IT

ON THE FIFTY-FIRST PSALM.

[1866.]

(Too late for Third Edition of my "Hebrew Monarchy," in 1865.)

T has been accepted traditionally with strange unanimity, that King David wrote this Psalm, as its title avows, in confession of his guilt concerning Bathsheba and Uriah. But this seems doubly impossible.

First, the man who has committed murder and adultery, has pre-eminently sinned against man, and not against God only; and must have been strangely blind to write, "against Thee only have I sinned." Clearly he has in his belief committed some sin against God, which is not a sin against man. The bloodguiltiness which in v. 14 he deplores, must have been an act, as against the sufferer, just; but involving guilt against God in the perpetrator; perhaps because of his sacred character. He seems to have been a minister or a priest; for he hopes to convert sinners; v. 13.

Next, the two last verses of the psalm imply that the walls of Jerusalem need repair, else are actually broken down. When Joab bravely forced his way into the city and captured it from the Jebusites, David would not have weakened the walls on purpose; nor was he likely to pray to God for their repair, but would himself at once order the work to be done. Moreover, he writes as one expecting, that, as a result of improved defences to Jerusalem, ample sacrifices will be made on the high altar. The only reasonable explanation is, that the psalm was written after the overthrow by Nebuchadnezzar. In David's reign the ark was not yet brought to Jerusalem, nor do we hear of that city as any centre of priestly sacrifice.

I can only conclude that this personage,-priest, let me call him,-clinging to the holy land during the Babylonish captivity, had been entangled in combat with wild marauders, such as take opportunity by foreign invasion, and had slain some of them in just defence, yet felt himself contaminated by the act. For the priestly idea at the close of the monarchy was by no means that of David's day, when a young priest might be commended as a mighty man of war. As to touch a dead body was a defilement, much more is it credible that a scrupulous conscience might be sorely distressed by engaging secretly in mortal conflict. Such seems to me the reasonable interpretation of this psalm.

Was Uriah the Hittite Biblical tale; but just of

But a new question here opens? really murdered? I have followed the late have come into grave doubt of it. In fact I no longer can believe it possible, as it is transmitted. Considering the uneasy

relation, not to say feud, between David and his nephew Joab, on the one side, and on the other the extreme difficulty and danger to which Joab would expose himself in endeavouring to obey David's dispatch, the story is to me incredible. When the honourable Abner had used his great military influence to aid David to the throne, Joab in private revenge murdered him; whereupon, David, not daring to punish his too powerful nephew, vented his wrath in curses on him, publicly and ostentatiously uttered. Soon after, in hope of shaking off his nephew's ascendancy, David offered the chief captaincy to him who in the assault on Jebus (afterwards called Jerusalem) should be foremost in bravery: but Joab disappointed him, by winning the prize himself. In the affair of Bathsheba, it would have been simple infatuation in David to write to Joab a letter such as is imputed. Joab by displaying the document to the army could at once have displaced David from the throne. On the other hand, it was morally impossible for Joab to command the aid of his men in betraying their brave comrade to the enemy. Their indignation would have been turned against Joab himself. Nor only so, but all who had the smallest acquaintance with warfare would know how often it happens that the brave man escapes, when the coward runaway is slain. Missile weapons from an enemy do not take the course which a traitorous commander asks of them. One may almost call the tale physically as well as morally impossible; certainly it does not deserve acceptance as history, when narrated in a summary two or three centuries later.

Such argument points to the conclusion, that Uriah was slain in honourable combat without complicity of Joab: but his death was so opportune for David, who had just then excellent reason for rejoicing in it, that the public leaped to the inference that it was brought about by his definite order. The deeds of a despotic prince are so shrouded, that suspicion is apt to aggravate guilt very unjustly, where real guilt is notorious. On the whole then, while accepting David's adultery, I refuse to believe the still greater and monstrous crime.

Of course the actual talk of Nathan with David cannot be pressed as though we had Nathan's authentic M.S. before us.

THE NEW TESTAMENT INADEQUATE

AS A STANDARD OF MORALS.

[1867.]

MORAL judgments are instinctive to every individual; but

Μ

morality, as a system of rules, grows up with human experience over the breadth of each society. The experience even of nations being limited, we have to appeal to the community of nations to obtain broader judgments of right and wrong; nor do we even so attain a final standard on every point. For, inasmuch as in process of time new relations are developed and new phenomena excite to new inquiry, fresh moralities arise or old decisions are corrected: thus the wisdom of even the collective past proves itself imperfect. No one thinks that he dishonours Aristotle or Cicero by impugning special parts of their moral systems. It is not until infallibility is claimed for a moral teacher, that his votaries are stung by the imputation that his morality is imperfect. Yet this is exactly the case in which it becomes a moral duty to point at the imperfections. The offence hereby given is no bad measure of the mischief done by the consecration of error.

Further the worth of an instrument is not unfitly estimated by the design of its inventor. A summer-house does its duty, if it shelter us in summer: we do not expect it to protect us in all weather. A system of morals written in the time of Seneca did good service, if it was well adapted for imperial Rome. This is primâ facie our position towards apostles who expected a speedy return of Christ from heaven, and a burning up of this earth. Of Paul we know most, and can speak definitely. He cannot have been ignorant that in past days citizenship had with its privileges specific duties, and that in free polities patriotism was expected of every citizen. Nor can he have been blind to the essential injustice of slavery which treats a man as a chattel, and (in Aristotle's words) defines a slave as "a living tool!" That Paul's teaching should be defective concerning the rights and duties of citizens, concerning war, concerning slavery and the rights of man, followed necessarily from his belief that the

end of all things was at hand.

No time was left to improve the

world, to regenerate politics, to enfranchise slave-castes. Νο new civil freedom was to be expected: radical change was impossible softening of cruelties in detail was alone to be thought of. Mercy, not Justice, was the sole aim possible. The task of a Christian was for the future world, not for the present: for the few, not for the many. "I endure all things (says Paul) for the sake of the elect, that they may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." Seeing that this visible earth was speedily to be burnt up, no wise man would busy himself to improve its surface. Better irrigation and tilth, better roads, better mechanism, improvements of art and science, better laws of land, better condition of the poor, wiser government, were matters of little worth to one who waited for a divine Avenger shortly to appear, descending from the clouds with myriads of angels. With this belief their moral system was harmonious; perhaps inevitably. Under our change of circumstances, such beliefs are noxious; and that too, whether this or that passage of the New Testament is, or is not, genuine. Our sole concern at present is with the popular text, as read at church and as accounted sacred.

Fully to enumerate the moral defects of the New Testament might be equivalent to a complete moral treatise. To specify some cardinal heads will suffice to establish that it is disastrous to accept the book as a SACRED AND SUFFICIENt standard of right.

I. The moral topic most characteristic in the discourses of Jesus is his doctrine and precepts concerning Property. Unlimited open-handedness is with him a cardinal virtue. We are to give to every beggar, and lend to every one who asks. No inquiry is suggested, whether the petitioner be idle or unworthy: nay we are commanded to submit to unjust exactions. To lay up store for future necessities is expressly forbidden: even the retention of wealth acquired or inherited becomes impossible to those who obey him. All who will obey him must sell their goods and give away the proceeds, as a wise provision for their welfare in an after-world. That Jesus intended to be understood literally, is clear from the practice of his immediate followers, from his solemn blessing on their obedience, and from his moralizing over the failure of a rich young man who did not obey.

With such precepts it is consistent, not to inculcate that Industry is a duty or Beggary a disgrace. The twelve in Matthew

and the seventy in Luke are really Mendicant Friars. No wonder that in the Catholic Church Beggary is held in honour as an Institution, while private thrift has been discouraged and family affection has been sacrificed for ecclesiastical aggrandizement. All Protestant philanthropists avow that the precept "Give to him that asketh" is of very pernicious tendency, and that the poor cannot be raised without their own industry, forethought and thrift, which Jesus does not urge, but certainly rather discourages. To command all to sell their properties is to command an absurdity; for if all attempted it, there would be no buyers. Only an "elect remnant "could possibly obey. Thus to defend the precept, is to confess that such morality was not intended for the human race. If those who use this plea would constantly abide by it, and cease to pretend that the precepts of Jesus are suited for a universal religion, they would make this argument needless. Widely different are the precepts of Paul; but the contrariety only the more signally displays the insufficiency of the New Testament as a guide of life and a standard of morals.

II.-Concerning Political Power the Christian doctrine is very obscure. Ought we to hold and exercise Power? By what tests are we to recognize Power to be lawful? When the Power is lawful, are there limits to obedience? or what limits? Is the tongue to be submissive to power as well as the hand? What is the fitting demeanor towards lawful Power, when its demands are excessive or unjust? Opposite replies might be either gathered or suggested by the conduct of the teachers. When tribute is asked of Jesus, he works a miracle (according to Matthew) to get tribute-money, but in paying it lays down that this is a condescension, because God's children are by right free. (Such seems to be the sense; but the argument is somewhat obscure.) On the other hand, the wonderful doctrine is dictatorially propounded, that every coin which bears Cæsar's image is Cæsar's property. In the Sermon of the Mount also, zealous obedience to arbitrary exactions is inculcated. But what if an officer demand service as a soldier? Is a Christian to take a soldier's engagement of obedience, or to refuse? Soldiers under Roman misrule were habitually made tools of tyranny. Centurions indeed were often mere executioners. The soldier might be ordered to kill a Roman prince, to arrest or behead John the Baptist, to scourge or to crucify Jesus; and in general, to invade foreign countries, to burn the villages and towns of the unoffending, to shed innocent blood like water, and leave the fatherless

L