LORD AMBERLEY'S ANALYSIS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 1508, 28 August 1876, Page 3

LORD AMBERLEY'S ANALYSIS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

(Scotsman, June 23). Before the death, of the late Lord Amberley, it was known that he was preparing for publication a work of which report said that it dealt with religiouß question with freedom. The work is published m two handsome volumes of close upon 500 pages each. Lord. Am-' berley, it seems, had set himself the task of examining into religious beliefs. In a short pathetic passage, signed F. R. (the initials of Lord Amberley'a mother), the charitable consideration of all readers is asked for the work, because it is the xesult of single-minded search after the truth. Those who read it and who may ■find, m it " their most cherished beliefs questioned or contemned, their surest consolations set at naught," are implored to " remember that he had not shrunk from pain and anguish to himself, as one by one he parted with portions of that faith which m boyhood and early youth had been the mainspring of his life." In his zeal to Bhow how little thoßO systems could be trusted, he was led to the production of this " Analysis of Religious Belief,'' m which, treating no belief with reverence, he compares each with the other 'in all its parts, with the object of Bhowing that they are alike m most respects, and that some, which are sup- 1 posed to be widely different, are m reality, names being changed, almost the same. He traces the history of each, sketches the manner of each, and find 3 m all features which show, he thinks, their common origin m the emotional nature of man,- and the. tendency t j dogmatism. Christianity and Buddhism, Mahometanism and the btlief of tho Parsees have all, he contends and seeks to prove, a common origin and common aims. All of them profess to be of divine origin, which he insists ia true of none ; and with that conviction he compares them with the same coolness that an anatomist might compare the muscles m two bodies ; or to take a closer simile, with the same appearance of a desire to lay the foundation for further inquiry that is shown m Mr Bancroft's great work on the Native Races of the Pacific States. One of the subdivisions of his work deals with the God of Israel, and we reprint it aa follows : —

" One great question has hitherto been left untreated — that of the tbeoloj»y and morals of the Hebrew Bible. Theology and morals are bo intimately blended m its pages that the one can scarcely be discussed without involving

' the other. The character of Jehovah is ft he pattern of morality ; liis will is its | fundamental law ; his actions its exemplifications. Hence to consider the character of Jehovah is of necessity to consider also the Hebrew notions of ethic 3 ; while to inquire into the Hebrew standard of ethics is to inquire into the commands of Jehovah. Let us try then to ascertain what mauner of deity Jehovah is. To do so, our best course will be to select. the salient features of His history, as related by the sacred writers.

" Now, at the very outset of his proceedings, we observe that he takes up towards mankind a very definite attitude : that of a superior entitled to demand implicit obedience. Whether the fact that he was man's creator justified so extensive a claim it is needless m this place to discuss. Suffice it that he had the power to enforce under the severest penalties the submission he demanded. But it might have been expected that a divine being, who assumed such unlimited rights over the race so vastly his inferiors m knowledge and m strength, should at least exercise them with discretion and moderation. It might have been expected that where he claimed obedience it would be with a view to the well-being of his creatures ; not merely as an arbitrary exercise of his enormous power. What, on the contrary, is the conduct he pursued ? His very first act after he had created Adam and Eve and placed them m Paradise was to forbid them, under penalty of death, to eat the fruit of a certain tree which grew m their garden. There is not even a vestige of a pretence m tho narrative that the fruit of this tree would m itself, and apart from the divine prohibition, have done them any harm. Quite the contrary : the fact of eating it enlarged their faculties ; making them like gods, who know good and evil. And Jehovah was afraid that they might, after eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, eat also that of the tree of life, after which he would be unable to kill them. So that it was his deliberate purpose m issuing this injunction to keep mankind feeble, ignorant, and dependent. Nor is this by any means the whole extent of his misconduct. One of two charges he cannot escape. Either he knew when he created Adam aud Eve that their nature was such that they would disobey, or he did not. In the first case, he knowingly formed them liable to fall, knowingly placed them amid conditions which rendered their fall inevitable ; and then punished them for the catastrophe he had all along foreseen as the necessary result of the character he had bestowed upon them. In the second case, he was. ignorant and shortsighted, being unable to guess what would be the nature of his own handiwork ; and should not have meddled with tasks which were obviously beyond the scope of his faculties. And even m this latter case, the most favorable' one for Jehovah, he acted with unpardonable injustice towards the man and woman m first creating them with a nature whose powers of resistance to temptation ho could not tell, then placing temptation, raised to its utmost strength by a mysterious order, continually under their noses, then allowing a serpent to suggest that they Bhould yield to it, »nd lastly punishing the unhappy victims of this chain of untoward circumstances, by expulsion from their garden. A human parent who should thus treat his children would be severely and justly censured. It is a striking proof how rudimentary were the Hebrew conceptions of justice, that they should have accepted, m reference to their deity, a story which evinces so flagrant a disregard of its most elementary requirements. Just as, m the case of JAdain and Eve, he required implicit obedience to an arbitrary command, so m the case of Abraham he required implicit obedience to an immoral one. There was with him no fixed system of morality. Submission to his will was the alpha and omega of virtue.

" The further proceedings of Jehovah are quite m keeping with his beginning m the garden of Eden. Throughout th« whole^ course ol the history he shows the moat "glaring partiality. In its earlier period he is partial to individuals ; m its later, to the, Hebrew race. Let us notice a few cases of this favoritism as shown to individual favorites. Immediately after the curse upon Adam and Eve, and their banishment from Eden, we have the instructive story of Cain and Abel, so magnificently dramatised by Byron. These two brothers, sons of the original couple, both brought offerings to Jehovah ; Cain, the fruit of the ground ; Abel, the firstlings of the flock. But the Lord had respect to Abel and his offering, but not to Cain and his offering. Why was this difference made ? Absolutely no reason is assigned for it, and it is not surprising, however lamentable, that it should have excited the jealousy of the brother who was thus ill-treated. Again, it has been remarked above that Abraham and Isaac had a singular way of passing off their wives as their sisters. Pharaoh was once deceived m this way about Sarah ; Abimelech of Gerar, once about Sarah, and once about Rebeka. These two monarchs were plagued by Jehovah on account of their innocent mistake ; the patriarchs were not even reproved for this cowardly surrender of their consorts to adulterous embraces. Jacob is another favorite, while his brother Esau is coldly treated. Yet the inherent meanness of Jacob's character, and the compactive excellence of Esau's, are too obvious to escape even a careless reader. What can be more pitiful than the conduct of Jacob m taking advantage of a moment of weakness m his brother to purchase his birthright 1 What more ungenerous than the odious trick by which he imposed upon hi 3 father, and cheated Esau of his blessing ? What again can be more magnanimous than the long subsequent reception by Esau of the brother whose miserable subserviency showed his consciousness of tho wrong he had done him 1 Yet this is the man whom Jehovah selects aa the object of his peculiar blessing, and whose very deceitfulness towards a kind employer he suffers to become a means of aggrandisement.

" The same partisanship which m these cases forms so conspicuous a trait m the character of Jehovah distinguishes the whole course of his proceedings m reference to the delivery of the Israelites from Egypt and their settlement m Paleitine. Every other nation is compelled to give way for their advantage. Pharaoh and all the Egyptians are plagued for holding them m slavery, not m the least because Jehovah was an abolitionist (for; he never troubled himself about slavery anywhere else), but because it was his own peculiar people who were thus m subjugation to a ;race whom he did not equally affect. Throughout the long journey from Egypt to the promised land, Jehovah accompanies the Israelites as a sort of comman-der-in-chief, directing them what to do, and giving them the victory over their enemies. As the Bed Sea was divided to enable them to escape from their enemies on the one side, so the Jordan wan cleft m two to enable them to conquer thrft enemies on the other. The walls, ot a fortified city were thrown downjtojenable

them to enter. The sun was arrested in_ j his course to enable them to win a battle. 1 j Hornets were employed to accomplish the j expulsion of hostile tribers without trouble 1 to the Israelites. Tims, as Jehovah | afterwards took care to remind them, | he gave them a land for which they did j not labour, and cities which they did not I build." j