The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1890-12-21

You take Just as much response
bility by sitting in Judgment on the thirty
nine articles which interpret the Bible as
you do by sitting in Judgment on the Bible.
You take a. much responsibility in accept
ing tho apostles. You perform the most
act of private Judgment in re-
private Judgment.
The literalists, Gail Hamilton claims,
play into the hands of the s'bIatant and
boastful agnostic who never went ankle
deep in scripturRl or other investigation,
but who makes more noise shouting and
splashing in the shoals than the whole
squadron Of evolution makes in sailing the
wide seas over" She will not permit the
rationalistic Investigators of the scriptures
to be COMPOUNDED or classed with the scott
ers, but she holds that the marvellous sto-
ries in the Old Testament are purely alle-
Rorical-fabulous. II you like it, for we al
ready see that she is not afraid of that word
or that they are picturesque and poetical
descriptions of actual occurrences by
writer's not yet familiar with the workings
OF nature. She finds natural causes for the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and
for the calamity which overlook Lots
wife, who may have been caught in a
showe- of sulpher and saltpetre, which COW
cred her A possible and even probable.
which Joshua profited by, she finds in the
wonderful sunglows, which as recently as
1873 lighted up the land long after the hour
when dusk was to be expected. She acknowl-
edges that scientific skepticism made
some breaches in those solid walls Of water
between which the children of Israel were
supposed to have made the passage through
the Red sea, but reminds US that rational
ism found at Suez bar extending from one
shore to the other, which at times is now
almost laid bare by afavorable conjunctio
OF low tide and strong east wind, while on
either side Of the bar the water is deep.
There is q similar bar at Bar Harbor, with
which, of course, Gail Hamilton is familiar
Note the snapper and the end of the whip
as she adds:
The Red Sea tide is an irregular one-not
always to be depended upon for withdraw
al. But 1t came to pass, in the course of
nature, by the Discriminate counsel and
foreknowledQe of God, that this frightened.
fleeing 1sraelites found the bar SO barred
that they could cross it. BY the course of
nature? Certainly. So the record says.
The Lord caused the sea to 90 back by a
strong east wind all night. That is nature,
not miracle. That is the way the He'd Sea
safely through between the deep waters on
each side. The Egyptians plunged in after
them, hot-headed; but before they had
crossed the waters began to flow down
again--not miraculously, not falling upon
them from wall above their heads, but
slowly rising beneath their feet; rising
tide, only muddy at first, SO that they drove
heavily, clogging their wheels, and even
leaving them sticking fast in the mud. The
water deepened, slowly rising. but always
rising, so that the hot haste Of pursuit had
time to cool, and leaders took counsel and
decided that it was too dangerous to at
tempt further passage against the threat
anlnD forG mud tnrnoA haN1r md fad in
panic-too late! too late!
THE feet had hardly time to flee
Before it brake against the knee.
And all the world was in the ssa''
DR.. TalmaQe asks: "Why not be frank,
and say, I believe the Lord God Almighty
came to the brink of the Red sea, and with
His right arm swung back the pillows on
the right side and with His left arm swung
back the pillows on the left side, and the
abashed waters stood up hundreds of feet
high, while through their CLASSY wall the
sea monsters gazed with affrighted eyes on
the passing Israelites?'
Because we do not believe it. Because
the Bible does not say 30. 1t was Moses
who came to the brink of the Red sea and
swung his arms. That is like man. The
Lord God caused the sea to go back by a
strong east wind all night. This is like
God. Doubtless DIR. Talmage, with his ir-
repressible energy, would have made much
left than the Lord God made with his com-
monplace east wind; but after ALL the east
wind is good deal of blow. Even DR..
TalmaRe cannot belittle it, nor does exegesis
require 10.
It is impossible to even glance at all the
arguments advanced by Gail Hamilton in
the three hundred and more pages of her
book. for every page almost is an interest
ing study in itself. She wars not against
religion nor the scriptures. but she does
war against the human decree that she shall
accept unquestioned, the dogmatc definl-
scriptures handed down by theologians or
councils as hannah and fallible as herself.
"Of things as they are," she says "of
christianity, pure and simple, we scarcely
hear: What we are chiefly taught is the
opinions which many generations have
formed to med about christianity When any part
begins to be reft away, the cry is that
christianity. lies bleeding; that another
assault has been made upon it, God, she
holds spoke to Abram as God speaks to
US. It there was any special verbal COM
munication, then Abram did not walk by
faith. but by knowledge. and his obedience
to patriarchs und prophets she declines to
believe in. The words Of Moses, she holds,
can be safely interpreted just rs the words
of Emerson are. Morality and religion
were establlshed; society was known to
have existed ages preceding Abram, and
the Jews were not Il chosen people, except
in the sense that their characteristics made
them the best fitted to cling stubbornly to
their faith in one God, and 80 thsy were
chosen to keep alive that faith and hand it
down to the modern world. All this Gail
Hamilton goes into most fully. She then
attacks the ancient forms of worship by
wood and stone and burnt offer
iDgs, holding that they are entirely
paganistic, and quoting literally from
the prophets to prove that Mosaic
law was not of necessity divine law, and
that blood sacrifices were frequently declar-
sacrifice" she asks, make smooth the path
full blast when he was born babe in Beth
lehem, and that blast was turned ON him to
destroy him.
The passover is described as simple.
hasty family meal preparatory to hard
journey next day. Those who partook of it
ate, as it we're, "in travelling dress, with
their shawl straps in their hands," "The
slaughter was not pretended to be sacrifice.
1t WAS only that they had a hearty and rel
ishinR supper of roast lamb" The subse-
quent burning of what had not been eaten
was sanitary and not sacrifcial.'
This is enough to show without going in
to the numerous arguments or illustrations
on the topic. that oil sacri6cial rites are un-
meaning and abhorent to the author of the
book. They were tolerated. she says, by
the Savior as ancient Jewish customs, but
never received His encouragement or en-
dorsement. While the passover feast might
be tolerated among Jews as a sort of eman-