(Prov. 13:13).
“Their root shall be as rottenness and their blossom shall go up as dust, because they have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”—(Isaiah 5:24).
Another Voice from Babylon
SPEAKING of the latest arrival of Babylonian antiquities at the British Museum, the London correspondent of the Manchester Guardian says: “The main portion was found near Hillah, a town about three miles north from the site of Babylon. The tops of some of the mounds in which they were discovered were washed away in the course of exceptionally heavy rains, and the Arabs found the tablets in jars resembling the ballot jars in use at French elections, two of which have been forwarded, along with their contents, to this country. With some contributions from other collections in the hands of the dealer, this most recent addition to the Oriental treasures of the British Museum comprises some three thousand specimens. The Hillah tablets are chiefly contract tablets, mortgage loans, promissory notes, records of the sale of land, shares and other commodities, representing, in fact, all the various commercial transactions of a Babylonian firm who may be approximately described as Messrs. Gabi and Sons, bankers and financial agents. Many of the tablets represent the renewal of loans and mortgages, so that the documents referring to the first and the last of continuing transactions, bear the dates of several different reigns. The dates thus extend from the fall of the Assyrian Empire to the reign of Darius Hystaspes, including dates in the reigns of Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Cambyses, and the elder and the younger Cyrus. The dates of the tables, therefore, furnish very important chronological landmarks. One of the tablets is dated in the reign of Belshazzar as king, being the first time his name has been found in connection with the royal dignity, previous inscriptions having had reference to the time when he was described as the son of Nabonidus. There is a large number of mathematical tablets, giving calculations of considerable intricacy. One curious and beautiful tablet presents a calendar for the entire Babylonian year—or would if a fragment had not been lost—and for every day in the year, distinguishing the days as lucky or unlucky, whether for feasting, fasting, marriage, or the building of houses.”
The Uncertainties of Modern Science
(Continued from page 223.)
“IV.—Has there really been that almost infinite progress (in knowledge) of which Dr. Tyndall speaks, beyond Newton, and Leibnitz and the students of the last century? Have the present generation of physical students a deeper insight into the true system of nature than their predecessors could ever attain? This, I believe is a grand illusion. Analysts have made some real advance; but along with this advance, there is great danger, what with the coinage of new phrases for old ideas and free scientific guesswork, of going backward instead of forward. Already, in more cases than one, mere verbiage, or even direct contradictions, have been palmed on the credulous as grand experimental discoveries, or still more grand a priori truths.
What, then, is this energy, about which such great discoveries have been made? Few of those who speak or write about it seem to have settled clearly what they mean by the term. Is it force or motion? Is it both or is it neither, being somewhat quite distinct from both? All these four opinions seem to be held, and by writers of some eminence. According to Mr. Spencer it is force, and the better name for the conservation of energy is the persistence of force. According to Mr. Grove it is motion, and the various forms of energy are ‘modes of motion.’ According to Professors Thomson and Tait, who understand the subject better, it is both, or rather each in turn. It has two kinds, potential and kinetic. The first is an integral of forces, such as have acted or will act, when a system passes from a first to a second position. Kinetic energy is an integral of velocities or motions, or their total amounts from zero up to their actual values at any given time. These are three varieties—that is force, motion, or partly one, partly the other. Mr. Brooke adds a fourth variety, that it is neither force nor motion, but a third something, distinct from both. While he distinguishes it from force, he also inverts the use of the two terms. His energy is exactly the same as the force of Newton’s definition, and of nearly every work on dynamics; while his force is the potential energy of Sir W. Thomson’s analytical theory.
According to Mr. Spencer, the conservation of energy, or as he prefers to call it, the persistence of force, is the chief and foremost of all a priori truths. It holds in his philosophy, exactly the same place as the being of God in the Christian system. It transcends both demonstration and experience, and is the widest and deepest of all truths. But no sooner has this doctrine, borrowed from the analysts, been adopted by Agnostic metaphysicians and raised to an intellectual throne, as a substitute for the living, personal God of the Bible, than it is confronted by a rival, a younger son of the same parents, the dissipation of energy. It is the same analysts from whom the first doctrine has been borrowed, who are the sponsors of this rival and successor. Like the giant in the Hindoo tale, the new divinity of fatalism places its hand on its own head, and in a moment is reduced to ashes. I will give three statements of this second doctrine from Professor B. Stewart’s Conservation of Energy, Thomson and Tait’s Natural Philosophy, and the recent work, The Unseen Universe. The first writes as follows:—
‘Although in a strictly mechanical sense there is a conservation of energy as regards use or fitness for living things, the energy of the universe is in process of deterioration. Diffused heat forms what we may call the great waste-heap of the universe, and this is growing larger every day. We have regarded the universe not as a collection of matter but an energetic agent, a lamp. Looked at in this light, it is a system that had a beginning and must have an end; for a process of degradation cannot be eternal. If we regard it as a candle that has been lit, we become absolutely certain that it cannot have been burning from eternity, and that a time will come when it will cease to burn.’
Sir W. Tomson writes thus in his joint treatise with Professor Tait on Natural Philosophy. ‘It is quite certain that the solar system cannot have gone on, as at present, for a few hundred thousand or a million years without the irrevocable loss, by dissipation, not annihilation, of a considerable portion of the entire energy, initially in store for sun heat and Plutonic action. It is quite certain that the whole store of energy in the solar system has been greater in all past time than at present. It is probable that the secular rate of dissipation has been in some direct proportion to the total amount of energy at any time after the commencement of the present order of things, and has thus been diminishing from age to age . . Hypotheses assuming equability of sun and storm for a million years cannot be wholly true . . I think we may say, with much probability, that the consolidation of the earth’s crust cannot have taken place less than twenty nor more than 400 million years ago. I conclude that Leibnitz’s epoch of the ‘consistentior status’ was, probably, between these dates.—(N.P., pp. 712–716.)
We read also in The Unseen Universe as follows, p. 91: ‘Heat is the communist of our universe and will, no doubt, bring the system to an end. The sun is the furnace or source of high-temperature heat to our system as the stars to other systems. The energy essential to our existence is derived from the heat the sun radiates, and represents a very small part of it. But while the sun supplies us with energy, he himself is getting colder, and must, ultimately, by radiation into space, part with the life-sustaining power he now possesses. In each case of collision, there will be the conversion of visible energy into heat, and a partial and temporary restoration of the power of the sun. At length, however, the process will have come to an end, and he will be extinguished; until, after long ages, his black mass is brought into contact with that of his nearest neighbour.”
In Mr. Spencer we meet with a third form of the Nebular Theory, and Physical Evolution. The theism of the authors of the Unseen Universe, who affirm a beginning and an end, and the monism or atheism of professor Haeckel, which wholly denies both, is pronounced alike unphilosophical. That question belongs to the class of which nothing can be known. For the rest, he holds the indestructibility of force, and the continuity or eternity of motion, as a great a priori truth. But he holds, side by side with it, the Dissipation of Energy, or a process ‘which must go on bringing things ever nearer to complete rest.’ If equilibration, he asks, must end in complete rest, what is the fate towards which all things tend? ‘If the sun is losing its force at a rate which must tell in millions of years, and men and society are dependent on a supply that is gradually coming to an end, are we not manifestly progressing towards omnipresent death? That such a state must be the outcome of the processes everywhere going on seems beyond a doubt.’ But a further suggestion is made, that, when the last collision of suns and systems occurs, there must ensue a diffusion that undoes the previous concentration. So that a period, inconceivably vast, of evolution, that is, condensation, may be followed by a paroxysm of dissolution, that is, of reexpansion into nebula once more.
(To be Continued.)
Proved Trustworthiness of the Writings of Moses (Known as the Pentateuch)
(Continued from page 367.)
“ENOUGH has been said to show, that in the days of David, Samuel, and Eli, the Pentateuch was known, and if so, it must have existed in the days of the Judges, and of its existence there are plain traces in the book of Ruth and Judges. The nature of these documents forbids us to expect a detailed narrative of the progress of religion, or of the rites and observances of public worship. The book of Ruth is a family record, a sketch from private life. The book of Judges is a collection of memoirs of the remarkable persons whom the Lord raised up to defend or to deliver the invaded provinces of Israel, not even an outline of the history of the whole nation. Allusion therefore to priests or religious laws, or even to those parts of the land not similarly exposed, must be few and incidental. Those that do occur are the more satisfactory and convincing. The first thing to be observed with regard to these books is, that the fundamental principle of the Pentateuch, the dependence of blessing or cursing on obedience or disobedience, is the hinge on which every particular history turns. This is the binding principle that holds all these separatives together. The prosperity of a poor Moabitish widow and success of armies are made to depend upon the fear of the true God, and the practice of the true religion. National calamity is the consequence of disobedience. God is the God of Israel, and rewards or punishes: The Lord who revealed himself on Sinai, as Deborah tells us, in that wonderful song, which Ewald and others admit to be the genuine work of the prophetess.—(Judges 5:4.) In the next place, we find such a state of things as would naturally have arisen from knowledge of the Pentateuch. There was a congregation (ערה), also a tabernacle of the congregation, here called the house of God, as in Samuel (Judges 20:18), and an ark of the covenant of God, verse 27—and the practice of inquiring of the Lord, ver. 18 and 28—and a priest to make the inquiry, ver. 28—and Levites consecrated to the service of God (17:13, 19:1), and an ephod, 17:4 (Heb.)—and burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, 20:26, and Nazarites, 13:5, 7, and a yearly feast, 21:19, where the words used refer to the passover, and the duty of marrying a brother’s widow, and the punishment of him who refused (Ruth 4.), and the obligation to redeem (4:3–5), and the prohibition to marry the heathen (Judges 14:3)—and to eat that which is unclean, which caused Samson to conceal from his father and mother whence he got the honey (14:9); and the belief in the inalienability of that which was solemnly devoted to the Lord (11:35); and the duty of overthrowing idol altars (6:28); and all these things mentioned in the language of the Pentateuch, testify to its existence in the days of the Judges, and bring us back to the time of Phinehas the son of Eleazar, who was himself an eyewitness of the giving of the Law, and the Lord’s dealings in the wilderness.
The book of Joshua also gives the same evidence. But as without it we have traced the existence of the Pentateuch to a contemporary of Joshua and Moses, and as the controversies respecting the Book of Joshua would require much discussion, it is necessary to stop here for the present. The Pentateuch which we possess has been traced from the present time to the days when it was written; it must therefore be genuine. No apparent difficulties are sufficient to shake the testimony of the prophets and the historic books. In a book so ancient there may be many difficulties arising from the brevity of the narrative, from our ignorance of all the circumstances, from the errors of transcribers, &c., and some of them may be beyond the power of solution in the present day. But they who urge them as objections against the genuineness, or authenticity, are bound to account for the existence of the testimonies to which we have referred, and satisfactorily to set them aside before they ask us to reject what rests upon such an accumulation of evidence. The testimonies adduced can be examined by every reader of the English Bible. An attentive reader may find many more; and sure I am that he who will take the trouble of patiently studying the Scriptures, from Malachi to Joshua, in reference to this subject, will arrive at the firm conviction that there never was a time in Israel from the days of Moses on, when the Pentateuch was unknown.”
(To be continued.)