A change of faith

fasting and praying

2008-12-16T16:47:00.001-08:00

http://www.theevidence.org.uk/accurate5.htm Spending today doing some thinking. Lord help my unbelief.

Feeling

2008-12-07T21:28:00.000-08:00

I've recently been reading my high school diary. Pages are covered with my turning to God for help through problems. There was a lot of emotion linked with my relationship with God. Why now does it all seem so factual and distant?

The Evidence

2008-04-26T19:02:00.000-07:00

I am reading this http://www.theevidence.org.uk/challenge1.htm

the truth of the bible lecture

2007-11-15T11:11:00.000-08:00

THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE
Lecture by the Editor, 2 delivered in Birmingham, May 16th, 1875.
IF the Bible be not true, there is no hope for man, and we must accept the present weak, imperfect, abortive, vain, and useless life as a finality, and must be content to perish like the strown leaves of autumn. But the Bible is true. That is a demonstrable proposition; it is not a matter upon which a man’s judgment may be said to be in the nature of a doubtful opinion. It is of the same order of conviction—perhaps it may be too strong an illustration, but a full view of all the evidence, to my mind, certainly justifies the illustration—as we have concerning the shining of the sun when we see it. There is no kind of test that can be applied to the Scriptures but yields that result continually. From whatever point of view we discuss the matter, we shall land at what is certainly a blessed conclusion—that the Bible is true.
I propose to indicate the kind of process by which that conclusion is arrived at. What I have to say must be exceedingly brief, rough, sketchy—a merest outline; for the evidence on the question is so voluminous, that a whole course of twelve lectures would not exhaust it. I must be content to crowd the substance of that extensive mass of evidence into a few brief sentences to-night.
Let me begin just where we stand: if the Bible be true, two things ought to exist in the world at the present time. The Bible says the Jewish nation shall not come to an end; the Bible says the Jews were to be scattered among all nations, but that while every other nation would come to an end, that race would not; so we see it. That one circumstance which the Bible requires if it be true, is palpable before the eyes of even the non-reflective, for everybody knows about the Jews. Everybody knows that they are in every country, and everybody knows they have come through the precise kind of experience which was foreshadowed concerning them ages ago in this book.
The other thing that ought to exist, if the Bible is true, is a corrupt Christendom, for Paul predicted that there would be a departure from the simplicity of the gospel as placed in the world by him and his co-labourers in the first century, and that that departure would blossom into a political system which would be found existent in the world when Christ should return. Therefore, there ought to be, at the present time, a political system having a profession of the gospel as the foundation of its existence in the world, because Christ has not yet come. Well, what is the constitution of Europe? A system of “Church and State,” based on the Christian tradition. The Pope, the kings, and the churches illustrate a corrupt apostate Christendom, the very system of things Paul foreshadowed.
So that, standing where we are, these two circumstances required to exist on the assumption that the Bible is true, do exist plainly and palpably before everybody’s eyes.
Well then, take the authenticity of the book. Here we are, on the 16th of May, 1875; and how do we know that this book was written by those who are in it set before us as the writers of it? Just upon the principle by which we know the same fact concerning any other book. The principle by which the authenticity of any ancient volume is established, establishes the authenticity of the Bible more powerfully than in any other case; for there is more abundance of the kind of evidence requisite to establish the authenticity of the Bible than there is to establish the authenticity of any book produced in ancient times. How do we get at that? I must indicate it very roughly. I cannot, for the reason already mentioned, be either very nice and critical or very elaborate, but I will roughly indicate a process which can be pursued most critically, most thoroughly, most exhaustively, most unanswerably in detail when necessary.
This book did not come into our hands yesterday: it was in the land of the living when we were born; it did not come into existence in the days of our fathers and mothers, for it was in everybody’s hands when they were born; and it did not come into existence in the days of their grandfathers and grandmothers, for it was in existence when they were born; you may trace the process backward and backward and backward. How so? Because there are collections of ancient volumes at certain centres throughout the world; volumes which were written in all the centuries: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and so on up to the 19th; and they all recognise the contemporary existence of the Scriptures and quote from them. Go right away back to the first century or the beginning of the 2nd, for that is, perhaps, more conclusive than all coming between, and you find Justyn Martyr, Irenæus, and Polycarp, writers of those days, making large quotations from both the New and the Old Testaments just as we have them in our own day. That circumstance enables us to take a very long jump by a very simple process which is palpable to the meanest intellect: it enables us to go back to the first century and to say, These books existed then. But how does this prove they were written by the men professing to have written them? This question is answered by the fact that they were then received as authentic. By whom were they so received? The answer to this is the important fact of the case. There was, at that time, a large community in existence, not in one city only; true, the community began at Jerusalem in the days of Tiberius Cæsar, and, for a while, the largest community was there; but there came to be a community at Rome, at Ephesus, at Corinth, in all the leading cities of Greece, and throughout the Roman Empire. How came those communities into existence? By the travels of the men who planted in Europe that which we may, for present purposes, call the tradition of Jesus Christ, upon which our political system is built. They went about declaring that Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by Pontius Pilate, had risen. Without at present considering the circumstances attending their preaching, and their success (though those circumstances constitute, perhaps, one of the most powerful evidences in proof of the divinity of the whole matter), let us merely look at the simple uncontrovertible, historical fact that there were large communities developed throughout the world by the preaching of Paul and the other apostles and their fellow-labourers. It was among those communities that the books forming the New Testament (not at present to speak of the Old, for the New proves the Old), were in use, as the writings of John, Peter, Mark, Luke, Paul, and the others. And Paul was alive and John was alive, for John lived nearly 100 years and was alive close upon the end of the first century. These two facts: the fact that the New Testament was in circulation; and the fact that several of their authors were living amongst those by whom the books were received, proves that the books were written by the men by whom they profess to have been written. How do the facts prove this? Because if the books had not been so written, the notion that they had been so would quickly have been dissipated by the personal travels of Paul and John, who would have set their feet upon any such literary imposture as the one involved in the suggestion I am considering. “But, then,” says the shallow cavilling critic—and I am sure there are none who reject the Scriptures who really know them and who are well acquainted with all the facts of the case, though there be a great many doubters—“there were other books that are not comprised in the New Testament: the apochryphal New Testament and the apocryphal epistles, and they are not comprised in this New Testament. How are we to know that these are the right and the other the wrong?” If such objectors were really in earnest, they could very easily answer that question; for the principle by which they know the right and the wrong of any other book is the principle by which they may decide it in this. These apocryphal books were rejected from the very first by those who were privy to the truth of the case. The books of our New Testament were always accepted; the apocryphal were accepted by some who did not know better; but that is no evidence in their favour. Roger Tichborne is accepted by some; but of what weight is that fact in face of the evidence when considered as a whole by competent judicial minds?
What we have to deal with is the fact that from the beginning there was a large class, and those the critical and knowing class, who rejected the spurious writings from the very start. Therefore, we have a very simple method of deciding that question, even if there were not another argument, which is very conclusive—the argument of internal evidence. Let anyone read any of those apocryphal gospels and epistles, and see whether in themselves, upon their face, they do not carry their own condemnation. Certainly they do. In their attempts to imitate the genuine article, they remind one of a monkey putting on a man’s clothes and trying to act the part of a man; you know a monkey would never be so soon detected as in trying to pass off for a human being. And so these spurious writings carry their own condemnation with them in their most bungling and contemptible attempts to imitate the manly, vigorous, pure, delightful writings which constitute the New Testament. Therefore, that argument is very easily disposed of. “Ay,” say these same people, “but the canon was settled by the Council of Nice in the 4th century;” and supposing the objector to be addressing a Christadelphian, he might say, “You know you do not believe in the Councils, nor their decisions, and, therefore, how do you take a book, the canon of which has been settled by them?” The simple answer to that is, that they merely recognised literary facts, and that is a function which can be exercised by any man. It does not want any special spiritual penetration to be able to decide upon evidence. They, as educated men, to an extent, simply went upon the literary facts of the case. They were, in a manner, obliged to come to a collective decision on the matter. Various notions were being agitated, and these apocryphal writings were being quoted by ignorant persons in support of false doctrines, and they thought it necessary for the guidance of Christendom in general to give a deliverance with regard to the writings which were authentic. Their decision, with regard to a point like that, may be quite sound, although their doctrines may be unscriptural. If all the gentlemen composing that council, with the Emperor Constantine at their head, had stepped outside the great hall in which they met, and a heavy storm had raged, and they had said, “Oh, there’s a great storm,” should we not have all accepted their competence to decide whether there was a storm or no, even if their doctrines might be false? Certainly. The authenticity of the Scriptures is a literary question, which only requires the light of common sense to be brought to bear upon it to enable us to decide it, and to respect the decisions of others apart from their theological peculiarities.
So upon the question of the authenticity of the Old Testament, a similar argument may be used, but time forbids its thorough application to the case. If is sufficient to notice that if the New Tcstament is proved the Old is also proved, for they are part and parcel of one another. The New continually quotes the Old, and is a continuation of it in several vital respects, which it does not come within the compass of the present lecture to consider.
(To be continued.)

The Truth of the Bible
LECTURE BY THE EDITOR
(Continued from page 553, vol. XII.)
Another thing is this: the Bible gives a certain history of things concerning remote times. In many points, that history has been questioned from time to time by those who wanted to get rid of the Scriptures, such as Paine, Voltaire, &c. But the progress of discovery and invention has, item after item, gone to show that the historical sketches contained in these writings are actually true. Just let me briefly run over a few instances of this. At the beginning of this century, the infidels under the leadership referred to, denied that there ever was such a man as Christ. Their theory was that the history of Christ was a priestly fable, concocted in the monasteries in the dark centuries; that Christ was not an historic character at all. In our day, the infidels have retreated from this ground: they have been beaten off it. They admit Christ was an historic reality. They don’t believe in him any the more for that. Still, they have abandoned their old position, which is something. They now say, “Christ was a real character, who appeared in the days of Tiberius Cæsar, and he was a wonderful man, but, on the whole, he was a madman, though of a very inoffensive and useful sort.” They admit he was crucified, but deny that he rose. I will not combat the new theory at present. I merely point to the suggestive fact that within seventy years as the result of searching investigation and criticism, the infidel community have abandoned one position to take another, which is still more indefensible when it comes to be thoroughly considered.
But I was about to refer to something else. They have held that there was no such places as Nineveh and Babylon. Their argument was this: according to the Bible, these cities were very great and extensive, and important and populous, containing architectural structures of a very solid character, and sustaining a very material political and commercial relation to the rest of the world. This being so, our infidel friends contended it was a matter of impossibility that such cities should so entirely disappear from the annals of human history and from their place in human affairs, as these have done. Therefore, argued they, such cities never existed: they are the fanciful creations of a mythical book. “Where is Nineveh?” asked they, “Where is Babylon? Where are any traces or indications of them?” Unconsciously, they were supporting the Bible, for the Bible which tells us of their past greatness, also foretels their disappearance in the vortex of one complete ruin. But since then both Babylon and Nineveh have been discovered, as you know, by Layard and other excavators, who have exhumed these ancient places from the rubbish of centuries, and shut the mouths of infidels.
Well, then, they used something of the same sort of argument with regard to the Mosaic account of the flood. They said it could not be a true historical account, or we should have found some traces of it in the archives of other nations. What has happened with regard to that? About a year ago, Mr. Smith of the British Museum, who was sent by the Daily Telegraph upon a special mission to the Assyrian ruins discovered by Layard, has discovered and has translated tablets from amongst those ruins containing an account of the flood. “Ay, but then,” say these men, “the account of the flood that is on these ruined monuments is not the Mosaic account: there are a lot of things there that would not be accepted by a Bible believer.” Quite true—there is a lot of nonsense in it, but the flood is there: that is the great fact of the case. Here is evidence brought before our eyes of the knowledge of the flood amongst other nations besides the Jews; and, therefore, it is a conclusive answer to the argument about the silence of other nations which infidels have used against it. The discrepancies between the two accounts does not weaken the force of the evidence in the least. Surely it is nothing new or unusual for very different versions of the same true story to exist in different quarters. But the variations in the accounts does not disprove but rather proves that there is a correct version somewhere. And where do you expect to find the true story of any matter? Why at the official source with those who know all about it, and are commissioned to publish it. You are not surprised to find some altogether glossed, inaccurate, and absurd version of it away in some country village. Upon the same principle, it is no wonder that the Assyrians should have corrupted the simple facts given by Moses and mixed them up with their own mythology.
So with regard to the history of the Jews. It was contended that there was no contemporary verification, such as might reasonably be expected to exist with regard to the proceedings of the Jewish nation as recorded in the Bible. The argument did not go for much, because the times of the history in question are so remote, and the Jews were at the time so nearly the only literary nation (for the Greeks came to the front long afterwards), that the fact that nobody was noticing and nobody writing about the doings of the Jews is not a great wonder. But although that is a good answer of itself, we have a better one. You have heard about the Moabite stone, discovered by a Frenchman of the name of Ganneau about a year ago; that stone is a local native record of events in the history of the Moabitish nation, though there is no nation there now; for it is written in the prophets that the nation should be blotted out and the land be waste. This stone is a record of what went on amongst the Moabites when they were a nation, and it is an exact confirmation of the account given us in the Kings. It is written by authority of Mesha, King of Moab, and gives an account of the various Israelitish kings with whom Mesha was in correspondence.
There are various other illustrations of the same sort, but these perhaps are sufficient on that one point, as showing that the history of the Scriptures has been corroborated from many sources that did not exist at the time that opposition to the Bible began. I mean particularly at the beginning of the present century. These confirmations are multiplying every month almost. The last discovery by that same Mr. Smith is an account—truly a very absurd one, but nevertheless an account—of the creation and of the fall of man, of which you may have seen some account in the newspapers a very short time ago.
(To be continued.)

The Truth of the Bible:
LECTURE BY THE EDITOR.
(Continued from page 27.)
Next to its history we come to a most important department, which of itself yields conclusive evidence of the truthfulness of the Bible, and that is the fulfilment of its prophecies. Let any man try to prophesy. Let any man who thinks that Moses and the prophets were only astute men, who by a large discernment of human affairs prophesied what should happen centuries afterwards; let those who try to get over the difficulty in that way try themselves to prophesy; or let them go to any of the learned men and get them to try and prophesy. There are plenty of things for them to try their hands at. There are the Mormons; let any man prophesy where they will be a hundred years from this, and what will be their position. There is Germany just risen to a position of great military eminence: let any one predict where she will be in 20 years. The simplest matter taken in hand will convince any man of the utter inability of the mind to penetrate the future. The future is a dead wall to the human eye. If any man is prepared to controvert that, let him give us his reasons; let him produce one prophet; let him give us the man who can even forecast the markets for a day ahead. He cannot, and therefore the proposition must be accepted that we know not a day ahead what will certainly come to pass.
Now in view of that, how are we to understand a few things to which I will now call attention. First let me read you what Moses said concerning the Jews three thousand years ago: “Because thou servedst not the Lord thy God with joyfulness and gladness of heart for the abundance of all things, therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the Lord shall send against thee in hunger and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things, and He shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck until He has destroyed thee. The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth, a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand, a nation of fierce countenance, who shall not regard the person of the old nor show favour to the young. And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle and the fruit of thy land until thou be destroyed, which shall also not leave thee corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine or flocks of thy sheep, until he hath destroyed thee. And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst throughout all thy land; and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land which the Lord thy God hath given thee. And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege and in the straitness wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee . . . And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth unto the other, &c.”—(Deut. 28:47–53, 64.)
Presuming every one to be acquainted with the history of the Jews, it does not require many words to force home the argument arising upon that prophecy. These words were written three thousand years ago; no scholar will deny that; Colenzo does not deny that. All that Colenzo says (though his argument is not the conclusive affair that the majority of readers delight to think it,) is that Moses did not write this. Even granting that this were so (which cannot be granted for many cogent reasons), you have got the fact that three thousand years ago, someone—and it does not matter for the present argument who—foretold the dispersion of the Jewish nation throughout the world, consequent on the Roman invasion, during which all their fortified places would be reduced, and the nation brought to terrible extremities. And even a matter of detail like this is detailed; “The Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again in ships by the way whereof I spake unto thee, thou shalt see it no more again; and ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bond women, and no man shall buy you.” When Titus had levelled Jerusalem with the ground, what did he do with the inhabitants who still remained alive? He reserved ten thousand for his triumphal entry into Rome, and for amusing the people at the public games; and the residue he sent to the slave markets of Egypt, and the markets were glutted that people would not buy them. Thousands of poor emaciated Jews had this phophecy fulfilled in their own persons. This is a matter of record; Josephus tells us about it.
Whatever explanation people may have to give of this fulfilled prophecy of Jewish dispersion at the present day, they are bound to admit that in that item the Bible has proved true against all probabilities. For what was the natural probability? Why that the Jews as soon as their nationality was broken up, as soon as their institutions were blown to the winds and themselves scattered as disconnected units, they would become assimilated among the nations and disappear. Instead of that they are just as distinctly national in Birmingham in 1875 as they were in Jerusalem at the beginning of the present era.
Take another prophecy: one concerning Babylon, the great rival of Jerusalem. In the days of Isaiah, Babylon was a flourishing place and likely to continue so, as much as Rome; and what does Isaiah say as to its destiny? Eight hundred years before Christ, and something like 300 years before Babylon’s overthrow, Isaiah said (chap. 13:19), “And Babylon the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation; neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there, neither shall the shepherds make their folds there; but wild beasts of the desert shall lie there, and all their houses shall be full of doleful creatures, and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.” And how has this turned out? Exactly as foretold. Babylon is a desolation, literally deserted except of the lower kinds of noisome creatures such as are enumerated in the passage quoted. So completely has that prophecy been fulfilled that it gave the infidels at the beginning of our century a peg on which to hang an argument in the opposite direction, and to contend that there never had been such a place as the Babylon of Scripture. Now thanks be to God, we have Babylon before our eyes, in the works of modern explorers, though I do not say that the recovery of Babylon was necessary to give us confidence in the truth of the Scriptures.
I could occupy not one but twenty evenings if it were necessary, in bringing forward arguments and evidences which go to show that the Bible is the book of God. I think there is a sort of widespread popular intuition that it is so; for notwithstanding all the clever artifices of shallow writers, and some who do not appear to be shallow, there is solid strength in the book which speaks for itself from generation to generation; and every now and then re-asserts itself, as if to blow away the cobwebs which some minds would try to weave over it.
What is true of Babylon you will find on reference to numerous places is true of Tyre, Nineveh, and Egypt. Concerning Egypt we read (Ezek. 29:12–15), “I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years, and I will scatter the Egyptians through the nations and disperse them through the countries. Yet, thus saith the Lord God, at the end of forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the people whither they were scattered, and will bring again the captivity of Egypt, and will cause them to return into the land of Pathros, into the land of their habitation, and they shall be there a base kingdom. It shall be the basest of the kingdoms, neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations; for I will diminish them, and they shall no more rule over the nations.” Here is a practical prophecy which I should like to hear any man venture concerning any other power in the world. Who could be sure that Egypt would not re-assert her supremacy, as she came very near doing under Mehemet Ali, 35 years ago? Who could have foretold ten years ago that Germany would be the military master of the world? Here is a declaration that Egypt should be a base kingdom, and it has been a base kingdom since then, a kingdom of no account in the roll of nations. It is now a mere dependency of the tottering Turkish empire.
Then let us take Tyre. Look at the 28th chapter of Ezekiel, 6th verse: “Therefore saith the Lord God, because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God: behold, therefore, I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations; and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.” Tyre was the London of ancient days; the Phœnicia of the profane historians—the market of all nations, at the time of this prophecy. It goes on to say, “They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the death of them that are slain in the midst of the seas.” In the last part of the 18th verse: “I will bring forth fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror and never shalt thou be any more.” Tyre never regained her maritime supremacy or even a maritime place, but became what as it was prophesied (Ezek. 26:14, ) like the top of a rock, a place to spread nets upon. You may go there and see how the prophecy has been fulfilled.
Then there are many other prophecies of a striking nature. Consider the prophecy of Daniel, who while Babylon was yet in her glory under Nebuchadnezzar, foretold the uprise of the Medo-Persian power to overthrow Babylon, and predicted that the Medo-Persian power would be succeeded by the Grecian goat, and that the Greek dynasty would break up into four, and be succeeded by the Roman, which would prevail over all the earth, establishing an empire, would before long be divided into manyparts. All of that has been fulfilled in the most singularly accurate manner, in order to get away from the force of which, the infidel has to suggest that Daniel was written after the events. The suggestion cannot be sustained; all the principles of literary criticism and common sense are against it, for Daniel was a book well known in the days of Christ and referred to by him, as when he says, “When ye see what was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, then go ye to the mountains.” In the Sannhedrim (the council of the Jewish nation), among scribes and pharisees, the learned classes of the day, the book of Daniel was current and accepted as the undoubted prediction of the Jewish captive Daniel, in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, and their knowledge and verdict in such a case would be conclusive, apart from the evidence (of a very conclusive character) furnished by the characteristics of the book. It shows how hard pressed the adversaries of the Bible are with the mighty evidence before them, that they should have to suggest the spuriousness of the book of Daniel. The argument has been very thoroughly refuted in a recent pamphlet in which the authenticity and age of the book of the prophet Daniel have been demonstrated.
Here then is a fact to be considered; here is a broad and in some respects a detailed delineation of the history of the world for many centuries, which has been fulfilled. How is it to be explained? It cannot be explained upon any principles recognized by the infidels. They have no prophet amongst them, neither is there a prophet anywhere else. They cannot say that prophecy belongs to the Jews, for there has been no prophet amongst the Jews since God has left them, when Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jewish race scattered. Where are their prophets now? The Jews are not a bit better than the Gentile. The only thing is this, they are the nation of whom God has made choice as the pivot of His operations upon this planet, in working out His ultimate purpose of goodness, and the Gentiles are not. The Gentiles have nothing to do with God’s purposes, unless they become grafted upon the stock of Abraham by adoption through Christ, the seed of Abraham.
Then take the case of Christ himself, as regards this matter of prophecy. You remember all the particulars foretold concerning him: that he was to be born in Bethlehem, that he was to be a poor man, that he was to be a rejected and a despised man, that his hands and his feet were to be pierced, and that he was to be withdrawn into the presence of God. All these particulars are set forth n various places to which I might refer you if there were time, and they were all of them realized; realised too, not by any design on the part of those who co-operated in the production of their fulfilment, for those who were instrumental in their fulfilment were ignorant of what they were doing. Take an example: the unexpected decree that came forth in the days of Augustus Cæsar that all the world should be taxed, was the occasion of the fulfilment of the first part of these prophecies, namely, that Christ should be born in Bethlehem. But for that apparently inconsiderable event, Christ would have been born in Nazareth, since Mary was in Nazareth when the angel came to tell her that she should bring forth the Messiah by the power of the Holy Spirit; and if it had not been for this imperial edict requiring her husband to go to Jerusalem to be enrolled there as the place to which he belonged, that prophecy would not have been fulfilled. And so it is with all the other items of the fulfilment; friendly co-operators had nothing to do with them. The fulfilment was brought about by circumstances altogether beyond human control, including the crucifixion of Christ at last. How is it to be explained? If what Paul says is true, that “God at sundry times and in divers manners in times past spake unto the fathers by the prophets,” then there is an explanation, and if that is not true, then there is no explanation.
(To be continued.)

The Truth of the Bible
LECTURE BY THE EDITOR
(Continued from page 81.)
But we get a closer view of the divine character of the Bible in looking at the nature of the Bible itself. We discover peculiarities which show that it is a matter of impossibility that it could be of human origin. I will give one or two slight illustrations of this great point, which might be illustrated by hundreds of cases. I refer now to one illustration of the sentiment which pervades the whole book, and which is totally foreign to all human tastes and all human conceptions. In the 9th chapter of Jeremiah, and 23rd verse, we read thus: “Thus saith the Lord, let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in riches: but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise loving kindness, judgment and righteousness in the earth.” The universal principle of human nature illustrated in all history and among all nations, in every human circle and in all kinds of society, is that the wise man glories in his wisdom, and is complimented for it; the mighty man glories in his might, and has a monument put up to him when he dies; and the rich man glories in his riches and is universally deferred to on account of it. Throughout the whole of the Scriptures this credit to man is denied. In this, the Bible differs from all human books; and in this, it is more philosophical than human books; for what credit has a horse in that it has legs and strength? The glory of its strength is obviously due to the origin of that strength, but you don’t find men recognise that fact. You don’t find the races of mankind in any part of the world saying “Oh, don’t give us the credit,” “Not unto us, O Lord; but unto Thy name be the glory.”—(Ps. 115:1.) On the contrary they say, “we are entitled to the credit.” In every speech made upon every platform, whether it be a political gathering or a corporation meeting, or a trades demonstration, men glory in their own town and in their own party, and in their own leaders: whereas the scheme which centres in Christ has this for its intrinsic and essential feature, that human glory is excluded.—(1 Cor. 1:26.) “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised hath God chosen, yea and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in His presence.” I say that it is å matter of impossibility from our knowledge of human nature, in every nation and in every age, as reflected in books that such a sentiment can be of human invention. It is self-evidently divine. The consideration of this single point apart from the mighty mass of evidence there is on every hand, is sufficient to convince any competent mind—any mind capable of comparing things that differ, that this Bible is the book of God, and no human invention.
Let me give you one further illustratration of this point in a practical form. You know what patriotism is universally, and more particularly in its manifestation to wards historic characters. People may not be always very enthusiastic and appreciative towards living people, but when a man dies who has rendered any service at all to the nation to which he belongs, you know what the style is. It is said, “his remarkable genius,” “his large heart,” “his powerful arm,” and this and that, “entitle him to the eternal gratitude of posterity.” Now let me give you a specimen of the kind of patriotism that belongs to the literature of the Bible—Psalm. 44:1–3: “We have heard with our ears, O God; our fathers have told us what work Thou didst in their days, in the times of old. How thou didst drive out the heathen with Thy hand, and plantedst them; how Thou didst afflict the people and cast them out. For THEY GOT NOT THE LAND IN POSSESSION BY THEIR OWN SWORD, neither did their own arm save them; but THY RIGHT HAND and THINE ARM, and the light of Thy countenance, because Thou hadst a favour unto them.” That is no human patriotism. It is not the patriotism of the Jews. The patriotism of the Jews does not differ from that among other nations elsewhere. The Jews always praise the Jews. They never ascribe the glory to God. You never find Jews complimenting this book; you don’t find Jews in our day approving sentiments like that just read. Read the writings of Disraeli or the Jewish Chronicle, and what do you see? Just a soaping over of the Jewish nation and the Jewish stock, in precisely the same style as is common amongst the Gentiles. Anything they have done is attributed to the fine energetic force of the Caucasian organization. It is said that the Jewish blood is rich in genius; that the Jewish race is of immortal vigour, and so on. You find the Jews taking up with the Talmud and not with the Bible. Why? For the same reason that they loved the false prophets and put the true prophets to death. The prophets of the Bible speak like Moses. In what respect do they resemble him? Look at his farewell speech, and just compare it with the farewell speech of any other patriot, and then try and suppose for a moment that Moses is speaking only as a human leader, aiming at popularity. If Moses did not act as he did because God sent him, he acted out of his own head and for his own objects. Assume for a moment that that was the case. Imagine him for a moment speaking in the style which you find in the 31st chapter of Deuteronomy. In the 16th verse it is written: “And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.” Having been apprised of his approaching decease, he makes a few remarks which I will read, that you may try and realise them on the supposition that his case was a merely human case.—(verse 25.) “Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying. Take this book of the law and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. For I know thy rebellion and thy stiff neck: Behold, while I am yet alive with you this day; ye have been rebellious against the Lord; and HOW MUCH MORE AFTER MY DEATH? Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. For I know that after my death YE WILL UTTERLY CORRUPT YOURSELVES, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger through the work of your hands.” How did Moses know that? It came to pass most strictly. No wonder the Jews did not like Moses and the prophets. They all spoke in this same strain. The nation is not complimented. There are no human principles of action inculcated or recognised throughout these writings.
This is an argument that might be very extensively elaborated with great force to the mind of those who have any experience of human nature and any discernment of the principles of human action. It perhaps requires considerable experience and knowledge of human nature to appreciate the value of this argument, but it is an argument of crushing force to the minds of those who possess the necessary knowledge which may be gained by general observation.
Well, there is another argument requiring far more time than we have, and also requiring far more ability than could be brought to bear to elaborate it. What is that? The portrait of the man Christ Jesus. Such a character is inexplicable upon all human principles, but is intelligible upon the principle on which he is introduced to our notice in the Bible; for he is introduced as the manifestation of God in the flesh. If God by his Spirit photographed, so to speak, His own moral and intellectual likeness upon the fruit of Mary’s womb, there is an explanation. But I should have liked to place before you the thing to be explained, though even if there were time, I feel that the matter is one which can only be apprehended by close and constant reading of the narrative of Christ’s life and sayings and the letters of Christ’s friends, while it also requires some amount of discernment to compare the picture there displayed with the picture presented in universal human nature. Christ is the corner-stone of the house of God in the age to come, and he is the corner-stone of the argument to prove that the Bible is true. This is particularly shown when we come to that crowning event in his life, his resurrection, which is demonstrable by every kind of evidence by which any past historical occurrence can be demonstrated. The facts now before our eyes, the nations now existing, and their political institutions are evidences, when properly worked out, of Christ having risen.
The process of the proof may be very simply indicated. I might suppose myself an utter stranger, looking on all the nations of Europe, crowded with churches and priests, and Bibles, and religious faith, with the name of Christ written on it, and knowing that this state of things did not come yesterday nor in a hundred years, the question would occur, how came it that Christ has been universally received amongst the powerful nations of Europe? There must be something in the beginning of the matter adequate to the production of that general conviction, and when I come back to the beginning, what do I see? I see a little obscure band of illiterate men, whom the Jews sought to exterminate by persecution, imprisonment and death, and against whom the powers of Pagan Rome were all arrayed in many bloody persecutions; but in spite of all these, their testimony spread and spread until the rising tide reached the throne itself, and shows us, in a little while, a military champion of Christ upon that throne.
What is the explanation of it? If you tell me Christ did not rise, you ask me to believe a something which is without explanation. If Christ rose and sent power upon his apostles, enabling them to raise the dead, cleanse lepers, and do many mighty works in confirmation of the testimony that he had risen and that they had seen him, I can understand the success of the apostolic testimony; but if you tell me the apostles were mad enthusiasts, labouring under the power of delusion, you present to me a view which is more utterly incredible than the one presented in the New Testament.
The case is complete, the evidence is conclusive. There is no breach in the wall anywhere. Why is it that so many refuse to believe? It is because they are too busy with other things to become sufficiently acquainted with the facts of the case to be able to come to a conclusion; for a man cannot be convinced without evidence. If the evidence be not before his mind, it is no wonder if the conviction is not there. But perhaps it ought to be said in this matter as in the case of the Jews: “the leaders of this people cause them to err,” as said Isaiah; for in the first place, if the ministers and clergymen were at all up to their work, there would not be the amount of scepticism that there is. The fact is, they are not; they are hirelings, “dumb dogs that cannot bark;” they do not know the ground on which they stand, and are ignorant of the teachings of the book of which they profess to be the expositors. No wonder that there is a leavening through all society, of this curse of unbelief which is eating the life out of the people, and sending them in innumerable droves down the inclined plane of an objectless life.
But the Bible is true. Christ rose, Christ is in heaven. Christ will be here by and bye, and Christ will have a people alive looking for him, and we are busy trying to develop that people by the agency which He has placed in our hands; with the belief that this is the book of God, which for that reason we submit for your most attentive consideration.

1880 the c

2007-11-15T11:09:00.001-08:00

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.
This department has been suspended for some time, not for want of matter, but from a variety of cause which are not active at the present moment. We may hope the need for it will soon be at an end; but so long as the cold night continues it is helpful to the new man to have the evidences of the foundation of our faith exhibited and the flimsiness and irrationality of unbelief illustrated, if only in a casual way.
The Absurdity of Atheism
The absurdity of atheism is never so manifest as when it attempts to propound a theory of the origin of heaven and earth, or at least when this theory is put into a naked form. Beating about the bush, and indulging in vague generalities or negative criticism, it can seem sapient enough, but take it back to the beginning of things, or take it down to the foundation, and ask it to define itself precisely, and its absurdity becomes strikingly manifest. This is smartly done in the following newsclip forwarded by brother Hodgkinson. The atheist is supposed to define his creed in the terms of science. There is a little sarcasm of course, in the words put into his mouth: but they fairly describe the atheistic view:
“I believe in a chaotic nebula self-existent, evolver of heaven and earth. And in the differentiation of the original homogeneous mass; its first begotten product which was self-formed into land and water, self-organised into plants and animals, reproduced in like species, further developed into higher orders, and ultimately refined, rationalised, and perfected in man: he descended from the monkey, ascended to the philosopher, and sitteth down in the rites and customs of civilisation under the laws of a developing sociology; from thence he shall come again by the disintegration of the heterogenized cosmos back into the original homogeneousness of chaos. I believe in the wholly impersonal absolute; the wholly uncatholic church, the disunion of the saints, the survival of the fittest, the persistence of force, the dispersion of the body, and in death everlasting.”
Nature’s Testimony to God
Paul says, “The invisible things of God (from the creation of the world) are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.” The philosophical correctness of this declaration is well brought out in a notice of Flint’s Baird lectures, appearing in the Jewish Chronicle. The following is an extract:
“The moment science has shown that the earth had a beginning, reason has a right to inquire what was the cause of this beginning. It may be argued, as has been done by the late John Stuart Mill, that amidst all the changeable elements which are the productions of a cause, there is something immutable of which experience has not proved that it required a cause for its existence. Even if it were admitted that the atoms into which it is assumed all matter is resolvable, are self-existent and eternal, an eternal intelligence would still be required to account for the universe. For (as Mr. Flint says) “There are countless millions of them, and manifestly the universe is one, is a single, magnificent, and complicated system, is characterised by a marvellous unity in variety. We must be informed how the universe came to be a universe—how it came to have the unity which underlies its diversity—if it resulted from a countless multitude of ultimate causes. Did the atoms take counsel togethey and devise a common plan and work it out? That hypothesis is unspeakably absurd, yet it is rational in comparison with the notion that these atoms combined by mere chance, and by chance produced such a universe as that in which we live. Grant all the atoms of matter to be eternal, grant all the properties and forces which with the smallest degree of plausibility can be claimed for them to be eternal and immutable, and it is still beyond all expression improbable that these atoms with these forces, if unarranged, uncombined, ununified, unutilised by a presiding mind, would give rise to anything entitled to be called a universe. It is millions to one that they would never produce the simplest of the regular arrangements which we comprehend under the designation of course of nature, or the lowest of vegetable or animal organisms; millions of millions to one that they would never produce a solar system, the earth, the animal kingdom, or human history. No number of material atoms, although eternal and endowed with mechanical force, can explain the unity and order of the universe, and therefore the supposition of their existence does not free us from the neceasity of believing in a single intelligent cause—a Supreme Mind—to move and mould, combine and adjust, the ultimate atoms of matter into a single orderly system.”
Darwinism Scientifically Rebutted
A Reviewer in the Daily News, noticing a recent publication, says:—
“The men of science, who in the name of their mistress arrogate to themselves the right to dogmatise in matters of faith, have of late met with but rough usage at the hands of some of their distinguished fellow-labourers in the field of physical research. In France, Quatrefages has recently denounced the Darwinian creed. In Germany we find the philosopher and statesman, Virchow, addressing a congress of naturalists with the express object of warning them against accepting “the problems of research as actual facts, the opinions of scientists as established science.” In reply to Dr. Haeckel, of Jena, who had contended “that the evolution theory should at once be laid down as the basis of public instruction, and the protoplastic soul assumed as the foundation of all ideas concerning spiritual being,” Professor Virchow very justly objects that true science is opposed to the propagation, as matters of popular belief, of hypotheses which have as yet not been demonstrated, and are probably incapable of philosophic demonstration. With regard to the view held by evolutionists as to man’s ancestral connection with the rest of the animal kingdom, the Professor declares “that every positive advance which we have made in the province of pre-historic anthropology has actually removed us further from the proof of such a connection.” Words such as these from an anthropologist of the eminence of Professor Virchow can hardly fail to moderate the hyper-scientific zeal of some of his countrymen who would appear to desire “to supplant the dogmas of the Church by a religion of evolution.”
“We are glad to find that a countryman of our own, Dr. Bateman, of Norwich, well known as the able author of a medical treatise on “Aphasia,” has in a work recently published addressed himself to the examination of the Darwinian doctrines from a linguistic point of view. In “Darwinism tested by Language” Dr. Bateman contends that the faculty of articulate speech is a characteristic of man which differentiates him in kind from every other animal, and thus becomes a crucial test for the theory of evolution.”
Inspiration of Moses and the Prophets
“Inspiration can manifestly be predicated very extensively of the Old Testament. This appears from the prophetic authorship of its books and from the claims which its writers put forth. It is certain that most of the books of the Old Testament were written by prophets; and while we cannot adduce direct evidence to show that all the books of the ancient canon were written by men of this order, there is at least manifestly a high degree of probability that they were all, as the ancient Jews believed, written by prophets. At present we do not lay stress on this probability, but confine ourselves to what is capable of clear proof. There are marks of the existence throughout the whole period during which the Old Testament was produced of an order of men honoured to hold special intercourse with God and receive supernatural revelations from him, and who were formally accredited by the Most High as his agents, whom he authorised, in their official character, to speak and act for him. The relation which Aaron is represented as sustaining to Moses brings out distinctly the relation in which the prophet stood to God, and the authority due to his words, whether spoken or written. When Moses was unwilling to bear the divine message to Egypt, the Lord, having reminded him that his brother Aaron could speak well, said to him, “Thou shalt speak unto him and put words in his mouth.” * * * “He shall be thy spokesman unto the people; and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.”—Ex. 4:15, 16. Again we read, “And the Lord said unto Moses, see I have made thee a god unto Pharoah; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”—Ex. 7:1. What Aaron said to Pharoah had the authority of Moses, and so what the prophet, in his official capacity, said to the people had the authority of God. He spoke as God’s mouth. God made himself responsible for the prophet’s utterances. When it was known that the prophet stood in this relation to God, all that was necessary to certify men that a book was given by inspiration of God was the assurance that it was the official work of one of the prophetic order. We assume that God did in various ways give public sanction to certain men as prophets, by which their contemporaries could be assured of the genuineness of their prophetic character, and thereby of the divine authority of their writings.
“That the vast majority of the books of the Old Testament were written by prophets can be easily shown. They were all familiarly referred to and quoted by Christ under the well-known Jewish divisions, Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms. Luke 24:44. That the Pentateuch was, with very trifling exceptions, written by Moses nothing that modern destructive criticism has been able to adduce need make us doubt. And that Moses was a prophet cannot be denied in face of the express language of Scripture, “And by a prophet the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved.”—Hos. 12:13. And the whole record of his legislation and life bears ample testimony to the sobriety of the statement with which it is closed, “There arose not a prophet since Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.”—Deut. 34:10. That the second division, which is expressly called “the prophets” by Jesus Christ, was written by prophets can scarcely be successfully denied. What God said to Jeremiah might have been said to any of them from Joshua downwards, “Lo, I have put my words in thy mouth.”—Jer. 1:9. Shall we then refuse to acknowledge the prophetic character of that division named from its first book, the Psalms? The apostle Peter expressly testifies that David was a prophet, Acts 2:30, and he affirms that the Scriptures must needs be fulfilled which the Holy Ghost spake by the mouth of David, Acts 1:16. It is true that we cannot adduce direct evidence that all parts of the Hagiographa, as this division was frequently called, were written by prophets; but we find that Asaph and Daniel are both ranked by our Lord as prophets, Matt. 13:35, and Matt. 24:15, while in Hebrews 3:7, 9, an anonymous Psalm is ascribed to the Holy Ghost. And not only are the Proverbs of Solomon repeatedly quoted in the New Testament with the usual formula, “it is written” Rom. 3:15, and Rom. 12:19, 20, but once in terms that show that the words are the very words of God, James 4:10. To this we may add the fact that the Apostle Paul, on one occasion, refers to the Old Testament Scriptures generally under the title of the “the prophetic Scriptures.”—Rom. 16:26. It was doubtless very largely due to the evidence for the prophetic authorship of the books of the Old Testament that the Jews, in the time of our Lord, believed universally in their inspiration. The writers of the Old Testament repeatedly use language which involves a direct claim to inspiration. This claim is advanced in many forms, and in terms so general that no reason can be assigned why it should be restricted to any particular portion of their writings. How often do we find such language employed by them in reference to their own statements as this: “The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it,” “Thus saith the Lord,” “Hear the word of the Lord?” Nearly all the prophets again and again employ phraseology which indicates that the Lord spoke by them. “The word that Isaiah, the son of Amos, said concerning Judah and Jerusalem.” “The word of the Lord came unto me saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou?” “The word of the Lord same expressly unto Ezekiel, the priest, the son of Buzi,” &c. “The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea.” “The word of the Lord that came to Micah.” And almost the entire legislation of Moses has the divine authorship stamped upon its lane guage with equal distinctness. As we read the Pentateuch we encounter continually the words, “And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying.” It is true that there are books of the Old Testament in which no such direct claims to inspiration as we have cited are put forth. But there is a silent tone of authority pervading even these which is compatible only with the idea of their inspiration. In addition to this, the fact that they were written in the Sacred Collection, which the Israelites guarded with such jealous care, is itself a tacit claim to the same character as distinguished the other portions of the ancient canon. If the writers who put forward these claims are regarded as the crecible historians of a supernatural revelation, we cannot avoid the conclusion that a very large portion of the Old Testament was given by inspiration of God.—Prof. MACLAREN.

1879

2007-11-15T11:07:00.000-08:00

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 hitcher, 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. 2:18).
“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).
Restored Identity at the Resurrection
BROTHER Rae, late of Bristol, now of London, sends the following clipping from the Observer of September last. “During a thunderstorm on Saturday afternoon, two labourers, in the employ of Mr. Bennion, a farmer, near Leek, were killed by lightning while reaping wheat. It is stated that on the breast of one of them is an impression of a sheaf of corn. A third man is so seriously injured that he is not likely to recover.” Brother Rae says he has been on the outlook for an occurrence of this sort ever since reading Anastasis, wherein Dr. Thomas referred to the case of a man killed by lightning while sheltering under a tree having the image of the tree impressed on his body, as illustrating the principle on which the mental impressions of the present life are engraved on the new brain produced at the resurrection, resulting in the reproduction of identity. “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,” the character formed during probation is reproduced on new substance, and the result is the man that was before, recognised by himself and all who knew him.
“Profane” Confirmation of New Testament History
It is important to bear in mind that several events which are recorded in the New Testament as having occurred in connection with Christ and his apostles, are also mentioned by those heathen authors who lived concurrently with or immediately after them, not because we stand in need of their testimony, but because it is the testimony of those who not only did not believe, but who were opposed to the doctrines and precepts of Christ, and who, therefore, would not be likely to make mention of any facts calculated to support that which it was their wish to decry, except such as were historical and notorious facts which could not be suppressed or denied.
Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dion record the fact “that Augustus Cæsar ordered the whole empire to be censed or taxed.” This fact is mentioned by Luke.—(Luke 2:1.)
Chalcidius relates “that a great light or a new star appeared at that time in the east.” This is doubtless the star mentioned in Matt. 2:2, 9, 10, which guided the wise men on their way to the place where Christ was born.
Macrobius relates it as a known fact “that Herod the king of Palestine, so often mentioned in Roman history, made a great slaughter of innocent children.” This is no doubt the slaughter mentioned in Matt. 2:16.
Celsus acknowledges that Jesus was carried down into Egypt.
Tacitus mentions the fact “that Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, that Jesus was brought into judgment before him, and by him condemned and crucified.”
Trallian states “that at the time when Jesus died, there was a miraculous darkness and a great earthquake.”
Julian, Prophyry, and Hierocles all admit “that many miraculous cures and works out of the ordinary course of nature were wrought by Christ.”
Phlegon confesses “that Jesus foretold several things which came to pass according to his predictions.”
Julian acknowledges “that Peter, the apostle of Christ, performed many wonderful works.”
Thus we see that the truth of the Bible narratives is corroborated by the testimony of its enemies. Indeed, it has been well said that “there is no transaction of ancient history that can exhibit more than a fraction of the evidence by which the narrative of the Gospels is sustained.”
FRANCIS A. CHATWIN.
Recent Discoveries Prove the Bible and Confute the Learned
At one of the sectional meetings of the Church Congress, held at Sheffield, the question for discussion was “What definite results have been produced by the discoveries in Egypt, Nineveh, and Palestine?”
The first paper read, by Professor Rawlinson, confined the subject to Egypt and Assyria. The speaker chiefly dwelt on the effect which the recent discoveries in Assyria produced on the interpretation of Scripture, and, in so doing, he referred his hearers to the prevalent theory entertained both in Germany and in England some thirty years ago, when the historical books of the Old Testament were regarded as a bundle of myths, containing not narratives of facts, but romantic tales invented by their several authors. This theory was supported mainly by two assertions: (1) That the scriptural narrative was in many important points absolutely at variance with profane history, and was consequently false; and (2), that the manners and customs of the foreign nations brought into contact with the Jews were greatly misrepresented. Supposed “crucial instances” under the former head were the pre-eminence of Babylon over Assyria in the early times, the late appearance of Assyria as a conquering Power, the Cushite character of the early Babylonian monarchy, the implied subjection of the Medes to Assyria when Media was really independent, and the pure invention of certain monarchs, as Zerat the Ethiopian, Sargon, King of Assyria, and Belshazzar, King of Babylon. “Crucial instances” of error with respect to manners and customs were Egypt, as described in the Pentateuch; Babylon, as set forth in the Book of Daniel; and Persia, as depicted in Esther. In these three cases, the sacred writers had been taxed with extreme and extraordinary ignorance of the true habits of the countries, or with the strangest intentional misrepresentation of them. It was, said Canon Rawlinson, when things were in this state, when the mythical interpretation had triumphantly established its complete dominion over the Old Testament, that by God’s providence the series of Oriental discoveries commenced. When man was silenced, the “stones” were made to “cry out.” The mounds of Mesopotamia gave up their treasures; the enigmas of the hieroglyphic, hieratic, and cuneiform characters were penetrated; the language of ancient Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, and Persia recovered; a contemporary literature was dug out of the earth; paintings and sculptures revealed the manners and customs of the peoples; and a light was thereby shed upon ancient history such as it had never received before. Then a just comparison was made between the sacred narrative and authentic profane history, and they were found to be in most remarkable accord. In conclusion, the speaker pointed out in detail how recent discoveries in Egypt and Africa had established the plain historical interpretation in the various alleged “crucial instances,” to which reference has been made above.
Origin of the Laws of Nature
The following interesting paragraph is from the Daily News:—“THE LAWS OF NATURE.—Sir E. Beckett, Q.C., delivered a lecture on the subject of the meaning and origin of the laws of nature, in the theatre of the London Institution, Finsbury Circus, last evening. There was a large attendance, including many ladies. The learned gentleman at the outset reminded his audience that last year he gave them a lecture on gravity as an universal force of nature, and that he then had occasion incidentally to make some remarks about laws of nature in general. The present lecture was an expansion of the subject upon which he spoke last year. Very few people, he said, reflected what the laws of nature meant and what they did not mean. In order to clear the ground, he would first tell them what were not laws of nature. It was not a law of nature that two and two made four, although it was very true. No mathematical proposition was a law of nature. These things were what was called necessary truths; that was to say, they were truths which they knew without observation. A great many years ago Sir John Herschel gave the best possible illustration of the difference between necessary truths and the laws of nature in his book on the Study of Natural Philosophy. He said that a sufficiently clever man shut up by himself might conceivably reason out all the truths of mathematics, but that the cleverest man that ever lived could not find out without trial what a lump of sugar would do when put into a cup of tea. The lecturer showed how, with regard to the universal force of gravity or attraction, it was impossible to stir one single step without the necessity for a prime cause to produce the motion or tendency to motion which every atom of matter had, humourously pointing out some of the absurdities into which philosophers fell when they attempted to solve the great problems of nature without a prime cause of some kind. When people spoke about matter being self-existent they did not know what they meant. No properties of matter could be self-existent, because they required forces of some kind to make them behave as they did. Whether they could discover where these forces came from was another question. There they got perhaps a shade beyond science. And to talk of these motions, or whatever they were, as being inherent—a word as old as Epicurus—was to say nothing at all. Take the peculiar behaviour of water. Water changed its mode of behaviour at a perfectly arbitrary heat. Below 39 water expanded before it froze; above 39 it expanded also, and if it did not the world would be uninhabitable, for all the water would have got quite solid long ago except that artificially thawed. How did that happen? To account for these things by the doctrines of accident and chance, which played so great a part in the evolution theory, meant nothing more than that they were merely the results of laws of nature which we could not calculate. Such language seemed to him to be only fit for Bedlam. It was a perfectly human function to calculate the laws of nature; the power of making the very smallest law of nature was not a human power, wherever it might come from. There was somewhere or other a power that made things work as they did, and foresaw results. It might be said if all these things were designed by this power, why were they not done a great deal better? He did not know, and if philosophers of all kinds would only confess as much when they did not know, instead of talking nonsense, it would be a great deal better. A law of nature must be taken with all its consequences, which were as certain as any result of mathematics. As to the question of moral evil, there was only one answer to be given to it, and that was that it was the consequence of free will. At the conclusion of the lecture the learned gentleman was warmly applauded.”
The Uncertainties of Modern Science
(Continued from page 465, vol. XV.)
“Every single point in this atheistic nebular theory involves a direct logical contradiction. First, if the universe be full of matter, there could be no motion, for no mass or particle could find any unoccupied place into which to move. There could be no attractive force, for how could parts draw nearer to each other, when every spot between was perfectly full? There could be no rotation in a homogeneous mass, since there will be just as much reason for turning one way as another. There could have been no primitive heat, since heat is motion, and there could be no change of place in a plenum, when no particle has any place not already filled, into which it could remove. There could be no condensation for the same reason.
“The nebular theory, in its only reasonable form, requires these postulates; a system of material atoms, finite, however vast, and therefore capable alike of motion and of increase; a beginning, that is, a primitive state of perfect rest, in which there are forces, but no motion, and therefere not a high temperature, but a perfect zero of cold; a finite past duration, since if we went further back, the later motions must reappear, only with their directions reversed, and the whole ground of the theory would be swept away. And, above all, we need a creative will, to determine the number and the place of all the atoms, and the laws of attraction and repulsion that must guide and determine all their later movements. For the grand aphorism of Newton must remain for ever firm and sure, however sciolists strive against it. ‘Blind necessity, which is always the same everywhere, could never produce this beautiful variety of things.’
“It is folly to derive a state of motion from one of rest, if motion has been eternal, or to describe an original state, if there never was an origin. The nebular theory, in the hands of the atheist, shares the fate of the corpse of Priam. Evolution, again, in Mr. Spencer’s work, is only an obscure synonym for the process of cooling. A heated body contracts and condenses when it cools, and this, in more learned phrase, is the integration of matter. It parts with some of its heat to the cooler bodies around it, and this is the dissipation of motion. Incoherent gases, by cooling, become imperfectly coherent fluids; and these, when cooled further, coherent solids. A sea of aqueous vapour, or a bowl of water, to sense, is wholly homogeneous; but ice-crystals are more or less sensibly heterogeneous. Thus mere cooling combines all the characters of evolution, in Mr. Spencer’s definition.
“But can this be really the grand secret of nature, the key to a new and improved system of physical science? Is this the discovery which is to throw that of Newton into the shade, and absorb into itself all mental philosophy and Christian faith? A primitive nebula, intensely heated at first, has gone on cooling for almost infinite ages! If true, this would be grotesquely inadequate as a theory of all physical change. For this demands not loose phrases or metaphysical verbiage, but distinct laws of force, like the law of gravitation; and of these the theory offers no trace. But it is not true. It is rather the direct opposite of the truth. The primitive nebula, on the only hypothesis which gives us a right to assume its existence at all, cannot have been intensely hot, but at an absolute zero of cold. Heat is atomic motion. And all motion, in a true nebular theory, can only result from attractive forces in a nebula at rest, and its later condensation. The cooling, which Mr. Spencer mistakes for the whole process, and calls evolution, is only a secondary result of the condensation, or the heating process, which directly results from attractive forces, and which must have gone before. Evolution is not simple cooling. Heating by attraction and pressure, and later cooling of the central parts of each mass by transfer of motion towards the surface, are successive stages in the progressive development of cosmical changes.”
(To be continued.)
Proved Trustworthiness of the Writings of Moses (Known as the Pentateuch.)
(Concluded from page 466, vol. XV.)
“The Christian reader will have still stronger reasons for believing in the genuineness and divine origin of the Pentateuch. Our Lord and his apostles speak of the Pentateuch in the language common to the Jews in all times as ‘the Law.’ Sometimes this expression was used of the Old Testament. But when spoken of in connection with the other portions as, ‘The Law and the prophets,’ (Matt. 5:17, 18; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16), or, ‘The Law, the prophets, and the Psalms’ (Luke 24:44), it means the five books attributed to Moses. In the next place, it is to be noted that our Lord, the evangelists, and the apostles regard the Law as a divine revelation, and therefore possessing a divine authority. By Luke 2:23, 24, 39, it is called ‘the Law of the Lord.’ Paul (Rom. 7:22) calls it ‘the Law of God.’ He also teaches that obedience to the Law gives life, transgression entails death.—(Rom. 7:7–11, compare Gal. 3:10.) Again, when Paul cites the words of the Pentateuch, he ascribes them to God; for example, ‘God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them.’—(2 Cor. 6:16, compared with Lev. 26:11, 12.) In like manner John describes sin as the transgression of the Law, ‘Whosoever committeth sin, transgresseth also the law.’—(1 John 3:4, compare James 2:8.) The whole system of New Testament doctrine concerning salvation, the guilt of man, the curse of the Law, and redemption by the blood of Christ, rests upon the supposition that the Law is a divine revelation. In like manner, the whole argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews concerning Christ’s priesthood, the nature of his atonement, the typification of the gospel in Levitic ordinances, necessarily presupposes the divine origin of the law.—(Heb. 8:5; 10:1, &c.) Our Lord also ascribes divine authority to the Law. He refers to it as the highest authority (Matt. 12:5; Luke 10:25, 26); and speaks of its precepts as ‘the commandments of God.’—(Matt. 15:3.) According to our Lord’s teaching, the Law is so entirely divine, that ‘it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one jot or tittle of the law to fail’—(Luke 16:16, 17), and therefore is to be violated by none. Matt. 5:19, ‘Whosoever shall break (or, weaken the authority, λύσῃ) of one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shall do and teach them, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.’ To assert the divine authority of the Law more strongly, is impossible.
“In the thilrd pace, it is to be observed, that our Lord and his apostles taught that the Pentateuch was given by Moses, that he was the penman, and wrote the laws as given him by God. Thus the word ‘Moses’ is frequently put instead of ‘the Law.’ So St. Luke says, 24:27, ‘Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the Scriptures in the things concerning himself.’ Again, our Lord says, (Luke 16:29), ‘They have Moses and the prophets—if they hear not Moses and the prophets.’ In these places the name of Moses is put for what Moses wrote, as ‘the prophets,’ for their writings. Still stronger is what the Lord says, (John 7:19), ‘Did not Moses give you the law?’ In Luke 2:22, and Acts 15:5, it is called ‘the Law of Moses.’ Our Lord himself says, ‘All things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses.’—(compare Acts 28:23, and 13:39.) It may, however, be said that the Pentateuch is called Moses, and the Law of Moses, because it contains the history and some commands of Moses, on which was based the subsequent legislation, but that these expressions do not necessarily imply that Moses wrote the books. But the New Testament goes farther, and states distinctly that the books were written by Moses. In Matt. 22:24, the Jews said to our Lord, ‘Moses said.’ In John 8:5, ‘Moses in the law commanded us,’ and in Mark 12:19, and Luke 20:28, ‘Moses wrote unto us.’ The Lord, in his reply, confirms this opinion as to the authorship of the law, saying, ‘Have ye not read in the book of Moses?’—(Mark 12:26. In the parallel passage (Luke 20:37), our Lord says, ‘Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he called the Lord the God of Abraham,’ &c. Moses can only be said to call God by that title by being the historian of what God had called Himself. The historian calls God the God of Abraham. Moses, therefore, was the historian; and, therefore, our Lord also says to the Jews (Mark 7:10), ‘Moses said, Honour thy father and mother,’ and again, when speaking of divorce (Mark 10:5), ‘For the hardness of your heart, he wrote you this precept;’ and, in like manner (John 10:46, 47), ‘Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?’ (Compare John 1:45, 46; Acts 3:22.) James says, in like manner, ‘Moses is read in the Synagogue every Sabbath day.’—(Acts 15:21). Paul says (Rom. 10:5), ‘Moses writeth (γράφει) the righteousness of the law,’ referring to Lev. 18:5. It is evident, therefore, that our Lord and his apostles regarded the Pentateuch as the law of Moses, the book of Moses, the writings of Moses.
Fourthly, it appears, also, that they received the history which that book contains as true and authentic, the miraculous and supernatural as well as that which is according to the common course of nature. Thus, in Mark 10:9, the Lord refers to the creation of Adam and Eve as historically true; and on the words of Adam founds His own command: ‘What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.’ In Matt. 24:37, He refers to the deluge, the destruction of the world, and the preservation of Noah. In Luke 17:32, to the fire and brimstone which destroyed Sodom and the cities of the plain, and the transformation of Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt. So he refers to the appearance of God in the burning bush; the miraculous effect of looking at the brazen serpent; and the miraculous supply of manna, as typical of Himself, where the comparison necessarily implies the truth of the fact.—(Jno. 3:14; 6:49–51.) Stephen repeats almost word for word the history of Abraham’s miraculous call, the birth of Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs; the miraculous circumstances of the exodus, and the giving of the law.—(Acts 7.) Paul compares the first and second Adam, and refers to the creation of the former from the dust of the earth (1 Cor. 15:21, &c.), and to the creation of the woman.—(1 Cor. 11:7–8.) He also refers to the temptation by the serpent, and the transgression of the woman, as real history (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13, 14); and in Rom. 5:12 founds an argument upon the fact that death entered by sin. In Rom 4:19 he refers to the miraculous conception and birth of Isaac; and in 9:10–13 to the election of Jacob and the rejection of Esau, as true history. He makes the Passover the ground of an exhortation to holiness (1 Cor. 5:7, 8), and presses upon the attention of the Corinthians the passage through the Red Sea, the guidance of the pillar and cloud, as well as the miraculous supply of water; and upon that most miraculous trait in the history of the manna, that he that had gathered much had nothing over, and he that had gathered little had no lack, he founds directions respecting the exercise of charity.—(2 Cor. 8:15.) In 1 Cor. 10:8 he refers to Baal Peor; and in 2 Cor. 3:13, to the miraeculous glory in the countenance of Moses. He evidently receives the whole as inspired, authentic and authoritative; holy, just and good; a schoolmaster unto Christ; when the one object of his life, to preach justification by faith without the law, would naturally have led him to depreciate its authority, if he had not been instructed by the spirit to receive it as a Divine revelation. Again, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 11. reference is made to the Mosaic history from Cain and Abel to the passage of the Red Sea, as well as the circumstances of awe and majesty under which the law was given (Heb. 12:18–21); to the wanderings and death of the rebellious Israelites (Heb. 3:7–19), and the early institution of the Sabbath. James refers to the offering of Isaac (2:21); and Peter points to the example of Sarah (1 Pet. 3:6); to the deliverance of Noah (2 Pet. 2:6, 9, 15); the destruction of Sodom, and the dumb ass rebuking the madness of the prophet. These references prove that Christ and the apostles believed in the Divine origin of the Pentateuch. Christ’s omniscience and the working of the spirit of truth in the apostles are sufficient warrant for the faith of every Christian man. Whether he can solve difficulties or not, he has the infallible testimony of Christ and his inspired apostles, and that is an answer to all objectors. He feels that he cannot reject the Pentateuch without renouncing his faith in his Saviour. Christ himself has stated the indissoluble connection between faith in the Pentateuch and faith in himself. ‘If ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?’ Bishop Colenso has proved in his own person the truth of the Saviour’s appeal. He first rejects the Pentateuch; he then robs Christ of his omniscience. According to him, Christ’s knowledge as to ‘the authorship and age of the different portions of the Pentateuch’ did not ‘surpass that of the most pious and learned of his nation.’ In perfect consistency with these sentiments, when he rejects Moses and the Pentateuch, he does not ask us, in order to fill up the aching void, to fall back upon Christ and the gospels, but upon the theology of the Sikh Gooroos, and other heathen, ‘who had no Pentateuch or Bible to teach’ them. And this is, in fact, the drift of the new theology, to bring us back to scientific heathenism. Bishop Colenso has spoken out what others have been mumbling in dark sentences. But whilst it is possible to contrast the condition of Christendom with that of the Hindoos, the Chinese of the present day, or the great nations of classical antiquity—the republic of Moses with the republic of Plato—the power of Christ’s doctrine with the effects of the teaching of Socrates—we think it more agreeable to reason, as well as to piety, to refuse the new heathenising theories; to abide by the old Catholic doctrine, and hold fast the faith once delivered to the saints.”

310-317

THE BIBLE TRUE
THE BIBLE’S HISTORICAL RELIABILITY WAITING THE NEXT ATTACK
AT the annual meeting of the Church Congress, recently held at Sheffield, some good things were said on the subject of the Bible’s proved historical veracity. Papers were read by Professor Rawlinson, Mr. W. R. Cooper, and Canon Tristram, the latter of whom said that the assaults on the truth of the Old Testament historical narratives had been triumphantly repulsed by the discoveries which formed the subject of discussion, and they calmly awaited the next charge. Professor Rawlinson said that thirty years ago, the historical books of the Bible were believed to be merely romance, and not intended to be the records of absolute facts, and an attempt was made to divide those that were mythological from those which were legendary. Then it was said that the unhistorical character of the books was proved by the misrepresentation of the manners and customs of the people of whom they spoke, and of Egypt, as described in the Pentateuch, Babylon as described by Daniel, and Persia as described in the book of Esther. It was when things were brought to this state that, in God’s providence, the wonderful series of discoveries which our time had witnessed were brought about, and opportunities were given of testing the truth of the sacred narratives which the world had never had before, and never expected to possess. The points which were said to show the strongest instances of disagreement were found to be striking instances of agreement between sacred and profane history, and the ground was thus cut from under the feet of mythical interpreters, and their whole system collapsed. It was not too much to say that they had not now a defender, and had scarcely an apologist.
Canon Tristram’s paper dealt with the question: What definite result as to the interpretation of Scripture has been produced by recent discoveries? He said:
“The discoveries of archæology, whether monumental or historical, have affected the interpretation of Scripture in four aspects—1, ethnological; 2, historical; 3, chronological; 4, geographical and topographical. The last three aspets affect the interpretation of the early Scriptures, whether pre-Abrahamic or post-Abrahamic. In all three aspects we knew nothing till very recently which could be looked upon as contemporary. We had only vague traditions or the second-hand information of later ancient writers, so that profound investigators of primæval antiquity, such as Stanley Faber, had none of the mass of material, whether of archæological discovery or linguistic recovery, which is at our command to aid them in tracing the primitive history of man. The result is that, whether we turn to the so-called legendary epoch before the call of Abraham, or to the annalistic period following it, we now find ourselves confronted with a contemporary and sometimes a more ancient literature, amplifying, exaggerating, interpolating, but never absolutely contradicting the terse narrative of Genesis. Looking first of all at the historical revelations of the Assyrian tablets in the pre-Abrahamic period, the long series of records published in many volumes by the Biblical Archæological Society bring before us a complete Assyrian story of man from the Creation. The story of the Creation and the Fall belong to the upper, or Akkad, i.e., Cushite division of the country, and in their present form are, perhaps, not the earliest legends; but even these are, in their original form, at least two centuries older than Abraham and six centuries older than Moses. The story of the Flood and the history of Nimrod were probably written in the south of Chaldæa, and are at least as early as B.C. 2,000. But they were all traditions before committed to writing, and the traditions are much older still. Mr G. Smith remarks: ‘There is fair reason to suppose that there was a close agreement between the text of the Chaldean legend and Genesis, while there does not appear to be anything like the same agreement between these inscriptions and the accounts transmitted to us by Berosus.’ Let us briefly note the points of identity. The first tablet, corresponding to Gen. 1:1, 2. begins—
‘When the upper regions were not yet called heaven,
‘And the lower region was not yet called earth,
‘And the abyss of hades had not yet opened its arms,
‘Then the chaos of water gave birth to all of them,
‘And the waters were gathered into one place.
‘No men yet dwelt together, no animals yet wandered about;
‘None of the gods had yet been born,
‘Their names were not spoken, and their attributes were not known.’—‘Records of the Past, vol. ix. p. 117).
In another, we have the creation of dry land; in the fifth we have the creation of the heavenly bodies with much detail, the moon being created before the sun. They are to be for signs, for seasons, for days and for years. But more, it declares the Sabbath to have been ordained at the Creation. ‘On the seventh day He appointed a holyday, and to cease from all work he commanded.’ But, as Mr. Talbot Fox remarks: ‘The account falls short of the majesty of the Hebrew Genesis, for it implies that the heavenly movements might possibly go wrong, and therefore, the dwellings of the gods Hea and Bel are placed in the planets.’ The creation of the cattle of the field, the beast of the field, and the creeping things, occur as in Genesis. We have the Fall. ‘The dragon Tiamut tempted him. The god Hea heard and was angry, because his man had corrupted his purity.’ The curse is, ‘May he be conquered and at once cut off.’ On a seal two figures are seated by a tree holding out their hands to the fruit, while a serpent stands erect behind one of them. Four rivers are spoken of as surrounding Gan-dann—i.e., Gan-Eden, the Garden of Eden, two of them the Tigris and Euphrates. Among the Antediluvians occur Cain, Enoch, Cainan, Lamech, Tubal-Cain, or Bil-Kan, the god of fire and melter of metal. The ten generations of Genesis are represented by ten successive kings. The translation of Enoch is placed after the Flood, and transferred to Noah. Of the famous Izdubar legend, the Assyrian story of the Flood, I need not speak. Twenty-three points in the narrative of Genesis are given in the tablets, with some few discrepancies, enough to show that neither narrative was copied directly from the other. The tablets gave an account of the building of the Tower of Babel and its interruption by Divine interposition. Next came the story of Nimrod, identified with the highest probability as the Izdubar of the Tablets, for he founded Babel, Akkad, Erech and Nipur, which has been shown to be another name for the Calneh of Genesis. The discovery by Mr. Loftus and identification of Ur, with its innumerable inscriptions, its bricks stamped with the name of Arioch (Gen. 14:1), and its temples to the moon-god and other idols, bring down the exhumed Assyrian annals to the time of Abraham. What, then, said the speaker, is the definite result as to Scripture history? Certainly there is not an incident touched on from primæval chaos to the call of Abraham, which is not illustrated and confirmed by the utterances of a language which speaks again after a silence of 4000 years, though we have only just begun to gather a few fragments from its storehouses. The ingenuity of a destructive criticism can avail nothing against this. Subtle intellects have endeavoured to evolve from their inner consciousness the theory of differing Jehovistic and Elohistic originals put together in later ages to form the early chapters of Genesis, and shallow copyists have assumed this as an accepted axiom of scholarship. We have been told that the Pentateuch, in its present shape, was compiled by Samuel, by the late Seers, or by Ezra. But now it is no longer possible to suggest any origin later than the date of the Exodus for the history of Genesis, for to the Jews of the later period of Samuel the records of Assyria were inaccessible, and the structure of the language of Genesis is too archaic to be postponed to the period of the Captivity.” The next points discussed were the geographical and topographical details of the early Scriptures, attention being chiefly directed to the journal of the wanderings of the Exodus and the allotment of the Land of Promise. The recent surveys of the Sinaitic peninsula showed the most exact accordance of the record of the Exodus with existing topographical facts, which accordance would be inconceivable unless the history were completed at the time. Briefly describing the recent discoveries made during the exploration of Palestine, which fully bore out the truth of the Scripture narrative, and mentioning that there is scarcely a village, however insignificant, which does not retain for its desolate heap or its modern hovels, the Arabic equivalent for the name written down by Joshua 3,300 years ago, Canon Tristram said in conclusion: “But it is not merely the continuance by an ‘occult Providence’ of the names in the very places where they ought by the Record to be; it is the little touches which often startle, by the way in which they carry conviction of the time and place of the sacred penman. Thus when we read that Abraham’s second encampment ‘was on a mountain east of Bethel, and that he pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east, and then he builded an altar,’ and when between the site of Bethel, and the desolate heap, the ‘Tell’ of Ai, we observe a valley, and in its centre a lofty hill with undecipherable ruins on its summit, whence and whence alone a view of the Jordan valley and the head of the Dead Sea is obtained, we know exactly where Abraham stood and where the writer placed him. Thus is proof and illustration rapidly accumulating, and one definite result is certainly this, that hostile criticism must for the future be subjective and not objective. The historical assault has been triumphantly repulsed all along the line. We calmly await the next charge; ‘Magna est veritas et prœvalebit.’”
What Science Can and Cannot Do
In his inaugural address at the college of St. Andrews, Lord Selborne made some excellent remarks on this subject—remarks having a valuable bearing on the foundations of our faith. Referring to the various scientific theories of the universe, he said:
“What I am bold enough to dispute altogether is their title to be called scientific. Largely as they are conversant with, much as they profess to build upon, some of the facts of scientific observation, they receive no support from anything which deserves the name of evidence. They make (so it seems to me) as large a demand on faith without experience, on ‘the evidence of things not seen,’ as is made by any doctrines of theology. Induction from scanty or indirect materials imperfectly known, when it cannot be verified by experiment, must necessarily be speculative and precarious.
It should, therefore, be a first principle in all such inquiries, to begin with a right conception of what natural science can and what it cannot do. It can collect, classify, and compare phenomena; it can note their succession and order; it can decompose the subjects of sense into some of their elements, and can trace those elements through many permutations and combinations of substance and form; it can to some extent measure, excite, and make use of the mechanical, chemical, and other forces, on which their structure, arrangement, growth, and other changes depend. To all these things it can give names, convenient as signs and symbols. But what the things so observed and so named are in themselves—what matter is, what force is, no philosopher can tell us. When we have measured the distances and weighed the masses of all the heavenly bodies; when we have tested by the spectroscope the materials of the sun and stars; we are still on the outside of things. If we sometimes seem to penetrate beneath the surface, it is only like children who unpack nests of Chinese boxes, or peel off the coats of a bulb. In words for which I am indebted to my friend and your Chancellor (himself no mean philosopher), the Duke of Argyll, ‘Every advance has its new horizon; every answered question brings into view another question, unanswered and perhaps unanswerable, lying close behind it.’ Matter without mind would be to us nothing; it is through mind only that matter is perceived. As science cannot tell us anything of the essential nature, so neither can it inform us of the ultimate cause of any of these things. Every moment’s experience, and all the results of investigation, concur to show that everything in the world has not been from all eternity exactly as it is now; that there are causes and effects—a series of changes, depending on laws, or on some law, of causation. Science may trace, link after link upwards, some part of the chain which thus hangs down from Infinity; but how that chain came into existence, what began, and what sustains it—on these points science is, and must continue to be, silent. The atomic or world-dust cosmogony is not more satisfactory or more intelligible as an explanation of ourselves and all the varieties of being, form, and force, which we see around us, than the chaos of the ancients. The question, ‘And Chaos whence?’ still inevitably recurs. The speculation of natural philosophers, even after their boldest flights, fail to throw the faintest ray of light upon the transition from inorganic matter to vegetable life, upon animal life, consciousness, and instinct, upon reason and the moral sense in man. Are these realities or not? Do they, or do they not, belong to a higher system, to a greater world, than that of physics, mechanics, and chemistry? No analysis of the material structures with which they are connected has any tendency to explain how they came to be, or why they differ as they do. Many poisonous vapours may float in the social atmosphere; but none, surely, can be worse than that which would suggest doubt or disbelief of everything which cannot be tasted, handled, or seen. It is disbelief not in God only, but in man. Not in the sphere of religion only, but in those of morals and politics, it leaves our human life without rudder, chart, or compass. Epicureanism was the philosophy of Imperial Rome; to modern materialism, the will of those who have power is the sole ground of the obligation of law: Epicureanism in the higher, and Socialism in the lower regions of thought, are still, as they have always been, the natural products of this system. Here it is that religion comes in. I will not trespass at all upon the proper province of the teachers of religion; but to be silent as to the keystone of the arch of human knowledge and virtue is not possible. Morality, which is the conscience of reason; language, which is the discourse of reason; mathematics, the infallible law—poetry, the creative spirit—and natural science, the experimental record—of reason—all point to this. Religion harmonises the inward world of life and consciousness with the outward world of sense, ascribing all to one great cause, which if our knowledge of it is but as a tangent to infinity, still realises the highest conceptions and aspirations which man can form, impersonating the supremacy of perfect reason. In a moral and intelligent author of the Universe, of absolute power, wisdom, and goodness, reason finds the explanation and the archetype of itself, nowhere else discoverable. Infinity and eternal self-existence are transcendent realities, which it is impossible to understand, but in which, under one hypothesis or another, belief is absolutely unavoidable. The alternative is between intelligent and unintelligent self-existence. The more we dissect, analyse, decompose, the more mastery we obtain over the elements of matter, the more irresistible (to my mind at least) becomes the conviction that there is a higher and greater Power behind them. Those who recognise the idea of “force” as necessary to be added to the idea of matter, in order to account for the existences and the known conditions of the universe, bear testimony to this truth, though they fail to explain it. To me (I trust to my hearers also) the presence of that Power is a relation of God. Nature leads men who know no Revelation viam palantes quœrere vitœ; to seek the Unknown, by “feeling after Him, if haply they may find Him.” That cannot be true science which, on this the most important of all subjects, would lead those who believe that they have found Him back to blank ignorance, and teach them to ‘care for none of these things.’ You will hear, nevertheless, from some who think themselves wise, that these things are ‘unknowable.’ A dogma which denies the possibility of the knowledge seems to me to deny also the possibility of the Being of God. It is implied in any reasonable conception of the Author of the Universe, that He is ‘not far from every one of us.’”
Colenso Answered
Dr. McCaul, professor of Hebrew in King’s College, London, answered Colenso a good while ago. The answer is good and conclusive. We are indebted to brother Shuttleworth for being able to publish copious extracts from it in a series of articles commencing with this.
“Faith in the inspiration of the Mosaic writings depends not upon satisfactory replies to objections, nor successful solutions of difficulties. The Pentatench possesses the testimony of the Saviour’s omniscience, and has stamped the evidence of its divine origin upon the annals of the world. From the present hour back to the days of Moses, its influence, and even its language, can be continuously traced in the theology of Christians, the tradition of Jews, the oracles of Hebrew prophets, and the records of Israelite historians. Its very necessity to the right understanding of the religious condition of man, at any period of the world’s history for the last three thousand years, demonstrates its heavenly source. He, then, who believes the Gospel, or contemplates the gigantic and never-ceasing influence which the Pentateuch has exerted upon human thought, action, and conscience, will not be much disturbed by difficulties of detail in a book of such remote antiquity, made up of detached portions of legislation, and fragments of history, written at intervals during the wanderings of the desert, amidst all the cares, troubles, and interruptions necessarily the lot of Israel’s leader and deliverer, and, though inspired, bearing the unmistakable impress of the circumstances under which it was composed. In such a book there must be difficulties, as easily discerned by the believers as the unbelievers—and not a few have been noticed and explained, many centuries ago, by Christian fathers and Jewish Rabbis. In more modern times, Spinoza and the English Deists, the French philosophers and the German rationalists have increased their number; and Christian apologists of various nations, have multiplied answers, so that now but little new can be said for or against the genuineness and authenticity of the Pentateuch. Bishop Colenso’s chief difficulties, such as that relating to Judah’s grandchildren, the number of the children of Israel at the Exodus—the mode of finding sustenance for the cattle in the wilderness—the history of the fortieth year, have been discussed again and again. But as they are stated in a somewhat new form, and some minor objections added, an examination of the Bishop’s whole argument became necessary. The results are now presented to the reader, and will show that the objections propounded by Bishop Colenso are based, some on doubtful interpretations, others on suppression of, or addition to, the words of Scripture impugned, on unwarranted assumptions, or defective information. To range them under these rubrics would be perhaps the most interesting and most forcible method of showing their weakness, and would prevent repetitions. But it might not be considered so fair to the objector. It would certainly not be so convenient for reference; and in some cases would be difficult where unwarranted assumption, defective information, and doubtful interpretation are all combined. The objections, therefore, are reviewed in the order in which they are stated.”
“The first difficulty propounded by Bishop Colenso was not discovered by modern criticism, but was observed and explained centuries ago by Christian fathers and Jewish Rabbis. It relates to Judah’s age and the birth-place of his grandchildren, Hezron and Hamul. As stated by D.C., the difficulty rests on two suppositions; first that the historian meant to convey the idea that Hezron and Hamul were born in Canaan; secondly, that at the descent into Egypt, Judah’s age was forty-two. First, then, as to the birthplace of Judah’s grandchildren. D. C., in section 19, quotes Gen. 46:12, ‘And the sons of Judah, Er, and Onan, and Shelah, and Pharez, and Zarah; but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan; and the sons of Pharez, Hezron and Hamul’—and then says (the italics are D.C.’s)—‘It appears to me to be certain that the writer means to say that Hezron and Hamul were born in the land of Canaan, and were among the seventy persons (including Jacob himself, and Joseph, and his two sons), who came into Egypt with Jacob. He repeats the words again and again:—‘These are the names of Israel, which came into Egypt, ’ (5:8); ‘All the souls, that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, were threescore and six,’ (5:26)—which they would not be without Hezron and Hamul. ‘And the sons of Joseph which were born him in Egypt were two souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten,’ (5:27); ‘These are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob. And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already’ (E. 1:1, 5), Now of all these texts which D.C. here accumulates, there is only one that seems to favour his view, the others serve to refute it. The verse apparently favourable is Gen. 46:26, ‘All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, were threescore and six’—and this seems favourable only in the English translation, not in the Hebrew text. The words ‘All the souls which came with Jacob into Egypt’ seem to imply that these sixty-six were then all alive, and accompanied Jacob at the time. The stress of the argument lies upon the preposition ‘with,’ but that preposition does not exist in the Hebrew (neither Eth) את nor Im עא), but another (ל), which signifies ‘To, of, belonging to,’ as is explained in the following verse, ‘All the souls of the house (לבית) of Jacob.’ The accurate translation therefore is, ‘All the souls of, or belonging to, Jacob, who came down into Egypt—were sixty-six.’ The text says nothing at all of their accompanying him, nor of the time at which they went down, but simply that they who went down were sixty-six. D.C. will, perhaps, ask—‘Then why are these sixty-six separated from Joseph and his sons, of whom it is said in the following verse, ‘And the sons of Joseph which were born to him in Egypt, were two souls?’’ To which I reply, that they are not separated, except by those who divided the text into verses. The great object of the writer is to prove that the whole number of those who went down into Egypt is only seventy. He, therefore, carefully notes the number of each of Jacob’s four families, and here comes to give the sum total, and therefore verses 26 and 27 ought to be read together thus—‘And all the souls of, or belonging to, Jacob, who came down into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, were threescore and six, and the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten.’ The subject of the proposition is ‘All the souls belonging to Jacob who came down into Egypt,’ in verse 26. The predicate is, ‘were threescore and ten,’ given in verse 27. But D.C. will perhaps say that in Exodus. 1:1 the Hebrew has the preposition ‘with’ where it is said ‘every man and his household came with (את) Jacob.’ But there the names of those who had households (which Hezron and Hamul had not) are given, and they are those of the eleven sons of Jacob. The names of the grandchildren are not specified, nor is the number sixty-six given, but on the contrary, the number ‘seventy,’ which includes Joseph and his sons, who certainly did not accompany Jacob into Egypt, for they were there already. There is therefore no passage which asserts that the sixty-six, including Hezron and Hamul, were alive, and went into Egypt at the time of Jacob’s going down. The question is therefore reduced to this, what is meant by the words ‘came down into Egypt,’ or ‘went down into Egypt?’ do they mean, that they who were born in Egypt, are excluded; or can they include those who had never been in Canaan at all, but were born in Egypt? Most certainly the latter, as is proved by the texts adduced by D.C. himself. First, we have Gen. 46:27, ‘All the souls of the house of Jacob (הבאה) which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten,’ and secondly, Deut. 10:22, ‘Thy fathers went down (ירדו) into Egypt with threescore and ten persons.’ The number ‘threescore and ten’ cannot be made out, without the sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, who, in our occidental sense of the words, never ‘came,’ or ‘went down into Egypt’ at all, but were born there. These two texts, therefore, prove that the words ‘came into Egypt’ may include those born in Egypt, that they do actually include Ephraim and Manasseh, and may, therefore, also include Hamul and Hezron, and some of the ten persons, named as the sons of Benjamin, and thus this ground of D.C.’s objection is removed. It is now here stated that Hamul and Hezron accompanied Jacob—and the expressions ‘came’ or ‘went down into Egypt’ have a wide signification, including those who did not immigrate into Egypt, but were born there.”
To be continued.)

1878

2007-11-15T11:04:00.000-08:00

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.)

1877 the c

2007-11-15T10:59:00.000-08:00

71-75
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 SCURED
“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 Bible’s Enemies and the Bible’s Friends
“It is a remarkable fact, that the more self-conceited, worldly-minded, and wicked people are, the more they neglect, despise, and asperse the sacred Scriptures: and, on the contrary, the more humble and holy, the more they read, admire, and value them. What the Lord said of his disciples is equally true of the Bible. ‘If it were of the world, the world would love its own; but because it is not of the world, therefore the world hateth it.” No book, however, has had as many friends. Vast numbers of wise and good men, through many generations and distant countries, have agreed in receiving the Bible as a divine revelation. Many of them have been notable for seriousness, erudition, penetration, and impartiality in their judgment of men and things; living and dying they have recommended it to all others, as the source of hope, wisdom, and consolation. ‘Reason itself,’ says a judicious writer, ‘dictates that nothing but the plainest matter of fact could induce so many thousands of persecuted and prejudiced Jews to embrace the humbling, self-denying doctrine of the cross, which they so much despised and abhorred. Nothing but the clearest evidence arising from undoubted truth, could make multitudes of lawless, luxurious heathens, receive, follow, and transmit to posterity, the doctrines and writings of the apostles; especially at a time when the vanity of their pretensions to miracles and the gift of tongues could be so easily discovered had they been impostors, and when the profession of Christianity exposed persons of all ranks to the greatest contempt and most imminent danger.”—FREY.
J. M.’s Objections to the Bible
BESIDES the difficulty connected with the period of Israel’s sojourning in Canaan and Egypt disposed of last month, “J.M.” professes to have found, in the course of his Scripture readings, “other cases of discrepancy” “so numerous” that he “began to make a list.” It may be that “J. M.’s” discoveries in this respect were of his own finding out. If so, he is a man of some penetration, and ought to be disposed to seek for and able to find an explanation for all difficulties in the case of a book proved divine in so many irresistible ways. If not (and it seems far more likely that he was indebted for the “discrepancies” to the malicious ingenuity of such men as Tom Paine and Bradlaugh than that he found them out in his own unaided readings of the Scripture), he is only another illustration of a mediocre intellect deceived by the shallow plausibilities of men who wish to have the Bible untrue, and who strain logic and garble facts, and exaggerate unfavourable appearances to establish a desired conclusion. In that case, it is scarcely candid for “J. M.” to adopt the style of a candid philosopher, retailing facts as if observed for the first time by himself, and the impressions they made on his mind.
It is evident that “J. M.’s” prepossessions were in favour of the rejection of the Bible. His mode of introducing the difficulty set forth in par. IV. reveals this. Amongst “numerous discrepancies” that he professes to have found, he describes the difficulty in question as “the one that interested him most.” This is not the language of one who, at one time an carnest believer in the Bible, found himself compelled to relinquish that belief: such an one, knowing how incomparably comforting, how inconceivably precious, how unspeakably glorious are the things taught in the Scriptures, and how perfectly blank and dark and melancholy is life to every individual man apart from the hope set forth in the Scriptures, could not have referred to the discovery of reasons for discarding the blessed hope, as “interesting.” The difficulty that “interested” J. M. “most,” would have staggered and dismayed the other. He would have looked at it none the less critically, and if logically involving the sad conclusion referred to, he would none the less frankly have accepted the conclusion; but his after allusions to it would not have been in the style of a botanist discovering a rare plant, or a geologist a new fossil. The difficulty would not have been the one that “interested him most,” but the one that distressed him the most.
But no doubt “J. M.” uses accurate language, and the difficulty in question really “interested” him; because among all the “other cases of discrepancy” that were “so numerous,” there was really nothing but what was susceptible of a reasonable and satisfactory explanation, whereas this really seemed to defy solution, and that gave a sure footing for the man who wished to kick the Bible down.
“The one,” that “interested him most was that presented by a comparison of 1 Kings 6:1 with Acts 13:18, 22.” These two passages, at first sight, certainly do appear to differ by a hundred years in their statement of the period that elapsed between the exodus and the fourth year of Solomon. That they do not do so in reality, was shown at length in the Christadelphian for Aug., 1875, page 373, to which we must refer the reader instead of repeating what has been so recently written on the point. It is probably to this, or some such explanation that “J. M.” refers when he says the passages in question contradict themselves, when “looked at apart from all theories.” Explanations, however, are not to be dismissed in this way. There are difficulties in everything: science, history, optical perceptions—everything; and these difficulties, in a correct state of knowledge, have their explanations. What would be thought of a man shutting his eyes to those explanations, merely because the difficulties “looked at apart” from these explanations, favoured some prejudice or fantasy of his? A child, walking along the street with its mother, sees the moon apparently travelling along the tops of the houses. It says: “Ma, the moon is following us.” “No, my child.” “Yes, ma; look!” “Ah, my child, it only appears to do so.” “How is that, ma?” “It is so far away that it appears to move when we move; but it does not move. It is our going past the houses between us and it that makes it appear to move.”
To the child this is an unintelligible “theory;” and if like “J.M.,” it would insist, “‘apart from all theories,’ the moon follows us when we walk along the street.” But if it lived, it would find the theory true and the appearance false; so it will be with “J.M.,” if he have the capacity to appreciate an explanation and the candour to desire the truth.
The Authenticity of the New Testament
(Continued from page 559, vol. xiii.)
IF we wish to find the records of a corporate body, we should seek for them in the custody of that corporation itself; if found there, the records may speak for themselves as to the authority which may be attached to them. And thus it is with regard to the Scriptures; the Old Testament was given to the Jews, and they have transmitted it to us; the New Testament was given to the Christian community, and they have delivered it on even to our days; and the early writers of the Church have given us sufficient attestation that the books which we have are the same which they had from the beginning. Thus do we receive the Scriptures from what might formally be considered the proper custody, even if the early specific evidence had been less strong.
I was present, about twenty years ago, at an investigation, in which a corporate body found it needful to produce the charter which gave them a certain extent of jurisdiction. A document was produced; on examination, it was seen that it was not the original charter, but it was (as it professed to be) a transcript which had been made 550 years before. This transcript had been admitted in the reign of James II. as secondary evidence of what the contents of the original charter had been. But when the document was read, it showed that the corporation who brought it forward, had habitually acted in contravention of almost all its provisions. They had enforced dues and tolls in defiance of its limitations. Its production thus condemned them so thoroughly that they could never again establish their claim to these tolls. No one, certainly, could, after this, suspect that the document—mere transcript as it was—was anything contrived by the corporation; its genuineness was proved even by the testimony which it bore against those who brought it forward.
Thus has it been with regard to the Old Testament and the Jews, and the New Testament and the Church. Each is a witness against the collective body which has transmitted it. In each case we have not the original documents, but only transcripts; and in each the transmission is confirmed by the contents of the documents. Just as the production of the charter, to which I referred, condemned the corporation which relied on it, so does the Old Testament condemn the Jews, and the New Testament the practical and doctrinal condition for ages, of the Churches that transmitted it. They affirm its divine authority; and the testimony which it bears against them is such, that we cannot suppose it possible that they would assert this on any ground but those of believing this to be the truth.
In bringing forward witnesses to the authorship and transmission of the New Testament books, I confine myself to the earlier centuries: if this period gives us satisfactory evidence, we need not inquire further how these books have been transmitted from the fourth century and onward.
And here let me remark, that many a document is presented to us without any array of extensive evidence. An MS. is found which shows that the book has some antiquity. The internal character of the book agrees with the age of the alleged author, and perhaps the whole scope shows that it is ancient production. Thus, an MS. written in the middle ages, and now preserved in the Bibliothèque du Roi at Paris, has been published this year (1851) at Oxford: I know the MS. well; and when M. Emmanuel Miller, of Paris, was copying it for the press, I examined with him several of the passages. Now, the work contained in this MS. belongs undoubtedly to the early part of the third century of our era; critics are not agreed as to the author, but the events to which allusion is made, and the heretical doctrines attacked, are rightly considered to be sufficient evidence as to when the author lived. And so, too, many ancient records may be brought to light which we feel that we can confidently use as historical data. Of what value, otherwise, would be the Assyrian records discovered of late at Nineveh? The circumstance of the discovery and transmission are judged to be sufficient warrant in this case, as well as in that of the Arundelian Marbles, and in other instances.
The transmission of the New Testament books to our times, has been accompanied by circumstances of a far more confirming character. Ancient books have come down to us through MSS., either in the language in which they were originally written, or in translations, or in both. The latter case is true of the New Testament. There now exists MSS. in the original Greek of the New Testament books of every age, from the fourth century inclusive, to the time when they were printed. This is the fullest guarantee to us that these are the identical books to which the chain of witnesses that I adduced, bears testimony. The MSS. also are of importance in the evidence that they bear in favour of those books which Eusebius describes as doubted by some,—for we find no MS. containing a collection of Epistles in which those are rejected which some then controverted. But besides MSS. we have versions;—of these, some, such as the Syriac and old Latin, were made (as is almost certain) in the second century, while in or before the fourth century, there were formed Egyptian versions in the two dialects of upper and lower Egypt, as well as a Gothic translation, and a new one into Latin. Others, such as the Æthiopic and Armenian, were made in a period immediately subsequent. Of the Gothic version we possess but a part; and of the rest all, except the old Syriac, are witnesses for all our New Testament books.
There is not such a mass of transmissional evidence in favour of any classical work. The existing MSS. of Herodotus and Thucidides are modern enough when compared with some of those of the New Testament. Thus every country, into the language of which the New Testament books were translated in early times, is a witness to us of their transmission.
Claims of Rome
But the Church of Rome tells us, “You received the New Testament through our church; it is only through us that you know its genuineness; you admit our evidence as to what is a divine authority, and, therefore, you must own that we have the right to declare to you what God teaches us in Scripture.”
These are high-sounding claims. But, before I question one single fact contained in them, there is a fallacy to be pointed out which deprives the claim of all force.
Rome begs the question as to a very important principle. A plain statement of the case shows this:—
“He who transmits an authoritative document possesses the right to interpret it.
“Rome has transmitted the Scriptures to you.
“Therefore, Rome possesses the right to interpret them to you.
It is only by tacitly assuming the extravagant premise that the Romish argument has a semblance of force.
Similarly we might conclude that the corporation to which I referred just now, had the right to explain its charter if it pleased, that the postman has the right of expounding to us the letters which he delivers, and that the constable possesses the privilege of explaining the meaning of the magistrate’s summons.
This principle, if true, would justify the Jews in their explanations of the Old Testament; so that we must receive as authoritative all that is taught in their traditions—the Mishnah and the Gemara—in spite of what the Lord says to them: “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own traditions.”
But further, it is not true that we receive the Scriptures through the Church of Rome alone. In the witnesses of the first three centuries, you may remember that none, except Clement of Rome, were bishops in that place; so that Romanists can claim not one of these witnesses besides, as a Pope; and as to this Clement, the name of the Pope but ill befits him when he pretends to commission to write authoritatively. He argues instead of dogmatising, and he shows such proofs of human infirmity as must be rather mortifying to an upholder of Papal claims. He even in his simplicity (for a good simple soul he seems to have been) refers to the story of the phœnix as a fact in natural history. Other witnesses supply us with not a little incidental testimony against Romish claims.
But besides Rome as a channel, we also receive the Scriptures through the churches of other lands. The Latin version of the Scriptures was diffused long before Papal claims were advanced, through Italy, North Africa, Gaul, the Spanish Peninsula and Britain. The Oriental Churches have handed down each its own version; and for the original Greek text, we have to thank the Greek Church.
Thus, all these have been so many separate and consenting channels of transmission. So true is it as defined by the “reformers,” that “the Church is a witness and keeper of Holy Writ.”
Thoroughly do I repudiate the idea of any infallible church, congregation, or body of men. I would not say in anything the Church could not err; but on the plain grounds of testimony, already given, I do state that, in the transmission of the New Testament books, the Church hath not erred.

166-169
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 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 Inconsistencies of “Rev.” Infidels
“IN the last century, a band of able but unscrupulous writers appeared, whose object was to get quit of Scripture in toto by exposing its inaccuracies. Bolinbroke, Poland, Chubb, Morgan, worked hard at their self-appointed task of overthrowing “superstition.” Most laboriously did they gather together the supposed absurdities and inconsistencies of Scripture in order to overwhelm the Bible beneath its own rubbish. But the book emerged from this deistical dust unharmed, and for two generations these objections have almost gone out of sight.
They have, however, within these few years been reproduced; and not by men, like those of the last century, philosophers belonging to no church, but by ministers of the “orthodox churches” of the land. These successors of the philosophical deists of a former age have gone over the same ground as their predecessors, and uttered the same accusations against Scripture, though in more reverent words, with this exception, that the old assailants spared the gospels and the words of Christ, whereas their modern imitators have not scrupled to pronounce upon the inaccuracies and improprieties of ‘Him that spake as never man spake.’ In the nature, or rather the extent of inference, the new differ from the old; the latter made use of the supposed inaccuracies to disprove entirely the claims of Scripture; the former merely employ these inconsistencies to set aside its inspiration. But which of the two classes has logic on its side? Clearly that of the deists. If their premisses were correct, their conclusion was irresistible; and to stop short of it, is to give up the whole case. If the Bible be as inaccurate as the ‘reverend’ infidels say it is, then it has no claim upon our confidence or respect; it is then much less inspired than Herodotus, or Plato, or Milton, or David Hume, or Macaulay. We are very far indeed from accusing all the questioners of some of the Bible miracles with entertaining such views; but, by a theory of miracles which assumes the inaccuracy of the Mosaic narrative, they are playing into the hands of the deists and semi-deists, and aiding them in discovering inaccuracies where even they did not expect to find them.”—Eclectic Review.
“J.M.’s” Objections to the Bible
Paragraph No. 5. deals with “the numerical discrepancies of the Bible,” viz., “700 Syrians” in 2 Sam. 10:18, are “7,000” in 1 Chron. 19:18; “700 horsemen” in 2 Sam. 8:4, are “7,000” in 1 Chron. 18:4; “40,000 stalls for horses” in 1 Kings 4:26, are “4,000” in 2 Chron. 9:25; “22 years” in 2 Kings 8:26, are “42” in 2 Chron. 22:2; “the third hour” in Mark 15:25, is “the sixth hour” in John 19:4.
“J.M.” introduces these discrepancies in anything but a bold manner. He refers to the cause of them first, by way of lessening the force of the explanation after he has paraded them. He says “some” of them are “probably due to errors of transcription.” Why “probably?” Is it not manifestly so? If “4,000” in one case had been 25 in another, or 7,000 had been 1,860, the plea for substantial contradiction might have had some standing ground. But in all the cases, except the last, it is only the difference of one figure, and in most of them, a question of a cipher, showing it is a matter of clerical error. The readiness with which such an error might arise will be appreciated by those who know that in Hebrew numeration, the addition of a single perpendicular dash, called a “metheg” (not much larger than a dot), changes units to thousands. Thus the Hebrew letter ן stands for 50, while the same with a dot over it stands for 50,000. In an old MS., the dot might easily become obscured, or sufficiently dimmed to escape the notice of the copyist, and lead to a large difference. Again, many numerals resemble each other, and in the copying of MS. might easily pass one for another. Thus ג stands for 4, ן for 50, ך for 20 and ב 2. י stands for 10, ז for 6 and ו for 7. In most MSS. the numbers are expressed in words; but it has not been always so, and thus an error arising from an obliterated dot, or from careless copying, would be easily perpetuated in words. It is a point on which no stress is laid by scholars. As Tregelles observes in a footnote on p. 38 of his pamphlet on the authenticity of Daniel, “In criticism, it holds good as a sound cannon that difficulties connected with dates and numbers, are not in themselves legitimate grounds for rejecting any document; because transcribers of numbers (just like modern compositors with regard to figures) were more habitually liable to err than in anything else. Few MSS. of any ancient work whatever are wholly free from errors in this particular.”
But, while not laying much stress on them, “J.M.” says these errors “show how largely the human element enters into the composition of the Scriptures and seriously affect their claim to be the Word of God.” The very reverse of this is the truth. The errors are errors of writing and not of composition, and the smallness of their number in such a mass of writing as there is in the Bible shows how very little “the human element” had to do with it, even in the matter of copying.
But why any copying mistakes at all? “J.M.” may enquire. Answer: God is not resposible for the mistakes of man, or to put it into a form directly appropriate to the argument of the objector, the Bible, as originally written by inspired men, is not responsible for the blunders of those who have copied it. But why does not God prevent their blunders? Answer: inspiration was confined to the writers of the Bible; it did not extend to mere copyists. Had God so chosen, He might have laid His hand on every man, in all ages, who set himself to the transcription of the holy oracles, but He has not done so. He has done all that he considered necessary for the object in view, and He is the best judge of this. That the Bible is so complete and so free from error is a marvel suggesting divine supervision to a great extent; but the supervision was not extended to the absolute prevention of transcribers’ mistakes. These mistakes, however, are few and self-evident; and any man who comes to the conclusion that they “seriously affect the claim of the Bible to be the Word of God,” must be predisposed to such a conclusion. Such errors may have been permitted to exercise the minds of the candid lovers of truth, and to cause to stumble the man who prefers to cast the Word of God behind his back.
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
In our day Daniel is in many respects one of the most precious books of the Bible. The efforts of unbelief to get rid of it have been laborious and clever. That they are worse than unavailing, that they are strained, childish, absurd, and altogether unfounded, and that no book in the Bible stands commended on stronger grounds of confidence than the book of Daniel, is conclusively shown by Tregelles, the author of the articles on the authenticity of the New Testament. Most readers will be glad to hear the argument, of which we shall from month to month produce the principal portions, for the strengthening and gladdening of the hearts of the faithful. The following is a
First Instalment
“In the third century we find that Porphyry, the Syrian of Bashan, asserted that this book was a forgery of the time of the Maccabees; so that it would be a production, not of Daniel in Babylon, B.C. 507—538, but of some unknown writer subsequent to B.C. 164. The assertions of Porphyry have often been repeated with various modifications; and have of late been circulated in such forms as to render it of some importance to consider the subject pretty fully. Arguments have been advanced by two classes of persons: those who oppose revelation as such, and those that admit the revelation of God in many parts of His Scripture, and yet deny that this book forms a genuine portion of such revelation.
“It is to the latter class, or to those who may encounter their arguments, that I wish first to address myself in the following remarks; for although in many points the argument will apply (as I trust that I may show) to the thorough deniers and opposers of revelation in general, yet if such were the persons especially considered, the primary lines of proof might perhaps be carried to an extent that is needless in the general discussion of the present question. I assume that the New Testament is a divinely-bestowed and authentic communication of God’s will and truth, and that its statements are therefore worthy of reliance. This gives a ground of argument common to all who have not rejected simple and clear results of evidence: some of the other proofs to be advanced will apply equally to objectors in general.3
“At the time when the Lord Jesus Christ taught on this earth amongst his own people, the Jews, that nation possessed a collection of books which they regarded as sacred, believing that they had been given of God to their fathers as an authoritative declaration of His holy will. We know as a fact what these books were: they were the same that we now have in the Old Testament, written (with the exception of the few and short Chaldee portions) in the Hebrew language. In proof of what the sacred books of the Jews were in our Lord’s days, it might suffice to refer to the testimony of Josephus, the contemporary of most of his apostles: that Jewish writer tells us what the Scriptures of his nation were, mentioning how they were divided (according to the then Jewish arrangement) into twenty-two books, of which he gives a particular description; we thus know that they answered to the thirty-nine books as they stand in our division—the Apocrypha forming no part of this collection of sacred writings.”
“If, too, we take the Jews in their dispersions from the days of Titus, we find that, in whatever land they have been located, they have preserved the same collection of books, without addition or rejection, and have maintained their divine authority.”
“When we turn to the New Testament, we find that our Lord and his apostles refer to the Jewish Scriptures as a collection, and that they speak in the strongest manner as to their authority. This is amply proved by the references which they make to the Scripture as a collection, or to the Scriptures as the body of holy writings. Thus, our Lord met his adversaries with a citation, to which he added, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken.’—(John 10:35.) He appealed to the Old Testament in proof of his mission; ‘Search the Scriptures . . they are they which testify of me.’—(John 5:39.) He met the ignorant objections of the Sadducees with, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’—(Matt. 22:29.) He spoke of the Scriptures as so authoritative that they must be fulfilled.—(Matt. 26:54.) So, too, the apostles. St. Paul says, “Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope.”—(Rom. 15:4.) He refers to the Old Testament as consisting of those Holy Scriptures in which Timothy had been instructed, and which, as being God’s revelation, could make wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. These Scriptures were “the oracles of God,” which St. Paul teaches us (Rom. 3:2) were entrusted to the Jews. They were the depositaries of the precious trust, and to know what were the writings contained in the collection, we have only to enquire what they held as such; for the collection is confirmed by all the sanction of our Lord and his apostles. This sanction, be it remembered, is not confined to mere dogmatic statements (though that would have been enough) but it extends also to the habitual use which they make of the statements of the Old Testament, on which they rest as being unquestionable authority. “The Holy Ghost saith’ (Heb. 3:7), is followed by a citation from the 95. Psalm. We are taught in Heb. 10:15, that ‘the Holy Ghost is a witness to us, for after that he had said before,’ and then follow words from the prophecy of Jeremiah.”
“Thus, in direct statement, in allusion, and in practical use, do we find that the Son of God and his inspired servants have confirmed to us the collection of Jewish Scriptures as being possessed of divine authority. If, then, we can show that any particular book formed part of that collection, it will be enough to satisfy fully a Christian enquirer: such an one will not be deterred by difficulties which an objector might raise, for he will know that such difficulties can in no way invalidate the truth of what our Lord has taught. This general ground might suffice with regard to Daniel or any other of the Old Testament books.
“With regard to Daniel, however, we can go yet further in the way of explicit statement. Our Lord in his prophetic discourse to his disciples in Matt. 24., says, ‘When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth let him understand).’ (verse 15.) What can be more decisive than this reference? Christ mingles his own predictions with a citation from this book, referring to Daniel by name, and giving him the high designation of prophet. This is authority to us in our use and reception of this book; so that we may, on this ground alone, cast aside every difficulty and objection as things of no weight when compared with the declaration of the Son of God.”
“Beside this explicit statement, we find also in the New Testament frequent and clear allusions to the Book of Daniel. Thus, in the discourse contained in Matt. 24. in which Christ distinctly uses the Book of Daniel, He also (verse 30) speaks of “the sign of the Son of Man in heaven,” and of those who “shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.” In this the terms and statements of Dan. 7:13, are adopted so as to embody them as part of our Lord’s teaching. So, too, in verse 21, in mentioning the time of unequalled tribulation, he plainly alluded to Dan. 12:2.
“On what ground did the High Priest and the council charge our Lord with blasphemy? Because of his application of a prophecy of Daniel to himself. Jesus had answered (Matt. 27:64), “Hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” Jesus and the Sanhedrim alike admitted the authority of the Book of Daniel: only they charged him with blasphemy in saying that he was “the Son of Man,’ of whom these things were written: this they considered to be a sufficient ground for condemning him to death, and on the ground of this application of the passage in Daniel, they did so condemn Him, saying, ‘He is guilty of death;’ and thus they delivered him to Pontius Pilate to be crucified.”
(To be continued.)
210-214
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).
Creation of Man versus Development
“For my own part, both from a physiological and from a psychological point of view, I consider man widely separated from all the rest of organic life, and this for a great variety of reasons, some of which I will endeavour briefly to explain. Firstly, I assign to man an unique position in nature on account of his great cerebral development, in virtue of which he is enabled to command and to overcome all other animals, notwithstanding that so many possess greater physical power than he enjoys. In comparing the brain of man with those of the highest species of anthropoid apes, we are at once struck with this great and important difference, which, although it may be, and probably is, a difference of degree alone, and not of kind, is, I think, sufficiently great to separate our own from every other known species. In a physiological comparison, too, of man with the apes, we are at once struck with the vertical direction of the face in the former. This you will understand when I tell you that the facial angle of man is usually about 75° to 85°, whereas in the Chimpanzee gorilla and other anthropoid apes, it is not more than 30° to 35°. Some smaller monkeys, it is true, have a facial angle of 60°, but these need not be referred to, as they bear no real resemblance whatever to our own species. Then, again, there is the erect posture of man, which at once disconnects from the Simian family, no species of which genus is able to assume that position without much inconvenience and pain. Nor must I omit to mention that man alone possesses the great and important power of articulation, which, in itself, I think, a sufficiently important reason, even if there were no other, for separating him from the rest of organic life. Dr. Buckner, it is true, contends, that the “tones which apes are accustomed to utter exhibit a close approximation to the lowest primitive forms of human speech.” But when we remember the thousands of different langauges spoken daily by the human race, I think it will require a very great stretch of the imagination to believe that all these have been developed from the hideous howls and yells of monkeys. . . . For these, therefore, and for many other important reasons, I demur altogether to the animal derivation of man; and I accept, in preference, the better known, more rational, more probable, and evidently correct account of the origin and creation of man given us in the book of Genesis. Let me also observe, before passing from this branch of the subject, that if the theory of the animal derivation of man be correct, we ought to be in possession of, at any rate, some remains of the intermediate species between homo and pithecus. Both Darwin and Huxley, and indeed all their followers, admit that there are great and important cerebral and other differences between our species and those most closely resembling it; and, such being the case, we have, I think, a right to ask for some evidences of the “missing link.” Of these there are absolutely none, and as the onus probandi of establishing their case rests with the gentlemen to whom I have referred until they are able to produce some evidences of the “missing link,” we are entitled to believe, supported as our opinion is by most conclusive evidence, that the chain has always been disunited.”—(Lecture by W. SALKELD ADAMS.)
The Bible and the Fossilists
The following amusing yet cogent remarks, are from a New Zealand paper, the Independent Review:—
“Captain Hutton is very strong on the question of Evolution. But before I go the whole hog with the captain I expect him to turn up fossils from the time that man was an oyster—up to his present stage—and to inform me whether he is going to evolve any higher. I will not be too particular, even supposing he has not got all the links; but I do expect that he will show me a fossil-man when he had a very short tail, say two inches, and I shall want to know whether he can inform me about the different tribes of monkeys on the earth at the present time, and whether their tails are likely to drop off under the process of evolution. A gentleman met me on the street the other day, and told me that he was astonished that a man holding extended views on things in general, as I did, should believe in the Inspiration of the Bible! Why, says he, they are finding fossils of man in the pre-Adamite earth. I told him that that was very likely, as the Bible says, that man was told to “multiply and replenish the earth,” showing clearly that there had been a race of people before the present one. Ah! But, says he, look where it says that God gave Noah the rainbow as a sign that he would never flood the earth again; and, says he, there must have been rainbows before, as it is a natural phenomenon arising from the sun shining upon falling rain. I showed him by the Bible that it was impossible there could be any rainbow as there was no rain. “No rain!” says he, “Where do you find that?” I said, “In Genesis 2nd chap., 5th verse, where it says, ‘For the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth. . . . . But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.’ There was no rain before the flood, therefore there could be no rainbow, the earth being watered with dew. My friend was then going to leave, but I besought him not to be in a hurry, as I would like to enlighten him a bit. “Well,” says he, what do you think of Colenzo’s writings? Do you not think he shows up the Pentateuch properly?” “Yes, I do; but I think he shows up himself more, as he admits the validity of Christ, while at the same time he declares the five books of Moses to be fiction. If he denies the five books to be inspired, he must prove that Christ was an impostor; for the Scriptures of the New Testament say, “beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them the things concerning himself. Had ye have believed Moses you would have believed me, for he wrote of me.” Therefore, the words suited to Colenzo and his followers are to be found in the words addressed by Jesus to the Jews—‘If ye believe not the writings of Moses, neither would ye believe one though he rose from the dead.’” My friend left, and I have not seen him since.
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
(Continued from page 170.)
“It is needless to refer in detail to the allusions to the book of Daniel found in many parts of the New Testament; it is sufficient to state this as a fact. . . .
“I should have thought that the statements of our Lord and his apostles were sufficient on these points; they are so, I fully believe, for every simple-minded Christian who rightly reverences their authority. Unhappily, however, such attempts have been made to invalidate this attestation as call for a passing notice. It has been said that our Lord and his apostles did no more in their allusions to Daniel, and in citing him by name, than express themselves according to the current opinion of the day; that they intended no more than a kind of argumentum ad hominem, a addressing the Jews who owned the authority of Daniel, and that their words must be no more rested on in their literal force than those of a philosopher should be, who expressed himself in popular language, and spoke of the sun as rising or setting, words which, in his mouth, would not imply that he believed the sun to move and the earth to be stationary.
Such is the hinted doubt by which some would invalidate the plain statements of the New Testament. I reply, first, that the direct statements of Christ, and the allusions made by him and his apostles go far beyond the use of a current opinion; for the book of Daniel is used as an authority, so as to show what Christ himself regarded it to be. The use of Daniel, so far from being introduced as any mere argumentum ad hominem addressed to unbelieving Jews, is most markedly found when the Lord’s own disciples are the persons addressed—persons whom he had to instruct by truth, not to confute . . . .
Besides, it is of importance to remember that our Lord, so far from accommodating himself to any of the false notions and opinions which were current amongst the Jews, his countrymen, reproved them for the traditions which they had added to the Word of God, and the false opinions which they had introduced. To suppose, then, that He used words which would sanction an opinion of theirs, that Daniel was a prophet, unless this were truly the case, and unless his book were truly divine Scripture, is to introduce a thought utterly at variance with the whole character and course of our Lord’s teaching and actions. How would he have said, “the Scripture cannot be broken,” if he had not only sanctioned others in their use of a spurious book as being Holy Scripture, but had also so used it himself? How could he in that solemn hour, when he was judged before the high priest (in accordance with God’s purpose that one man should die for “the children scattered abroad”), have taken his title and his attributes of glory from this book, unless he had intended his church to be taught and guided by what he then said and did?
“On these definite grounds may we hold fast the book of Daniel as being divinely-inspired Scripture, a book to which our Lord has directed our especial attention, and from which he drew those statements of his divine attributes and (yet unrevealed) glorious kingdom, which were made the grounds of his condemnation by men. This species of absolute proof ought to carry a conviction of absolute certainty to the minds of all who acknowledge the divine authority of the New Testament.
“While these proofs are conclusive, it is at the same time right to show, as a matter of fact, that the opinion that the book of Daniel was written in the Maccabean period is per se untenable. The proofs of this point are to be stated, not as though they could be needed to confirm the conclusions already arrived at on the highest possible authority, but simply to show how far removed are the theories of objectors from the facts of the case, and how such may be refuted even on their own grounds. This may disarm objections: it might lead opposers to see that the only reasonable ground which they can take on such a subject, is the same which has been already reached on the authority of our Lord and his apostles.
“It is certain that at the Christian era the book of Daniel was commonly received by the Jews as the prophecy of God in Babylon, written about five centuries and a half before. Of this the New Testament and Josephus are sufficient proofs. How fully the rulers of the Jews received it, is shown by their charge of blasphemy against our Lord for applying its terms to himself. Had this book been one of doubtful authority or obscure origin, they could not have thus regarded the use which he made of its contents.
“Had the Jews, then, any proofs that this book belonged to a period anterior to the Maccabean? Could this be shown irrespective of the revelation through our Lord Jesus Christ? The Jews most certainly knew that they were the depositaries of the Scripture of God, and thus they would at once have rejected such a notion as that they had added a book, professedly containing divine revelations, to the sacred writings of Moses and the other prophets, when that book, so far from having been written by a prophet in the captivity, was of comparatively modern date. The Jews at the Christian era must have known whether Daniel pertained or not to the Maccabean period; for that age was not so far removed from the time of our Lord as to be sufficient to introduce uncertainty in a matter of such public importance and notoriety, as the introduction and reception of a book as part of the Holy Scriptures. Melancthon thus states the connection of the two periods,—‘Simeon, who embraced Christ as an infant, saw, when a young man, the elders who had seen Judas Maccabæus.’ Had the book of Daniel, then, been a spurious composition of that age, it must have still been well known as a fact.
“But we can go farther back: some time in the interval between the birth of our Lord and the days of Judas and his brethren, was written the first book of Maccabees, which has been transmitted to us in a Greek version. In this we find the prophecy of Daniel used as a well-known and accredited book. In chap. 1:54, the writer says of Antiochus Epiphanes, that ‘he builded the abomination of desolation upon the altar,’—a use of Daniel as manifest as when we read similar words in the New Testament. In chap. 9:27, the writer says, ‘There was great tribulation in Israel, such as was not from the time that no prophet appeared amongst them;’ thus using a phrase and thought taken from Daniel 12:1. In various places there are expressions in the Greek of the first book of Maccabees verbally identical with the real 70. of Daniel; for instance, ‘and many shall fall down slain’ (9:40, and elsewhere), is literally found in Dan. 11:26, of that version.
“Thus it is evident that the author of the first book of the Maccabees received Daniel as the inspired writing of the prophet in captivity in Babylon: that he considered that various portions of it were fulfilled in the Maccabean age, is equally certain from the use which he makes of the book; and he clearly expected that these statements which he makes would be received by his readers, the Jews in general. Whatever, then, may be the time in which this author lived, the book of Daniel had previously obtained its currency as an accredited book.
“If it had been a forgery of the days of the Maccabees, intended to encourage the Jews in their contentions with the Seleucidæ, would not this author have been aware of the fact? He shows a close acquaintance with the events which he records, and even speaks of some of them so much in the way of allusion and mere indication, as to presuppose that, in the age in which he wrote, the events were yet familiar. And so they well might be, for when did this author live? He carries on the history to the death of Simon, the last-surviving brother of Judas Maccabeus, B.C. 135; and then alludes to some of the actions of his son and successor, John Hyrcanus, B.C. 135–107, referring for the rest to the book of his high-priesthood. Hence it seems as if John Hyrcanus was still alive when this author wrote, otherwise some allusion to his death and successor might have been expected3 We may thus, I believe, regard this book as older than B.C. 107. Those who think it more recent, consider that it was but a little subsequent to the death of John Hyrcanus; so that even on that supposition it belongs to a period but little removed from the Maccabean wars which it records.
“Judas Maccabæus purged the temple and instituted the Feast of Dedication (which our Lord vouchsafed to observe), B.C. 165—that is but fifty-eight years prior to the death of John Hyrcanus. Simon, the survivor of the brethren, died B.C. 135, which leaves an interval of but twenty-eight years on to the time of the death of his son. Thus, if the book of Daniel were a Maccabean forgery, it must have been written but fifty-eight years, at the utmost, before the death of John Hyrcanus; and must have come into general use and reception within twenty-eight years of the death of the last of those brethren while his son and other contemporaries were yet alive.
“All this would present many difficulties to be solved, even if it were supported by evidence, which it is not. We should have to suppose that the Jews were exceedingly lax and careless as to what books they received as authoritative Scripture, whereas the fact was notoriously the reverse; it was because of their adherence to Scripture that they suffered under the persecution of Antiochus. We should have to explain how the Jews in Jerusalem were persuaded by some unknown author that this book which he had written was an ancient work, and how it could have been thus introduced to their attention. There would be other difficulties behind; for there were still Jews in Babylonia (as well as in other countries) with whom those of the Holy Land had intercourse as we see in Josephus) from time to time; how could they be brought to receive this book as an ancient prophecy if it had indeed been a recent forgery.”

267-272
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).
Bible History Confirmed by the Monuments of Egypt
“The monumental history of Egypt illustrates that of the Bible; first of all, in the fact that whenever the sacred writers give the name of an Egyptian King, there is found in the native records of the period indicated a prince bearing the appellation. Shishak, Zera, Tirhakah, Necko, Hophra occur, according to the Hebrew annals, especially where Sheshouk, Osorko, Shebak, Tehrah, Neku, Naphra are placed by the Egyptians. Each of these names belong to one epoch and to one only, and each is found exactly at the period where the sacred penman places it. Again, when Egypt appears, by the native annals, to be suffering depression at the hands of a foreign Power, the sacred narrative, if it deals with Egypt at all, shows the same fact of depression, and indicates the temporary predominance of the same foreign influence. Thus the Ethiopian predominance, in the latter portion of the eighth century, B.C., and the beginning of the seventh, is strongly marked in Isaiah (chaps. 18. and 20.), and noticed to some extent in the Second Book of Kings. Sennacherib, when he invades Egypt, has for an adversary, not a native Egyptian, but ‘Tirhakah, King of the Ethiopians,’ the Tehrak of the hieroglyphics, and the Tarrae-as of the native historian, Manetho, whose nationality is distinctly declared by both these authorities to be Ethiopian. Thirdly, in one instance, where the Holy Land itself was the scene of an Egyptian expedition, the monuments contain a distinct notice of the fact, and add to what is told us in Scripture some very interesting particulars. Shishak, we learn from Chronicles, ‘came up against Jerusalem with 1200 chariots and threescore thousand horsemen,’ and ‘took the fenced cities which pertained to Judah, and came to Jerusalem.’ And Rehoboam ‘humbled himself’ and became Shishak’s ‘servant,’ and gave him the treasures of the temple and the treasures of his own palace, and Shishak carried away also the shields of gold which Solomon had made.’—(2 Chron. 12:2–9.) Now, we find at Karnak, in Egypt, that this very King Sheshouk set up after his expedition an inscription, in which he commemorated the submission of the king (or kingdom) of Judah, and also recorded the capture of a number of ‘fenced cities’ of Judah and Israel, as many as fifty or sixty being particularised. It is curious to find that these cities are not all of them in the Southern Kingdom. Some of them are most certainly within the territories of Jeroboam, who was Shishak’s creature (1 Kings 11:40) and ally. It seemed strange that Shishak should have taken these cities until it was observed that they all belonged to one of two classes—either they were Levitical, or else they were cities the population of which was Canaanite. We can easily understand that the Levitical cities would be hostile to a king who had ‘cast the Levites off from executing the priest’s office’ (2 Chr. 11:14), and that the Canaanite cities may, under the circumstances of time, have reasserted their independence. Thus it would seem to have been Shishak’s aim to strengthen Jeroboam in two ways—1, by weakening Rehoboam, his enemy; and 2, by putting down all opposition to him within the limits of the Ten Tribes, and placing him in quiet possession of the whole kingdom. Such are the chief of the clear and direct historical illustrations of Scripture contained in the Egyptian records. It is, perhaps, to some of you disappointing to find that they are so few. No doubt it would have been highly interesting to have discovered among the inscriptions a notice of the visit of Abraham to the first Pharoah mentioned in the Bible, or an account of the arrival of Jacob and his family in Egypt, or a recognition of the high position of Joseph or of Moses, or clear evidence of the servitude of the Israelites under the ‘king who knew not Joseph,’ or a description of the Exodus and of the destruction of the Egyptian host in the Red Sea. And there have not been wanting among archæologists some sanguine and less critical spirits who have persuaded themselves, and endeavoured to persuade others, that some of these events are either described in the Egyptian monuments or represented. But calm and cool criticism, inexorable as fate, and not to be tempted to swerve an inch from the strict line of the most probable by any leaning towards the interesting or the desirable, lays it down that in the Egyptian records none of these events obtain mention, though some of them may obtain illustration from events which are represented or recorded.”—Canon Rawlinson.
J.M.’s Objections to the Bible
Turning from the subject of numerical discrepancies, J. M. in paragraph 6. says a word on the subject of the genealogies. He professes to have expected “simplicity and harmony” “in a subject like this.” This shows that he is rather more simple himself than he may suspect he is, for if there is one subject with which common experience shows there is a natural facility for the development of complexity and apparent inconsistency, it is the subject of genealogical relation and descent. A boy has a father who dies: the boy’s mother marries again—a man it may be of the same name but no connection. The second husband gets called “father” and is known for forty years after in the family in that character. The boy not liking his second father, runs away and gets adopted by a third, whom he calls father. The boy grown to a man emigrates. His real father’s brother has also emigrated and dies in the colony without relatives, intestate. The son puts in a claim for the property. His history is enquired into. People knowing the son at different stages, give conflicting accounts—some know him as the son of one man, another as the son of the second, and third as the son of still another. Judges like “J. M.” would dismiss the claim, remarking that “in a subject like this,” they would have expected “simplicity and harmony.”
“J. M.” in the genealogies, finds “a series of intricate puzzles,” which, not being able to solve, he concludes are evidence of the falsity of the claim of the Scriptures to the word of God. The puzzles exist doubtless, but their existence rather proves than disproves the Bible, for it is the characteristic of truth to be sometimes apparently inconsistent, while falsehood carefully strives to preserve the appearance of consistency. Thus a man arriving in Birmingham, says, “I have just come from London.” A fellow traveller says, behind his back, “Why, I came into the train when at Stafford, and I saw the fellow in the town there at a review two hours before the train started.” Afterwards, the man himself says to a third party, “I was at Stafford to-day and saw the review.” Without explanation, there is an appearance of inconsistency in the story, due to its artless truthfulness; for it turns out that the man came by express from London, but got into the wrong part of the train, and was taken to Stafford, where he had to wait over two hours for a train to Birmingham, and filled up the time by sauntering out of the town to where a review was going on. A man pretending to have come from London would have carefully abstained from all allusion to any other place.
Two discrepant accounts of a matter, both shown by other considerations to be true, must be capable of reconciliation. But some people are not capable of effecting the reconciliation, and like “J. M.” they prefer the easier method of throwing overboard the whole matter as an imposition, especially when they have a bias against the Bible; for the rejection of the Bible leaves a man free to live for himself in the present world, which all the natural instincts incline a man to do.
The “intricate puzzles” to which “J. M.” alludes are all capable of solution and have been solved (see Christadelphian for Decr. 1872) except the one he cites, which is not a “simple example” of the rest, as he calls it, but an exception altogether, standing by itself in this peculiarity, that it is due to the difference existing between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Septuagint. The Septuagint version differs from the original Hebrew in the genealogies, from the circumstance, doubtless, that the translators (uninspired patriotic Jews) doing their work in Egypt, which boasted mythically a great genealogical antiquity, desired to represent the Jewish archives as reaching further back than they did, so as to compare more respectably with Egyptian antiquities. Among the discrepancies due to this cause is the insertion of a generation (Cainan) between Arphaxad and Sala, not found in the Hebrew Scriptures.—(Gen. 11:12.) This addition appears in Luke, thus: “Sala who was the son of Cainan, who was the son of Arphaxed.”—(Luke 3:46.) This is what “J. M.” lays hold of. The question is, how came this addition into Luke? “J. M.” cares not to enquire. It is sufficient for him that it is there. But this is not enough for a mind perceiving how entirely the truth of the Bible is otherwise provided. In the absence of positive knowledge, we can only suggest, and a feasible suggestion it is, that it was added by some transcriber of Luke who only had the Septuagint version of the Old Testament in his possession, and who, on comparing Luke’s list with that in Gen. 11. concluded that Luke had made an omission. We may not know how that addition occurred, but it must have occurred in some way not inconsistent with Luke’s inspiration, because inspiration is proved conclusively on independent grounds.
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
(Continued from page 215.)
“The continued dissensions of the Pharisees and Sadducees sprung up in the days of John Hyrcanus (if not before): this division among the Jews was a guarantee against either party introducing any new book as a part of Holy Scripture. If it were proved that the Sadducees received only the Pentateuch as authoritative, still they would have been a check on the Pharisees, if they had wished to add any fresh book of prophecy, which (on the Maccabean theory) Daniel would have been.
“All the Maccabean theory of the origin of Daniel seems to me to arise from the notion that that age, and the period immediately succeeding, are times of which we know so little, that anything might then have occurred without our being able to prove the contrary. But, in truth, we know the history of the Maccabean age with particular exactness; and what we know happens to supply distinct evidence on the very point in question. How can we imagine that within twenty-eight years (probably but half so long) all memory of facts was so utterly effaced, that a recent book passed current as an ancient prophecy?
“We may well ask, How could this be? and especially so, when we remember what pains the Jews have taken to preserve in the Feast of Dedication the memory of the Maccabean deliverance. This feast connects the Jew of the present day with the deeds of Judas: how much more must it have done this while there were yet living the elders, in whose days these things had been wrought? The thanksgiving used still in this feast by the Jews appears itself to be a production of that very age; for it contains the expression, ‘Thou hast wrought for Thy people Israel, great salvation and deliverance, as it is this day,’—words only fitting a time when the fruits of the Maccabean struggle were still enjoyed by the people of the Jews as mercies in all their freshness.
“Thus the notion that the Maccabean period was one of such uncertainty, and that its events were so little remembered, that a spurious book might easily be received as genuine, is singularly at variance with the facts of the case. It was an epoch to which peculiar attention was directed, both at the time and in later ages. And be it remembered, that the period alleged to be so obscure, in which the book of Daniel was (according to the suppositions brought forward) introduced into general use, is limited to the sovereignty and high-priesthood of John Hyrcanus,—a period not greater than that from the death of Napoleon, at St. Helena, to the time when the supreme power in France had passed into the hands of his nephew. A comparison of this period with a similar space of time in our own days, makes us feel the futility of imagining that so small an interval was enough to envelope such a notorious fact as the reception or non-reception of a book of Scripture in obscurity.
“Thus the first book of Maccabees is evidence to us of the completest kind, that the book of Daniel was, in the Maccabean age itself, received and used as being what it professed,—an authoritative revelation given to the prophet of God in Babylon.
“But we can go yet farther: the first book of Maccabees recognises the existence and common knowledge of the book of Daniel prior to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the re-cleansing of the Temple. In chap. 2., it speaks of the death of Mattathias, the father of Judas and his brethren, and how in that hour he gave a charge to his sons to be zealous for the Law of God: in doing this, he draws examples from the saints of the Old Testament,—Abraham, Joseph, Phinehas their ancestor, Joshua, Caleb, David and Elijah who was zealous for the law, and was received up into Heaven. He then continues—‘Ananias, Azarias, Misael, believing, were saved from the flame: Daniel in his simplicity was delivered from the mouth of the lions. And thus understand in every generation, that all who hope in Him shall not be feeble. And fear ye not the words of a sinful man; for his glory is for the dunghill and for worms. To-day he shall arise, and to-morrow he shall not be found; for he shall return to his dust, and his thought perisheth.’—(ver. 59–63.)
“It may be said that we have no certainty that the writer of this book has faithfully recorded the speech of the dying Mattathias: he may have put expressions into the mouth of the Asmonean patriarch, according to his own notions of the historical examples which might be suitably brought forward under the circumstances. Let this objection have its full weight; and even then we see that the author of the book considered that, in B.C. 166 (not more than sixty years before he wrote), Daniel was a book of Scripture so well known, that examples might be taken from it to conclude a list which began with Genesis. He never would have put into the mouth of the dying priest sentiments and allusions altogether incongruous, and which must have been known to be such by those for whom he wrote.
“It is, however, difficult to suppose that the speech of Mattathias is the invention of the author of the book: it is characterised by that gravity and sobriety of statement which seem to mark it as real history; and this narrative was written, be it remembered, in the days of the grandson of the Asmonean patriarch.
“Thus the first book of Maccabees supplies simple evidence that the prophecy of Daniel was a well-known and accredited document prior to the Maccabean days in which some would place it. This might be considered as enough evidence: in common cases, if we find that a document has been accredited for being what it professes, so long, that memory or record can testify nothing to the contrary, then the document is received as bearing evidence of its own origin.
“Did the Jews, prior to the Maccabean age, receive books which professed to contain Holy Scripture lightly and unadvisedly? Let the persecution of Antiochus, during which they so clave to the law of Moses, bear witness to their adherence to their own Scriptures: let their conduct wherever found, in their dispersions, attest the same thing. They hold fast, and have held fast, the same collection of sacred books, to which they have added no others, even though they have introduced so many disfiguring traditions.
“The book of Daniel professes to be written by Daniel in the captivity; it contains the mention of events which, if true, must have been of public notoriety amongst all the Jews in Babylon. Did they accredit Daniel as a prophet, and did they receive his book as a divine prophecy? If they did, then there is an end of the whole matter. But if the reception of the book of Daniel was a later thing, how did it take place? Was it first known and received by the Jews of Jerusalem, at an age subsequent to that of the prophet? If so, how did the Jews of the dispersions regard it? Did those of Babylonia condemn it or attest it? With Babylonia the returned exiles had habitual intercourse for ages;2 and Jews of that region had much to do (as we see in the cases of Ezra and Nehemiah) with the reforms carried on amongst the returned Jews. Thus, if the book were first received in Babylon, it must have been by those who would at once check any forgery in the matter; if in Jerusalem, then the Babylonian Jews would have been witnesses for or against its claims.
“But, in fact, this leads the inquiry to the common grounds on which we prove the transmission of all ancient books or ancient monuments whatever. If any book is spoken of in the first place where it is mentioned as a known and authentic writing, the presumption is always considered to be in its favour, even though there is no prior proof of its existence. This presumption is considerably strengthened if the writing is mentioned as well known, and especially if it is spoken of under circumstances which incidentally prove this to be the case. A further corroboration is afforded if it is not the property of any individual merely, but of a community who guard it as an authoritative document: we then possess that sort of external evidence which leads us to examine the writing itself, and to see by whom it professes to be written, and when.
“Having done this, if we find that it claims to proceed from an author, who would, from the circumstances of the case, be well known by the community who possess the writing, we have reasonable grounds for receiving it as being what it claims to be. The burden of proof, then, rests wholly on those who deny the authenticity.”

310-315
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).
Further Confirmation of the Bible From Egyptian Sources
“We have now to observe the indirect confirmation of the Scripture History which is furnished by its harmony with what the (monumental) records tell us of Egyptian manners, customs, habits, modes of action, natural products, character and condition of art and the like. The representation of Egypt in the latter part of Genesis and in Exodus is so full and copious, and the facts which are laid down with respect to Egypt and the Egyptians are so numerous, as to render this portion of the Pentateuch a crucial test of the trustworthiness of the historian, who, if either careless or ignorant, could not have failed to betray himself by coming in collision with well-known facts, and who, if his words are in harmony with all such facts, establishes a just claim upon our attention, as one who wrote at the time whereof he gives the history, who was observant, and who aimed at stating the exact truth. The writer shows us Egypt under a settled monarchy. The king bears the title of Pharaoh. He is absolute or nearly so, committing men to prison and releasing them, or if he please, ordering their execution; appointing officers over the whole land, and taxing it apparently at his pleasure; raising a foreigner suddenly to the second position in the kingdom, and requiring all, without exception, to render him obedience. At the same time, the king has counsellors or ministers, “elders of his house” (Gen. 1:7) and others, whose advice he asks, and without whose sanction he does not seem to act in important matters. His court is organised after the fashion of later Oriental monarchies. He has a bodyguard under a “captain,” one of whose chief duties is to execute the sentences which he pronounces upon offenders. He has a train of confectioners, at the head of whom is a “chief confectioner” (Gen. 40:2), and a train of cup-bearers, at the head of whom is a “chief cupbearer.” (Ibid.) He rides in a chariot, and all men bow the knee before him (41:43.) The state of Egypt is one of somewhat advanced civilisation. There is also a class of “magicians” or “sacred scribes” (41:8), who may be either a sub-division of the priests or else may form a distinct profession. The name given to the class (scribes) implies that writing is practised. Among other indications of advance in civilisation are the mention of fine linen as worn by some (41:42) of a golden neck chain (ib.) a silver drinking-cup (44:2), wagons (45:21), chariots (50:9), a coffin or mummy case (ib.:26), and the practice of embalming. Among special peculiarities are (1) the position of the priests which is evidently very exalted (41:45), and more particularly their privilege with respect to their lands, which they hold by a different tenure from the rest of the people (47:22; (2) the existence of customs implying strong feelings with respect to purity and impurity, and a great dread of material defilement (43:32); (3) a special dislike or contempt for the occupation of herdsmen; and (4) a greater liberty with respect to the intermixture of the sexes than is common with Orientals. Other noticeable points are the great fertility of the soil; the cultivation in spring of the following crops, chiefly wheat, barley, flax, and rye or spelt (Ex. 9:32); the keeping of cattle, partly in the fields, partly in stables (ib.:3, 19); the storing of water in vessels of wood and stone (7:19); the existence of numerous granaries (Gen. 41:56); the use of the papyrus for boats (Ex. 2:3); the practice of carrying burthens upon the head (Gen. 40:16); the employment by the monarch of a signet ring (41:42); the importation of spices from Arabia (27:25); the washing of guests’ feet (43:24); the practice of sitting at meals (ib.: 38); the use of furnaces, ovens, kneading troughs, walking-sticks, hand mills, bitumen, and pitch. Now it is not too much to say that in this entire description there is not a single feature which is out of harmony with what we know of the Egypt of this remote period from the monuments. The power and grandeur of the king is absolutely proved by them. His authority is absolute; he enacts laws, imposes taxes, administers justice, executes or pardons offenders at his pleasure. He has a body guard, which is constantly seen on the sculptures, in close attendance upon his person. He is assisted in the management of state affairs by the advice of a council, consisting of the most able and distinguished members of the priestly order. His court is magnificent, and comprises various grand functionaries, whose tombs are among the most splendid of the early remains of Egyptian art. When he left his palace for any purpose, he invariably rode in a chariot. His subjects, wherever he appeared, bowed down or prostrated themselves. With respect to the early civilisation of Egypt, it is especially noted by those conversant with the subject, that the earliest sculptures extant, which can scarcely be later than B.C. 2400 or 2300, contain traces of a progress and advance which are most striking, and indeed surprising. The representations on one of the earliest are said by M. Lenormant to show the civilisation of Egypt as completely developed and organised as it was at the Persian or even at the Macedonian conquests, with every indication of a long anterior existence (Manual, vol, 1. p. 334). ‘In the tombs of the Pyramid period,’ says Sir Gardner Wilkinson, ‘are represented the fishing and fowling scenes as in latter times; the rearing of cattle and wild animals of the desert; the scribes using the same kind of reed for writing on the papyrus; the same boats; the same modes of preparing for the entertainment of guests; the same introduction of music and dancing; the same trades, as glass-blowers, cabinet makers, and others; as well as the same agricultural scenes, implements, and granaries.’—(Rawlinson’s Herodotus, ii. p. 29.) The monuments of this early time distinctly show the practice of writing, the distinction of classes or castes, the degradation of shepherds, the peculiar dignity of the priests, the practice of embalming and of burying in wooden coffins or mummy cases; the manufacture and use of linen garments; the wearing of gold chains; the employment of hand-mills, of furnaces, ovens, and kneading pans; the common practice of carrying staves or walking-sticks; the storing of water in vessels of wood and stone; the practice of making boats out of papyrus; the use of pitch and bitumen, and almost all the other points of the Mosaic description.”—Canon Rawlinson.
“J.M.’S” Objections to the Bible
“J.M.’S” next objection relates to the book of Ecclesiastes. He was led to have some doubt, he says, “whether the writer of it had any certain belief in a future state.” Why should he doubt this in view of the abundant evidence of Solomon’s belief on this point in the Proverbs, even if Ecclesiastes afforded no evidence on the point, which it does? Perhaps he doubts if Solomon were the writer. He does not make himself clear on this point. If he does doubt the writer’s identity with Solomon he is not a reasonable man, for the decisive authority in such a matter (the consent for twenty-eight centuries of the people among whom it was produced), attributes it to him; and the man who in such a matter sets himself against evidence of this sort, is either an ignoramus or one of those gentlemen of whom Solomon in the Proverbs says, “there is more hope of a fool than of him.” But even if it were not so certain, as it is, that Solomon was “the writer” of the Ecclesiastes, there still would be no room to doubt “the writer’s” belief in a future state, in view of the last ten verses of the book, in which he expressly gives what he calls “the conclusion of the whole matter.” “Fear God and keep His commandments for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work unto judgment with every secret thing whether it be good or whether it be evil.” How can it be doubted that this refers to “future” judgment? Did no responsible Jew under the law, die with “secret things” unjudged—good and evil? Nay, did not all die with such “secret things?” How then could the writer speak of “every secret thing” being brought unto judgment if he did not entertain “a belief in a future state?” To make the statement refer to “punishment in the present life” is manifestly absurd in view of the fact that “the present life” passes away with many “secret things” undisclosed and unrectified. True, that many of the responsibilities contracted under the law of Moses were discharged by penalties in the present life; but concurrently with these, there was a higher relation to God (even of faith), and higher actions, good and evil, which could only have their issue in the “future state” more clearly exhibited afterwards in the teachings of Christ.
“J. M.” makes it an objection that the writer of Ecclesiastes cautions men against being “righteous overmuch or overmuch wicked.” There seems a little peculiarity in this at first sight, but it disappears when we realise that the book was written for the guidance of Israel in days pertaining to their life as a nation occupying the land of Jehovah under the law; and secondly, that its lessons are applicable even to our circumstances. As to Israel, all were citizens alike who were circumcised, and to both classes,—the offenders and observers alike,—Solomon has a word of advice. The transgressor he reminds that wickedness shortens life, besides exposing the transgressor to the condemnation of the law. On the other hand, the righteous are informed that it is possible to be abnormally scrupulous, and too much concerned about the right and reason of things, with a like result of self-destruction. So far from this two-fold admonition affording a ground of objection to Ecclesiastes, it shows the perfect good sense of the spirit which prompted its production. The possibility of running into sensitive extremes in the desire to do right is exemplified in actual experience, and that this extreme should be discouraged in the book enjoining righteousness is a fact that will never be used against it except by hypercritics, whose knowledge of wisdom is limited to an acquaintance with the moral philosophy of the schools. There is, however, very little proneness in human nature to extreme in the direction of righteousness. It is the rare exception. Consequently, it is an extreme of which the Bible takes notice in only one instance, and that the instance in question. Where there is only one caution of this sort, there are thousands inculcating the study and practice of righteousness, a proportion of one to the other which practically corresponds to the needs of human nature.
It is a libel on Ecclesiastes on the part of “J.M.” to represent it as teaching, that the best thing for a man do is to “enjoy the present.” True, he does not broach this idea positively. He qualifies his suggestion by the phrase “it almost seems to teach” such a thing. Still, like most non-committal writers, he manages to convey the idea that he only refers to as an appearance. He justifies the suggestion by quoting the words of Solomon: “there is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink and that his soul should enjoy good in his labour.” But there is no necessary parallel between the idea contained in these words and the notion conventionally expressed in the phrase “enjoying the present.” “Enjoying the present” means gratification without reference to right or wrong or future responsibility, as in the case of pleasure followers who constitute the present evil world; whereas “enjoying good” in the sense of Solomon’s words, is to enjoy what God has appointed, subject to His regulations. This is evident throughout the whole of Ecclesiastes. Chapter 9:7, exhibits the feature distinctly: “Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy person.” And again at the close of the book “fear God and keep His commandments.”—(Chap. 12:13.) The enjoyment of God’s bounties in the forms and relations in which His law permits them, is undoubtedly the “portion” which God gives a man in so far as the present life is concerned. This feature is not confined to Ecclesiastes, nor to the old Testament. Paul says of these bounties that “God hath created them to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”—(1 Tim. 4:4.) And again, “God giveth us richly all things to enjoy.”—(1 Tim. 6:17.) Other illustrations might be quoted: there is no inconsistency between this feature of scriptural teaching and that which represents the saints as strangers and pilgrims in an evil world, whose pleasures they are to deny themselves. The world is one thing and God’s creature bounties another; so the pleasures which a godless generation invent for themselves are distinct from the enjoyments which God has associated with the healthy and legitimate use of His own appointments.
Solomon’s words are only out of harmony with the rest of the Bible in the estimation of those who cannot discriminate between things which differ. It is good for a man to enjoy what God has given him, when God accepteth his person in the way of righteousness. Solomon enjoins this in contrast with the man who misses the good that God has placed within his reach through worry about things beyond his control, and a morbid scrupulosity in the direction of righteousness which disregards and violates the dictates of true wisdom. That Ecclesiastes should contain such an injunction is a fact in its favour with all truly reasonable men, who have no difficulty in seeing a little deeper than superficial critics of the stamp of “J. M.”
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
(Continued from page 272.)
“The book of Daniel was received (as I have shown) in the Maccabean age, as a writing previously received, well known, and accredited; the persons in whose hands it was, were the Jews at large, who must have known that the appeals made in the first book of Maccabees, were to a publicly-accredited book of Scripture. Thus, in the proper custody, there was this book in existence, which must, according to all principles of historic proof, be admitted to give its own testimony, quantum valeat. It professes to be written by a prophet in Babylon, whose mission was connected with remarkable miracles: the community which received this book must have known from whence it came into their hands, and thus they must have known whether it possessed claims on their attention or not. And if no point of time can be assigned as that at which the Jews first received the book of this prophet posterior to his own age, we must embrace the conclusion that from his own time and onward they had always possessed it.
“An ancient monument must always be allowed to speak for itself: if proof be required that it is ancient, let that be given, and then let the monument be listened to as to all that it has to say of its own origin; it is thus that we obtain many valuable points of historic evidence.
“Thus, the inscription on the arch of Titus is,—
SENATVS
POPVLVSQVE.
ROMANVS DIVO.TITO.
DIVI. VESPASIANI. F.
VESPASIANO.
AUGUSTO.
And it is of deep interest to us, connected as it is with the destruction of Jerusalem and with the carrying away of the holy vessels of the Temple, depicted on the edifice. We do not raise any question about fraud or deception; we receive the evidence as trustworthy. We might find difficulty in proving that this arch is that erected in honour of Titus, in the same way that we might prove a contemporary event; but we take the inscription itself, standing on a public edifice, as proof of the fact;—and a good proof it is, not only as carrying moral conviction, but even as legal evidence.
“If this is the case with regard to works previously unknown, how much more must it be so as to a writing received and possessed by a community? The tradition or transmission of a book which professes to be by a certain author, and which does not come forth to light from a secret hiding place, but, at the first point at which it is mentioned in extant documents, was well and widely known, is the strongest evidence which the case admits, that the book is true in its profession,—that it is in fact the work of the author whose name it bears. To reject this testimony would be to adopt the wildest scepticism, and that with regard not only to Scripture, but also all the literary remains of antiquity. The argument may be summed up in a few words; books exist, professing to be the works of certain authors; they have been transmitted as such from ancient days; and thus the profession must either be true, or thus we should have to account both for the existence of the books, and also for the false opinions which have obtained currency respecting them. We might as well doubt the genuineness of ancient inscribed edifices, as of books thus transmitted, which carry on their own face a certificate of their origin.
“Thus may we take our stand at the Maccabean age, and look backward at the transmission of the book of Daniel. If not genuine, was it forged in the age immediately subsequent to that to which it professes to belong? If so, there were contemporary witnesses to prevent its reception by disproving its claims. Or, was it introduced in a later age? Then it would have been impossible for the perpetrators of the fraud (if such a word may be used here even hypothetically), to dissuade the Jews alike of Jerusalem, Babylon, and Alexandria, that this had been one of their sacred books from the time of Zerubbabel and the building of the second Temple.
“When a book, at a given time, is proved to have been regarded as the work of a certain author, or as possessed of a great antiquity, otherwise undefined, we must look at its own claims, which in such circumstances possess a primary weight of evidence, just like that of a monumental inscription.
“Thus the profession of the author of the book that he was Daniel—a prophet in the Babylonish captivity—is primâ facie proof that this is the fact; the onus probandi may be fairly thrown on those who would deny it. If this be not admitted, then we shall be guilty of treating this book (well known by a community scattered through many lands), with less consideration than we bestow upon writings of whose origin and early reception we know scarcely anything.
“He who would disprove the evidence of the author of the book, must either do so on internal grounds (and those of not mere surmise, but of a positive character), or else he must show that in some marvellous manner the Jews were led to accredit this book with its professed authorship and its exalted claims.
“This is not a case like that of the book in the Apocrypha, called Baruch; which, although professing to be by Baruch, the companion of Jeremiah, never was accredited as such by the Jews, and can be proved not to be such, on internal and unquestionable grounds. So that the same principles of transmissive evidence enable us to sift the claims which the inscribed title of a work may advance, and to accept or reject them as may be needful in arriving at the truth.”

360-366
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).
So-Called “Spontaneous Generation”
THE scientific men would like to account for the universe without the Possessor of heaven and earth, who declared to Israel that He formed all things by His wisdom and sustains them by His power. They have therefore invented the notion of “spontaneous generation.” The notion is that organic life comes of itself, as a spontaneous development of abstract force—first in a simple cellular form in both the animal and vegetable departments; from which more complex forms are developed under the influence of surrounding circumstances. The notion has now been made the subject of scientific test, with a result which shows that nature herself excludes it. We are indebted to a correspondent, for a newspaper clipping, which conveys the following information: “Professor Tyndal has spent another year over arduous and experimental examination of the facts that bear upon the theory of spontaneous generation, and on Friday night last communicated the results to the members of the Royal Institution. The sum of these results is, in his own words, that ‘from the beginning to the end of the inquiry there is not a shadow of evidence in favour of the doctrines of spontaneous generation. There is, on the contrary, overwhelming evidence against it.’ By exhaustive examination, he finds himself led ‘inexorably to the conclusion that in the lowest as in the highest of organised creatures, the method of nature is that life shall be the issue of antecedent life.’ Twelve months ago he had experimented with animal and vegetable infusions which had been boiled for five minutes, and which, on being subsequently exposed to air free from all floating matter, were found incapable of developing either the bacterial or the fungoid life of which putrefaction consists. The experiment was repeated hundreds of times, and always with the same result. In autumn similar experiments had a very different issue. Then the same organic liquids previously experimented on, after three times as much boiling, were found to fill up with the organisms of putrefaction. A superficial judgment might have regarded the latter experiments as throwing doubt on the earlier. By careful examination Professor Tyndal satisfied himself that the laboratory of the Royal Institution, in which the second series of experiments was conducted, had become infected by a virulently putrefactive atmosphere. He thereupon betook himself to the laboratory in the pure atmosphere of Kew Gardens. There the experiments that had failed in the polluted atmosphere produced again the original results—liquids which had filled themselves with putrefactive organisms after three hours’ boiling at the Royal Institution laboratory, were found to be perfectly sterilised after five minutes’ boiling at Kew. The premises at the Royal Institution having been thoroughly disinfected, the original results were afterwards obtained there.”
Assyrian Confirmation of Bible History
“I must pass now from Africa to Asia—from the kingdom of the Pharaohs to those still mightier monarchies which rose up on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates at a date not much later than the rise of Egypt, and which exercised for many centuries a still wider sovereignty.
The earliest illustration which the Babylonian records furnish to the scriptural narrative is to be found in that curious series of tablets known as ‘the Izdubar Legends,’ discovered and deciphered chiefly by my friend, Mr. G. Smith of the British Museum. These tablets give the Babylonian account of the deluge. . . .
Its resemblance to the Biblical narrative is striking; yet neither has the appearance of having been drawn from the other; and the most rational conclusion is that they are independent accounts of a real event in human history, of which the ancestors of both nations had experience. The next event in Bible history which the Assyrian records illustrate is the invasion of Palestine in the lifetime of Abraham by a powerful monarch who bore sway over Lower Mesopotamia, but whose proper country was the still more remote Elam, or the tract east of the Lower Tigris, between its course and the mountains. It is surprising to find that at this early date military expeditions could reach so far, and it is at first sight strange that a power so little known as Elam should have been the chief invader. The early Babylonian inscriptions, however, show that Elam did at a remote period exercise authority over Lower Mesopotamia, and that monarchs of Elamitic race did carry their arms into Syria. From the time of Abraham we must pass at a bound to that of Ahaz, the next period at which the Assyrian annals directly illustrate the narrative of Scripture. Scripture relates that Ahaz, being threatened with destruction by his northern neighbours, Samaria, which was under Pekah, and Damascus, which was ruled by Rezin, sent to a king of Assyria named Tiglath-pileser, and having accepted the position of a tributary, called on him for aid against his adversaries. The Assyrian monarch responded to the call, went up against the confederate monarchs, shattered the alliance, took Damascus, carried its people into captivity, and slew Rezin (2 Kings 16:5–9). Similarly, Tiglath-pileser tells us that from his 12th to the 14th year he carried on a war in Southern Syria and Palestine with Pekah, King of Samaria, and Rezin, monarch of Damascus, who were confederated together, that he besieged Rezin in his capital for two years, and finally took it, after which he put Rezin himself to death, and carried away captive vast numbers of his subjects. Ahaz he does not mention in this place; but elsewhere he states that before quitting Syria he held his court at Damascus, and summoned the neighbouring monarchs before him to make submission, and give tribute; and that among them came, not only Pekah of Samaria, but also Yahu-Khazi (whom I believe to have been Ahaz), King of Judah. You will not have forgotten the account in Scripture of Ahaz visiting Tiglath pileser at Damascus, and sending to Jerusalem the pattern of an idolatrous altar, which he commanded Urijah, the high priest, to set up in the temple. The successor of Tiglath-pileser on the throne of Assyria was according to the inscription Shalmaneser; and Shalmaneser appears in the Second Book of Kings as the next Assyrian assailant of Israel. This prince goes up against Hoshea, and besieges Samaria for two years, at the end of which time ‘the Assyrians’ (it is said) take it, and the people are carried into captivity. Shalmaneser’s annals have been defaced, and we have thus no positive confirmation of his Palestinian wars; but Sargon, his successor, declares that Samaria was taken, and its people led away captive in his first year, so that if the city stood a two years’ siege, it must have been attacked by his predecessor, Shalmaneser. He also speaks of founding cities in Media, and planting them with colonists from a distance—a statement which throws light on the passage where it is said of the Israelites, ‘And the King of Assyria did carry away Israel into Assyria, and put them in Halah and in Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes’ (2 Kings 18:11). Sargon’s son and successor, according to the Assyrians, was the famous Sennacherib, who is mentioned in Scripture as the assailant of Hezekiah not many years after the captivity of Israel. Scripture evidently mentions two expiditions of Sennacherib. The second expedition was that far more famous one, when, being engaged in war against Egypt and Ethiopia, the great Assyrian monarch sent three high officers of his court from Lachish to threaten Hezekiah, whom he regarded as inclined to favour his enemies. You have heard often, and can scarcely have forgotten, the blasphemous threats of Rabshakeh—you remember the letter of Sennacherib in which these threats were repeated and made his own—you recollect how Hezekiah read the letter and took it to the temple and ‘spread it before the Lord’—how Isaiah upon this was sent with an assurance of safety and how ‘that night’ the angel of the Lord went out and smote in the camp of the Assyrians (which was at Libnah) an hundred fourscore and five thousand—and the proud monarch, having lost his army, was forced to retire, and ‘departed, and went and returned and dwelt at Nineveh.’—(2 Kings 19:36.) The latter of these two expeditions receives no notice in Sennacherib’s annals. Monarchs, especially Oriental monarchs, are disinclined to put on record their miscarriages; and I have even observed that in modern Europe there is a tendency to avoid commemoration of disasters. Thus Sennacherib is silent with respect to his calamity; but he records the first, his successful expedition, at some length. ‘Because Hezekiah, King of Judah,’ he says, ‘would not submit to my yoke, I came up against him, and by force of arms and by the might of my power I took forty-six of his strong cities, and of the smaller towns which were scattered about I took and plundered a countless number. And from these places I captured and carried off as spoil 200,150 people, old and young, male and female, together with horses and mares, asses and camels, oxen and sheep, a countless number. And Hezekiah himself I shut up in Jerusalem, like a bird in a cage, building towers round the city to hem him in; and raising banks of earth against the gates to prevent escape. . . . Then upon this Hezekiah there fell the fear of the power of my arms, and he sent out to me the chiefs and the elders of Jerusalem with thirty talents of gold and eight (?) hundred talents of silver, and divers treasures, a rich and immense booty. . . All these things were brought to me at Nineveh, the seat of my government, Hezekiah having sent them by way of tribute, and as a token of submission to my power.’ I do not think that I need point out the close agreement between this account and that of Scripture; they are too nearly identical to require comment or annotation.”—Canon Rawlinson.
“J. M.’s” Objections to the Bible
Paragraph 8. sets forth that “J. M.” in the course of his cogitations became “concerned” at the discrepancy between “the statements of most of the prophets with regard to the restoration of Jerusalem,” and “those of Ezekiel as to the capital city of the restored kingdom.” His contention is that while according to the first set of statements, the old city must be restored, according to Ezekiel it is to be a new city totally unconnected with Jerusalem. This can hardly be regarded as a serious argument. Jerusalem with a new name (Yahweh-shammah—the Lord is there)—even if that name were to supersede the current use of the old name, which is doubtful, is Jerusalem still. The “statements of the prophets” were for present reading, and in describing her coming glory, it was needful to identify the Jerusalem that now is and is in bondage with her children, with the exalted city of the age to come; which could only be done by speaking of that exalted city as Jerusalem.
But then, says “J. M.,” the new city was to have the “tower of Hananeel and the king’s wine presses” (Jer. 31:38), which are not to be found in Jerusalem, at the present day. This does not prove that these are indistinguishable as topographical points of the future city. The explorations of the Palestine society have identified and unbared the foundations of many walls and towers and localities, which had perished from memory; and restored points of description which may be serviceable in the future rehabiliment of the city. But even suppose they had not been found, would that prove that God could not find them when the time of restoration comes?
“But the city he (Ezekiel) describes is a totally different one” from that of the other prophets. That is not proved. The “other prophets” speak of Jerusalem simply: they say nothing of dimensions or the form of the city in her glory. If Ezekiel supplies both, he does not contradict but merely supplements “the other prophets.” No doubt, Ezekiel’s city differs from the Jerusalem of past times: but this involves no difficulty unless we suppose that “the other prophets” when they spoke of the future glory of “Jerusalem,” meant the identical architecture under which they knew the city so-called. But this would be childish. The architecture of Jerusalem has varied with every generation, like all other cities: and the idea of confining her to any particular stage of her configuration would be absurd. It is only a hypercritical and uncandid state of mind that would insist on such an idea. The London of to-day is a very different place from the London that Queen Elizabeth knew, both in extent and architecture; but who would say that therefore Victoria does not reign in the metropolis of Elizabeth? Jerusalem of the age to come will be larger than the Jerusalem of past times, (even larger than London): and when “the sons of strangers” come to “build her walls,” they will not follow the zigzag irregularities of her ancient form, but work by the improved plans revealed to Ezekiel: and none but simpletons, will say “This is not Jerusalem.”
But, says “J. M.” “the size of the (land) oblation and the position of the city with regard to it, too, make it seem impossible that Ezekiel’s city could occupy even anything like the same site as Jerusalem.” Suppose it were so, there would be no practical difficulty. The identity and power of a metropolitan city do not depend upon its resting on a particular spot of earth. It is its relation to the polity of which it is the heart, that constitutes its position. If London were pulled down to-day and built ten miles farther on, it would be London still, if it were built as London and to fill the position of London. Jerusalem pulled down ages ago and re-built as Jerusalem, though not on the exact spot, would be Jerusalem still.
But it is not certain that it wont be built on the very spot. We may even go further and say that it certainly will be built on the very same spot and enlarged. But what about Ezekiel’s specifications in that case? Well, they are not necessarily inconsistent. The “size of the land oblation” has nothing to do with it. If the city rests on the same spot, the 50-mile-square will be adjusted with reference to the fact. There is more in the allusion to “the position of the city with regard to it;” it doubtless occupies the southernmost part of the square, and no doubt if you fix the position of the square adversely, the city is driven out of its place. But the position of the square as a matter of topographical exactness is altogether an open question. All that is certain is that it lies between the portions of Judah and Benjamin, and that it is of a breadth from north to south corresponding with the portions allotted to the tribes. Before “J. M.’s.” objection could be sustained, the position of the oblation would have to be beyond question, which is so far from being the case, that most who examine the matter come to different conclusions. That “J. M.” should seek to make an objection against the Bible out of such a subject, shows that he either lacks capacity to deal with it, or that like most rejectors of the Bible, he is anxious to find matter of objection wherever he can, without being particularly anxious as to whether the objection is well-founded or not.
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
(Continued from page 315.)
“In looking back at the age when the author of Daniel professes to have lived, we find independent evidence that such a name and person were then known. In Ezekiel, chap. 14., the name of Daniel is twice mentioned: in the communication of God to the prophet, he says, ‘when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously . . . though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God’ (verse 14, so also verse 20). It appears to be assumed that these three were well-known persons. Noah, found alone righteous in his generation, was one whose name and actions were familiar to every reader of Scripture; so too Job, who was upright, so that there was none like him in the earth: the introduction of Daniel between the other two, is proof that there was at some earlier age, or else in the time of Ezekiel himself, a servant of God so called, of eminent holiness. He must, too, have been a well-known person, for such objects alone can be rightly used as standards of comparison. But we find no Daniel recorded in earlier ages; hence we must conclude that Ezekiel had one as a well-known contemporary. In chap. 27. of Ezekiel, we find Daniel again used as a standard of comparison. In verse 3, the Lord says to the ‘Prince of Tyrus,’ ‘Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee.’ Thus we find that the Daniel recognised in Ezekiel was pre-eminent in holiness, and also one to whom secret things were especially made known.
“Thus, in or before the days when Daniel the writer professes to have lived, there was a well-known Daniel possessed of the moral characteristics of that prophet in chap. 1., and spiritually endowed, as he is said to be, in chap. 2. And as no such previous Daniel is recorded, we must conclude that he belonged to the time of the captivity, so that the Daniel mentioned in Ezekiel, and Daniel the author of the book, are also professedly of the same age. But in Ezekiel’s days we find no trace of any other Daniel, except the author. Thus, we have proof that there was an eminent Israelite called Daniel—a real, well-known person—with whom the author of the book identifies himself. The reception of the book of Daniel, by the Jews as a body, sanctions this identification: they must have known whether it was really written by this well-known person or not.
“The undesignedness of the coincidence between Ezekiel and Daniel is shown by the former not speaking of Daniel as a writer, though indicating his character, and by his referring only to those things now found in his book, which are earlier in date than the time when Ezekiel wrote.
“A reference to the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, and the place of Daniel in that translation, is needful, in order fully to investigate the subject; while in so doing, it must be fully admitted that some of the obscurity which rests on the ancient versions in general, still broods over LXX.
“It is a demonstrated fact, that this version of the Old Testament was commenced before the year 285 B.C., and that whether all the books were executed about the same time, or at a considerable interval, yet that the work of translation went on until all the sacred books, received alike by the Jews of Jerusalem and Alexandria, were turned into Greek.
“The mere fact that Daniel takes its place as part of this version, is an important point in the history of the transmission of the book. It shows how fully it must have been received by the Jewish community at large; and be it remembered that the separation of the Jews was an event long prior to the Maccabean times. Indeed, it is highly probable that the version of Daniel was anterior to that epoch; at all events, the translator of Ecclesiasticus (who lived, on the latest supposition, at that time) speaks of the books of Scripture in general as translated into Greek: he even notices the imperfections of the Greek versions; and thus it is needless to consider that the real LXX. of Daniel was a production of a subsequent time on account of its being so defective as a translation.
“Had not Daniel been known as one of the collection of holy writings, it is inexplicable how it could have formed a part of this ancient version. It presents to us another channel of transmission.
“An argument may be based on the imperfection of the Greek version of Daniel as found in the real LXX. (for which the Church at an early period substituted that of Theodotion); had Daniel been a recent book when the Greek translation of it was executed, how could we suppose that the meaning would have been so lost in the version? On the Maccabean theory, the original of Daniel and the Greek translation, must have been separated at most by a very short interval, not nearly sufficient for its meaning and phraseology to have become antiquated.
“There is a narration in Josephus (Ant. Jud. 11:8) in which the book of Daniel is mentioned, the historic accuracy of which has been impugned by many, not on positive grounds, but simply on those of doubt and difficulty. He states that Alenander the Great paid a remarkable visit to Jerusalem, with the intention of severely punishing the people for adhering to their oath of fidelity to the last Darius,—that Jaddua, the high priest, met him at the head of a procession,—that the conqueror’s wrath was averted, and that on his visit to the holy city, the prophecy of Daniel was shown him, which said that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia.
“Whatever doubt or difficulty may be raised as to the historic truth of this narration in all its parts, still we have no reason to question that this was believed as a fact, in the first century, by the Jews; we know how remarkably Alexander favoured the Jews—a circumstance which must have had some cause or reason—and it is evident that the Jews in Josephus’s days believed that Daniel was a book extant in the days of Alexander: this belief is all that I wish to press absolutely; for it shows that they must have known that it was a book long anterior to the days of Antiochus Epiphanes.
“It cannot be said that this register was introduced in order that it might pass as Nehemiah’s; there is as little possibility of imposture, as there is in the addition of the last chapter of Deuteronomy, where Moses himself could not be supposed to be the writer. Such additions to the books of the Old Testament stand on the same ground as to their reception, as the books which are anonymous; we receive them as transmitted to us through the proper channel of custody as holy Scripture.
“This duly-chronicled succession of high priests, and of contemporary Levites, is a guard, up to that time, against the reception of Daniel, or any other book, if spurious, as part of holy Scripture: and Josephus shows that the Jews believed that Daniel was known and used by Jaddua himself.
“Neh. 12:22, also mentions Jaddua, and ‘the priests to the reign of Darius the Persian.’ This shows us the time to which this register carries us on, even to the days of Darius Codomanus, the last Persian king. It was to him that Jaddua had sworn allegiance, and thus he refused to break his oath, preferring rather to endure the displeasure of Alexander. ‘Darius the Persian’ seems to be an expression thus used after the rule of Macedon had been set up; otherwise the designation had no such significance as it would have once had in those days when it was used in opposition to Mede.
“The Jewish account is, that Simon the Just (the high priest from B.C. 300–291) closed the canon of the Old Testament: if this means that he finished the books as transmitted in one collection, it may be probable as a fact; for that Simon the Just was the son of Onias, the son of this Jaddua. If this account be a tradition, it is confirmed by the fact that the Old Testament mentions persons on to his age, and no farther: we are thus shown that the writing of any books of the Old Testament ends in his days, with the mention of the last Darius, and the high priest Jaddua, his grandfather.”
(To be continued.)

446-452
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).
M. Thiers and Human Destiny
M. THIERS, the leading statesman of France, has passed into his grave at the ripe age of fourscore years. Among the papers he has left, is a work on philosophy, in which, according to the public notices of his life, he records his conviction, as the result of a long lifetime’s experience, that there are ills inherent in the present constitution of things that science will be eternally powerless to cure; and that the present life is a training for a higher state of existence. It is interesting to hear such a verdict from such a man as the late M. Thiers. Indirectly, it is a powerful confirmation of the Bible, though the Bible needs it not. The Bible explains the inherent ills on which “nature” can throw light. Nature can only show us what is; it cannot tell us why; and in showing us evil without the “why,” it shows a mystery. There must be a reason for the “ill” which M. Thiers acknowledges and admits human impotence to cure. Nature furnishes no reason. The Bible does, and hence comes in to fill the void which mere natural thoughts discover.
The Bible also speaks of a cure, and makes the mystery of evil a vanishing mist. It exhibits God’s purpose to destroy every curse, to abolish pain as an experience and death as an event, in His own wise way. This way involves delay, because the delay is needed to ripen the situation for the full manifestation of good. God’s revealed method in the case is to choose a limited number for this good, on the principle of faith and obedience, during the prevalence of evil with multitudes who perish. Here becomes visible the true idea shadowed in M. Thiers’ conclusion that the present state is a state of preparation for a higher existence. It is undoubtedly such a state of preparation, but for whom and on what principle, and with what result to those not prepared, can only be learnt from what God has been pleased to reveal in the Scriptures. Away from this, all is speculation and darkness. M. Thiers, with all the facts of human existence under the cognizance of a powerful intellect, sees an incurable state of evil which the Bible accounts for, and discerns a necessity towards higher good which the Bible presents the form of, with its applications and limitations. The fact is an interesting offset to the obtuseness of a generation of shallow sceptics, who see no particular evil to be lamented and no particular good to be desired.
Bible History Confirmed by the Assyrian Tablets
“Some years after his return to Nineveh, Sennacherib met his death by violence. Scripture tells us that he was murdered by two of his sons as he was worshipping in one of the Ninevite temples; that the murderers, having effected their bloody purpose, fled, escaping into the land of Armenia; and that Esar-haddon, another son of Sennacherib, not implicated in the murder, reigned in his stead. The Assyrian monuments, hitherto discovered, make no mention of the assassination; but they show us Esar-haddon, soon after his father’s death, engaged in a war with two half-brothers on the Armenian frontiers—a very natural consequence of such an attempt as that which Scripture records, and they tell us of his complete success and triumphant establishment of himself upon the throne of his father. Contemporary with Sennacherib we find, in Isaiah and Kings, a certain Merodach-baladan. He is represented as on friendly terms with Hezekiah, and, consequently, as braving the anger of the Assyrians, ‘of whom he must be independent, or he could not act as he does.’ The records of the Assyrians contain frequent mention of their prince, who was an inveterate enemy of the Assyrian power, who met both Sargon and Sennacherib in the field, and was by each in turn driven from his kingdom, but continued all his life to claim the Babylonian crown, and left the inheritance of his pretensions to his sons and grandsons. The disappearance of Assyria from the scene by the destruction of Nineveh, and the substitution, in its place, as the great Eastern power of Babylon, towards the latter part of the seventh century B.C., which are clearly seen in Scripture, appear also very plainly in the inscriptions, the Assyrian portion of which suddenly ceases about B.C. 610, while the Babylonian becomes numerous. The greatness of Nebuchadnezzar at this time also becomes very apparent. His proud boast: ‘Is not this great Babylon which I have built?’ is illustrated by the fact that three-fourths of the bricks found at Babylon have his name upon them; his command of captive labour is indicated, if not implied, in the enormous size and number of the great works which he undertook in all parts of Babylonia; his long reign, marked in Scripture by the prolonged captivity of Jeconiah, is proved by the amount of regnal years noted on his tablets; and his extreme pride and haughtiness is amply shown by the general tone of his utterances on tablets, bricks and cylinders. Of his compassionate son and successor, Evil-Merodach, who released Jeconiah from prison, no memorials have been found; but a recent discovery has thrown very remarkable light on the closing scene of the great Babylonian monarchy, which is the subject of the fifth chapter of Daniel. The feast made by Belshazzar to his lords, the desecration which it involved of the temple vessels, the mysterious warning given to the infatuated prince by the writing which he saw ‘the fingers of a man’s hand trace upon the palace wall,’ are in the recollection of you all, together with Daniel’s exposition of the prophetic words and the sequel, that ‘in that night was Belshazzar slain,’ and his kingdom divided and given to the Medes and Persians. Sceptics used to be fond of asking, ‘Who was this Belshazzar, of whom profane history knew nothing, and whose very existence it seemed to deny by making the last King of Babylon a certain Labynetus or Nabonnedus, who, moreover, was not killed at the capture of the city; but, after its capture, submitted to Cyrus, and was kindly treated by him?’ The apparent contradiction was explained when, some fifteen years ago, a record made by the order of Nabonnedus himself was exhumed from the mounds of Babylonia—a record in which he mentioned that the name of his eldest son was Bel-shar-ezer (or Belshazzar), and spoke of him in a way which implied that the two were joint rulers of Babylon. The sacred and the profane became at once harmonious. It was that, of the two joint kings, one, the younger, at the time of the siege, bore command within the city, held an impious and untimely feast, was warned, and fell in the sack of the place; while the other kept the open field, submitted when his capital was taken, and experienced the clemency of the conqueror. Such are the chief of the direct confirmations of the scriptural narrative which the cuneiform inscriptions furnish. They are, perhaps, fewer than you might have expected. But it should be borne in mind, first, that the cuneiform records are occasional and fragmentary; and that the so-called ‘Historical Books’ of Scripture are intended to give the religious rather than the civil history of the Jewish nation, and that, consequently, they omit the points of contact between the chosen people and the surrounding nations, unless where they have a religious bearing. The relations of Ahaz with Tiglath-pileser might never have been mentioned in Kings if they had not led to a remarkable desecration of the temple; those of Hezekiah with Merodach-baladan might have been passed by if they had not furnished the occasion for a remarkable prophecy. It is probable, indeed it is certain, from the Assyrian records, that numerous occasions of contact between the Jews and the Assyrians were passed over by the sacred historians because they, in no way, affected the religious condition of the Jewish people.”—Lecture by Canon Rawlinson.
J. M.’s Objections to the Bible
FROM the Old Testament, J. M. in par. 9. turns to the New for “objections to the infallibility of the Bible.” Of these, however, he instances but two. One of these has already been thoroughly dealt with in answer to “J. G.” two months ago.—(See Christadelphian for last August—Answers to Correspondents, page 377, under the heading “Was Redemption nigh in the Apostolic Age?”) The objection is that the second advent of Christ did not take place in the first or second century, as the first believers expected and as Jesus himself seemed to teach: from which it is deduced that the expectation and the teaching were alike mistaken. The fallacy of this argument having been thoroughly made manifest in the place referred to, it is unnecessary to deal with it now, and so par. 10. (which is the last paragraph) is disposed of.
The objection brought forward in par. 9. is, that while Acts 9:23–32 “seems to imply” that Paul came straight to Jerusalem after his enlightenment at Damascus, Paul himself, in Gal. 1., says he did not go up to Jerusalem, but went first into Arabia, and returned to Damascus, where he stayed three years before going up to Jerusalem. This is the flimsiest of all the flimsy objections brought forward in this lithographed resumé of reasons “Why I left the Christadelphians” (which ought to have read, “Why I reject the Bible as the Word of God”); in fact, it is difficult to imagine a really earnest and capable man bringing it forward. Is it possible that an earnest man, with so much at stake as is implied in receiving or rejecting the Scriptures, could be content with a “seems to imply” as the basis of an objection? Many things “seem” to be that are not. Many a truthful man, in common conversation, “seems to imply” conclusions inconsistent with the very statements he is making. When he says he has never been on a Welsh railway, he seems to imply either that he has never been in Wales, when we know he has walked through it, or that he lives in England, and has been on English railways, when, in fact, he lives in a Welsh sea-port, and has travelled on a French line, but never on a Welsh. Should we accuse him of falsehood on the strength of a “seems to imply?” This is what J. M. does with the Bible in the case in question. Acts 9. “seems to imply” something which Paul’s statement in Gal. 1. shows could not be; therefore the Bible is untrue! What miserable trifling in the face of such a host of invulnerable evidence that the Bible is true! When a thing is proved true, earnest men look below the “seems” and find out that they are only “seems”—“seems,” too, which go to strengthen the realities of the case; for truth has often inconsistent “seems” about it, while falsehood is carefully trimmed into an artificial consistency. But a man who wants to believe in a certain direction is content with the “seems,” as in the present case.
But how stands the case? Acts 9:23, says that “after many days were fulfulled,” Paul went to Jerusalem; Paul says he did so “after three years.”—(Gal. 1:18). Where is the contradiction? What is the difference between “many days” and “three years?” Are not 1095 days “many days?” True, 100 days are “many days,” but so are a thousand days. The quantitive objection is indefinite. The known facts must be the guide; and the known fact in the present case is that the “many days” were 1095 days.
But then, the rejector rejoins, “Acts says nothing about Arabia?” Well, what of that? Shall we say Paul did not go into Arabia because Acts does not say so? If so, why not conclude that Paul neither ate nor slept during the “many days” he was at Damascus? Acts tells us he there “fulfilled many days:” it does not say he went to bed, or took his dinner. “Yes; but it is to be understood as a matter of course.” So is the other to be understood as a matter of course when it is a fact, which Paul testifies it to be. The omission to mention it does not disprove it. J. M. does not tell us in his “why’s” that he has read certain books that turn from the truth: shall we say he has not read them because his “why’s” are silent? or that there is a contradiction between his “why’s” and the facts of the case? If we are to be reasonable in our treatment of his production, are we to be unreasonable in our treatment of the Acts?
“But, then, Acts says that when Paul did come to Jerusalem, Barnabas ‘brought him to the apostles,’ whereas Paul in Galatians says he saw Peter, and that other of the apostles saw he none, but James the Lord’s brother.” Well, “apostles” is plural: how many does it take to make the plural number?—“two or more.” Acts says “the apostles;” Galatians says “two.” Where is the contradiction? “Because the apostles means the twelve.” This is your assumption, Mr. Objector. The twelve no doubt would be “the apostles,” but a lesser number were all that were available at the particular time. In the case in question, Peter and James were all the apostles Paul was able see. Where the others were is not stated: probably absent in the district at work. The two at home, representing the rest, would be, in the particular transaction, “the apostles.”
To make an objection out of such a point, only illustrates the great strength of the whole case.
The keenest of casuists have spent their strength in vain to loosen, in true logic, a single stone of the building. J.M.’s little effort is an addition to the failures. Of course it does not rank among the strong efforts. We have given it a little attention, because it has been circulated (where it could be) among brethren, some of whom, perhaps, might not see through its fallacies at once, and be made uncomfortable in their adhesion to the faith. Doubt is a worm that kills the healthiest plant at last. The spade of investigation unearths the worms, and the knife of logic kills them. Then the watering of the word will nourish, and the manuring and pruning of adversity and exhortation have their due effect in developing growth and vigour.
J. M. takes refuge in Deism; but J. M. will find that nothing will avail a man for eternal life, but the righteousness of God’s own providing in Christ, to be taken and worn in the way appointed, of which we learn in the writings of inspired prophets and apostles alone. Liberty to bestow undistracted attention on the affairs and interests of this present life, or to indulge, without fetter, in the vagaries of scientific speculation (even allowing a good deal of it may have a basis in truth,) may be pleasing meanwhile and for a time; but there is another aspect of the case. Such liberty will be enjoyed at the expense of the kingdom of God; and a man will find at the last that there is no other portion for the sons of men than the kingdom of God, for all things else end among the fossils.
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
(Continued from page 367.)
“Such, then, is an outline of the external and transmissive proof of the genuineness of the book of Daniel; it will be seen that we possess these grounds of evidence besides what we learn authoritatively from the New Testament.
If the genuineness of an ancient book is attacked, it must be either on external or internal ground. The grounds of disproof from the former may be satisfactory, but, in general, the external arguments against a book are negative; for they rest on the silence of those who may be expected to mention it. Of course, we have sometimes explicit early testimony that a book does not really proceed from the author whose name is attached to it; and, in such a case, the evidence is positive. In general, however, external counter testimony is only negative; such and such writers do not mention a book which they must have known had it been then in being; hence there is a presumption against the book which one who defends it has to meet.
Internal grounds, however, may be wholly different; for the contents of a book may show that some claim has been advanced on its behalf which is wholly untenable; for instance, a book may speak of its alleged author as already dead, or it may introduce the events and opinions of an age altogether more recent than his time; on such internal grounds we can at once reject the claims made on behalf of such parts, at least, of the book. We may possess such external proof as to lead us to pause before we reject the book entirely, and to inquire whether the difficulties are really such as we have supposed, and whether the passages in which they occur are undoubtedly parts of the genuine text book.
In thus examining objections, we may find such contradictions, etc., running through the whole texture of the work, as to show that it cannot be genuine, and that its claims are altogether false.
Reference has been made above to the register inserted in Nehemiah; this is a good illustration of the mode in which external evidence is not invalidated by facts contained in a book, which, at first, might seem to contradict such testimony. When, however, any addition has been introduced into a book bona-fide, it is commonly so manifest as such that none could imagine it to be part of the older work, and thus no confusion arises, either as to principles of evidence or their application; just as the Arch of Titus (to which I have already referred as an illustration of historic monuments), which has been repaired in modern times to preserve it from destruction; where the latter stonework is purposely so different from the ancient, that no one could confound them, even if there had not been a modern inscription recording the repairs.
These principles will apply not merely to authorship, but also to other claims on behalf of any book: thus, the second book of Maccabees is said, by the Church of Rome, to be divinely-inspired Scripture, although the author disclaims any such authority (15:38) as plainly as words can be devised. I use this as an illustration of internal disproof.
The grounds on which the Book of Daniel has been attacked are partly external, partly internal.
The external grounds are but few, and but little reliance can be placed on them; because the Jewish nation, having no writings extant for some centuries subsequent to the time when the Old Testament books in general had been written, it can excite no surprise that allusions from writings cannot be brought forward in favour of Daniel or other Scripture books. This silence proves nothing and disproves nothing.
However, it has been said that the author of Ecclesiasticus knew nothing of the Book of Daniel, because, in the place in which he recounts the writers of Scripture, he mentions the other prophets, but says not one word about Daniel.
This seems to be an argument of some weight: let it, however, be examined. In the passage in question (chap. 49), Jesus the son of Sirach is not recounting the writers of his nation, but the famous men: he does not profess (as some have seemed to assume) to give a list of the books of the Old Testament. Let it be granted that he might well have mentioned Daniel amongst the other famous Israelites, but the argument will equally apply to Ezra, of whom he says not a word. Perhaps it may then be argued that he knew nothing of Ezra, but this is disproved from his mention of Nehemiah, in whose book the actions of Ezra are just as much spoken of as in that which bears his own name.
If any reliance be placed on the silence of Jesus, the son of Sirach, it would go to disprove that any famous Daniel ever existed; whereas we know from Ezekiel that there was such a Daniel; and Ezekiel, with his visions, is mentioned in Ecclesiasticus amongst the other prophets.—(49:8).
Thus vain is it to rest on the negative argument drawn from this source.
Another external objection has been grounded on the place assigned to the Book of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible, where it stands not among the prophets, but in that part called by the Jews כְּבּתוּבִים K’tȟvĦm, which commence with the Psalms and end with the Chronicles. The place of Daniel, there, is between Esther and Ezra. What bearing this argument has on the question is not very apparent to anyone who regards these books as being, all of them, Holy Scripture: it must be supposed (as it seems) that this place was one of less honour than among the prophets; and the Jews must be imagined to have placed Daniel there as a book of whose origin or authority they were in doubt. It is difficult to suppose that such arguments could be seriously alleged. It may be quite sufficient to remark that the Psalms stand in the same division of the collection; that the Jews, at the Christian era (as witnessed by Josephus) considered Daniel as a super-eminent prophet; that we do not know on what principle many parts of the collections of sacred writings were arranged; and that Daniel stands, after all, in a by no means unnatural place between other writings relating to the captivity; and that his book is partly historical, partly prophetic.
This place of the Book of Daniel in the collection of sacred writings, may explain how Jesus, the son of Sirach, omits him when speaking of the other prophets.
Such are the slender external grounds of disproof. Will they avail anything when looked at in themselves? And will they not rather set off the fulness of the external evidence in favour of Daniel, by the marked contrast?
It is on internal grounds that the objectors really rest. It will be needless for me touch on several of these supposed grounds; for they relate but little to the Book of Daniel itself, but rather to the subjective condition of mind on the part of those who object. Thus the miracles and prophecies are stated as grounds for rejecting the book! This is an argument, of course, against the truth of any such interpositions on the part of God. But how different are the miracles in Daniel from those recounted in Jewish legends! They stand in the same contrast as do the miracles in the gospels to those in the apocryphal lives of Christ and in the legends of saints.

498-502
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, 1 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).
Doctor Schlieman’s Discoveries and the Bible
THE Jewish Messenger, referring to the researches and discoveries of Dr. Schlieman, which have created such a sensation and thrown such a flood of light on Homeric tales which were so much doubted, makes a few reflections, some of which we copy: “It is now usually considered that Homer was nearly contemporary with King Solomon. There is room for ample store of confirmation of the Biblical narrative in discoveries yet to be made near the sites of the great Phœnician cities. The library of the old Assyrian King is scarcely opened when there are records of conflicts with the Kings of Israel. When the inscriptions on Egyptian tombs and temples are deciphered, there are recollections of the Israelite bondage too clear to be misunderstood, even to the story of the task-makers ordering bricks without straw. Inferentially, the fact of the slaying of the first-born is demonstrated—the mighty influence of Joseph declared by the column in his honour. As the exploration of Palestine progresses, the most minute details of the Temple and its appurtenances are declared upon the testimony of the rocks themselves. The extraordinary remains of the Giant Cities of Bashan brings us face to face with Joshua and his wars. Every year there is a startling identification of the site of some wondrous place recorded in Scripture and an infallible test of its accuracy. The most ancient of cemeteries is preserved with unexampled reverence by the venerable descendants of Ismael. Had Israelites an enthusiast like Schlieman or Smith, every tradition of modern Palestine and Egypt would be traced to its source, and the exploration would determine with the fidelity of the photograph, the ancient life of the Holy Land, the journeys of Israel, the truth and grandeur of the Bible.”
Bible History Confirmed by the Assyrian Tablets
“It remains to call attention, with the brevity that the hour requires, to the indirect testimony to the veracity of the Biblical narrative which the cuneiform inscriptions furnish. This subject is one of such extent and complication that volumes might easily be written upon it. . . . . . . The first instance which I will give is geographic. The writer of Kings relates that when the people of Israel were carried finally into captivity by a king of Assyria, whom he does not name, but who appears from the Assyrian records to have been Sargon, they were placed by him ‘in Halah and in Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.’ The writer of Chronicles adds that before this, in the reign of Tiglathpileser, a portion of the Israelites was removed by him, and brought to what are clearly some of these same places—‘to Halah and to Habor, and to Hara and to the river of Gozan,’ where (he says) they continued until his own day.—(1 Chron. 5:26.) Now the habitat of the Ten Tribes has always been a question that has interested people, and the position of the various places mentioned in the above-quoted passages was long a subject of almost inexhaustible debate among commentators. The predominant opinion was that all the places mentioned were to be sought in the same locality, and the position of ‘the cities of the Medes’ being known, it was sought to identify all the other local terms with names proper to Media; ‘the river of Gozan’ was identified with the Kizil-Uzen from a very incomplete similarity of name; and of Halar, Habor and Hara, still more far-fetched and unsatisfactory explanations were given. Such was the position in which things rested down to the decipherment of the Assyrian inscriptions. It was then found that the names Gozan, Habor and Hara (or Haran) were words of every-day use among the Assyrians of the time of Sargon and Sennacherib; that in the inscriptions of these kings and others near their time, Habor always meant a certain river — the modern Khabour—the great affluent of the Euphrates, the only important stream between it and the Tigris; that the country which it watered was called Gozan, so that it was ‘the river of Gozan;’ and that Hara or Haran, was the name of a town in the near vicinity. It thus appeared that Sargon divided his captives, placing some in Media beyond the Tigris, while he settled others in Upper Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates, in the tract to which Tiglath-pileser had already transported a portion of the Israelites, the two and a half tribes east of Jordan, which were the first to suffer captivity. It adds to the interest of this discovery to note that thus the bulk of the nation was brought back—apparently to die and disappear—to the very country from which it had proceeded in the person of its progenitor Abraham; for there is no reasonable doubt that the Hara of 1 Chron. 5. is the Haron, coupled with Gozan, (2 Kings 19:12, ) nor that this is the Haran to which Abraham went from Ur, where the descendants of his brother Nahor established themselves. This place which was called Carrhæ by the Greeks and Romans, and was famous for the defeat of Crassus, has resumed in the mouths of the natives its old title, and is called Harran at the present day.”—Lecture by Canon Rawlinson.
The Uncertainties of Modern Science
The word science, now so much in vogue, occurs once only in our English version. It is where Paul counsels Timothy to avoid ‘profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called, which some professing, have erred concerning the faith.’
Those Gnostic heresies and speculations, to which the warning first applied, are extinct long ago. Nothing is left of them but some fossil skeletons in the works of the Fathers. But oppositions of pretended science to the Christian faith have revived in other forms, and exist at the present day. In the name of scientific progress, faith in God, in a life to come and in supernatural revelation, has been vigorously assailed. The chief leaders in this philosophical sect may be called Agnostics and their creed Agnosticism. They affirm that of a Creator, a First Cause, a Supreme Governor of the universe, nothing whatever can be known. But by way of compensation they claim that their own advance in natural knowledge is ‘all but infinite’ compared with their predecessors. From this lofty pedestal they affect to look down upon all faith in a living, personal God, and supernatural religion, as a superstition that is waxing old and ready to vanish away.
A severe moral conflict is thus forced on all Christian believers. And in this strife, which cannot be avoided, a purely defensive attitude, a timid, apologetic tone, ill befits either the dignity of their cause or the strength of their position. There can be no conflict between the genuine sense of God’s messages to mankind and the real facts and authentic conclusions of science. But false constructions of Scripture, on the one side, and the crude hypotheses or fanciful guesswork of men of science on the other, may and will contradict and clash, while they depart equally from the truth. It is now the fashion with many to assume that the risk of error is wholly on the side of Christian believers. Physical science, as a whole, including the newest and latest guesses of its students, has the same infallibility claimed for it which is claimed by the Vatican Council for the Bishop of Rome. It has been a test, not only for interpretations of the Bible, but for the Bible itself: which must be rejected and cast aside wherever it differs from this new and later revelation, of which modern men of science are the self-appointed prophets. Religion, we are told, consists simply of blind emotions about things unknowable, while the students of nature have a rightful monopoly of knowledge, truth and wisdom.
It is our duty to sift these proud claims and see if they have any warrant at all in the actual state of things. This is needful in the interest of genuine science no less than of Christian faith. An inflated paper currency must be not less unsafe and mischievous in matters of science than those of trade. Credulity is no monoply of religious believers. It may sometimes be found even among the leaders of modern research; while among their disciples and admirers, its recent growth has a tropical luxuriance and is really almost prodigious.
Physics and physiology have, no doubt, made great and real progress in the last fifty years. But what, after all, is their present stage? Do they form a complete, mature, and perfect scheme of truth, a firm and lofty pedestal, from which their students may look out, unvexed themselves, like the gods of Epicurus, on the tossing waves and storms of ethical debate and religious controversy? Are they not rather in a nebulous stage, where a solid nucleus of certain or nearly certain truth is encompassed and concealed by a copious mist of unexplained phenomena, unproved guesses, and dim, hazy, floating speculations? Does not a vast cloudland or dreamland envelop this world of science, shrouding it, usually, with a dull watery fog of thick vapour; but ever and anon, in some wild and monstrous hypothesis, streaming off, like the tail of a comet, into infinite space and the outer darkness? The second, and not the first, I hold to be the true description of modern science, in spite of all its progress. This is true both in physics, which deal with lifeless matter, and physiology, which deals with living creatures. If true in the first, it must be doubly true in the second and higher department, which all confess to be more difficult and mysterious. My object in this address will be to establish its truth, even in physics, and for this end to consider these topics in succession; the law of gravitation, the nature of matter, the existence of ether; the conservation of energy with the doctrine of evolution and the nebular theory; the dissipation of energy and the solar percussion theory; the molten nucleus theory of the earth’s formation; and the astro-glacial theory of the great ice period, supposed to have lasted for ages before man appeared on the earth.”—Professor Birks at the Victoria Society.
(To be continued).
Proved Trustworthiness of the Writings of Moses
(Known as the Pentateuch).
Colenso’s objections do not destroy the historic character of the Pentateuch. (Of this, we shall see more hereafter, if the Lord will). But it is well to remember that independent of all solutions of difficulties, there is testimony sufficient to prove its genuineness and divine origin. That testimony is found in the books of the Old and New Testaments. It is possible to trace the existence of the Pentateuch in every age, from Malachi back to Joshua: that is sufficient to prove its genuineness. It has the sanction of the Saviour and his apostles, and that will prove its divine origin.
The question may, however, occur to some minds, how do we know that the Pentateuch which we now possess is that referred to by our Lord, and cited by Hebrew writers? To this the answer is, we have most satisfactory proof of the identity. The Pentateuch has descended to us in at least four independent channels. The whole people of the Jews, Rabbinists and Karaites; the Greek, Syrian, and Roman churches, all possess a Pentateuch. It stands at the beginning of their Sacred Scriptures. And those different copies,—the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Syriac, and Latin, all so wonderfully agree, as to leave no doubt of identity. The present Jews have received their Hebrew copies, and the Chaldee translations, from those who dwelt not only in Jerusalem, but in Babylon. The Pentateuch of Eastern, and Western, Indian, African, and Chinese Jews, is the same. The translation possessed by the Greeks is that received at the time of their conversion, and has come down in a perfectly distinct channel from the Hebrew. There was no love between Jews and Greeks, so as to induce the latter to conform their Scriptures to those of the former, and yet the Greek Pentateuch is manifestly a translation of the Hebrew possessed by the Jews. The Syriac version agrees still more minutely with the Hebrew; and yet the intercourse of Syrian Christians with Jews was as little as that of the Greeks. With regard to the Latin, there is the same agreement, and the same independence of transmission. Between Jews and Christians there was a wall of separation which entirely prevented either from borrowing of the other. Amongst Christians themselves there were differences, both in language and theology, sufficient to prevent collusion. The Greek translation was not made from the Syriac; nor the Syriac from the Greek. They are entirely independent one of the other; and yet all present to us, with a few unimportant differences, the same Pentateuch. The Hebrew is that which the Jews received from their fathers. The Greek existed before the days of the Saviour. The Syriac version was made, as is generally supposed, early in the second century, probably before that time. We have, therefore, four independent witnesses to prove the identity of the Pentateuch which we possess, with that which was known to our Lord. And to these might be added the testimonies of Philo and Josephus, in whose writings sufficient portions of the Pentateuch are found to prove the identity of their copies with ours, and their belief that Moses was the author.
But, from the days of our Lord to the time of the last canonical Hebrew writer, there is a long interval. How can it be known, therefore, that the Pentateuch as then existing was that received from Malachi and his contemporaries? Here again there is a chain of sufficient testimonies. About one hundred and thirty years before Christ, the grandson of Jesus, the son of Sirach, translated the book of Ecclesiasticus into Greek. That book is acknowledged to be genuine, and has so many references to the law as to prove the identity of the book so called. The first book of Maccabees, also received as authentic by modern critics, carries us nearly fifty years farther back. The mad efforts of Antiochus Epiphanes to destroy the book of the law; and the zeal, not only of the priests, but of the common people, ready to die rather than disobey it, attest the existence of the book, and the popular belief that it was from God. That our Pentateuch existed, and was received as the law of Moses, one hundred years earlier, that is, about two hundred and eighty years before Christ, is attested by the fact that it was then translated into Greek by Alexandrian Jews. Their version, commonly known as the Septuagint, is that quoted by Evangelists and Apostles, and handed down to us by the Greek Fathers; and of whose agreement with the Hebrew we have already spoken. The providence of God has preserved a still more ancient testimony, in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Its existence was known to the Christian Fathers; but for a thousand years it lay concealed, and at last came forth as from the grave, to assure us of the identity of the Pentateuch. Suppose that in that long interval some doubter had said the Samaritans were a distinct and rival sect, hated by the Jews, and hating in return. Josephus and the fathers of the church, and the Rabbis, all bear witness that they had a copy of the Pentateuch: bring it forth, and let us compare it with the Hebrew and Christian copies, and see whether they agree. How would he have triumphed had the Samaritan copy been produced, and found to differ altogether from those of Jews and Christians! But what is the fact? The Samaritan copy has been produced, written in a character equally known to Jews and Christians. A little remnant of the people still exist to present it to the world. And, lo! with the exception of a very few passages, it is the same in narrative and legislative enactment as that known to the synagogue and the church. This testimony carries us back to the erection of the temple on Mount Gerizim, to the days of Sanballat, that is, to the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 13:28), and the close of the canon of the Old Testament; and assures us not only that it existed, but that it was not and could not be a compilation of those times. Manasseh, of the family of the high priest, being excluded from the priesthood because he refused to dismiss his heathen wife as the law required, does not protest against this law as ungenuine, and therefore unworthy of obedience: but when he leaves the Jewish people, imposes its yoke upon his Samaritan friends. Such conduct can only be explained by Manasseh’s firm conviction that its origin was divine. Its acceptance by the Samaritans testifies a similar conviction on their part, produced by what is already learned. At all events, the Pentateuch then existed, was ever afterwards preserved by the Samaritans, and their copy now shows the identity of their Pentateuch with our own.”—Dr. McCaul.
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
(Continued from page 452.)
It is said that the book contains such historical errors and contradictions as prove the writer to have lived at a later age. But what are the grounds on which such errors are alleged? Every fragment of ancient history bearing on Babylon is ransacked, and these doubtful accounts, which present but little agreement amongst themselves, are taken as sufficient for impugning this book.1 And so, too, as to the statements of Daniel itself. For instance, it has been said that ‘the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar’ (chap. 2:1) is altogether incorrect, since chap. 1:5 shows that three years and more had elapsed since King Nebuchadnezzar had taken Jerusalem. This shews that the whole account must be taken as transmitted together, and to the whole must the principle be applied, which I call historic transmission. By this term I mean that the transmission of a document containing difficulties makes the earliest receivers of the document, and the author himself, vouchers that the historic difficulties, so far from being real objections, show that those who were acquainted with the whole of the circumstances would know they were no difficulties at all. I include the author as a witness, for he would, at least, know what he was writing; and thus, if possessed of ordinary intellectual powers, he would not go out of his way to introduce difficulties. It is true that such things are often found in such forged writings as are only weak and absurd; but, in a book sensibly written, with ability and intelligence, like that of Daniel, it would be difficult to suppose that the author would introduce contradictions just to puzzle the reader. The solution of the supposed difficulty seems to be, that Nebuchadnezzar first ruled jointly with his father Nabopolassar, and that his ‘second year’ in Daniel 2. is dated from his sole sovereignty.5
In Daniel we find Nebuchadnezzar, as King of Babylon, when the Jews were carried captives; his successor (as we learn from other Scriptures) was Evil-Merodach, and the last king of Babylon was Belshazzar, called in Daniel the son (meaning, as some think, grandson) of Nebuchadnezzar. Then came the rule of the Medes and Persians, Darius the Mede (Dan 6.) possessing the kingdom, in which he was succeeded by Cyrus the Persian. This account of the Babylonian kings appears as if it was given by one who knew the facts; and yet any statement in the fragments of profane historians which might seem to contradict it, has been advanced as a reason for rejecting Daniel. It is singular that Scripture statements should not be allowed to possess equal weight with those of profane historians. Why should we pay more implicit heed to Berosus and Abydenus* than to the author of the Book of Daniel? But are the discrepancies real? Daniel does not say that other kings did not reign between Evil-Merodach and Belshazzar; indeed, he does not mention the former of these kings at all, although, on any hypothesis, he must have heard of him—so vain is it to base an argument on the silence of Daniel. There may have been other and intermediate kings without one statement of this book being controverted, even by implication. It would be needless to enter into a grave refutation of those who would make difficulties and objections out of the names which the kings bear in the Book of Daniel; in Roman history, Mastarna and Servius Tullius are one and the same person; so, too, Caius Octavius, Caius Julius Cæsar Octavianus, and Augustus, are identical, as are Annius Verissimus and Marcus Antoninus, and so (to come to modern times) are Tamas Kouli Khan and Nadir Shah. What wonder, then, if Daniel, writing in Babylon, used the names by which sovereigns were best known there, even though they possessed other designations?
In truth, the allegations of historic difficulty connected with Daniel, though often stated as if they were strong, fall to pieces at the first touch; for they all rest almost entirely on the notion that we possess independent knowledge of the contemporary facts; a groundless assumption such as this ought to be allowed no weight in historical investigations—nor would it, if Scripture were not arraigned at the bar of (so-called) criticism.
The time has been when the silence of profane historians has been used as an argument against Scripture in general, and against the Book of Daniel in particular. Thus, it was once said, with a kind of boast, that Herodotus, ‘the father of history,’ does not even mention Nebuchadnezzar; and thus it was in-insinuated that either he was a mythic person, or, at least, that the Scripture accounts of him and his greatness and conquests, were fiction and exaggeration. Some have looked on the widespread ruins on the shores of the Euphrates, around Hillah, doubting or denying that the city to which they belonged had really risen to its greatness under that founder of the first monarchy of prophetic vision!
But it was reserved for our days that those heaps of ruins should be no longer mute and silent, but that from the sculptured stones of Egypt, from the buried palaces of Nineveh, and from the bricks of Babylon, there should arise a testimony to the fidelity of Scripture, in opposition to the opinions of men or the ignorant assertions of profane writers.
Dr. Young was led (shall I say, by a special interposition of divine Providence?) to discover, by means of the Rosetta stone, the letters of ancient Egypt, and thus to open the way for others to follow in reading the records of the patriarchal ages. More recently three have laboured in the Assyrian and Babylonian fields; and thus Colonel Rawlinson has deciphered the arrowheaded character so long a mystery, while Dr. Layard has been busied in bringing to light the long-buried monuments of Nineveh, and Dr. Hincks has been a successful fellow-labourer in the investigation of results in reading inscriptions. All these discoveries have shown that the writers of Holy Scripthey must have been acquainted with facts which they state; for the same facts are, in many cases, told us on independent grounds, transmitted in contemporary records, though concealed for ages. These things cannot give the Christian more certainty than he had before, as to what is written in Holy Scripture; it does, however, supply an argument which ought to convince the objector that the writers of Scripture were, at least, possessed of an acquaintance with the historic facts to which they allude. And yet it may be that some will now believe in the ancient grandeur of Nineveh, because of Dr. Layard’s discoveries, ignoring the fact that this greatness, in its detail, was previously taught fully in Holy Scripture, and there alone.
The plain of Babylon has one voice and one testimony: the inscribed bricks, used, as they are, for all edifices and for all purposes, still show whence they came; and they all tell who was the mighty monarch who raised the buildings of Babylon: the inscription on each is ‘Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar.’
But Herodotus makes no mention of Nebuchadnezzar and ascribes the glories of Babylon to others: let this teach caution in judging Scripture statements by what we find in profane historians. Had Scripture been composed of such materials as their narratives, we might have found an equal absence of knowledge on such points of history. We have sufficient data for adhering to what Scripture says (even if we could regard it as an ordinary book), when on historic points it seems to clash with profane writers.”—Tregelles.
(To be continued.)

550-557
THE BIBLE TRUE
OR
ARGUMENTS, ARTICLES, PAPERS, EXTRACTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO PROVE THAT
THE SCRIPTURES AND 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).
Science and Theology
THE following clipping from the Liverpool Mercury (for which we are indebted to a brother who came across it) is interesting. The direction of its interest will be quickly seen. It is customary, in our day, to suppose that science is the irreconcileable foe of the Bible. When arguments for the Bible are irresistible, people have a reservato this effect. “Scientific men are infallible. Your arguments are very plausible, but take them to the scientific men. Why don’t they believe them?” As much as to say, “if the scientific men could see compatibility between science and the doctrine of God, we might be disposed to be of that mind too.” Well, here is a case. Dr. Drysdale, chairman of the Liverpool Philosophical Society, ‘has just published an address,’ says the Liverpool Mercury, ‘recently delivered by him before the members of that Association, on the question, ‘Is Scientific Materialism compatible with Dogmatic Theology?’ In a discourse of unusual merit, and showing a wide familiarity with phases of modern thought, both British and Continental, Dr. Drysdale answers the question in the affirmative. Defining scientific materialism to mean ‘the reduction of not only the inorganic universe, but also the phenomena of life and mind, to conditions of matter and force,’ he maintains that it does not of necessity imply the denial of a personal God and Creator, or a future life of man. In the course of his exposition, the accomplished author shows himself perfectly able to cope with such high scientific authorities as the writers of The Unseen Universe, has a good word to say even for Mr. John Stuart Mill, and is candid enough to admit that Spinoza and David Hume were personally among the most amiable and upright of men. In short, this address may be regarded as an Eirenicum on the part of an eminent physician and man of science—another and a most successful attempt to prove that science and religion are not natural enemies, or citadels frowning defiance at each other. The essays of Bacon contain no greater truth than that which is expressed in the words: “A smattering of philosophy leads men to Atheism; a profound acquaintance with philosophy brings men back to religion.” Dr. Drysdale’s scholarly address is another evidence of this—another and most welcome testimony that science has a foundation, and so has religion; and that if they unite, the basis, while broader, will only support two kindred compartments of one great fabric—the one the outer and the other the inner court.”
Bible History Confirmed by the Assyrian Tablets
‘My next illustration shall be mythology, showing the light which the inscriptions shed on scriptural notices of the religion of the Assyrians and Babylonians. We learn from the seventeenth chapter of the Second Book of Kings that on the removal of the Israelites from their country their place was supplied by colonists from other parts of the Assyrian dominions—‘from Babylon, and from Cutha, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim’—and we are further told that these colonists introduced severally the woship of their own special deities—‘the men of Babylon made Succothbenoth their god, and the men of Cuth made Nergal, and the men of Hamath made Ashima, and the Avites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the men of Sepharvaim burnt their children in fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim.’ Now here the first thing to be noted is, that though these colonists are (with the one exception of Hamath) from cities of Babylonia, yet they worship different gods. Now this is a marked feature of the Babylonian and Assyrian religion as revealed to us by the inscriptions—each city has its favourite among the gods, its patron, deity or deities. Next, when we come to consider the special deities of the different towns, (we find together with some difficulties) some remarkable points of agreement. I have not time now to notice the difficulties. I have done so, and explained them in my comment on Kings in the Speaker’s Commentary; at present I will only point out instances of close agreement. ‘The men of Cuth made Nergal their god.’ Nergal is constantly presented to us in the inscriptions as the special deity of Cutha. The Sepharvites burnt their children in fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech. Sippara (or Sepharvaim) is distinguished in the inscriptions by having two protecting deities, which are the male and female Sun. The latter is called Annnit, in which we have, I think, the root of Anam-melech; the former is the Sun-God, Son or Shemesh, whom the Hebrew writer has mentioned under one of his epithets the Fire-King (or, perhaps, ‘the exalted King.’) One more illustration and I will release you. There is a passage rather difficult to understand in the Second Book of Chronicles (33:11) which runs thus—‘The Lord brought upon them the captains of the host of the king of Assyria, which took Manasseh among the thorns and bound him with fetters and carried him to Babylon.’ What is this ‘taking among the thorns?’ The English reader is led to suppose that Manasseh hid himself in a thicket—an unkingly and not very probable action. But what do we find when we look to the original? Why that the natural translation would be, ‘Which took Manasseh with hooks and bound him with fetters and carried him to Babylon.’ Our translators, not understanding what this could mean, looked about for some other sense, and found the one which they have given. But I think no Hebrew scholar will defend it. The real meaning is one of which the Assyrian sculptures furnish very abundant illustration. It was an Assyrian practice to place hooks or rings in the mouths of captive kings, passing them through the upper or under lip, or perhaps through both, to attach a string or thong to the rings, and so to lead the prisoner into the royal presence. This is what was really done with Manasseh, who was led into the presence of Esarhaddon in this cruel and ignominious way.—(Compare 2 Kings 19:28, and Amos 4:2.)—Lecture by “Canon” Rawlinson.
The Uncertainties of Modern Science
(Continued from page 501.)
“The law of gravitation stands foremost among the doctrines of modern physics. The evidences of its truth have gone on increasing for two full centuries, ever since the Principia of Newton appeared. That any person of intelligence should still doubt it, after it has been confirmed by all the complex calculations and verified results of astronomy, through these two hundred years, is to me a matter of wonder and amazement.
But has this truth, however firm and solid, no nebula still surrounding it? In that case, such a paper as the one in your fourth volume by your former secretary, on ‘Current Physical Astronomy,’ would have been impossible. And that paper by no means stands alone. Statements of Dr. Tyndall and Mr. Spencer, and the hypotheses named by Professor Maxwell, in his articles on ‘Atoms’ and ‘Attraction,’ prove still more decisively how much remains debated, uncertain and obscure, even in the most certain of scientific truths.
And first, what do we mean by a physical law? Dr. Tyndall answers boldly, a fatal necessity. Torricelli, Newton, the scientific men of the present day, all knew, he says, that the succession, besides being permanent, is necessary; that the gravitating force must produce the observed course of the seasons. ‘If the force be permanent, the phenomena are necessary, whether they do or do not resemble what has gone before. Nothing has occurred to indicate that the operation of the laws has ever been suspended, or nature crossed by spontaneous action.’ Hence miracles are incredible. Strong in this premise, the inherent necessity of natural laws, he issues an imperial edict to all theologians: ‘Keep to the region of the human heart; but keep away from physical nature. Here, in all frankness, I would say, you are ill-informed, self-deluded and likely to delude others.’
So frank a statement demands a frank and simple reply. The exclusion of all theologians and believers in miracles from the fields of science rests on two grounds — a plain historical falsehood and a patent logical sophism. If this scientific interdict is valid, Sir Isaac Newton must share in the exile denounced against all Christian divines. His authority is here quoted to prove the very self-same doctrine which he has most clearly, strongly, and pointedly denounced and condemned. According to him, the law of gravitation and the other laws of nature are no product of a blind and fatal necessity. ‘This beautiful system,’ he says, ‘of sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.’ And again: ‘Blind, metaphysical necessity, which is the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find could arise from nothing but the counsel and will of a Being necessarily existing.’ Thus Newton is invoked to establish, as a test of scientific competence, that conception of natural laws which he has plainly denounced as unscientific, unreasonable and absurd.
But the reasoning of Dr. Tyndall is here no less defective than his inversion of historical truth is surprising and extreme. He confounds two things wholly distinct — a hypothetical necessity that certain results must follow, if such and such laws operate undisturbed, and a real necessity that these laws must continue to operate, and can never be varied or suspended, either by some higher law unknown to us, or by the free choice of the Creator. His dictum, then, is not less opposed to common sense than to Newton’s real teaching and authority. Whenever there are diverse laws among which a calculator may choose, so as to trace the consequences of one or another at his pleasure, the real existence of any one of them can be due to no blind fate, but, as Newton justly maintains, to the wise and intelligent choice of a Divine Lawgiver.”—(To be continued.)
Proved Trustworthiness of the Writings of Moses (from p. 503)
(Known as the Pentateuch.)
“Thus, without having recourse to the Sacred Records, we have traced the existence of the Pentateuch to the time of the return from Babylon. From this time on we have the testimony of Hebrew writers. Of these, during the rebuilding of the Temple and city of Jerusalem and the restoration of the Hebrew Commonwealth, there are no less than five—Malachi, Haggai, Zechariah, Nehemiah and Ezra. With the two last-named writers, modern criticism has dealt unceremoniously. But the unsparingness of the criticism has done more good than harm. The most sceptical admit enough to be genuine, to prove that the Law existed and was received as the Law of God given by Moses. These books describe the endeavour of the leaders of the Jews to restore the temple and the worship as they had been before the captivity, and the law of Moses is the form according to which all was to be done. Ezra 7:21, speaks of “the Law of the God of heaven.” Nehemiah 1:7 confesses the transgression ‘of the commandments, statutes, and judgments which God commanded Moses.’ Malachi 4:4, commands Israel ‘to remember the law of Moses given in Horeb, with the statutes and judgments.’ Haggai says, ‘Ask now the priests concerning the Law.’ Zechariah testifies against Israel that ‘they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the Law.’ Now the Law here spoken of must be that known to Manasseh and the Samaritans, and therefore identical with that which we now possess. It was evidently not written or compiled at the time. The tithes and sacrifices were burdensome under the circumstances of the returned Jews; the laws with respect to marriage more burdensome still. Nothing but faith in the Law, as received from their fathers, could have led the people to submit, or the leaders to persevere in the trying and ungrateful task of restoring the ancient worship and discipline. Indeed, it is admitted on all hands that the Law spoken of, or alluded to in these books, is the Pentateuch in all its completeness as we now possess it. The Jews must, therefore, have possessed it in their exile, and brought it back with them on their return.
The correctness of this statement is abundantly proved by the writings of Ezekiel, who was himself a captive. He had been carried away eleven years before the destruction of Jerusalem, began to prophesy in the fifth year of the captivity, and continued to prophesy at least until the sixteenth year after the city had been destroyed.—(Ezek. 1:1, 2, and 29:17.)
Concerning the genuineness of these writings, modern criticism raises no doubts. Its estimate of Ezekiel’s style and genius is not very flattering, but it pronounces that the prominent and unequivocal peculiarities of the man are stamped on every page from the beginning to the end; that the book was written and its parts arranged in their present order by Ezekiel himself.1 If, therefore, he was acquainted with the Pentateuch, or Law, it must be that which Ezra and his companions brought with them from their exile, even if we had no details to prove their identity. That he was thus acquainted with a law, judgments and statutes, acknowledged by the people as divine, to which, therefore, he could refer in order to convince them of sin, and on which, as upon an infallible authority, he could found his reproofs, is certain beyond the shadow of a doubt. In chapter 22:26, Ezekiel says, ‘The priests have done violence to my law.’ That in this passage the prophet does not use the word ‘law’ generally of any religious doctrine given by God, but of ‘The Law,’ is evident from the detail which precedes and follows the words quoted. In verses 3–12 we read: ‘In thee have they set light by father and mother; in the midst of thee have they dealt by oppression with the stranger; in thee have they vexed the fatherless and the widow. Thou hast despised my holy things and hast profaned my Sabbaths. In thee are men that carry tales to shed blood, and in thee they eat upon the mountains; in thee have they discovered their fathers’ nakedness. In thee have they humbled her that was set apart for pollution. And one hath committed abomination with his neighbour’s wife; and another hath lewdly defiled his daughter-in-law; and another, in thee, hath humbled his sister, his father’s daughter. In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood. Thou hast taken usury and increase.’ In these few verses there are, at least, twenty-nine references to, or rather quotations from the Pentateuch, from Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, perceptible in the English version, but the very Hebrew words used in the original of those books.5 In the twenty-sixth verse, first referred to, we read, ‘Their priests have done violence to my law and have profaned my holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my Sabbaths and I am profaned among them.” In this one verse are, at least, four more references to Lev. 10:10; 11:45; 20:25, and Ex. 31:13. Besides which, it is to be remarked that the word translated profane (חל) occurs only in the Pentateuch, in 1 Sam. 21:5, 6, and in Ezekiel. Let the reader also examine chaps. 18. and 20., where he will find references and quotations without end. The latter chapter is also worthy of attention as a recapitulation of the history of what happened in the wilderness. Indeed the whole book of Ezekiel is impregnated with the language of the Pentateuch, as has been proved long ago. It is specially remarkable for the use of the figures and language peculiar to the Pentateuch. Thus, the phrase, “Pine away in their iniquity,” (Ezek. 4:17; 24:23; 33:10), occurs only here and Lev. 26:39. Again, a favourite expression of Ezekiel’s, “Mine eyes shall not spare,” (Ezek. 5:11; 7:4–9; 8:18; 9:5–10), occurs in the Pentateuch, once in Gen. 45:20 (margin), five times in Deuteronomy, and only once besides in the whole Bible. — (Isa. 13:18.) Another phrase peculiar to Ezekiel and the Pentateuch is, “I will draw out a sword after them.” Compare Exod. 15:9; Lev. 26:33, with Ezek. 5:2–12; 12:14; and observe in Lev. 26:33, and Ezek. 12:14, that the threat of drawing the sword is, in both cases, accompanied with “the threat of dispersion,” expressed in the original in the very same words. Again, the phrase, “Staff of bread,” occurring in our prophet, 4:16; 5:16; 14:12, is found only in the Pentateuch.—(Lev. 26:26.) In like manner the expression, “I will set my face,” employed several times by Ezekiel, is, excepting two passages in Jeremiah, found only in the Pentateuch. There are many other similar points of agreement, but these are sufficient to identify the Law of which Ezekiel speaks with that of the Pentateuch, which we now possess. And it is particularly to be observed that his references to the law necessarily imply that the priests, the prophets, and the people all knew the law to which he referred, and received it as an undoubtedly divine authority, to which they were amenable, by which they were to be judged, and from which there was no appeal. We have, therefore, unexceptionable testimony that the Pentateuch existed in the captivity and seven years before the (Babylonian) destruction of Jerusalem. (The evidence is carried gradually backwards, in the ensuing sections).” (To be continued.)
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
(Continued from page 505.)
“All now admit the existence and might of Nebuchadnezzar, and yet Herodotus knew nothing about him or his actions: this is a simple argument to meet some of the false criticisms which are used to oppose Scripture by exalting other authorities.1
The allegations, then, of historical errors in Daniel, based on the silence of other authors (of whom scarcely one goes over the same ground), are worse than futile: they are not easy to combat, for they are as intangible as shadows on the wall. They are such points as the names of the kings mentioned in this book; the customs spoken of as existing; the time, etc., of Nebuchadnezzar’s accession;—not one of which would be regarded as a serious difficulty (or as any difficulty at all) in the case of a profane historian.
One of these objects (and, I believe, far the strongest) may be noticed in detail. Daniel says that Belshazzar, the last Babylonian king, was slain on the night of his impious feast, and that Darius the Mede took the kingdom. On the contrary, Berosus and Abydenus both say that the last king, whom they call Naboneddus or Nabonedochus, was not killed, but that he had an honourable abode in Caramania assigned to him. To which shall we give credit? Berosus says that he surrendered voluntarily in Borsippa after the city of Babylon was taken; so that this account disconnects him altogether from the final catastrophe. Berosus and Abydenus give us the Chaldee account, in which the downfall of the monarchy was thus represented: the interval between the days of Cyrus and those of the Seleucidæ, was quite sufficient for a legend to assume this form; and now that the Persian sovereignty was fallen, it was but natural for those stories which related to the last of a preceding race to be revivified. In fact, this narrative about an abode in Caramania for the king who had disappeared, is only the same in kind as the many similar legends which have been connected with fallen monarchs: witness the tales respecting Don Roderick, James IV., and Don Sebastian.
But it may be asked, how can this Babylonia account be refuted? Perhaps a direct disproof cannot be given: but here the two narrations stand; let them be judged between themselves. Had Daniel been a late book, how can we account for the writer not having inserted the later narration of Berosus and Abydenus? And if he gave a history differing from that current in Babylonia, how could we imagine that the Jews of that region would receive the narration as true? In fact, the two histories stand on their own merits; and thus without pressing into our service the testimony of Xenophon, who says that the Babylonian king was killed, it may be fairly put to the reader, whether he rejects the narrative of Daniel in favour of those who pro more, soften and explain away what would be for the discredit of Babylonia. Historic investigation would not hesitate in such a case. This is at least a proof that the historic parts of Daniel are wholly independent of the accounts which were current in latter times.
One ground of objection to the book has been based on Greek words which it contains. These are found in the names of musical instruments, ch. 3:5, etc.: κίθαρις, קַיתְרֹס or קִיתַרֹס σαμβύκη, ֒181ַבְּ֫כָא; ψαλτήριον, פְּסַנתֵּרִין; and συμφωνία, סוּמְפֹּנֳיה. But what ground do these afford for questioning the date or authorship? The conclusion which I should draw from their occurrence, would simply be, that such musical instruments were then known in Babylon as had been derived from the Greeks, and still retained their Greek names.
The fact of part of Daniel being written in Chaldee, and part in Hebrew, has been made an objection. This is most strange: the same thing is found in Ezra; and so it rather tells in favour of Daniel than the contrary.
So, too, the impurity of the Hebrew: had the language been such as is found in Isaiah, no doubt that an objection would have been raised from the purity of the language being such as a Jew in Babylon could not be expected to use.
An objection has been raised from Dan. 9:2, where the writer says, ‘I, Daniel, understood by books;’ it has been alleged that the writer evidently means by the phrase ‘by the books’ בַּסְּפָּרִים, the Old Testament as a collection, and therefore he must have lived later than ‘the closing of the canon.’ If this objection has any meaning, it shows that the writer of Daniel was demented; for it is evident that he intended his book to be received as part of holy Scripture. But ‘the books’ is not the Jewish designation of the Old Testament, but ‘the writings.’ And, further, מֵפֶר, a book, in the plural, commonly means a letter; the only places where it is otherwise rendered are Ec. 12:12, ‘books,’ Jer. 32:14, ‘evidences,’ and this passage in Dan. 9. Elsewhere (and it occurs eighteen times), it is always translated in our version quite correctly, a letter, or letters. The reference in Dan. 9:2 is assuredly to the letter mentioned in Jer. 29:10.
It may be needful to assure the reader that these objections, trivial as they are, have actually been brought forward as if they were weighty and conclusive, as if they would be admitted for one moment as sufficient for rejecting any ancient writing whatever. It really seems as if an endeavour were made to compensate in the number of accusations for there individual weakness. Opposers seem to have acted on the principle which weighs with vulgar minds, vitupera fortiter aliquid adhoerebit: if much is said on a subject, or in accusation of any person or thing, it seems to such as if there must be something in the charges, or else so many could not be brought. Such principles are utterly at variance with critical truth and mental rectitude.
But, it is added, that the prophecies in Daniel prove the book to be a forgery. How can this be? Because (it is answered) they give a clear and distinct history on to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and then fail entirely. This argument rests, then, on the subjective mode in which the objector understands the prophecies. Some have shown their supposed critical acumen, by even pointing out in what parts of the Maccabean age the different sections of Daniel were written; so that it has been said that chapters 1. to 6. were written while Antiochus Epiphanes had suppressed the Jewish worship, and his abominable idol was yet standing, and that the rest of the book was written when Judas Maccabæus had purged the Temple! And all this without one tittle of evidence! To affirm that this book belongs to the Maccabean age, shows a sufficient boldness of assertion, but this minuteness goes farther still. I cannot but regard it as an instructive proof of the consequences of rejecting evidence, that such opinions are advanced, and we are told that they are worthy of reception without evidence. Suppose we were to reject history (that for instance of the last sixty years), and account for the present condition of things, politically and morally, from our own subjective ideas of what is fitting and probable.
I do not now discuss the interpretation of Daniel up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; but this assumed theory is overturned at once and sufficiently by two parts of Daniel.
1st.—He prophesies that there should arise four great monarchies; and he says himself that Babylon was the first of these, and the Medo-Persian the second; and that this second would be subverted by the first king of Greece, and then a fourth would rise. It might be plain, in the Maccabean days, that the Roman power was rising into supremacy; but still it was not a monarchy, and even its supremacy, as an ultimate thing, was very problematical. He also further prophesies that no other earthly kingdom would subvert this fourth, but that it would divide into parts. All this has been accomplished. The Roman State became a monarchy: it subverted the subsisting parts of the Grecian sovereignty; but no fifth great earthly monarchy has arisen, though repeatedly attempted; as, for instance, by Charlemagne, by Charles V., and, in our day, by Napoleon. How could an impostor, a pseudo-Daniel of the days of the Maccabees, know all this?
2nd.—He foretells the time when Messiah the Prince should arise, as dated from a certain decree. Now, at the time foretold, the Messiah did come; he also foretold that Messiah should be cut off: this, too, was accomplished. He then speaks of the destruction of the city, which also took place.
These two predictions, involving many points, are sufficient to show, 1st: that Daniel was a true prophet; and 2nd, that it is not correct to make the death of Antiochus the last point of definite prediction in the book.
As, then, Daniel, was a prophet of post-Maccabean events, as proved by this two-fold testimony, why not admit that the antecedent occurrences, spoken of in the form of predictions, are also prophecies? Why not believe this prophet when he speaks of the time when he wrote, and the place where? Why suppose that truth and imposture are most mystically combined?

1876 553-558,

2007-11-15T10:57:00.000-08:00

504-510 the c 1876

2007-11-15T10:56:00.000-08:00

THE BIBLE TRUE
OR,
AGRUMENTS, 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. They 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).
Mr. George Smith, the Assyrian Discoverer
Mr. George Smith, the discoverer of the Chaldean accounts of the fall, the deluge, &c., has just died, while on his return, after an unsuccessful attempt to cope with Turkish opposition to the renewal of his investigations. His discoveries have added to the list of historical confirmations of the Bible record. The Rock says: “A quarter of a century ago an intense curiosity was awakened by the discoveries of Botta and Layard, who found the splendid palaces of Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, under huge sand-crowned mounds on the banks of the Tigris. But after gazing for awhile at the great man-headed lions and bulls which were presently transported to our national museum, the public interest in Assyrian sculpture began to flag, only, however, to be rekindled by the triumphs of our Rawlinsons, Hinckses, Birches, Smiths, &c., in another department of the same fascinating field. At first little heed was taken—except, of course, by the genuine archæologist—of the multitude of mysterious inscriptions, in arrow-headed characters, incised on marble slabs and earthen tablets, which were found scattered through the various mounds, but as the work of decipherment proceeded, many of these proved to be rich beyond expectation in Chaldean lore, so as both to elucidate and confirm the accounts of many of the most important events recorded in the pages of Holy Writ. Our readers will not have forgotten the account of the deluge with which Mr. Smith not long since startled the world, and which was published in the first volume of his Assyrian Discoveries. A second volume has now been published, under the title of The Chaldean Account of Genesis, which contains some remarkable corroborations of the Mosaic record of the creation and the fall. It comprehends also the text of all that remains of the precious tablet, scarcely larger than a lump of sugar. Mr. Smith believes that the era of Uruck, King of Ur, may be fixed with great probability about B.C. 2000; but even anterior to that date, it is quite certain there were buildings and inscriptions, the centre of activity being the region lying between 32 and 33 deg. north latitude. It is pleasant to hear a man so careful and clearheaded expressing himself thus: ‘Taking the period of literary development in Babylonia as extending from Abraham B.C. 2000 to 1550, we may say it roughly synchronises with the period from Abraham to Moses according to the ordinary chronology of our Bibles; and during this period it appears that traditions of the creation of the universe and human history, down to the time of Nimrod, existed parallel to, and in some points identical with, those given in the Book of Genesis.”
The Bible and “Pre-Historic Man”
“J. M.” circulated some time ago a lithographed tract, entitled Why I Left the Christadelphians. On reading the tract, the reader discovers that the title, though coinciding with a fact, is not an appropriate description of its contents; for the reasons given are reasons (and bad reasons as we shall show) for re-rejecting the Bible itself, and not for leaving the Christadelphians in particular, though, in the sense that Christadelphians accept the Bible in the understanding of it, which other believers in it do not, there is just the least element of appropriateness in calling reasons for rejecting the Bible reasons for leaving the Christadelphians.
The reasons are ten in number. We shall review them from month to month, at the rate of one per month, not at great length, for the publication of the Bradlaugh discussion and review will have, in great measure, superseded the necessity for it. The whole ten reasons are, with one or two exceptions, the stock arguments of unbelief—stale and long ago exploded.
The first objection is that the writer “having for a number of years taken an interest in geology,” has “come to the conclusion that our race was (not) introduced into the world about 6,000 years ago;” and that as this is a teaching of the Bible, the Bible must be wrong. He cites Huxley, Carpenter, Page and the Popular Educator in support of the opinion. The fallacy of this argument lies in the assumption (1) that the scientific opinion is without the possibility of being mistaken, and (2) that even if not mistaken, it is inconsistent with the Bible account. There is no ground for either of these assumptions. The grounds upon which the opinion rests are too slender to give absolute certainty. Further investigation has dissipated some of the evidence: such, for instance, as the argument founded on the discovery of manufactured brick at a great depth in the neighbourhood of the Nile. It was at first supposed that the earth had accumulated over the bricks at the slow rate of natural deposit, and therefore, it was argued that the bricks must have been made 20,000 or 30,000 years ago. But, afterwards, it was found that there had been an artificial diversion of the river at that very spot during the time of the Roman domination, and that the brick found corresponded exactly with the burnt brick used by the Romans in Egypt at that time. The specimens had fallen or been thrown into the river at that time, and, of course, when a new channel was made for the water and the old one filled up, the bricks were buried at a great depth. The evidence in general is loose and indeterminate. A few, of course, hold it to be conclusive, and construct theories out of it; but there are others in the scientific world who are equally confident in another construction of it. Only at the last meeting of the British Association (Glasgow) one of the leading authorities condemned the bold generalizations that had been made from very insufficient data, the speaker mentioning Huxley in particular. Mr. Wallace expressed convictions in opposition to Huxley. At a previous meeting (Bristol) another geological authority did the same. It is, therefore, absurd to assume as proved a theory about which scientific men (whose theories, in fact, change like the fashions) are not agreed. A man must either have a very small acquaintance with the bearings of the subject and the state of scientific opinion, or he must have a strong natural bias in favour of unbelief, who would make the scientific opinion of man’s antiquity a reason for setting aside a book proved to us in so many and powerful ways.—(See Bradlaugh Discussion.)
But even supposing the state of the evidence were such as to induce a unanimous scientific verdict in favour of the pre-historic antiquity of a race of men, it would not follow that the Bible is untrustworthy, because there is nothing to connect the present race with any pre-historic race that might be proved to have existed. The Bible account begins about 6,000 years ago. It tells us (Gen. 1:2) that at that time the earth was in a chaotic state, covered with water, and that darkness was upon the face of the deep. Now, supposing it could be shown that ages before then, the earth had been habitable, and was, in fact, inhabited by a race of whom nothing but their existence was known, would it disprove that at a period of 6,000 years ago, the said race had perished and the earth been engulphed in a physical catastrophe, in which it had lain for an unspecified time before the work of re-organization described in Genesis? By no means. It would only prove one true thing without disproving another true thing. The Bible is proved in too many ways to admit of its being disproved by any crude theory we may form on subjects so vast. It is indeed on this very subject proved to be true by the present population of the globe. Say it is fourteen hundred millions, and say the population (allowing for war, accident, &c.) doubles itself every two hundred years, and reckon this backwards, and you cannot carry the race further back than the Bible puts it. If man had existed from the untold antiquity of the scientific theorists, the world would, ages ago, have been overstocked with population. So much for No. 1 of J. M.’s reasons.
Miracle a Necessity to Human Salvation
Mullan’s pamphlet Miracles and Prophecy, contains remarks on this subject, which we abridge and amend in harmony with the truth, as follows: “The human race has involved itself in the evils of sin beyond all powers of self-extrication. Will God interfere or not to provide for man that he may escape from ruin, which the laws of his own being and the laws of surrounding nature alike refuse to provide? To answer that question in the affirmative is to assert the necessity of the miracle. For any such interference must be, by the very nature of the case, miraculous. It must include superhuman appeals to the human understanding, and superhuman appliances to human nature. For salvation, according to the only religious system that declares the necessity and unfolds the method of a redemptive interference—I mean that expounded in the Bible—involves two principal results, a change of state and a change of nature—a change of state, consisting in the forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with God; and a change of nature, consisting in the transformation of the body, and its assimilation to the immortal state. God, therefore, must manifest himself in some supernatural way to make known a plan of forgiveness and reconciliation. Jesus Christ is this supernatural manifestation of God. Mark what takes place. A man miraculously born appears upon the scene. In him is divine everlasting life, derived from the divine everlasting fountain head. He invites all who will to join and follow him, and promises them deliverance. Those who accept his invitation are by their faith made mystically one with Him. As it fares with him, so shall it fare with them. The appearance of the Son of God is, therefore, the grand miracle of all time. As to the chain of minor miracles which signalised the life of Christ and His apostles, no one was witness of the resurrection. Only a few hundreds were permitted to behold the form of the risen Lord. But it was necessary that a whole world should sooner or later become convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, the Son of the living God. Herein we find an ample justification of the chain of minor miracles recorded in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. The evidential force of a consecutive series of supernatural works, countless in number, infinitely varied in character, situation, and surrounding circumstance, performed not only by the Master in his own person, but also in His name by those to whom he had entrusted the splendid prerogative, was irresistible in the minds of the first followers of the cross, and sufficient to inspire them with an enthusiasm of personal conviction and missionary zeal, such as would render the subsequent employment of the miracle largely, if not entirely, unnecessary. To those who complain that the miracle is not continued still for the fixing and strengthening of human faith, it is enough to answer that we have all that made the miracle valuable and efficacious. We have the Bible, the miraculous heirloom of the old inspiration. We have the public observance of the first day of the week—the standing record of the miracle of the resurrection. We have baptism and the Lord’s supper, sacred projections along the centuries of the Christian era of two grand epochs in the miraculous life of Christ. But, above all, we have Jesus Christ himself. Christ, in his person and character, is indeed the great world-miracle, about which all the minor miracles play like scintillations round a central fire, associated with which their reasonableness is morally demonstrated, divorced from which they melt into unmeaningness. With Jesus Christ born and risen, they stand or fall, even as with him stand and fall also all human faith and hope.”
Authenticity of the New Testament
(Continued from page 450.)
Acts of the Apostles
In passing on to the remaining books, I begin with the Acts of the Apostles. This book was, in the second century, known and received as the work of Luke, as much as his gospel. I need only refer to Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, as witnesses against whose testimony no exception can be made. The canon in Muratori is also a valuable document as to this book. I need not enlarge on this, for the testimony is sufficient to carry us to the time of those who belonged to the apostolic age.
Epistle to the Hebrews
In speaking of the epistles, to which Paul’s name is prefixed, that to the Hebrews was, of course, excluded. The difficulty as to this epistle is not on the points of antiquity and authority, but entirely as to authorship. In the early centuries it was but little known in the West, and thus in the canon in Muratori, it is not mentioned. In the East, however, it was well known and received, and there it was ascribed to the apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria is a sufficient witness on this point. The North African Church likewise knew of this epistle at an early period, for Tertullian quotes it, ascribing it, however, to Barnabas. All the early accounts would show that it was considered to come from what might be called the school of Paul, whether written by himself or not. Though the West had comparatively little knowledge of this epistle in the second century, yet it must have been known there in the first century, as an approved document; for Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corinthians, interweaves large portions of the epistle before us. It has been said that “allusions prove nothing;” however, in such a case as this, they prove a great deal. This epistle claims authority on the part of the writer; he, therefore, who could approvingly introduce extracts from it into another work, so far sanctions that authority, and this Clement of Rome has done.”7 We are able, therefore, to say that in the apostolic age it was received as an authoritative document. In the former part of the second century, Justin Martyr (Apol. 1.) says that Christ is called an apostle, a term which indicates his acquaintance with this epistle, and his acknowledgment of its authority. The difficulty connected with its authorship being directly ascribed to Paul, is principally found in the omission of his name at the beginning, and the difference of style throughout. Thus, some of those who ascribe it, in a general sense, to Paul, thought that the ideas were his, but that the language was that of another; in fact, that it bore the same relation to Paul as Luke’s Gospel does to him, and Mark’s to Peter. Thus Origen, who quotes this epistle as Paul’s, says that of the actual writer, “God only knoweth.”11 Ancient testimony is abundantly strong as to the authority of this book; it generally ascribes it to Paul; and this is quite sufficient for us to receive it with all confidence, and to consider it as Pauline in the same general sense.
General Epistles.—First Epistle of Peter
The general epistles were not formed into a collected volume at an early period; they were only known and used individually. Hence, we cannot be surprised that some of them were much better known than others. Two only of these writings stand in Esebius’s catalogue of books universally acknowledged.
The first epistle of Peter need not detain us long; Polycarp uses it as freely and fully as a modern preacher might do.1 Papias, in the same age, cited testimonies from it, as we learn from Eusebius (l. iii. 39). Clement of Alexandria, and Irenæus quote it by name, in the second century, as also does Tertullian; he only, however, cites it in one passage, instead of making the continual use of it that he does of the gospels and Paul’s epistles. This is natural enough, as this writing was only a separate volume, and not part of the collections already formed.
First Epistle of John
The first epistle of John was also used by Polycarp and Papias, and by the writers of the second century, Irenæus, Clement and Tertullian by name, as is also the case in the canon in Muratori.
Books Opposed by Some—Epistle of James
The epistle of James is the first book that we have to consider, of those described by Eusebius as opposed by some.
We are not (as I have said already) to feel surprise that epistles not addressed to a particular church should be for a time comparatively unknown; this would especially be what we might expect as to an epistle to those from amongst the Israelitish nation who had believed in Christ.
The first who makes express mention of this epistle by name is Origen, in the former part of the third century: he quotes it as the epistle attributed to James. Hence it is probable that Origen’s teacher, Clement of Alexandria, knew of this epistle; this supposition is confirmed by a statement of Cassiodorus, a writer of the sixth century, that Clement gave a summary of this epistle (together with others) in a work of his which is now lost; it has, however, been doubted whether the name of James in the passage of Cassiodorus, is not put in by mistake for Jude. Irenæus says of Abraham, that “he was the friend of God.”—(l. iii. c. 16, 2.) This looks like an acquaintance with this epistle. A strong testimony to this writing is given by the old Syriac version of the New Testament, in which, although the other books “opposed by some” are absent, this epistle is contained. In the fourth century we see, from Jerome, that the authenticity of this epistle was very plainly asserted, and the epistle was then, as now, ascribed to the apostle James, the son of Alphæus. This is just what we might expect: a writing, little known at first obtains a more general circulation, and the knowledge of the writing and its reception go almost together. The contents entirely befit the antiquity which the writing claims: no evidence could be given for rejecting it; it differs in its whole nature from the foolish and spurious writings put forth in the name of this James, and thus its gradual reception is to be accounted for from its having, from early times, been shown by some to be genuine (as shown by the Syriac Version), and this knowledge having afterwards spread more widely.
Second Epistle of Peter
The Second Epistle of Peter was but little known in early times: it professes (ch. 3:1) to be addressed to the same persons as the first had been. Cappadocia is one of the countries mentioned in the salutation of the former; this, then, must be supposed to have been best known in that and the surrounding regions. Accordingly, from Cappadocia we get the earliest decisive testimony. In the middle of the third century, Firmilianus, bishop of Cæserea, in Cappadocia, writes to Cyprian, accusing the Bishop of Rome of “abusing the holy apostles, Peter and Paul, who, in their epistles, have execrated heretics and admonished us to avoid them.” The mention of Peter can only carry our minds to this epistle. We learn from Origen that it was known at this time as a writing about which there were doubts; he knew of no evidence against it, and the doubts then entertained are well balanced by Firmilianus’s testimony, springing from that very region to which we might especially look for evidence. This epistle is not mentioned by Tertullian—a fact at which we need not wonder, since he only quotes the first epistle of Peter, although universally owned, once. Eusebius tells us that Clement of Alexandria commented on the general epistles, both those which were universally owned and those which are opposed by some; hence it has been reasonably concluded that he knew this epistle. This writing, certainly, is utterly unlike the forged documents, in the name of Peter, which were put forth in the second century: it belongs, at least, to an age anterior to that of Firmilianus and Origen, and thus we approach the apostolic period. Now, Clement of Rome has a passage which seems to allude to part of this epistle: he says, “On account of hospitality and godliness, Lot was delivered from Sodom, when all the neighbouring country was condemned with fire and brimstone. The Lord made it manifest that He doth not forsake those who trust in Him; but those who turn to other ways He appoints to punishment and suffering.”—(cap. 11.) The connection of words and thoughts appears to show that 2 Peter 2:6–9, was in the writer’s mind. In the time after Eusebius but little doubt was expressed as to this epistle, although the points of difference in the style were perceived. As to this, let it be observed that the subject continually forms the style; no one would write a hortatory or didactic address in the same style as a stern rebuke. I may add that this epistle is much more like Peter, as preaching in the Acts, than is the first. It must be observed that the express testimony of Firmilianus, coming, as it does, from Cappadocia itself, has the utmost importance in connection with this writing. If we have no proof of its having been as widely diffused as other books of the New Testament, all we have to ask is, whether we have sufficient testimony as to its existence and authorship. Internally it claims to be written by Peter, and this claim is confirmed by the Christians of that very region in whose custody it ought to have been found.
Second and Third Epistles of John
The second epistle of John has as much evidence as so short a writing would be likely to possess; it is expressly mentioned and cited by Irenæus (l. iii. c. 16, 8), whose links of connection with that apostle have been already stated; it is also mentioned and quoted by Clement of Alexandria. The third epistle of John is mentioned by Origen, together with the second, as writings about which judgments might perhaps be divided. Dionysius of Alexandria, however, in part his contemporary, speaks undoubtingly of both.—(In Eusebius, H. E. l. vii. 25.)
The canon in Muratori owns, at least, one of these epistles; in my opinion, both. From the mode in which Jerome speaks of these epistles, we may conclude that the doubt was not as to their being really sacred writings, but as to whether John was the author—John the apostle or John the Presbyter, a doubt which is fully met by Irenæus and the writer of the fragmentary canon.
Epistle of Jude
We find quite sufficient early testimony to the epistle of Jude, for it is mentioned in Muratori’s canon, by Clement of Alexandria (Pæd. p. 239), and by Tertullian (De Cultu, Fœm. i. 3.) We are able, therefore, at once to repudiate the doubts expressed by some in the beginning of the fourth century, because of earlier evidence, which ascribes this epistle to Jude, the brother of James.
(To be continued.)