2

the event recorded of Daniel's pious companions, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego1 might tend to nerve the arm of every devout patriot for the strife, encourage him to cling firmly to his faith under every difficulty and trial, and even in its defence to lay down life itself, since those who died for their faith would be with the pious servants of God. These and other lessons of the highest import to the Israelite, which the Book of Daniel enforces, are amply sufficient to justify the fathers of the Synagogue for having given a place to the work in the supplement, or third division of the Canon, although they must have felt that it could not be admitted into the category of the prophets. When the writer of the book mentions its hero, he describes him as

greatly beloved," and not as prophet Daniel.” 4

1 iii. 17, 18.

N, "the man 7, "the

2" And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life . . And they that dispose many to righteousness shall be as the stars for ever and ever." (xii. 2, 3.)

3 x. 11. Compare ix. 23.

4 Many instances occur within the range of Apocalyptic literature in which authors have assigned to their works the names of ancient prophets or Scriptural worthies. It must not, however, be supposed that this practice was resorted to for the purpose of deceiving; it arose out of a desire to impart to the lessons embodied in their works greater force by stamping them with the authority of venerated names.

IV.

ON THE ESSENTIALS OF MOSAISM.

FOURTH LECTURE.

WHEN the Jews were driven by the fanaticism and cruelty of Antiochus Epiphanes to take up arms against their oppressor, they were prompted by the all-engrossing motive of maintaining their ancestral faith. There is no evidence to show that they entertained any idea of emancipating themselves from foreign rule, to which they had been subjected for more than three centuries-first by Persia, and subsequently under potentates to whose lot the Syrian provinces fell on the dissolution of the empire of Alexander. All that they desired was that they might be suffered to live in peace, and in the full and unrestricted practice of the religion of their fathers. But the fortunate result of the contest with Epiphanes, whilst it imparted new strength and conviction to Judaism and consolidated it on a firm basis, also placed the Jews in a position to enjoy for a season under the Asmonean princes more political freedom than had fallen to the lot of their ancestors during the closing years of the Hebrew monarchy. Religious persecution was for the time being at an end, and Mosaism, which had

previously suffered many inroads from Hellenism, now witnessed in its turn the gradual spread of its principles amongst the heathen populations of the East.

An erroneous opinion is abroad even to this day that, prior to the introduction of Christianity, the influence of the moral law of Moses was exclusively confined to the Hebrew race, and that outside of the pale of the Synagogue the whole mass of mankind was, without exception, groping in the darkness of heathenism. But the bare mention of a few facts might be sufficient to satisfy an unprejudiced mind that, if Christianity had never been preached, Mosaism would of itself have gradually worked out its appointed mission, as it was described by Solomon on the day when he inaugurated the national Temple at Jerusalem, namely, to make the one and only God known throughout the world,' if political events had not proved decisively adverse. More than a century before the birth of the founder of Christianity, the essential principles of Mosaism had been embraced and professed by tens of thousands of heathen disciples. All along the shores of the Mediterranean, as well

on the Nile, the Euphrates, and the Tigris, Jewish communities had been formed, amongst which were considerable numbers of pagan converts who frequented the synagogue and joined in its worship. In Rome also the conversions to Judaism were many, and in the time of Augustus they

1 "So that all the people of the earth may know Thy name, to fear Thee, like Thy people Israel." (1 Kings viii. 43.)

had increased to such an extent as to excite alarm amongst those who were zealous for the maintenance of the national polytheism. The writer of the Book of Acts' bears testimony to the fact that at the time when Christianity drew its first breath there were incorporated with the Jews many "proselytes of righteousness" who had been received into the synagogue, as well as others who, not being proselytes, feared the one and only "God, and adored Him in spirit." Nor were these converts to Judaism limited to the people of one race only; for, says the writer of the Acts, "there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.” 2

As the Jews never had any organised propaganda for proselytising, these conversions must have been voluntary. On one occasion only mention is made of force having been employed in Idumea by John Hyrcan, but a severe penalty had speedily to be paid by the Hebrew commonwealth for this isolated act of intolerance. A modern author is hardly warranted in asserting that this had nothing to do with the coercion of conscience.3 What may be fairly maintained is, that it constituted an exceptional instance in Jewish history. In all the conquests achieved by David, no attempt whatever was made by him to impose Mosaism on any of the states which he had subdued and made tributary.

2 Acts ii. 5.

1 Acts xiii. 42, 43; x. 1, 2; xiv. 1; xvii. 4. 3" Ni la conversion des Iduméens par Jean Hyrcan, ni celle des Ituriens, n'étaient des conversions réligieuses." (Derenbourg, "Palestine," p. 227).

Notwithstanding the rash assertion put forth by the writer of the Gospel of Matthew, that the Pharisees" compass sea and land to make one proselyte," it is known that the Pharisees of the rigid school of Shammai were strongly opposed to receiving heathen proselytes into the synagogue." Though the school of Hillel was less exclusive, it would not tolerate any conversion that was not prompted by absolute conviction. "No proselyte" (so runs the Rabbinical dictum) "can be received whose object is to marry an heiress, or who is actuated by fear or by some personal attachment,-in fact, no one that is not moved by pure religious sentiment.” 3

It is indeed difficult to conceive any motive short of the most deeply rooted conviction that could have brought a heathen to adopt the religion of a race which was in that age the object of so much malevolence and social prejudice. To the great pagan population the Jew appeared an insoluble enigma, especially as regarded his constancy to the worship of one God only. The Greek or the Roman, whilst he paid adoration to the deities held sacred in his own country, did not think himself less under the obligation to render

1 xxiii. 15.

2 T. Bab. Sabbath, 31a.

3 כשיבא הגר להתגייר בודקים אחריו שמא בגלל ממון שיטול או בשביל שררה שיזכה לה או מפני הפחד בא ליכנס לדת, ואם איש הוא

בודקין אחריו שמא עיניו נתן באשה יהודית ואם אשה היא בודקין

רס"ח י"ב) אחריה שמא עיניה נתנה בבחור ישראל : (ש"ע יורה דעה כל המתגייר לשום אשה לשום יראה לשום אהבה אינו גר... כל שאינו

מתגייר לשום שמים אינו גר (.1 .Gerim, c)