time and space failed for a longer paper upon the subject than that which the lecturer had just read. After denying the implication by Mr. Sidney Collett that he (the lecturer) had substituted unorthodox and unscriptural explanations of certain Biblical statements, the lecturer said that he had not been able, during the course of the discussion, to verify the passages referred to, but that, if he found anything undoubtedly wrong, he would make the necessary changes in his paper before it went to press. The author then thanked all those who had taken part in the discussion, and thus added interest to the subject dealt with. He was greatly interested in the pictures from the Times placed on the table by the Chairman. He had not been able to examine these pictures, which were not over-well reproduced. He hoped, however, to be able to refer to them later on. He has sent the following replies to the points raised in the course of the discussion : I am sorry that Mr. Collett did not add my qualifying words in all probability" to the quotation from p. 191 with which he found fault. In these circumstances I do not see that I have stated any unorthodox view, especially as (so it seems to me) more than one reason for desiring a king may have existed. In the matter of the sea-monster, Rahab, the question may be asked, "Are there no 'legends' in the Bible?" Analysing my feelings at the time of writing, I think I can say, that I hesitated to identify Yahwah with Merodach, notwithstanding that the Jews (or certain of them) seem to have had no scruples in the matter. The names quoted by Mr. Avery Forbes are exceedingly interesting, but the question naturally arises whether the likenesses between them may not be merely coincidences. The names quoted, moreover, are not all divine, as Mr. Forbes justly states. The Hebrews seem to have reverenced a god of fate named Meni, possibly identical with the Manû rabû of the mythological lists of Babylonia. He is described as sa mâmîtu isbat-su, "whom the oath took," pointing to some interesting legend concerning him which has yet to be discovered. I am not only gratified, but I am also much struck by Mr. Theodore Roberts' remarks. The probability that the Hebrews had failed to realize the ideal theocracy is an excellent suggestion. Mr. Roberts is also right upon another point, namely, that I regard the Hebrews as having been monotheists from the first moment of their national existence. His final paragraph is also most noteworthy. In answer to our Secretary, Mr. Hoste, I am glad to be able to confirm his suggestions. It is a fact that the Hebrew account of the Flood agrees, in all essential points, with that current in ancient Babylonia, names, numbers, and religious element excepted. This would naturally tend to discredit the theories of the higher critics. To all appearance there was a common source for both, and each nation developed it in a different way-monotheistically in the case of the Hebrews, and polytheistically in the case of the Babylonians. All will, I am sure, regard Mr. Edmund Kimber's well-expressed remarks as most appropriate. Though the Babylonian story of the Creation differs entirely from that of the Hebrews, they, too, were influenced by the sight of the waters which broke in surf on their southern shores, and attributed its motion, as well as the varied and wonderful life which it contained, to divine power and activity, though, being polytheists, they treated the subject in an entirely different way. In answer to Col. Riach it is to be noted that only the core of the real Tower of Babel at present exists, the upper portion having been destroyed in ancient times, and the burnt brick outer covering of the lowest platform, which gave it its solidity, having (so it is said) been removed for building purposes quite recently. As, however, Borsippa (the Birs Nimroud) was called by the Babylonians "the 2nd Babylon," this gives a certain confirmation to the tradition, that that building was "the Tower of Babel." This view, however, could only have been put forward as a serious identification in later times, when Ê-temenan-ki, as the true Tower was called, was no longer the centre of Babylonian worship owing to the abandonment of the fanes and the shrines in the capital. The New Discoveries at Ur. Referring to the pictures from the Times of this date shown by Col. Mackinlay, the headless diorite statue of En-anna-tum, king of Ur and Lagaš about 2900 B.C., is quite in the Sumerian style of the period. Architects will probably be interested in the "chamber reserved for private worship" in the Temple of the Moongod Sin or Nannar at Ur in the time of Nebuchadrezzar. As is usual in Babylonian buildings, it was of brick, and paved with tiles. The altar, offering-table, and a portion described as a screen are shown. The other pictures show an inscribed clay cone like a gigantic nail-it details the architectural works of Rim-Sin, king of Larsa (Ellasar) and Ur (about 1850 B.C.), and beside it is an inscribed pivotstone from one of the gates of the sacred precinct at Ur. This is inscribed with the name of Bûr-Sin, king of Ur about 2225 B.C. There is hardly any doubt that numerous other antiquities and inscriptions will, in course of time, be found in Babylonia, and much bearing upon the Old Testament and its wonderful story may still be expected. 656TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING, HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM B, THE CENTRAL HALL, LIEUT.-COLONEL F. A. MOLONY, O.B.E., IN THE CHAIR. The Minutes of the last Meeting were read, confirmed and signed, and the Hon. Secretary announced the Election as Member of W. Roger Rowlatt-Jones, Esq. The CHAIRMAN then introduced the Rev. Canon A. Lukyn Williams, D.D., to read his paper on "Religious Controversy between Christians and Jews of To-day." RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY BETWEEN CHRISTIANS AND JEWS OF TO-DAY. By the Rev. Canon A. LUKYN WILLIAMS, D.D. THA HANK God that there is controversy! For there is a spirit abroad which thinks that since Jews are such sober good people, so trustworthy in business, so kind in family life, we Christians ought not to do or say anything to lead them to reconsider the claims of Jesus of Nazareth to be the Christ, with the then resultant effect of producing a complete change in the attitude of Jews towards God, and in their whole outlook upon life. This feeling exists to-day even among beneficed Clergy of the Church of England, but it is an attitude which, I venture to assert, is not consistent with Church teaching, with the mind of St. Paul and the other Apostles, or with the mind of Christ. Christians, thank God! always have had controversy with Jews— for not a century, hardly even a single decade, has passed in which there has been none-and they always will have, until the last Jew has been led by them to submit himself to the doctrine of the Cross. Controversy there must be. But there is controversy and controversy. Let me quote a few documents. "So because the Lord charges us in the Gospel, saying, ' Verily I say unto you, If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything whatever they shall ask, it shall be done for them of My Father who is in Heaven,' therefore do I address this venerable assembly of holy Fathers with tears streaming down my cheeks, that by your zealous rule the land may be purged from the pollution of vice. Arise! Arise! I beg you. Loose the knots of the guilty, correct the shameful habits of the wicked, apply the scourge of zeal against the disaffected, stamp out the backbiting of the proud, lighten the burdens of the oppressed, and, more than all else, pull up from the very roots that plaguespot which is ever bursting forth into new forms of virulencethe Jews. Examine, therefore, with the utmost thoroughness the laws which have been recently issued by Our Majesty against the treachery of certain Jews; make the purport of those laws inviolable; sum up the decrees concerning the outrageous actions of those treacherous persons, and issue them as one." So spake King Erwig to the large assembly of Bishops at the twelfth Council of Toledo in A.D. 681, as he asked them to confirm the twenty-eight laws he had compiled, twenty-seven of which were against "the Jews." Some of these, no doubt, refer directly to converts from Judaism rather than to the Jews as such, but they begin as follows: 66 Since the Truth itself teaches us to ask, seek, and knock, admonishing us that the violent take the kingdom of heaven by force,' there is no doubt that that man abhors the grace of God, which is so freely bestowed, who with eager mind does not hasten to come to it. Therefore if any Jew, namely one of those who have not yet been baptized, either postpones his baptism, or in no wise sends his children or his servants to the priest for baptism, or even withdraws himself and his from baptism, and any of them allows even a whole year to pass after the publication of this law without the grace of baptism--he who commits any of these transgressions, whoever he may be found to be, shall have his head shaved, and shall receive a hundred strokes, and shall also pay the due punishment of being banished from our land.' ""* * This appears to be a re-affirmation of laws made by Sisibut in A.D. 612, and by the sixth Council of Toledo in A.D. 636 under Chintila. See R. Altamira in the Cambridge Mediaval History, ii, pp. 174-176. The original of the two quotations may be found most conveniently in the Monumenta Germanica, Leges Visigothorum, i, pp. 475 seq., and 432. |