Chapter II: Part 2

It is blasphemy to deny that the rod changed into a serpent; yet who can believe this who tries to realise what the words mean? a piece of wood, of vegetable tissue, is suddenly transformed into a snake, into bones and muscle, and nerve and blood, and skin! We are here in the region of fairy-tale, not of history. We may also note that when this wonderful transformation-scene was repeated before Pharoah, the Egyptian jugglers proved themselves to be quite as skilful at snake-making as were Moses and Aaron. The scene ended, however, with a grand effect: for “Aaron’s rod swallowed all their rods” (Ex. vii., 12). The sacred narrative does not state the result on the triumphant stick, nor whether it showed the thickness of all the rods combined, when it turned back again into a stick.

Moses appears to have shared my doubts as to the point of the miracles, for he persisted that he did not want to go, until god, who is without passions (Art. I.) got very angry (Ex. ix., 14). At last, he agreed to go, and god informed him as to Pharoah: “I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go” (Ex. ix., 21). This unhappy Pharaoh was “raised up” by god in order that god’s power might be manifested in tormenting him and his miserable people; over and over again, god “hardened his heart,” and Paul, instead of being ashamed of this awful conduct actually justifies it (see p. 25). If any human being forced a helpless creature into crime, and then punished him for committing it, no words of abhorrence could be found too strong to express the loathing which would fill every just and righteous heart in contemplating such conduct. Yet it is blasphemy to deny that the “heavenly Father” behaved in this fashion towards Pharaoh.

The odd little interlude which takes up vv. 24, 25, 26 of the same chapter has been a sore trouble to commentators. Why “the Lord” tried to kill somebody, who it was he tried to kill, where “the inn” was by which he met him, what the mutilation of her son by Zipporah had to do with the quarrel, all these things have been discussed and re-discussed _ad nauseam_. Students of ancient religions will find that nature-worship throws some light on the matter, but it is blasphemous light, and must be carefully avoided by all true believers who are anxious about the salvation of their souls.

It is blasphemy to say that god was known to Abraham “by my name Jehovah” (Ex. vi., 8); it is also blasphemy to deny that Abraham knew him as Jehovah and “called the name of the place Jehovah-jireh” (Gen. xxii., 14).

It is blasphemy to deny that Moses turned all the water in Egypt, the water in streams, rivers, ponds, pools, as well as all in vessels; after _all_ the water had been thus turned into blood, the Egyptian magicians turned the rest into blood (Ex. vii., 19, 20, 22). This is a very remarkable miracle, showing great skill on the part of the Egyptians.

It is blasphemy to deny the historical truth and perfect accuracy of the Biblical account of the miracles wrought by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt. It is very hard work to believe, but we must try, for it is clear that if we go to gaol for denying them, we shall not get out “till we have paid the uttermost farthing” demanded by law.

First, we must believe that “the Lord” kept on sending messages to Pharaoh, commanding him to let the people go, while at the same time “the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go” (Ex. x., 20). It is blasphemy to deny that god behaved in this horribly wicked manner, compelling Pharaoh to refuse, and then plaguing him and his people for the refusal; we deserve damnation if we do not agree with Paul, when he writes: “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou will say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault, for who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus?” (Rom. ix., 16—20.) Yes, most certainly it should so say, if it be a living sentient thing, capable of enjoyment and of agony. No god has the right to create sentient beings, to harden them, and then to find fault with them and torture them for being hardened. The challenge, “Why doth he yet find fault?” is a very proper one, and Paul cannot answer it, so he falls back on god’s power to do as he chooses; but the exercise of the power would be a crime, and if it be blasphemy to say that such unutterable wickedness is criminal, then I will blaspheme as long as I live, rather than turn flattering courtier to a monarch more cruel than Caligula, a despot more tyrannical than any Eastern potentate known to history.

After the duel about the water between Moses and the Egyptian magicians — in which the magicians certainly shewed the greater power and dexterity—Moses and Aaron covered the land of Egypt with frogs (Ex. viii., 6), and again the magicians proved quite as capable. Exit frogs. Enter lice. This was too much for the magicians; “all the dust of the land became lice” (viii., 17)—note this proof of spontaneous generation—so the material was lacking to the magicians, but as they had done so well in turning the water into blood after it had all become blood already, it is disappointing to find that they broke down at this critical period. Perhaps they were tired.

Exit lice. Enter flies. That was a very horrid plague. Blue-bottles everywhere. They filled the cream-jugs, they covered the joints, they fell into the jam, they stuck in the treacle. Fly-papers went up 100 per cent, and several gentlemen in the profession made fortunes during the rush. “A greater than” these, however, came to the rescue: “the Lord” himself “removed the swarms of flies,” and joyful to relate, “there remained not one” (viii., 31). I should like to have spent the remainder of that summer in Egypt. As day after day went on, and not a solitary buzz was heard, how joyfully must the maids and matrons of Egypt have chanted in thankful chorus: “Fly not yet!”

Pharaoh’s heart remaining petrified, an attack was made on the flocks and herds. “A very grievous murrain” was sent “upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep” (Ex. ix., 3). And they _all_ died. Between the dead frogs and the dead cattle Egypt must have been.... well, let us say fragrant. While they were all lying there dead, god sent boils on them; the object of this is not clear, and it is a little difficult to understand how the boils flourished on cold corpses; still the Scriptures cannot lie, and thus it is written. With that appropriateness which shews real genius, Moses, at the Lord’s command, sprinkled “handfuls of ashes of the furnace,” and in “these ashes glowed their former fires,” and they caused “a boil.”

The next miracle is a very remarkable one. Forgetting that all the beasts were dead and boiled, the Lord said: “Send therefore now and gather thy cattle and all that thou hast in the field; for upon every man and beast which shall be found in the field and shall not be brought home, the hail shall come down upon them and they shall die” (ix., 19). Some made their dead “cattle flee into the houses,” thus showing a skill and a miracle-working power which must have made Moses very jealous; others left theirs in the field, probably thinking that the boil-covered carcases were not worth the trouble of carriage. Down came the hail, and smote “all that was in the field, both man and beast” (ix., 25). Here indeed was an exemplification, so far as the cattle were concerned, of the second death.

Next came the locusts, to “eat the residue of that which is escaped, which remaineth unto you from the hail” (x., 5). As the hail “smote _every_ herb of the field and brake _every_ tree of the field” (ix., 25), there cannot have been much left for the locusts; however, they made a clean sweep of all the vegetable life in Egypt, “and there remained not any green thing in the trees or in the herbs of the fields” (x., 15). On the whole it was by a merciful dispensation of Providence that the cattle were all dead, and were not left to starve. As all the animals were dead and there were no plants left, the Lord had nearly come to the end of his plagues; so he sent “darkness which may be felt” for three days, while trying to invent some more. None of the Egyptians, we are told, rose “from his place for three days;” why nobody struck a light we are not told; now-a-days we often have plagues of darkness in London from the fogs, but we make shift with gas and the electric light until the sunlight returns.

The last miracle in Egypt was a very wonderful one; it was the killing for the third time of some—the first-born— cattle. The first-born of men were also slain; but that was only for the first time, and all men are mortal. This was too much for the Egyptians, and they rose up to drive out the Israelites, the latter picking up, as they went, “jewels of silver, jewels of gold, and raiment” (xii. 35), and so robbing their unlucky hosts of the little property they had left.

But poor Pharaoh was not yet safe: “The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel” (xiv. 8). He yoked into his chariots the twice-slain horses, and mounted his men on others of these re-revivified quadrupeds, and galloped after the flying robbers. God, to deliver his people, divided the sea before them, piling up the waters on each side as a wall. Down along this curious and unique path plunged the men and the horses, the latter probably thinking that one death, more or less, couldn’t hurt them. A new difficulty arose. God pulled off their chariot-wheels, and so delayed them; and then suddenly down came the water-walls, and the poor Egyptians were all drowned. Like the flies and the locusts, “there remained not so much as one of them” (xiv. 28). The horses also were drowned, and let us hope they did not come to life again.

Thus endeth the story of the miracles of Egypt, which story is part of the Christian creed as defined by law, and which it is blasphemy to deny.

After the Lord had thrown “the horse and his rider” into the sea, the children of Israel went on into the wilderness, and found no water for three days. At the end of that time they found some “bitter” water, but the Lord showed Moses a tree which made the water sweet. Genus and species not revealed to us. It is very odd that, when the Bible mentions anything that might be practically useful, it never gives such particulars as would enable us to repeat the experiment.

The next trial to our faith is the story of the manna. The people might well ask: “What is this?” It was so expansible and contractile that, when they measured it, having “gathered some more, some less,” if a man gathered much he had “nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack” (Ex. xvi., 17, 18). This curious result of measuring it “with an omer” is, however, susceptible of explanation, for we read, in Ex. xvi., 36, that “an omer is the tenth part of an ephah,” whereas, in Ezech. xiv., the ephah contains “the tenth part of an homer.” Perhaps in measuring some of the Jews dropped their h’s. The variable expansion of the manna is not its only peculiarity. Manna gathered on Thursday “bred worms and stank” if kept till Friday; manna gathered on Friday “did not stink, neither was there any worm therein” on Saturday (xvi., 20 and 24).

The bread difficulty disposed of, the water difficulty again came to the front, but Moses smote a rock, and water came out of it (Ex. xvii., 6). Later, under very similar circumstances, Moses smote another rock with the like result (Numb, xx., 11.), and the Lord was very angry with him, and refused to let him enter “the promised land.” It is curious that in both these cases the place was called Meribah, because of the complaints of the Israelites; but it would be blasphemy to say that two traditions of one incident have been inserted in the text.

Soon after this a wonderful battle took place, in which Israel fought against Amalek, and “it came to pass when Moses held up his hand that Israel prevailed, and when he let down his hand Amalek prevailed” (Ex. xvii., 11). The relation of cause and effect is not clear, but it is satisfactory to know that Moses’ hands were held up by main force until evening stopped the slaughter.

It is blasphemy to say that there are more gods than one (Statute of Will. III.), yet it is blasphemy to deny that “the Lord is greater than all gods” (Ex. xviii., 11). It is hard to understand how the Lord can be greater than gods which do not exist; nevertheless “he that believeth not shall be damned.”

Chapters xix. and xx. of Exodus can only be believed by those who have not risen above the most anthropomorphic conception of their god. God is everywhere, yet Moses went backwards and forwards between the people and god (xix., 3—9). God is everywhere, yet Moses “brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God” (v., 17), and “the Lord descended upon” a particular mountain (v. 18), and “came down upon Mount Sinai, on the top of the mount” (v. 20). God is invisible, one “whom no man hath seen nor can see” (1 Tim. vi., 16), whom “no man hath seen at any time” (John L, 18); yet he was afraid lest the people should “break through unto the Lord to gaze” (Ex. xix., 21), and up the mount went “Moses, and Aaron, and Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and they saw the God of Israel” (Ex. xxiv., 9, 10). God dwells “in the light which no man can approach unto” (1 Tim. vi., 16), and “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John i., 5); yet “Moses drew near onto the thick darkness where God was” (Ex. xx., 21). It is blasphemy to deny that all these contradictions are true.

It is blasphemy to deny that god, on Mount Sinai, gave commands among which we find the following revolting and immoral ones: If the owner of a Hebrew slave give the slave a wife, and the slave goes out at the end of seven years, “the wife and her children shall be her master’s; he shall go out by himself” (Ex. xxi., 4). The wife is like any other female animal; she and her young belong to her master, and she may be used to increase his stock. If the husband and father clings to his family, god mercifully allows him to buy the right to live with them with the price of his freedom. A man may sell his daughter to be a concubine, and if her purchaser starve her, or let her go naked, or does not perform his marital duty, she may leave him (vv. 7—11). A man may beat his man or woman slave to death, provided that he or she lives “a day or two” after the flogging, for “he is his money” (vv. 20, 21), and the loss of his valuable chattel is punishment sufficient. If an ox gore a man, the ox is to be stoned (v. 28), a form of vivisection which Lord Coleridge can scarcely approve; but, as Paul says: “Doth god take care for oxen?” (1 Cor. ix., 9). If the ox gore a slave, the owner of the slave is to be paid for the value of his property (v. 32). If a thief be unable to restore the double or fourfold value, as the case may be, of that which he has stolen, “then he shall be sold for his theft” (xxii., 3). A witch is to be murdered (v. 20). An idolater is to be murdered (v. 20). “The first-born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen and with thy sheep” (vv. 29, 30). Is it credible that by the law of England it should be blasphemy to deny that these horrible commands are “of divine authority”?

And as though to show that this book is of purely human origin, with the mingled good and evil inseparable from all early efforts at legislation, we read, after the foregoing horrors the following noble and generous teaching:

“Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment. Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.

If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him. Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in in his cause. Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked. And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous. Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (xxiii., 1—9.)

Here we see the pen of some lofty and tender lawgiver, who has nothing in common with the savage chief who “breathed out threatenings and slaughter.”

It is blasphemy to deny that the Lord on Mount Sinai gave a number of frivolous commands, about a candlestick (Ex. xxv., 31—39) with its snuff-dishes, and curtains, and hangings, and dresses, with their trimmings of “a golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, upon the hem,” and “holy ointment,” and “perfume,” etc., etc. (Ex. xxv.—xxx.). After the making of stars and suns it seems but poor work to give directions about “loops,” and “taches,” and a “curious girdle,” fitter employment for a cabinet maker and a tailor than for a god with “thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud.” While Moses and the Lord were discoursing on upholstery the people were getting into trouble down below, and god, who is “without passions,” (Art. 1) felt his wrath “wax hot against them” (Ex. xxxii., 10). Moses did not ask for forgiveness on the ground of god’s goodness, but he appealed to his vanity, and reminded him that the Egyptians would crow over him if he destroyed his own people (xxxii., 12.) Thereupon god, who is not a man “that he should repent” (Numb, xxiii., 19), “repented of the evil which he thought to do” (Ex. xxxii., 14). God who is “without body” (Art 1) had written two tables with his “finger” (Ex. xxxi., 18), and these tables “were the work of god, and the writing was the writing of god” (xxxii, 16). So careless was Moses of this unique specimen that he lost his temper and broke it in pieces, and then, arriving at the camp, he sent the sons of Levi through the camp, bidding them “slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor,” and when 3,000 men had fallen he bade the murderers: “Consecrate yourselves to-day to the Lord, even every man upon his son and upon his brother, that he may bestow a blessing upon you” (w., 27—29). Yet it is blasphemy to deny that this great wickedness was god-inspired.

It is blasphemy to deny that “the Lord spake unto Moses face to face” (Ex. xxxiii., 11); also it is blasphemy to deny that god told Moses: “Thou canst not see my face, for there shall no man see me and live” (v. 20, compare with ch. xxiv., 10, 11). And while it is blasphemy to deny that god is “without parts” (Art 1), it is equally blasphemy to deny that he has “back parts” (Ex. xxxiii., 23). Either the Prayer Book or the Bible clearly needs revision; meanwhile it is blasphemy to deny either.

It is interesting to observe the fashion in which Christians pick and choose among the commandments given “by divine authority” while they imprison heretics for attacking those of which they, in their turn, disapprove. Thus we have (Ex. xxxv., 2, 3): “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord; whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.” The Sabbatarians quote verse 2 as a reason for shutting up all museums and art galleries on “the Lord’s day,” and they abuse as rebels against the law of god all the liberal-minded of their own creed. But they quietly ignore verse 3, because that would cause discomfort to themselves, and the very peers who, in the House of Lords, vote to shut working men out of art education go home to sit over their comfortable fires, and to wander through their own galleries wanned by a fire kindled against their god’s direct command. Wonderful, indeed, are the ways of religious men!

The book of Leviticus is “of divine authority.” It is blasphemy to deny that a bullock, flayed and cut into pieces and burned, makes a sweet smell to god (Lev. L, 5—9). Tastes differ. Also burning a goat, with “the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks” (iii., 14, 15), makes a sweet savor as it frizzles and drips. The tabernacle of the congregation must have smelt like the kitchen of a dirty cook. Yet it is blasphemy to deny that god enjoyed it. “All the fat is the Lord’s” (16). Not a morsel of fat might the Israelite eat (17). Personally, I should have been quite willing to give all the fat to the Lord, but some of the people probably felt envious.

It would be wearisome to recite all the extraordinary commands given by god in this “third book of Moses.” Christians disregard them, on the pretence that the ceremonial law is not binding on them, yet it is blasphemy to deny that “whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt, v., 19).

It is blasphemy to deny that the hare chews the cud (xi., 6); as a matter of mere fact it does nothing of the kind. It is blasphemy to deny that the locust, the beetle, and the grasshopper have more than four feet (xi., 21—23); as a matter of fact they each have six. It is very awkward when fact and faith clash in this numerical fashion.

It is blasphemy to deny that god concerns himself with the way a man cuts his beard; “neither shalt thou,” says he, “mar the corners of thy beard” (xix., 27). Is it conceivable that the creator of the universe should trouble himself with such barber’s work as this? If such a being existed would it not rather be blasphemy to ascribe such directions to him?

It is blasphemy to deny that Jahveh, like other gods of his time, commanded human sacrifice. He says: “No devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, both _of man_ and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord. None devoted which shall be devoted _of men_ shall be redeemed, but _shall surely be put to death_” (xxvii., 28, 29). This abomination is commanded by divine authority, and he is in danger of gaol and damnation who shall honestly repudiate the detestable thing.

It is blasphemy to deny that Jahveh ordained the disgusting trial of a wife suspected of infidelity which is related in Numbers v., 12—31. If the “spirit of jealousy” come on a man, he is to bring his wife to the priest. “And the priest shall take holy water in an earthern vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water;” this delectable but dirty drink is to be swallowed by the woman, after a charm has been repeated by the priest, as “an oath of cursing,” and if the woman has been unfaithful the water will have very unpleasant physical results, while if the suspicion of her husband be false “she shall be free.” This prompt way of settling matters would obviate all the expenses and formalities of a divorce court, and if the arrangement could be extended to include unfaithful husbands, this Christian country would be saved much cost. But though the Christians punish other people for unbelief they are thorough infidels themselves in all practical matters. They would far rather trust Sir James Hannen than dirty holy water, when they suspect conjugal infidelity.

It is blasphemy to deny that Jahveh was so passionate (God is without passions, Art. I.), and so vain that he could only be restrained from smiting his people by the appeal of Moses to his vanity: “Then the Egyptians shall hear it.... and they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land.... the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying: Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness” (Numbers xiv., 12—16). This suggestion, most ingeniously introduced by Moses — who “managed” Jahveh with admirable tact — proved successful, and “the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word” (v. 20). Yet it is blasphemy to say that god changes his purpose.

Furthermore, although it is blasphemy to deny that u he is faithful that promised” (Heb. x., 23), yet we must believe that Jahveh declared to the Israelites, “ye shall know my breach of promise” (Numbers xiv., 34).

It is blasphemy to deny that Jahveh commanded that a man who “gathered sticks upon the sabbath day” (xv., 32—36) should be stoned to death. Yet is it equally blasphemy to deny that Jesus, the representative and first-begotten of Jahveh, condemned the Pharisees who declared that his disciples did “that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day” (Matt, xii., 2), when they gathered corn.

The poor Pharisees tried to obey the law as given by Jahveh; their reward was to be condemned by his son. Yet it is blasphemy to deny that “I and my Father are one” (John x., 30).

It is blasphemy to deny that Jahveh commanded the Israelites to “make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a riband of blue: and it shall be unto you for a fringe” (Numbers xv., 38, 39). It is hard to believe, though it is blasphemy to deny, that the “Eternal Spirit” troubled himself about “a fringe.”

It is blasphemy to deny that there is a “pit,” within the earth, into which people may fall alive, when the earth opens her mouth and swallows them up; further, that Korah, Dathan and Abiram, their wives, their sons and their little children, were so swallowed up, and “went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them” (Numb, xvi., 27—33).

It is blasphemy to deny that a plague so fierce that it slew 14,700 people in a few hours could be stopped by a man with a censer full of incense who “stood between the dead and the living” (xvi., 46—49). One can only suppose that the plague advanced steadily across the camp, like a fog, killing every person it covered. Thus only could a man stand between the living and the dead. Yet no such advancing destruction is known to history.

It is blasphemy to deny that a dry old rod belonging to Aaron blossomed miraculously when eleven other dry old rods behaved in the normal fashion (xvii., 2—9). And not only did Aaron’s rod bud and blossom, but it also yielded almonds, and this all in the course of one night. It is blasphemy to suggest that Moses, Aaron’s brother, who took the rods and who hid them “before the Lord in the tabernacle of witness,” quietly substituted a blooming and fruiting branch in the place of his brother’s rod, and yet this would be the explanation which would be at once suggested if a similar trick were played now-a-days. But in those easy-going and credulous times very little skill was needed to impose upon a crowd ready to be deceived.

It is interesting to note, in passing, the admirable provision made by Jahveh—through the mouth of his servant, Moses —for Aaron and his family. “All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine, and of the wheat, the first fruits of them which they shall offer unto the Lord, them have I given thee. And whatsoever is first ripe in the land, which they shall bring unto the Lord, shall be thine” (Numb, xviii., 12, 13). This claim on the part of the priesthood has never been regarded as part of that ceremonial law which has been “done away in Christ.”

The story of Balaam is one of the tests to which true faith must be submitted. We learn in this that when Balak sent to ask Balaam to go to him that he might curse Israel, god at first commanded him not to go (Numbers xxii., 12), but a little later commanded him to go (20). God, as we know, never changes. When Balaam obeyed god’s command and went, “god’s anger was kindled against him because he went” (22), that is because Balaam did what god told him to do, and “the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him.” Balaam was riding on a donkey, and the donkey saw the angel, though no one else did, “and the ass turned aside out of the way.” Again the angel placed himself in front of the donkey, and the donkey squeezed past him, crushing Balaam’s foot against the wall. For the third time the angel confronted the donkey, and on this occasion in a narrow place, “where there was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left.” Then the donkey tumbled down. Balaam was, not unnaturally, disturbed at his donkey’s extraordinary behavior, and he had struck her each time that she had, as he thought, misbehaved. And now occurred a wonderful thing. “The Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in my hand, for now would I kill thee. And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.” Sensible persons are expected to believe this absurd story of a conversation between a man and a donkey. Peter speaks of it without any expression of doubt, saying: “the dumb ass, speaking with man’s voice, forbad the madness of the prophet” (2 Peter ii., 16). It is blasphemy to deny it; it is madness to believe it. Balaam’s ass stands on a level with Mahomet’s, and only the credulous and superstitious can yield credence to the stories of either.

It is not worth while to delay over Balaam’s rhapsodies, except to note their extreme inaccuracy. “God is not a man that he should lie” (Numbers xxiii,, 19); yet “I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet” (Ezech. xiv., 9). “Nor the son of man that he should repent” (Numbers xxiii., 19); yet “it repented the Lord that he had made man” (Gen. vi., 6). “He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel” (Numbers xxiii., 21); yet, “I have seen this people, and behold it is a stiff-necked people;” “how long will this people provoke me?” (Exodus xxxii., 9, and Numbers xiv., 11). This declaration is the more startling when we find Moses— whose acquaintance with the people was more intimate than that of Balaam—saying: “Remember, and forget not, how thou provokedst the Lord thy God to wrath in the wilderness; from the day that thou didst depart out of the land of Egypt, until ye came unto this place, ye have been rebellious against the Lord.... Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you” (Deut. ix., 7 and 24). It is needless to accumulate these contradictory statements, all of which we are commanded to believe on peril of damnation.

Immediately after Balaam’s declaration of Israel’s holiness, we read how the people reverted to idolatry, and how “the anger of the Lord was kindled against them” (Numbers xxv., 3). Some more murders were committed to pacify Jahveh, and he himself slew 24,000 by a plague.

In Numbers xxxi. we have one of the most horrible stories related even in the Bible, the story of the slaughter of the Midianites. Jahveh sent his tribes against this unhappy race, and, after their usual wicked fashion, they “slew all the males.” Moved, however, by an unwonted touch of pity, they “took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones,” and brought them alive back to their camp. Moses, Jahveh’s friend, “was wroth with the officers of the host” for their unworthy humanity, and shrieked out in his rage: “Have ye saved all the women alive?” And then he commanded them to “kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman” that had been married, “but all the women children that” were virgins “keep alive for yourselves.” This bloodthirsty and loathsome command is of “divine authority.” It is blasphemy to deny that it was god-given. Yet what of the blasphemy that ascribes an order so fiendish to “the God of the spirits of all flesh?” These baby boys and prattling children, kill every one; these mothers and matrons of Midian, murder them one after another. Such is the command of Jahveh, who said: “Thou shalt not kill.” And these fair and pure maidens, these helpless women-children, whose natural guardians ye have slain, keep these for the satisfactions of your passions. Such is the command of Jahveh, who said: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

Some of these fair girls were claimed as “the Lord’s tribute,” 352 in all. These were handed over to the Levites, and small doubt can be felt as to their fate.

To add a touch of the comic to this tragic scene, we learn that after all the fighting and the slaughter, not one solitary Israelite was missing, while the Midianitish nation, of which not a male was left alive, turns up again later as merrily as though it had never been destroyed, and “prevailed against Israel, and because of the Midianites the children of Israel made them the dens which are in the mountains, and caves, and strongholds” (Judges vi., 2).

The book of Deuteronomy is awkward for the true believer, because it is a recital of the story related in the preceding book, and constantly contradicts the previous narrative. Thus Moses commands Israel to make no likeness or similitude of Jahveh on the ground that when he spake to them “out of the midst of the fire,” “ye heard the voice of the words but saw no similitude” (Deut. iv., 12); yet turning back we read that seventy-four of them “saw the god of Israel, and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God” (Ex. xxiv., 10,11). It can scarcely be pretended that when they saw a visible being with “feet” and a “hand,” they “saw no similitude.”

In Deut. v., 15, the reason for keeping holy the sabbath day is different from the reason given in Ex. xx., 11. Both of these are given as the very words of Jahveh, spoken from “Horeb” or “Sinai.” One of the versions must be inaccurate, yet it is blasphemy to deny either. In Deut. v., 22, Moses says that after the ten commandments “he added no more.” In Exodus he added a large number of other commands (see xx.—xxiii.).

We learn in Deut. viii., 4, that during the forty years wasted in the wilderness “thy raiment waxed not old upon thee.” This was very satisfactory for the adults, but what happened to the growing children? The raiment of a week-old baby can scarcely have been suitable to the man of forty; did the clothes grow with the body, and as the numbers of the people increased very much during the forty years, were new clothes born as well as new babies? If such questions are regarded as blasphemous, I can only answer that they are suggested by Moses’ assertion of the remarkable durability of the raiment, and raiment that did not become old might surely also grow and reproduce itself. Once begin miracle-working on old clothes, and none can say how far it may go.

It is blasphemy to assert that it is wrong to swear, for the Bible commands: “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God.... and swear by his name” (Deut. x., 20). It is blasphemy to assert that it is right to swear, for the Bible commands: “Swear not at all” (Matt, v., 34).

Deuteronomy xiii., from the first verse to the last, is a disgrace to the book in which it is contained, and a scandal to the community which permits it to be circulated as of divine authority. Yet it is blasphemy to attack it and to show its horrible atrocity. If a prophet or dreamer arise and try to turn away the Hebrews from Jahveh, then they are told: “The Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God” (v. 3). Yet, although it is Jahveh’s own doing, that unfortunate “prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death” (v. 5). The same fate is to befall “thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul” (v. 6), if such try to turn any away from Jahveh’s worship; with a refinement of cruelty, devilish in its wickedness, “thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death” (v. 9). The wife, passionately loved, is to see her husband, in whose bosom she has lain, raise his hand against her, foremost of a howling mob, greedy for her blood. The daughter is to clasp her father’s knees in vain; he must strike her down as she clings to him in her agony. The trusting and trusted friend is to be betrayed to the slaughterers, and the hand most closely grasped in love is to be the first to catch up the heavy stone and to beat out the faithful life. And it is blasphemy to cry out against this horror, but not blasphemy to ascribe its invention to the god “whose tender mercy is over all his works.”

The murder commenced in the family circle is to be continued in the national policy. If a city of the Hebrews reject Jahveh, “thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword” (v. 15); nothing is to escape, a burning bloodstained ruin is to be left “for the Lord thy God” (v. 16), and then Jahveh will bless his brutal servants, who have done “that which is right in the eyes of the Lord thy God” (v. 18). This command is of divine authority, and has been largely obeyed in Christendom, but people have fortunately become too civilised to carry it out now.

In Deut. xiv., some of the natural history blunders of Lev. xi. are repeated. It is confusing, however, after reading in Lev. xi., 21—23, “these may ye eat, of every flying creeping thing,” etc., to find in Deut. xiv., 19, “Every creeping thing that flieth is unclean unto you; they shall not be eaten.” So that the Israelites are deprived of those remarkable four-legged locusts, beetles and grasshoppers which “have legs above their feet.” (Do other animals carry their feet above their legs?) It is delightful to find Moses speaking of a bat as a bird; clearly in those days the schoolmaster was not abroad, but it is hard that we should be compelled to choose between the blasphemy of speaking of the bat as a mammal, and the falsehood of treating it as a bird. A beautiful touch of generosity is to be found in v. 21: “Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself; thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien.”

The general law of warfare laid down in Deut. xx., 10—15, is brutal in the extreme. If any foreign city ventures to defend itself against Hebrew aggression, and closes its gates against the invader, then it is to be besieged, and “when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt Smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword.” A yet worse fate is to be dealt out to the cities of Palestine, for in these “thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth” (v. 16). Of course such method of war has nothing surprising, when we consider the cruelty and barbarism of the Eastern nations of which the Hebrews were one, but it is surprising that in the nineteenth century the bloody customs of a savage tribe should be set forth as founded on “divine authority.”

If possible, still viler is the treatment of captive women; when thou “seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her that thou wouldst have her to thy wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thine house.... and after that thou shalt.... be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be if thou have no delight in her,” thy passions being satisfied, “then thou shalt let her go whither she will” (Deut. xxi., 11—14). No wonder that prostitution is rife in every Christian city, when this command is placed before young men’s eyes as “of divine authority.” Similar low views are taken in Deut. xxiv., 1. While this degrading teaching is that of Jahveh, Manu, a mere man, with no “divine authority,” but with only a human heart, taught his followers to treat every aged woman as their mother, every young woman as their sister.

It is rather odd to note in passing that he is declared to be cursed who marries “his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother” (Deut. xxvii., 22), when we remember that Abraham said of his wife Sarah: “Indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife” (Gen. xx., 12). Thus Abraham, who is so highly blessed in one part of god’s word, is cursed in another.

The book of Joshua is taken up with the bloody wars of the Israelites; it is a mere record of savage butchery; every page reeks with slaughter. “They utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword” (Josh, vi., 21). This, repeated _ad nauseam_, is the book of Joshua. The tale is varied now and then with the record of absurd miracles, as that of the falling down of the walls of Jericho, or the standing still of the sun and moon at the command of Joshua. From its ferocity and absurdity, the book is beneath contempt, yet it is of “divine authority.”

In the Book of Judges we have the record of a number of utterly unimportant victories and defeats in the history of the Hebrew nation. Why should these be accepted as “of divine authority” any more than any corresponding history of some other equally obscure and barbarous people?

Over the barbarous stories of Ehud stabbing Eglon, with its disgusting details (iii., 21, 22); of Jael murdering her guest, in defiance of all desert laws of hospitality, and receiving for her treachery the blessing of the Lord, a blessing shared only with Mary, the mother of Jesus (v. 24, compare Luke i., 28); of Gideon and of Abimelech, with the evil spirit sent by god (Judges ix., 23); of Jephthah and his vow and his sacrifice of his daughter (xi., 29—39), as Agamemnon sacrificed Iphigenia; of Samson with his absurd and brutal conduct (xiv., 19; xv., 4, 5; and 14— 19, etc.); of the Levite and his concubine, and the foul details thereon (xix.)—what can any say of these save that such coarse and brutal stories belong to the childhood of every nation, and that while other peoples look back on their savage history as a thing that is past, these Hebrew stories are preserved in perennial freshness, and are placed as a burden on the consciences of the civilised nations of Europe, and, to our shame, are defended from criticism by the brutal laws of blasphemy invented in savage times and sanctioned in England to-day.

The books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah are interesting for the light they throw on the growth of the Israelitish people, but regarded as of divine authority, they give manifold occasion “for the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme.”

Thus we read how the “ark of God” was carried to battle, and how the Philistines were afraid, and asked: “Who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods?” But they wisely determined to try and save themselves, and bade each other: “Quit yourselves like men, and fight.” So they overcame Israel and his “mighty Gods,” and took the ark itself captive (chap. iv.). Jahveh, however, if he could not fight the Philistines, was strong enough to fight their gods, and when he was offered the hospitality of Dagon’s temple, and was left quiet for the night, he knocked poor Dagon down. The Philistines put Dagon up again, and this so annoyed Jahveh that on the following night he knocked Dagon down again, and cut off his head and “the palms of his hands” on the threshold. After that Jahveh performed a miniature edition of the plagues of Egypt in the various towns to which his ark was carried, until some clever priests hit upon the idea of putting the ark on a cart and harnessing in two milch kine, and letting them go wherever they pleased. Off marched the kine to Bethshemesh, and there they met the fate of all the unlucky creatures that did Jahveh any service, for the men of Bethshemesh took them and offered them as “a burnt offering to the Lord.” Then Jahveh broke out on the poor men of Bethshemesh, and killed 50,070 of them, because they (all of them?) had peeped into the ark (chaps, v., vi.). And it is actually blasphemy to deny any detail of this absurd story.

1 Samuel xv. is a chapter that many a pious soul must wish blotted out from the Old Testament. Samuel, as bloodthirsty as Moses, gave in “the Lord’s” name the horrible command: “Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” (v. 3). This fiendish command was not wholly obeyed, for Saul saved the king, and the best of the sheep and of the other animals. Thereupon Samuel came down and cursed Saul vigorously, and then committed the absurdity of telling Saul that the “Strength of Israel,” whose change of purpose he had just announced, and who “repented that he had made Saul king” (v. 35), was “not a man that he should repent” (v. 29). After this manifest untruth, he murdered poor Agag, hewing him “in pieces before the Lord” (v. 33). Yet it is blasphemy to deny that this tissue of bloodshed and lying is inspired by “the spirit of truth.”

After this the contradictions about the connexion of Saul and David are of small moment. In chap. xvi., 18—23, David is brought to play the harp to Saul, and he is described as “a mighty valiant man and a man of war,” and he became Saul’s arm or-bearer as well as musician. In the next chapter David leaves him (v. 15) and goes back to feed his father’s sheep, when a war breaks out; a curious proceeding for a “mighty valiant man.” Six weeks later David carries some food to his brethren in the camp, and hearing the Philistine giant Goliath utter a challenge, he offers to go and fight him. Saul points out to the man who six weeks before was “mighty valiant” and “a man of war,” that he could not fight the Philistine, for he was “but a youth,” while Goliath was “a man of war from his youth.” David then relates the story of a struggle he had with a curious composite animal, a “lion and a bear,” who stole a lamb, and “I went out after him and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth, and when he arose against me I caught him by the beard and slew him.” Saul then put his armor on him, but the former armor-bearer and man of war had forgotten how to use armor, and refused to wear it. He then killed the Philistine, and Saul, in whose court he had lived six weeks before, and who “loved him greatly” (xvi., 21), asked one of his captains who he was, and bade him “inquire whose son the stripling is” (xvii., 55, 56). We can only understand the king’s loss of memory when we think how much changed David was; the “man of war” had become a “stripling,” the “mighty valiant man,” the armor-bearer, had changed into a “youth” who could not wear armor. No wonder poor Saul was puzzled, and if he could not understand it when he was on the spot, how cruel to threaten us with imprisonment and damnation if we blunder about it 3,000 years afterwards. Almost immediately after David is playing away on his harp “as at other times” (xviii., 10).

The bloodthirsty, treacherous, profligate character of David is so well known that I will not deal with it here, further than to call attention to the fact that this deep-dyed criminal was the man “after God’s own heart,” the man who “did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite” (1 Kings xv., 5).

There is one grave difficulty of identity that meets us here which we must not overlook. In 1 Sam. xxiv, 1, we read: “The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say: go number Israel and Judah.” In 1 Chron. xxi., 1, we _read_: “And

Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.” Are “God” and “Satan” convertible terms? It is clearly blasphemy to say that they are not, since the above verses prove that they are, yet I fancy it must be blasphemy to say that they are.