not hard to explain; the upholders of a particular phase of religion invariably invest its originator with a legendary perfection, all the great achievements of mankind during his century, and often those of an even more distant date, are attributed to him; all human errors, all sins of the age are thrust upon his opponents. To the sect its founder becomes the Saviour of mankind, and his adversaries, a generation of vipers. It is impossible to escape the dilemma, the orthodox Christian must either regard Luther as nigh inspired of God, or else as a child of the Devil."

In the full consciousness, therefore, that millions of Christians regard Luther as almost a prophet or an Apostle, the Westminster reviewer proceeds with an indictment, which depicts the great Reformer as a preacher of intolerance, licentiousness, and cruelty, who discredited human reason, culture, and virtue, "took the lowest conceivable view of marriage," almost approved of polygamy, perpetuated "the temporal government of a personal devil and his assistants," denounced his opponents in the language of Billingsgate, counselled the massacre and even the assassination of rebels, and suggested that pitch, sulphur, and Hellfire, if possible, should be cast upon the Jews. From all this, and much more to the same effect, the Westminster reviewer infers that Luther threw back by centuries the civilisation of Europe, and that the German Reformation was a "moral catastrophe" to the people.

It is not within the scope of these pages to discuss the character and work of the great German reformer. Our present interest lies in the marvellous inconsistency

of Westminster reviewers, who claim this freedom of speech respecting Luther, but object to a candid criticism of David, and even shudder at the thought of calling Nicodemus an "eminent Pharisee"! The censor of Luther adds:

"We are perfectly aware that it is possible to cite passages from his writings full of truth and piety: we leave to Catholic theologians the task of denouncing Luther, as a knave, a sensualist, or a heretic, we decline entirely to discuss whether his dogmas were better or worse than those of the Catholic Church; dogmas

are to us a perfect matter of indifference."

From this language we infer that legitimate criticism, according to Westminster reviewers, consists in piling up damaging evidence against individuals, and leaving it to their enemies to give opprobrious titles to the conclusions indicated; and that although dogmas, of whatever Church or sect, have sustained falsehood, perverted truth, extinguished science, crushed liberty, blighted reason, and degraded humanity, if their modern restoration to medieval vitality were to rekindle the fires of Smithfield, the cynico-stoical Gallio of Westminster would care for none of these things, unless, perhaps, some inconvenient inquiry into his own spiritual condition should bring him within measurable distance of the flames.

Reverting to the Westminster censor of "The Evolution of Christianity," he adds: "We notice various misstatements or rash and unfounded assertions scattered through the volume." Why, therefore, has he not fulfilled his literary trust by exposing and refuting the errors and falsehoods thus hazily indicated, instead of

posing as a literary pontiff enthroned at Westminster, whose non possumus determines the issues of truth and falsehood in absolute independence of verification? Perhaps, he is under the impression that the inconsequent jottings, which follow his vague assertions, convict me of the literary misdemeanours implied in his indictment; let us, therefore, test the value of these mere shreds of criticism :

"Sometimes the author is found unexpectedly agreeing with orthodox commentators in his positions. Thus, he appears to have a firmer belief in the mission of Moses than Bishop Colenso, judging by the sketch which he gives of his history, and by his assertion that he not only borrowed rites and ceremonies, but even his ideal of Divinity from the Egyptians. The learned Dr. Kuenen and M. Le Page Renouf, we may remark, accord in rejecting the theory of the Egyptian derivation of the Hebrew creed or institutions."

Thus speaks my critic, in what sense does he, therefore, interpret my definite statement that contact with the inhabitants of Palestine had so modified Hebrew ideals of Divinity by the time of Samuel and David that, could Moses have then risen from the dead, he would scarcely have recognised the great I AM, who inspired the oracles of Urim and Thummim, in the Palestinian Deity, evoked by the artistic minstrelsy of ecstatic prophets? It may be that archæology will, some day, prove that the sojourn in Egypt and the existence of Moses are equally mythical, but meantime, he who tests the supernatural claims of Hebrew Scripture through internal evidence, whilst recognising the preponderating influence of Palestinian Judaism, inevit

ably detects important points of resemblance between the theology and ritualism of Egypt and of Israel. The ancient theosophy of the land of the Pharaohs was, in fact, a great spiritual emporium from which other religions, inclusive of Christianity, have so freely borrowed that, as suggested in these pages, if an Egyptian mummy, now reclining within the precincts of the British Museum, were suddenly restored to life and miraculously gifted with modern tongues, he might reasonably infer, on entering a Christian temple, that Egyptian theology had survived the vicissitudes of six thousand years.

The Westminster reviewer thus continues:

"The monotheism of the Jews our author attributes to their contact with an Aryan race of monotheists during the exile, and erroneously, as it would now seem, maintains that Cyrus identified Ormuzd with Jehovah. But surely a very real monotheism is found in the prophets of the eighth century, and that doctrine is taught in explicit terms in Deuteronomy."

I know not why my critic should thus misconstrue my reproduction of the narrative of Scripture as my own erroneous assertions. It is not I, but Hebrew prophets, confirmed by Josephus, who affirm that Cyrus identified the Lord God of heaven-Ormuzd, if the king was a Persian monotheist-with the Hebrew Deity. The recent discovery of inscriptions of Cyrus now indicate that he was neither a Persian nor a Zoroastrian, but the worshipper of many gods. What, therefore, are the results of this conclusion? That the author of Isaiah, after an eloquent denunciation of every Cf. p. 60. 2 Cf. pp. 92, 132.

form of idolatry, declares, in the words of the Deity himself, that Cyrus was the anointed of the only true God. If, therefore, my critic's words—as it would now seem-mean that he accepts the polytheism of Cyrus, has he not thus finally closed the question of revelation in Hebrew Scripture, by admitting how imaginative are the pages of Isaiah? And how can he, under these conditions of scepticism, accept undated passages in the Prophets in attestation of a pre-Babylonian "very real

monotheism"?

In my introductory chapter, I have shown how conjectural are the dates and authorship of the Sacred Books compiled by Ezra and later canon-makers; and yet, when I refer, in the popular sense, to David as the author of a Psalm, and to Solomon as the composer of the Song of Songs, my censor imagines that I am committing errors of criticism: whilst he himself, oscillating between the Authorised Version and modern critics, withdraws the Song of Songs from Solomon, but accepts the Ninetieth Psalm as a prayer of Moses, who accordingly exclaims:-"The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away." If this is the language of Moses, what can his biographer mean by affirming that he "was an hun dred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated"? 1

As the design of the Westminster reviewer is obviously to see nothing but faults in "The Evolution of

'Deut. xxxiv. 7.