{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_30209/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_30209","id":"gutenberg_30209","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30209","summary":null,"tags":["Bible","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought"],"text":"BIBLE ROMANCES\n\nFirst Series\n\nBy G. W. Foote\n\n\n\nCONTENTS:\n\n     THE CREATION STORY.\n     NOAH'S FLOOD.\n     EVE AND THE APPLE.\n     THE BIBLE DEVIL.\n     THE TEN PLAGUES;\n     JONAH AND THE WHALE.\n     THE WANDERING JEWS.\n     THE TOWER OF BABEL.\n     BALAAM'S ASS.\n     GOD'S THIEVES IN CANAAN.\n     CAIN AND ABEL.\n     LOT'S WIFE.\n\n\n\n\nTHE CREATION STORY.\n\nBIBLE ROMANCES.--1.\n\n\nBy G. W. FOOTE.\n\n\n\nThe Book of Genesis is generally thought, as Professor Huxley says, to\ncontain the beginning and the end of sound science. The mythology of the\nJews is held to be a divine revelation of the early history of man, and\nof the cosmic changes preparatory to his creation. The masses of the\npeople in every Christian country are taught in their childhood that God\ncreated the universe, including this earth with all its flora and fauna,\nin five days; that he created man, \"the bright consummate flower\" of\nhis work, on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh. Yet every student\nknows this conception to be utterly false; every man of science rejects\nit as absurd; and even the clergy themselves mostly disbelieve it Why,\nthen, do they not disabuse the popular mind, and preach what they deem\ntrue instead of what they know to be false? The answer is very simple.\nBecause they feel that the doctrine of the Fall is bound up with the\nGenesaic account of Creation, and that if the latter be discredited the\nformer will not long be retained. The doctrine of the Fall being the\nfoundation of the scheme of Atonement, the clergy will never admit the\nCreation Story to be mythical until they are forced to do so by external\npressure. At any rate they cannot be expected to proclaim its falsity,\nsince by so doing they would destroy the main prop of their power. What\nthe recognised teachers of religion will not do, however, should not\nbe left undone, especially when it is so needful and important. Men of\nscience, by teaching positive and indisputable truths, are gradually\nbut surely revolutionising the world of thought, and dethroning the\npriesthoods of mystery and superstition. Yet their influence on the\nmasses is indirect, and they do not often trouble themselves to show the\ncontradiction between their discoveries and what is preached from the\npulpit. Perhaps they are right. But it is also right that others should\nappeal to the people in the name not only of science, but also of\nscholarship and common sense, and show them the incredible absurdity of\nmuch that the clergy are handsomely paid to preach as the veritable and\ninfallible Word of God.\n\nThe Creation Story, with which the Book of Genesis opens, is incoherent,\ndiscrepant, and intrinsically absurd, as we shall attempt to show. It is\nalso discordant with the plainest truths of Science. Let us examine it,\nafter casting aside all prejudice and predilection.\n\nIf the universe, including this earth and its principal inhabitant, man,\nwas created in six days, it follows that less than six thousand years\nago chaos reigned throughout nature. This, however, is clearly untrue.\nOur earth has revolved round its central sun for numberless millions of\nyears. Geology proves also that million years have elapsed since\norganic existence first appeared on the earth's surface, and this world\nbecame the theatre of life and death. Darwin speaks of the known history\nof the world as \"of a length quite incomprehensible by us,\" yet even\nthat he affirms \"will hereafter be recognised as a mere fragment of\ntime\" com-pared with the vast periods which Biology will demand. The\ninstructed members of the Church have long recognised these-statements\nas substantially true, and they have tried to reconcile them with\nScripture by assuming that the word which in the History of Creation is\nrendered _day_ really means a _period_, that is an elastic space of time\nwhich may be expanded or contracted to suit all requirements. But there\nare two fatal objections to this assumption. In the first place, the\nsame word is rendered _day_ in the fourth commandment, and if it\nmeans period in Genesis it means period in Exodus. In that case we are\ncommanded to work six periods and rest on the seventh, and each period\nmust cover a geological epoch. How pleasant for those who happen to be\nborn in the seventh period, how unpleasant for those born in one of the\nsix! The lives of the one class all work, those of the other all play!\nIn the second place, the account of each day's creation concludes with\nthe refrain \"and the evening and the morning were the first (or\nother) day.\" Now evening and morning are terms which mark the luminous\ngradations between night and day, and these phenomena, like night\nand day, depend on the earth's revolving on its axis and presenting\ndifferent portions of its surface to the sun. Evening and morning\nclearly imply a space of twenty-four hours, and the writer of Genesis,\nwhoever he was, would probably be surprised at any other interpretation\nof his words. It is sometimes argued, as for instance by Dr. M'Caul,\nthat these primeval days were of vast and unknown duration, the evening\nand the morning not being dependent on their present causes. But this\nsupposition could only apply to the first three days, for the sun, moon,\nand stars were created on the fourth day, expressly \"to rule over the\nday and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness.\" The\nfifth and sixth days, at least, must be understood as of normal length,\nand thus the chronological difficulties remain. All animal life was\nbrought into existence on the last two days, and therefore the Bible\nstill allows an antiquity of less than six thousand years for the\nworld's fauna. Geology and Biology allow millions of years. Here then\nScience and the Bible are in flagrant and irreconcilable contradiction.\n\nThe fact that the writer of Genesis represents light as existing three\ndays before the creation of the sun, the source of light, has frequently\nbeen noticed. One learned commentator supposed that God had infused a\ncertain \"luminosity\" through the air, which was not exactly the same\nas the light of the sun. But light is not a _thing_; it is a phenomenon\ncaused by definite laws of astronomy and optics. Such explanations are\nbut fanciful refuges of superstition. \"God said let there be light and\nthere was light,\" is not the language of science and history, but the\nlanguage of poetry. As such it is sublime. We find a similar expression\nin the Vedas of the Hindoos: \"He thought, I will create worlds, and they\nwere there!\" Both become ridiculous when presented to us as a scientific\nstatement The physical astronomer knows how worlds are formed, as well\nas how their movements are determined; he knows also the causes of\nlight; and he knows that none of these processes resembles the accounts\ngiven in the Creation Stories of the Hebrews and the Hindoos.\n\nScience knows nothing of six creative epochs, any more than of six\ncreative days; and it is quite certain that the order of Creation given\nin Genesis differs widely from the revelations of Geology. For instance\n(and one instance in such a case is as good as a thousand), fish and\nfowl are said to have been created on the same day. Let us, for the sake\nof argument, assume that day means period. The conclusion still is that\nfish and fowl were created together. Starting from this conclusion, what\nshould we expect to find in our geological researches? Why, the fossil\nremains of fish and of fowl in the same epochs. But we find nothing of\nthe kind. Marine animals antedate the carboniferous period, during which\nall our coal deposits were laid, but no remains of fowl are found until\na later period. Now the carboniferious period alone, according to Sir\nWilliam Thompson, covers many millions of years; so that instead of fish\nand fowl being contemporaneous, we find them geologically separated by\ninconceivable spaces of time. Here again the Bible and Science fatally\ndisagree.\n\nEven if we admit that the fifth day of creation was a _period_, the\nchronology of the Bible is still fatally at variance with fact\nWith respect to the antiquity of the human race, it is precise and\nunmistakable. It gives us the age of Adam at his death, and the ages of\nthe other antediluvian patriarchs. From the Flood the genealogies are\ncarefully recorded, until we enter the historic period, after which\nthere is not much room for dispute. From the creation of Adam to\nthe birth of Christ, the Bible allows about four thousand years. The\nantiquity of the human race, therefore, according to Scripture, is less\nthan six thousand years. Science, however, proves that this is but a\nfragment of the vast period during which man has inhabited the earth.\nThere was a civilisation in Egypt thousands of years before the alleged\ncreation of Adam. The Cushite civilisation was even more ancient\nArchaeology shows us traces of man's presence, in a ruder state, long\nbefore that. The researches of Mr. Pengelly in Kent's Cavern prove that\ncave-men lived there more than two-hundred thousand years ago; while\ngeological investigations in the Valley of the Somme have established\nthe fact that primitive men existed there in the tertiary period.\nProfessor Draper writes:--\"So far as investigations have gone, they\nindisputably-refer the existence of man to a date remote from us by\nmany hundreds of thousands of years. It must be borne in mind that\nthese investigations are quite recent, and confined to a very limited\ngeographical space. No researches have yet been made in those regions\nwhich might reasonably be regarded as the primitive habitat of man.\nWe are thus carried back immeasurably beyond the six thousand years of\nPatristic chronology. It is difficult to assign a shorter date for the\nlast glaciation of Europe than a quarter of a million of years, and\n_human existence antedates that_. The chronology of the Bible is thus\naltogether obsolete.\"\n\nThe idea of a seven-days' creation was not confined to the Jews: it\nwas shared by the Persians and Etruscans. The division of the year into\nmonths and weeks is a general, although not a universal practice. The\nancient Egyptians observed a ten-days' week, but the seven-days' week\nwas well known to them. The naming of the days of the week after the\nseven Planets was noted by Dion Cassius as originally an Egyptian\ncustom, which spread from Egypt into the Roman Empire. The Brahmins of\nIndia also distinguish the days of the week by the planetary names. This\ndivision of time was purely astronomical. The Jews kept the Feast of\nthe New Moon, and other of their ceremonies were determined by lunar and\nsolar phenomena. We may be sure that the myth of a seven-days' creation\nfollowed and did not precede the regular observance of that period.\n\nThere is one feature of the Hebrew story of creation which shows how\nanthropomorphic they were. The Persians represent Ormuzd as keeping high\nfestival with his angels on the seventh day, after creating all things\nin six. But the Hebrews represent Jehovah as _resting_ on the seventh\nday, as though the arduous labors of creation had completely exhausted\nhis energies. Fancy _Omnipotence_ requiring rest to recruit its\nstrength! The Bible, and especially in its earlier parts, is grossly\nanthropomorphic. It exhibits God as conversing with men, sharing their\nrepasts, and helping them to slaughter their foes. It represents him as\nvisible to human eyes, and in one instance as giving Moses a back view\nof his person. Yet these childish fancies are still thrust upon as\ndivine truths, which if we disbelieve we shall be eternally damned!\n\nLet us now examine the Creation Story internally. In the first place\nwe find two distinct records, the one occupying the whole of the first\nchapter of Genesis and the first three verses of the second, at which\npoint the other commences. These two records belong to different periods\nof Jewish history. The older one is the Elohistic, so called because the\ncreator is designated by the plural term _Elohim_, which in our version\nis translated _God_. The more modern one is the Jehovistic, in which\nElohim is combined with the singular term _Jehovah_, translated in\nour-version _the Lord God_. The Elohistic and Jehovistic accounts both\nrelate the creation of man, but instead of agreeing they widely differ.\nThe former makes God create man in his own image; the latter does not\neven allude to this important circumstance. The former represents man as\ncreated male and female at the outset; the latter represents the male\nas created first, and the female for a special reason afterwards. In\nthe former God enjoins the primal pair to \"be fruitful and multiply and\nreplenish the earth;\" in the latter there is no such injunction, but on\nthe contrary, the bringing forth of children in sorrow is imposed upon\nthe woman as a punishment for her sin, and she does not appear to have\nborne any offspring until after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden.\nLastly, the Elohistic record makes no mention of this Paradise, in\nwhich, according to the Jehovistic record, the drama of the Fall was\nenacted, but represents man as immediately commissioned to subdue\nand populate the world. Such discrepancies are enough to stagger the\nblindest credulity.\n\nWe now proceed to examine the Jehovistic account of Creation in detail.\nWe read that the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, the\nHebrew word for which is _adamah_. The word Adam means \"be red,\" and\n_adamah_ may be referred to the red soil of Palestine. Kalisch also\nobserves that man may have been originally called Adam on account of the\nred color of his skin. The Chinese represent man as kneaded of _yellow_\nearth, and the _red_ Indians of _red_ clay. The belief that man was\nformed of earth was not confined to the Jews, but has been almost\nuniversal, and undoubtedly arose from the fact that our bodies after\ndeath return to the earth and resolve into the elements. The Lord God\nplaced this forlorn first man in the Garden of Eden with the command to\ntill it, and permission to eat of the fruit of all its trees except \"the\ntree of knowledge of good and evil.\" How Adam trespassed and fell, and\nbrought a curse upon himself and all his innocent posterity, we shall\nconsider in another pamphlet. The story of the Fall is infinitely\ncurious and diverting, and must be treated separately.\n\nAdam's first exploit, after he had taken a good look round him, was very\nmarvellous. All the cattle and beasts of the field and fowl of the air\nwere brought before him to be named, and \"whatsover Adam called every\nliving creature, that was the name thereof.\" This first Zoological\nDictionary is unfortunately lost, or we should be able to call every\nanimal by its right name, which would doubtless gratify them as well as\nourselves. The fishes and insects were not included in this primitive\nnomenclature, so the loss of the Dictionary does not concern them.\n\nThe Lord made the animals pass before Adam seemingly with the\nexpectation that he would choose a partner from amongst them. Nothing,\nhowever, struck his fancy. If he had fallen in love with a female\ngorilla or ourang-outang, what a difference it would have made in the\nworld's history!\n\nAfter this wonderful exploit \"the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon\nAdam,\" who surely must have been tired enough to fall into a good sound\nnatural sleep, without a heavenly narcotic. While in this state one of\nhis ribs was extracted for a purpose we shall presently refer to, and\nwhich he discovered when he awoke. This curious surgical operation\ninvolves a dilemma. If Adam was upright after it, he must have been\nlopsided before; if he was upright before it, he must have been lopsided\nafter. In either case the poor man was very scurvily treated.\n\nIt has been maintained that God provided Adam with another rib in place\nof the one extracted. But this is a mere conjecture. Besides, if the\nLord had a spare rib in stock he might have made a woman of it, without\ncutting poor Adam open and making a _pre mortem_ examination of his\ninside.\n\nThe divine operator's purpose was a good one, whatever we may think of\nhis means. He had discovered, what Omniscience would have foreknown,\nthat it was not good for man to be alone, and had resolved to make him a\nhelp-meet. Adam's \"spare rib\" was the raw material of which his wife\nwas manufactured. The Greenlanders believed that the first woman was\nfashioned out of the man's _thumb_. The woman was brought to Adam, who\nsaid--\"This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.\" Not a word\ndid he say about \"soul of my soul.\" Perhaps he suspected she had none,\nand with some truth, if we go no further than our English version. When\nthe Lord God made man, he \"breathed into his nostrils the breath of\nlife, and man became a living soul,\" but apparently no such operation\nwas performed on Eve. Indeed, it is very difficult to prove from the\nBible that woman has a soul at all. Women should reflect on this. They\nshould also reflect on the invidious fact that they were not included\nin the original scheme of things, but thrown in as a make-weight\nafterwards. Let them ponder this a while, and the churches and chapels\nin which this story is taught would soon be emptied. The majority of\nthose who occupy seats in such places wear bonnets, and most of those\nwho don't, go there for the sake of those who do.\n\nWhen Adam had thus accosted his bride he grew prophetical. \"Therefore,\"\nsaid he, \"shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave\nunto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.\" In his desire to give the\ninstitution of marriage the highest sanction, the writer of this story\nperpetrated a gross anachronism. Adam had no parents, nor any\nexperience of marriage. Unless, therefore, we credit him with superhuman\nprescience, it is absurd to make him talk in this way.\n\nEve's name, no less than Adam's, betrays the mythological character of\nthe story. It means the \"mother of all,\" and was evidently applied to\nher by the Jewish writers in order to signify her supposed relationship\nto the human race.\n\nWhile God was engaged in the work of creation, why did he not make two\nhuman couples, instead of one? The arrangement he adopted involved the\npropagation of the human species through incest Adam and Eve's sons must\nhave had children by their sisters. If two couples had been created,\ntheir families might have intermarried, and mankind would not then have\nsprang from the incestuous intercourse of the very first generation.\nSurely omnipotence might have obviated the necessity of a crime against\nwhich civilised consciences revolt with unspeakable disgust.\n\nAdam and Eve were placed by God in the Garden of Eden. \"Eden,\" says\nKalisch, \"comprised that tract of land where the Euphrates and Tigris\nseparate; from that spot the 'garden in Eden' cannot be distant. Let it\nsuffice that we know its general position.\" Its exact position can never\nbe ascertained. What a pity it is that Noah did not occupy some of his\nleisure time, during the centuries he lived after his exit from the ark,\nin writing a typography of the antediluvian world! The Greeks placed\nParadise in the Islands of the Blessed, beyond the Pillars of Hercules\nin the western main. The Swede, Rudbeck, asserts that Paradise was in\nScandinavia; some Russian writers supposed it to have been in Siberia;\nand the German writers, Hasse and Schulz, on the coast of Prussia.\nEastern traditions place it in Ceylon, and regard the mountain of Rahoun\nas the spot where Adam was buried. Some old Christian writers hazarded\nthe theory that Paradise was beyond the earth altogether, on the other\nside of the ocean which they conceived to encircle it, and that Noah\nwas conveyed to our planet by the deluge. Kalisch gives a long list of\nancient and modern authorities on the subject, who differ widely from\neach other as to the actual position of Eden, their only point of\nagreement being that it was _somewhere_.\n\nThe Creation Story of the Bible cannot be considered as anything but a\nHebrew myth. Scholars have abundantly shown the absurdity of supposing\nthat Moses wrote it. Doubtless, as a piece of traditional mythology, it\nis very ancient, but it cannot be traced back in its present literary\nform beyond the Babylonish captivity. Men of science without exception\ndisbelieve it, not only with regard to the world in general, but also\nwith regard to the human race. In his famous article on \"The Method and\nResults of Ethnology,\" Professor Huxley made this declaration:--\"There\nare those who represent the most numerous, respectable, and would-be\northodox of the public, and who may be called 'Adamites,' pure and\nsimple. They believe that Adam was made out of earth somewhere in Asia,\nabout six thousand years ago; that Eve was modelled from one of his\nribs; and that the progeny of these two having been reduced to the eight\npersons who landed on the summit of Mount Ararat after an universal\ndeluge, all the nations of the earth have proceeded from these last,\nhave migrated to their present localities, and have become converted\ninto negroes, Australians, Mongolians, etc., within that time.\nFive-sixths of the public are taught this Adamitic Monogenism as if\nit were an established truth, and believe it. I do not; and I am not\nacquainted with any man of science, or duly instructed person, who\ndoes.\" The clergy, then, who go on teaching this old Creation Story as\ntrue, are either unduly instructed or dishonest, ignorant or fraudulent,\nblind guides or base deceivers. It is not for us to determine to which\nclass any priest or preacher belongs: let the conscience of each, as\nassuredly it will, decide that for himself. But ignorant or dishonest,\nwe affirm, is every one of them who still teaches the Creation Story as\na record of actual facts, or as anything but a Hebrew myth.\n\nThe origin of the human race is far different from that recorded in\nGenesis. Man has undoubtedly been developed from a lower form of life.\nThe rude remains of primitive men show that they were vastly inferior to\nthe present civilised inhabitants of the world, and even inferior to\nthe lowest savages with whom we are now acquainted. Their physical and\nmental condition was not far removed from that of the higher apes; and\nthe general opinion of biologists is that they were descended from\nthe Old World branch of the great Simian family. There is, indeed, no\n_absolute_ proof of this, nor is it probable that there ever will be, as\nthe fossil links between primitive man and his Simian progenitor,\nif they exist at all, are most likely buried in that sunken continent\nover which roll the waters of the South Pacific Ocean. But as the line\nof natural development can be carried back so far without break, there\nis no reason why it should not be carried farther. The evolution theory\nis now almost universally accepted by men of science, and few of them\nsuppose that man can be exempted from the general laws of biology. At\nany rate, the Bible account of Creation is thoroughly exploded, and when\nthat is gone there is nothing to hinder our complete acceptance of the\nonly theory of man's origin which is consistent with the facts of his\nhistory, and explains the peculiarities of his physical structure.\n\n\n\n\nNOAH'S FLOOD.\n\nBIBLE ROMANCES--2.\n\nBy G. W. FOOTE.\n\nThe Bible story of the Deluge is at once the biggest and the most\nridiculous in the whole volume. Any person who reads it with the eyes of\ncommon sense, and some slight knowledge of science, must admit that it\nis altogether incredible and absurd, and that the book which contains it\ncannot be the Word of God.\n\nAbout 1,656 years after God created Adam, and placed him in the garden\nof Eden, the world had become populous and extremely wicked; indeed,\nevery thought and imagination of man's heart was evil continually. What\nwas the cause of all this wickedness we are not informed; but we are\ntold that the sons of God took unto them wives of the daughters of men\nbecause they were fair, and we are led to suppose that these matches\nproduced giants and other incurably wicked offspring. No physiological\nreason is assigned for this Strange result, nor perhaps was there any\npresent to the mind of the writer, who probably had witnessed unhappy\nmarriages in his own family, and was anxious to warn his readers,\nhowever vaguely, against allowing their daughters to be inveigled into\nmatrimonial bonds with pious sniffling fellows, who professed themselves\npeculiarly the children of their Father in heaven. However, the\nnarrative is clear as to the fact itself: men had all gone irrecoverably\nastray, and God had repented that he ever made them. In such a case\nan earthly human father would naturally have attempted to improve his\nfamily; but the Almighty Father either was too indifferent to do so, or\nwas too well aware of the impossibility of reforming his own wretched\noffspring; and therefore he determined to drown them all at one fell\nswoop, just as cat-loving old ladies dispose of a too numerous and\nembarrassing feline progeny. Bethinking him, however, God resolved to\nsave alive one family to perpetuate the race: he was willing to give his\ncreatures another chance, and then, if they persisted in going the wrong\nway, it would still be easy to drown the lot of them again, and that\nwithout any reservation. He had also resolved at first to destroy every\nliving thing from off the face of the earth; but he afterwards decided\nto spare from destruction two of every species of unclean beasts, male\nand female, and fourteen, male and female, of all clean beasts and of\nall fowls of the air and of every creeping thing. Noah, his wife, his\nthree sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and their wives (eight persons in\nall), were the only human beings to be preserved from the terrible fate\nof drowning.\n\nNoah was commanded by God to build an ark for the reception-of the\nprecious living freight, the dimensions of which were to be, in English\nmeasure, 550 _feet long_, 93 _feet wide_, _and 55 feet deep_. Into this\nfloating box they all got; the flood then came and covered the earth,\nand all besides were drowned.\n\nNow this is a very strange, a very startling story; it seems more like\na chapter from the \"Arabian Nights\" or the \"Adventures of Baron\nMunchausen\" than from the sacred Scriptures of any Religion. Carnal\nreason prompts us to ask many questions about it.\n\n1. How did Noah contrive to bring these beasts, birds, and insects all\ntogether in one spot? The task seems superhuman. Some species could be\nfound only in very remote places--the kangaroo only in Australia, the\nsloth only in South America, the polar bear only in the Arctic regions.\nHow could Noah, in those days of difficult locomotion, have journeyed in\nsearch of these across broad rivers, and over continents and oceans?\nDid he bring them singly to his dwelling-place in Asia, or did he travel\nhither and thither with his menagerie, and finish the collection before\nreturning home? There are, according to Hugh Miller, 1,658 known species\nof mammalia, 6,266 of birds, 642 of reptiles, and 550,000 of insects;\nhow _could_ one man, or a hundred men, have collected specimens of these\nin those days, and in such & brief space of time? The beasts, clean and\nunclean, male and female, might be got together by means of terrible\nexertion; but surely to assemble the birds and reptiles and insects must\ntranscend human capacity. Some of the last class would of course not\nrequire much seeking; they visit us whether we desire their company or\nnot; and the difficulty would not be how to get them into the ark, but\nhow on earth to keep them out. Others, however, would give infinite\ntrouble. Fancy Noah occupied in a _wild-goose_ chase, or selecting\nspecimens from a wasps' or hornets' nest, or giving assiduous chase to a\nvigilant and elusive bluebottle fly!\n\nBut suppose Noah to have succeeded in his arduous enterprise, the\nquestion still remains, how did he keep his wonderful zoological\ncollection alive? Some of them could live only in certain latitudes; the\ninhabitants of cold climates would melt away amidst the torrid heat of\nCentral Asia. Then, again, there are some insects that live only a few\nhours, and some that live a few days at the utmost: what means were\nadopted for preserving these? Some animals, too, do not pair, but run\nin herds; many species of fish swim in shoals; sometimes males and\nsometimes females predominate, as in the case of deer, where one male\nheads and appropriates a whole herd of females, or in the case of bees,\nwhere many males are devoted to the queen of the hive. These could\nnot have gone in pairs, or lived in pairs; their instincts pointed\nto another method of grouping. How did Noah provide for _their_ due\npreservation? When these questions are answered others speedily arise;\nin fact, there is no end to the difficulties of this marvellous story.\n\n2. Whence and how did Noah procure the food for his huge menagerie?\nThat he was obliged to do so, that the animals were not miraculously\npreserved without food, we are certain; for he was expressly commanded\nby God to gather food for himself and for them. \"Take thou unto thee,\"\nit was said to him, \"of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather\nit to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.\" What\nprovision was made for the _carnivorous_ animals, for lions, tigers,\nvultures, kites, and hawks? Some of these would require not simply meat,\nbut _fresh_ meat, which could not be provided for them unless superfluous\nanimals were taken into the ark to be killed, or Noah had learned the\nart of potting flesh. Otters would require fish, chameleons flies,\nwoodpeckers grubs, night-hawks moths, and humming-birds the honey of\nflowers. What vast quantities of water also would be consumed! In\nfact, the task of collecting food to last all the inmates of the ark,\nincluding the eight human beings, for more than a year, must have been\ngreater even than that of bringing them together in the first place from\nevery zone. The labors of Hercules were mere trifles compared with those\nof Noah. Poor old patriarch! He amply earned _his_ salvation. Had he\nbeen possessed of one tithe of Jacob's cunning and business sagacity, he\nwould have struck a better bargain with God, and have got into the ark\non somewhat easier terms. Few men would have undertaken so much to gain\nso little.\n\n3. How were all the animals, with their food, got into the ark? The\ndimensions as given in the Bible would be insufficient to accommodate a\ntithe of them; the ark could not have contained them all, if they were\npacked together like herrings or sardines. Even if they were so packed,\nspace would still be required for their food; and for what a vast\nquantity! An animal even with man's moderate appetite would consume in\nthe course of twelve months solid matter to the extent of four or five\ntimes its own weight, and some animals are of course far more voracious.\nThis difficulty as to stowing the animals and their food into the ark is\nquite insuperable; it is not to be obviated by any employment of\nmiraculous intervention. Not even omnipotence can make a clock strike\nless than one, and God himself must fail to make two things occupy the\nsame space at the same time.\n\n4. How where the inmates of this floating menagerie, supposing them got\nin, supplied with fresh air? According to the Bible narrative the ark\nwas furnished with but one window of a cubit square, and one door\nwhich was shut by God himself, and it may be presumed, quite securely\nfastened. Talk about the Black-hole of Calcutta, why it was nothing to\nthis! What a scramble there must have been for that solitary window\nand a mouthful of fresh air! Lions, tigers, jackals, hyaenas,\nboa-constrictors, kangaroos, eagles, owls, bees, wasps, bluebottles,\nwith Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and their wives, all in one fierce\nmelee. But the contention for the precious vital air must, however\nviolent, have soon subsided: fifteen minutes would have settled them\nall. Yet curiously enough the choking animals-suffered no appreciable\ninjury; by some occult means they were all preserved from harm; which\nfurnishes another illustration of the mysterious ways of God. What\npowerful perfumes, too, must have arisen from all those animals! So\npowerful indeed that even the rancid flavor of foxes and skunks must\nhave been undistinguishable from the blended scents of all their fellow\npassengers. Those who have visited Wombwell's menagerie, or stood in\nthe monkey-house of the Zoological Gardens, doubtless retain a lively\nrecollection of olfactory disgust, even although in those places the\nmust scrupulous cleanliness is observed; but their experience of such\nsmells would have been totally eclipsed if they could but for a moment\nhave stood within Noah's ark amidst all its heterogeneous denizens.\nHowever the patriarch and his sons managed to cleanse this worse than\nAugean stable passes all understanding. And then what trampings they\nmust have had up and down those flights of stairs communicating with the\nthree storeys of the ark, in order to cast all the filth out of that one\nwindow. No wonder their children afterwards began to build a tower of\nBabel to reach unto heaven; it was quite natural that they should desire\nplenty of steps, to mount, so as to gratify fully the itch of climbing\nthey had inherited from their parents.\n\n5. Where did all the water come from? According to the Bible story the\nwaters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days, and covered\nall the high hills and mountains under the whole heaven. Now mount\nArarat itself, on which the Ark eventually rested, is seventeen thousand\nfeet high, and the utmost peaks of Himalaya are nearly twice as high\nas that; and to cover the whole earth with water to such a tremendous\nheight would require an immense quantity of water; in fact, about eight\ntimes as much as is contained in all the rivers, lakes, seas, and oceans\nof our globe. Whence did all this water come? The Scripture explanation\nis sadly insufficient; the fountains of the great deep were broken up,\nand the windows of heaven were opened, and the rain was upon the earth\nfor forty days and forty nights. The writer evidently thought that there\nwere great fountains at the bottom of the sea, capable of supplying\nwater in unlimited quantities from some central reservoir; but science\nknows nothing whatever about them; nay, science tells us that the\ninternal reservoir, if there be one, must contain not water, but liquid\nfire. If _this_ great reservoir poured its contents into the sea, the\nresult would be similar to that frightful catastrophe imagined by the\nYankee who wished to see Niagara Falls pour into Mount Vesuvius.\n\nThe supply from that quarter thus failing, we are forced back upon the\nrain which descended from the windows of heaven, wherever they may be.\nIt rained forty days and forty nights. Forty days and forty nights!\nWhy forty million days and nights of rain would not have sufficed. The\nwriter was evidently in total ignorance of the laws of hydrology. The\nrain which falls from the clouds originally comes from the waters of the\nearth, being absorbed into the atmosphere by the process of evaporation.\nThe utmost quantity of water that can thus be held in suspense\nthroughout the entire atmosphere is very small; in fact, if\nprecipitated, it would only cover the ground to the depth of about\nfive inches. After the first precipitation of rain, the process of\nevaporation would have to be repeated; that is, for every additional\ndescent of rain a proportionate quantity of water would have to be\nextracted from the rivers, lakes, and seas below. Now, surely every sane\nman must perceive that this pretty juggle could not add one single drop\nto the previously existing amount of water, any more than a man could\nmake himself rich by taking money out of one pocket and putting it into\nanother. The fabled man who is reported to have occupied himself with\ndipping up water from one side of a boat and emptying it over on the\nother, hoping thereby to bale the ocean dry, must have been the real\nauthor of this story of Noah and his wonderful ark.\n\nSome Christian writers, such as Dr. Pye Smith, Dr. Barry, and Hugh\nMiller, have contended that the author of the book of Genesis is\ndescribing not a universal but a partial deluge; not a flood which\nsubmerged the whole earth, out one that merely covered some particular\npart of the great Central Asian plains. But surely, apart from any\nconsideration pertaining to the very emphatic language of the text,\nrational men must perceive that the difficulty is not obviated by this\nexplanation, but rather increased. How could the waters ascend in one\nplace to the height of seventeen thousand feet (the height of Mount\nArarat) without overflowing the adjacent districts, and, indeed, the\nwhole earth, in conformity to the law of gravitation? Delitzch is bold\nenough to assert that the flood of water was ejected with such force\nfrom the fountains beneath that it assumed quite naturally a conical\nshape. But then, even supposing that this explication were anything\nbut sheer silliness, which it is not, how would the learned commentator\naccount for the water retaining its conical shape for months after the\nforce of upheaval had expended itself? These explanations are entirely\nfanciful and groundless. The language of the narrative is sufficiently\nexplicit \"And _all_ flesh died that moved upon the earth;\" \"all in\nwhose nostrils was the breath of life;\" \"and every living substance\nwas destroyed which was upon the face of the ground;\" and \"Noah _only_\nremained alive and they that were with him in the ark.\" Such are the\nprecise unmistakeable words of Scripture, which no sophistry can explain\naway. But even if the contention for a partial deluge could be made\ngood, the fundamental difficulties would still remain. As Colenso\nobserves, the flood, \"whether it be regarded as a _universal_ or a\n_partial_ deluge, is equally incredible and impossible.\"\n\nGeology absolutely contradicts the possibility of any such catastrophe\nas the deluge within the historic period. According to Sir Charles\nLyell, no devastating flood could have passed over the forest zone of\n\u00c6tna during the last twelve thousand years; and the volcanic cones of\nAuvergne, which enclose in their ashes the remains of extinct animals,\nand present an outline as perfect as that of \u00c6tna, are deemed older\nstill. Kalisch forcibly presents this aspect of the question: \"Geology\nteaches the impossibility of a universal deluge since the last six\nthousand years, but does not exclude a partial destruction of the\nearth's surface within that period. The Biblical text, on the other\nhand, demands the supposition of a universal deluge, and absolutely\nexcludes a partial flood.\"\n\n6. What became of all the fish? In such a deluge the rivers and seas\nmust have mingled their waters, and this, in conjunction with the\nterrific outpour from the windows of heaven, must have made the water\nbrackish, too salt for fresh-water fish, and too fresh for salt-water\nfish; and consequently the aquatic animals must all have perished,\nunless, indeed, they were miraculously preserved--a contingency which\nanyone is free to conjecture, out no one is at liberty to assert, seeing\nthat the inspired writer never even hints such a possibility. Now there\nis no evidence whatever that Noah took and _fish_ with him into the ark;\nunder natural circumstances they must have perished outside; yet the\nseas and rivers still teem with life. When did the new creation of fish\ntake place?\n\n7. What became of all the vegetation? Every particle of it must\nhave rotted during such a long submergence. But even if mysteriously\npreserved from natural decay, it must still have been compressed into a\nmere pulp by the terrific weight of the super-incumbent water. Colenso\nestimates that the pressure of a column of water 17,000 feet high would\nbe 474 tons upon each square foot of surface--a pressure which nothing\ncould have resisted. Yet, wonderful to relate, just prior to the resting\nof the ark on Mount Ararat, the dove sent out therefrom returned with\nan olive leaf in her mouth _just pluckt off_. A fitting climax to this\nwonderful story.\n\nFinally the story relates how the ark rested on the top of Mount Ararat,\nwhence its inmates descended to the plains below, which were then quite\ndry. Mount Ararat towers aloft three thousand feet above the region of\neternal snow. How the poor animals, aye, even the polar bear, must have\nshivered! And what a curious sight it must have been to witness their\ndescent from such a height Often have I speculated on the probable way\nin which the elephant got down, and after much careful thought I have\nconcluded thus: either he had waxed so fat with being fed so long on\nmiraculous food that he rolled pleasantly down like a ball, with no\nother injury than a few scratches; or he had become so very, very thin\nwith living simply on expectations, in default of more substantial\nfare, that he gently floated down by virtue of levity, like a descending\nfeather.\n\nAnd then what journeys some of the poor animals would have to make; the\nkangaroo back to Australia, the sloth to South America, the polar bear\nto the extreme north. How they lived on the road to their ultimate\ndestinations the Lord only knows. There was no food for them; the deluge\nhad destroyed all vegetation for the herbiverous animals, all flesh for\nthe carniverous. Not even a nibble was left for the sheep.\n\nAs for poor Noah, the first thing recorded of him after his watery\nexpedition is that he drank heavily of wine and got into a state of\nbeastly inebriation. And who can wonder that he did so? The poor old man\nhad floated about on oceans of water for more than a year, and probably\nhe was heartily sick of his watery prospect. The astonishing thing is\nthat he did not get water on the brain. It was quite natural that\nhe should swill deep potations of some stronger fluid on the first\navailable opportunity. Surely he had water enough during that twelve\nmonths to last a lifetime; enough to justify his never touching the\nwretched fluid again.\n\nWhile Noah was dead drunk, his second son. Ham, saw \"the nakedness\nof his father,\" and reported the fact to his two brethren, who took a\ngarment and, walking backwards so that they might not see, covered\nthe patriarch's nudity. On recovering from his drunken stupor, Noah\ndiscovered \"what his younger son had done unto him,\" and proceeded at\nonce to vigorous cursing. Ham was the offender, if there was any offence\nat all, which is not very clear; but punishment in the Bible is\ngenerally vicarious, and we read that the irate patriarch cursed Canaan,\nthe son of Ham, for his father's misdemeanor. Flagitiously unjust as\nit is, this proceeding thoroughly accords with Jehovah's treatment\nof Adam's posterity after he and Eve had committed their first sin by\neating of the forbidden fruit.\n\nBefore Noah got drunk he had received from God the assurance that the\nworld should never more be destroyed by a flood. As a perpetual sign of\nthis covenant the rainbow was set in the heavens. But the rainbow\nmust have been a common sight for centuries before. This phenomenon of\nrefraction is the result of natural causes which operated before\nthe Flood, as well as after. The earth yielded its fruits for human\nsustenance, and therefore rain must have fallen. If rain fell before the\nDeluge, as we are bound to conclude, the rainbow must have been then as\nnow. The usual practice of commentators is to explain this portion\nof the narrative by assuming that the rainbow was visible before\nthe covenant with Noah, but only after the covenant had a special\nsignificance. But, as Colenso observes, the writer of the story\nsupposes the rainbow was then first set in the clouds, and is evidently\naccounting for the _origin_ of this beautiful phenomenon, which might\nwell appear _super_natural to his uninstructed imagination.\n\nBesides the manifold absurdities of this story there are other aspects\nof it even more startling. What a picture it presents of fiendish\ncruelty and atrocious vindictiveness! What an appalling exhibition\nof divine malignity! God, the omnipotent and omniscient ruler of the\nuniverse, is represented as harboring and executing the most diabolical\nintentions. He ruthlessly exterminates all his children except a favored\nfew, and includes in his vengeance the lower animals also, although\nthey were innocent of offence against his laws. Every creature in whose\nnostrils was the breath of life, with the exception of those persevered\nin the ark, was drowned, and the earth was turned into a vast\nslaughter-house. How imagination pictures the terrible scene as the\nwaters rise higher and higher, and the ravening waves speed after their\nprey! Here some wretched being, baffled and hopeless, drops supinely\ninto the raging flood; there a stronger and stouter heart struggles to\nthe last. Here selfish ones battling for their own preservation; there\nhusbands and wives, parents and children, lovers and maidens, affording\nmutual aid, or at last, in utter despair, locked in a final embrace and\nmeeting death together. And when the waters subside, what a sickening\nscene presents itself! Those plains, once decked with verdure,\nand lovely in the sun and breeze, are covered with the bones of a\nslaughtered world. How can the Christian dare to justify such awful\ncruelty? The God of the Pentateuch is not a beneficent universal father,\nbut an almighty fiend.\n\nThis story of Noah's Flood is believed still because people never\nexamine what is taught them as the word of God. Every one who analyses\nthe story must pronounce it the most extraordinary amalgam of immorality\nand absurdity ever palmed off on a credulous world.\n\n\n\n\nEVE AND THE APPLE.\n\nBIBLE ROMANCES.-3.\n\nBy G. W. FOOTE.\n\n\nChristianity is based upon the story of the Fall. In Adam all sinned, as\nin Christ all must be sayed. Saint Paul gives to this doctrine the\nhigh sanction of his name, and we may disregard the puny whipsters of\ntheology, who, without any claim to inspiration, endeavor to explain the\nGenesaic narrative as an allegory rather than a history. If Adam did not\nreally fall he could not have been cursed for falling, and his posterity\ncould not have become partakers either in a sin which was never\ncommitted or in a malediction which was never pronounced. Nor can\nOriginal Sin be a true dogma if our first parents did not transmit the\ngerms of iniquity to their children. If Adam did not fall there was no\nneed for Christ to save us; if he did not set God and man at variance\nthere was no need for an atonement; and so the Christian scheme of\nsalvation would be a _fiasco_ from beginning to end. This will never do.\nNo Garden of Eden, no Gethsemane! No Fall, no Redemption! No Adam, no\nChrist!\n\nMother Eve's curiosity was the motive of the first transgression of\nGod's commandments in the history of the world, and the whole human\nrace was brought under the risk of eternal perdition because of her\npartiality to fruit. Millions of souls now writhe in hell because,\nsix thousand years ago, she took a bite of an apple. What a tender and\nbeautiful story! God made her to be Adam's helpmeet. She helped him to\na slice of apple, and that soon helped them both outside Eden. The sour\nstuff disagreed with him as it did with her. It has disagreed, with all\ntheir posterity. In fact it was endowed with the marvellous power of\ntransmitting spiritual stomach-ache through any number of generations.\n\nHow do we know that it was an _apple_ and not some other fruit? Why, on\nthe best authority extant after the Holy Scriptures themselves, namely,\nour auxiliary Bible, \"Paradise Lost;\" in the tenth book whereof Satan\nmakes the following boast to his infernal peers after his exploit in\nEden:--\n\n             \"Him by fraud I have seduced\n     From his Creator, and, the more to increase\n     Your wonder, with an _apple_.\"\n\nYet another authority is the profane author of \"Don Juan,\" who, in the\nfirst stanza of the tenth canto, says of Newton:\n\n     \"And this is the sole mortal who could grapple,\n     Since Adam, with a fall, or with an _apple_.\"\n\nMilton, being very pious, was probably in the counsel of God. How else\ncould he have given us an authentic version of the long colloquies that\nwere carried on in heaven? Byron, being very profane, was probably in\nthe counsel of Satan. And thus we have the most unimpeachable testimony\nof two opposite sources to the fact that it was an _apple_, and not a\nrarer fruit, which overcame the virtue of our first parents, and played\nthe devil with their big family of children.\n\nThis apple grew on the Tree of Knowledge, which God planted in the midst\nof the Garden of Eden, sternly enjoining Adam and Eve not to eat of its\nfruit under pain of death. Now the poor woman knew nothing of death and\ncould not understand what a dreadful punishment it was; and there was\nthe fruit dangling before her eyes every hour of the day. Is it any\nwonder that she brooded incessantly on the one thing forbidden, that her\nwoman's curiosity was irresistably piqued by it, and that at last her\nlonging grew so intense that she exclaimed, \"Dear me! I can't refrain\nany longer. Let the consequences be what they will, I must have a bite.\"\nGod made the woman; he knew her weakness; and he must have known that\nthe plan he devised to test her obedience was the most certain trap that\ncould be invented. Jehovah played with poor Eve just as a cat plays with\na mouse. She had free-will, say the theologians. Yes, and so has the\nmouse a free run. But the cat knows she can catch it again, and finish\nit off when she is tired of playing.\n\nNot only did God allow Eve's curiosity to urge her on to sin, he also\npermitted the serpent, \"more subtil than any beast of the field,\" to\nsupplement its action. This wily creature is popularly supposed to have\nbeen animated on the occasion by the Devil himself; although, as we\nshall explain in another _Romance_ entitled \"The Bible Devil,\" the book\nof Genesis makes not even the remotest allusion to such a personage.\nIf, however, the tempter _was_ the Devil, what chance had the poor woman\nagainst his seductive wiles? And even if he was only a serpent, he was\nvery \"subtil\" as we are told, and able to talk like a book, and we know\nthat these creatures have fatal powers of fascination. Surely Mother Eve\nwas heavily handicapped. God might have given her fair play, and left\nher to fight the battle without furnishing auxiliaries to the strong\nside.\n\nThe serpent, we have said, could converse in human speech. His\nconversation and his conduct will be dealt with in the _Romance_ just\nreferred to. Suffice it here to say that he plainly told the woman that\nGod was a liar. \"He,\" said the tempter, \"has said ye shall surely die if\nye touch the fruit of this tree. Don't believe it. I tell you, ye shall\nnot surely die.\" What could poor Eve think? In addition to her native\ncuriosity here was another incentive to disobedience. Which of these two\nspoke the truth? There was only one way of deciding. She stretched forth\nher hand, plucked an apple, and began to eat. And immediately, says\nMilton,\n\n     \"Earth felt the wound, and nature from her seat,\n     Sighing through all her works, gave signs of woe\n     That all was lost.\"\n\nWhat a rumpus about a trifle! It reminds us of the story of a Jew who\nhad a sneaking inclination for a certain meat prohibited by his creed.\nOne day the temptation to partake was too strong; he slipped into a\nplace of refreshment and ordered some sausages. The weather happened to\nbe tempestuous, and just as he raised his knife and fork to attack the\nsavory morsel, a violent clap of thunder nearly frightened him out of\nhis senses. Gathering courage, he essayed a second time, but another\nthunderclap warned him to desist. A third attempt was foiled in the same\nway. Whereupon he threw down his knife and fork and made for the door,\nexclaiming \"What a dreadful fuss about a little bit of pork.\"\n\nEve's transgression, according to the learned Lightfoot, occurred \"about\n_high noone_, the time of eating.\" The same authority informs us that\nshe and Adam \"did lie comfortlesse, till towards the cool of the day, or\n_three o'clock afternoon_.\" However that may be, it is most certain that\nthe first woman speedily got the better of the first man. She told him\nthe apple was nice and he took a bite also. Perhaps he had resolved to\nshare her fortunes good or bad, and objected to be left alone with his\nmenagerie. Lightfoot describes the wife as \"the weaker vessell,\" but\na lady friend of ours says that the Devil stormed the citadel first,\nknowing well that such a poor outpost as Adam could easily be carried\nafterwards.\n\nHaving eaten of the fruit, and thus learned to distinguish between good\nand evil, Adam and Eve quickly discovered that they were naked. So they\n\"sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.\" We are not told\nwho gave them lessons in sewing. Perhaps they acquired the art through\nintuition. But the necessary implements could not have been gained in\nthat way. Dr. Thomas Burnet, whose mind was greatly exercised by the\nastounding wonders of the Bible, very pertinently asked \"Whence had\nthey a needle, whence a thread, on the first day of their creation?\"\nHe, however, could give no answer to the question, nor can we, except we\nsuppose that some of the female angels had attended a \"garden party\"\nin Eden and carelessly left their needles and thread behind them. Any\nreader who is dissatisfied with this explanation must inquire of the\nnearest parson, who, as he belongs to a class supposed to know almost\neverything, and believed to have access to the oracles of God, will\ndoubtless be able to reveal the whole gospel truth on the subject.\n\nA little later, God himself, who is everywhere at once, came down from\neverywhere to the Garden of Eden, for the purpose of taking a \"walk in\nthe cool of the day.\" He had perhaps just visited the infernal regions\nto see that everything was ready for the reception of the miserable\ncreatures he meant to damn, or to assure himself that the Devil was\nreally not at home; and was anxious to cool himself before returning to\nhis celestial abode, as well as to purify himself from the sulphurous\ntaint which might else have sent a shudder through all the seraphic\nhosts. Apparently he was holding a soliloquy, for Adam and Eve \"heard\nhis voice.\" Colenso, however, renders this portion of the Romance\ndifferently from our authorised version--\"And they heard the sound\nof Jehovah-Elohim walking in the garden in the breeze of the day.\"\nDelitzsch thinks they heard the sound of his footsteps, for God used to\nvisit them in the form of a man! Could the force of folly farther go?\nAny devout Theist, who candidly thought over this petty fiction, would\nfind its gross anthropomorphism inexpressibly shocking.\n\nKnowing that God was everywhere, Adam and Eve nevertheless \"hid\nthemselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the\ngarden.\" But they were soon dragged forth to the light. Adam, who\nseems to have been a silly fellow, explained that he had hidden himself\nbecause he was _naked_, as though the Lord had not seen him in that\nstate before. \"Naked!\" said the Lord, \"Who told thee that thou wast\nnaked. Hast thou eaten of that tree, eh?\" \"O, Lord, yes,\" replied Adam;\n\"just a little bit; but it wasn't my fault, _she_ made me do it, O Lord!\nO Lord!\" Whereupon God, who although he knows everything, even before it\nhappens, was singularly ill-informed on this occasion, turned fiercely\nupon the woman, asking her what she had done. \"Oh, if you please,\"\nwhimpered poor Eve, \"it _was_ I who took the first bite; but the serpent\nbeguiled me, and the fault you see is not mine but his. Oh dear! oh\ndear!\" Then the Lord utterly lost his temper. He cursed the serpent,\ncursed the woman, cursed the man, and even cursed the ground beneath\ntheir feet Everything about at the time came in for a share of the\nmalison. In fact, it was what the Yankees would call a good, all-round,\nlevel swear.\n\nThe curse of the serpent is a subject we must reserve for our pamphlet\non \"The Bible Devil,\" The curse of the woman was that she should bring\nforth children in pain and sorrow, and that the man should rule over\nher. With her present physiological condition, woman must always have\nsuffered during conception as she now does; and therefore Delitzsch\ninfers that her structure must have undergone a change, although he\ncannot say in what respect He dwells also on the \"subjection\" of woman,\nwhich \"the religion of Revelation\" has made by degrees more endurable;\nprobably forgetting that the Teutonic women of ancient times were\nregarded with veneration, long before Christianity originated. Besides,\nthe subordination of the female is not peculiar to the human race, but\nis the general law throughout the animal world.\n\nAdam's curse was less severe. He was doomed to till the ground, and to\nearn his bread by the sweat of his face. Most of us would rather take\npart in the great strenuous battle of life, than loll about under the\ntrees in the Garden of Eden, chewing the cud like contemplative cows.\nWhat men have had to complain of in all ages is, not that they have to\nearn their living by labour, but that when the sweat of their faces has\nbeen plenteously poured forth the \"bread\" has too often not accrued to\nthem as the reward of their industry.\n\nOrthodox Christianity avers that all the posterity of Adam and Eve\nnecessarily participate in their curse, and the doctrine of Original Sin\nis taught from all its pulpits. Only by baptism can the stains of our\nnative guilt be effaced; and thus the unbaptized, even infants, perish\neverlastingly, and hell, to use the words of a Protestant divine, holds\nmany a babe not a span long. A great Catholic divine says--\"Hold thou\nmost firmly, nor do thou in any respect doubt, that infants, whether\nin their mothers' wombs they begin to live and then die, or when, after\ntheir mothers have given birth to them, they pass from this life without\nthe sacrament of holy baptism, will be punished with the everlasting\npunishment of eternal fire.\" Horror of horrors! These men call sceptics\nblasphemers, but they are the real blasphemers when they attribute to\ntheir God such supreme injustice and cruelty. What should we think of\na legislator who proposed that the descendants of all thieves should be\nimprisoned, and the descendants of all murderers hung? We should think\nthat he was bad or mad. Yet this is precisely analogous to the conduct\nascribed to God, who should be infinitely wiser than the wisest man and\ninfinitely better than the best.\n\nThe crime of our first parents was indeed pregnant with the direst\nconsequences. It not only induced the seeds of original sin, but it also\nbrought death into the world. Milton sings--\n\n     \"Of man's first disobedience,\n     And the fruit Of that forbidden tree,\n     Whose mortal taste\n     _Brought death into the world_.\"\n\nAnd Saint Paul (Romans v., 12) writes \"As by one man sin came into the\nworld, and death by sin.\"\n\nNow this theory implies that before the Fall the inhabited portion\nof the world was the scene of perfect peace. Birds lived on seeds and\neschewed worms, and the fierce carniverous animals grazed like oxen. The\nlion laid down with the lamb. \"Waal,\" said the Yankee, \"I don't doubt\nthat, but I rayther guess the lamb was _inside_.\" The fact is that\nmost of the carnivorous animals could not live on a vegetable drat;\nand therefore they must either have subsisted on flesh before the Fall,\nwhich of course involves _death_, or their natures must have undergone\na radical change. The first supposition contradicts scripture, and the\nsecond contradicts science.\n\nGeology shows us that in the very earliest times living creatures died\nfrom the same causes which kill them now. Many were overwhelmed by\nfloods and volcanoes, or engulphed by earthquakes; many died of old age\nor disease, for their bones are found distorted or carious, and their\nlimbs twisted with pain; while the greater number were devoured,\naccording to the general law of the struggle for existence. Death ruled\nuniversally before the human race made its appearance on the earth, and\nhas absolutely nothing to do with Eve and her apple.\n\nAdam and Eve were warned by God that in the day they ate of the fruit of\nthe Tree of Knowledge they should surely die. The serpent declared this\nto be rank nonsense, and the event proved his veracity. What age Eve\nattained to the Holy Bible saith not, for it never considers women of\nsufficient importance to have their longevities chronicled. But Adam\nlived to the remarkably good old age of nine hundred and thirty years.\nLike our Charles the Second he took \"an unconscionable time a-dying.\"\nOne of his descendants, the famous Methusaleh, lived thirty-nine years\nlonger; while the more famous Melchizedek is not even dead yet, if any\ncredence is to be placed in the words of holy Saint Paul.\n\nBut all these are mere lambs, infants, or chicken, in comparison with\nthe primeval patriarchs of India. Buckle tells us that, according to the\nHindoos, common men in ancient times lived to the age of 80,000 years,\nsome dying a little sooner and some a little later. Two of their kings,\nYudhishther and Alarka, reigned respectively 27,000 and 66,000 years.\nBoth these were cut off in their prime; for some of the early poets\nlived to be about half a million; while one king, the most virtuous as\nwell as the most remarkable of all, was two million years old when he\nbegan to reign, and after reigning 6,800,000 years, he resigned his\nempire and lingered on for 100,000 years more. Adam is not in the hunt\nwith that tough old fellow. On the principle that it is as well to be\nhung for a sheep as a lamb, faithful Christians should swallow him as\nwell as Adam. When the throat of their credulity is once distended\nthey may as well take in everything that comes. What followed the Curse\nclearly shows that man was not originally created immortal. Adam and Eve\nwere expelled from the Garden of Eden expressly in order that they might\nnot become so. God \"drove them forth\" lest they should \"take also of the\ntree of life, and eat, and live for ever.\" Many orthodox writers, who\nhave to maintain the doctrine of our natural immortality, preserve a\ndiscreet silence on this text. Our great Milton, who has so largely\ndetermined the Protestant theology of England, goes right in the face of\nScripture when he makes God say of man,\n\n     \"I at first with two fair gifts\n     Created him endowed, with happiness\n     And _immortality_.\"\n\nThe fact is, the Book of Genesis never once alludes to any such thing,\nnor does it represent man as endowed with any other soul than that\n\"breath of life\" given to all animals. It is also certain that the\n_ancient_ Jews were entirely ignorant of the doctrine of a life beyond\nthe grave. The highest promise that Moses is said to have made in the\nDecalogue was that their \"days should be long in the land.\" The Jews\nwere a business people, and they wanted all promises fulfilled on this\nside of death.\n\nNor is there any real _Fall_ implied in this story. God himself says\nthat \"the man,\" having eaten of the forbidden fruit, \"is become as one\nof us.\" That could scarcely be a fall which brought him nearer to God.\nBishop South, indeed, in a very eloquent passage of his sermon on \"Man\nCreated in God's Image,\" celebrates the inconceivable perfection of\nthe first man, and concludes by saying that \"An Aristotle was but the\nrubbish of an Adam, and Athens but the rudiments of Paradise.\" But a\ncandid perusal of Genesis obliges us to dissent from this view, Adam and\nEve were a very childish pair. Whatever intellect they possessed\nthey carefully concealed. Not a scintillation of it has reached us.\nShakespeare and Newton are an infinite improvement on Adam and Eve. One\nof the Gnostic sects, who played such havoc with the early Christian\nChurch, utterly rejected the idea of a Fall. \"The Ophites,\" says Didron,\n\"considered the God of the Jews not only to be a most wicked but an\nunintelligent being.... According to their account, Jalda-baoth,\nthe wicked demi-god adored by the Jews under the name of Jehovah, was\njealous of man, and wished to prevent the progress of knowledge; but the\nserpent, the agent of superior wisdom, came to teach man what course he\nought to pursue, and by what means he might regain the knowledge of good\nand evil. The Ophites consequently adored the serpent, and cursed the\ntrue God Jehovah.\"\n\nBefore expelling Adam and Eve from Eden, the Lord took pity on their\nnakedness, and apparently seeing that their skill in needle-work did not\ngo beyond aprons, he \"made coats of skins, and clothed them.\" Jehovah\nwas thus the first tailor, and the prototype of that imperishable class\nof workmen, of whom it was said that it takes nine of them to make a\nman. He was also the first butcher and the first tanner, for he must\nhave slain the animals and dressed their skins.\n\nLest they should return he \"placed at the east of the Garden of Eden\n_Cherubims_, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way\nof the tree of life.\" As this guard seems never to have been relieved,\nprofane wits have speculated whether the Flood drowned them, and\nquenched the flaming sword with a great hiss. Ezekiel describes the\nCherubims with characteristic magnificence. These creatures with wings\nand wheels were \"full of eyes round about.\" And \"everyone had low faces:\nthe first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was the\nface of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face\nof an eagle.\" What monsters! No wonder they effectually frightened poor\nAdam and Eve from attempting a re-entrance into the Garden.\n\nPerhaps the reader would like to know what became of the Tree of\nKnowledge. One legend of the Middle Ages relates that Eve along with\nthe forbidden fruit broke off a branch which she carried with her from\nParadise. Planted outside by her hand, it grew to a great tree, under\nwhich Abel was killed; at a later time it was used in building the most\nholy place of Solomon's temple; and finally it yielded the beams out of\nwhich the cross was made! Another legend says that, after the Fall,\nGod rooted out the Tree of Knowledge, and flung it over the wall of\nParadise. A thousand years after it was found by Abraham, none the worse\nfor its long absence from the soil. He planted it in his garden, and\nwhile doing so he was informed by a voice from heaven that this was the\ntree on whose wood the Redeemer should be crucified.\n\nSpace does not allow us to dwell at length on the Paradise Myths of\nother ancient peoples, which singularly resembled that of the Jews.\nFormerly it was alleged that these were all corruptions of the Genesaic\nstory. But it is now known that most of them date long anterior to the\nvery existence of the Jewish people. As Kalisch says, \"they belonged to\nthe common traditionary lore of the Asiatic nations.\" The Bible story of\nParadise is derived almost entirely from the Persian myth. It was after\ncontact with the reformed religion of Zoroaster, during their captivity,\nthat the remnant of the Jews who returned to Palestine collated their\nancient literature, and revised it in accordance with their new ideas.\nThe story of Eve and her Apple is, as every scholar knows, an oriental\nmyth slightly altered by the Jewish scribes to suit the national taste,\nand has absolutely no claims on our credence. And if this be so, the\ndoctrine of the Fall collapses, and down comes the whole Christian\nstructure which is erected upon it.\n\n\n\n\nTHE BIBLE DEVIL.\n\nBIBLE ROMANCES.--4.\n\nBy G. W. FOOTE.\n\n\nThe Christian Godhead is usually spoken and written of as a Trinity,\nwhereas it is in fact a Quaternion, consisting of God the Father, God\nthe Son, God the Holy Ghost, and God the Devil. The Roman Catholics add\nyet another, Goddess the Virgin Mary. God the Devil, whom this _Romance_\ntreats of so far as his history is contained in the Bible, is popularly\nsupposed to be inferior to the other persons of the Godhead. In reality,\nhowever, he is vastly their superior both in wisdom and in power. For,\nwhereas they made the world, he has appropriated it almost entirely to\nhimself; and, whereas they who created all its inhabitants, have only\nbeen able to lay down a very narrow-gauge railway to the Kingdom of\nHeaven, he has contrived to lay down an exceedingly broad-gauge railway\nto the Kingdom of Hell. Few passengers travel by their route, and\nits terminus on this side is miserably small; but his route is almost\nuniversally patronised, its terminus is magnificent, and there is an\nextraordinary rush for tickets.\n\nAccording to the Christian scheme, the Devil tempted Adam and Eve from\ntheir allegiance to God in the form of a serpent. He played the devil\nwith Eve, she played the devil with Adam, and together they have played\nthe Devil with the whole human race ever since.\n\nBut let any unbiassed person read the Genesaic story of the Fall, and he\nwill certainly discover no reference to the Devil A serpent is spoken\nof as \"more subtle than any beast of the field;\" it is throughout\nrepresented simply as a serpent; and nowhere is there the faintest\nindication of its possessing any supernatural endowments.\n\nThe Story of the Fall contains clear relics of that Tree and Serpent\nworship which in ancient times prevailed so extensively over the East.\nThe serpent was formerly regarded as the symbol of a beneficent God. In\nHindustan, says Maurice, \"the veneration of the serpent is evident\nin every page of their mythologic history, in which every fabulous\npersonage of note is represented as grasping or as environed with a\nserpent.\" According to Lajard, the word which signifies \"life\" in the\ngreater part of the Semitic languages signifies also \"a serpent\" And\nJacob Bryant says that the word \"Ab,\" which in Hebrew means Father, has\nalso the same meaning as the Egyptian \"Ob,\" or \"Aub,\" and signifies \"a\nserpent,\" thus etymologically uniting the two ideas. The Tree and\nthe Serpent were frequently associated, although they were sometimes\nworshipped apart. The Aryan races of the Western world mostly worshipped\nthe Tree alone. The Scandinavians had their great ash \"Yggdrasill,\"\nwhose triple root reaches to the depths of the universe, while its\nmajestic stem overtops the heavens and its branches fill the world. The\nGrecian oracles were delivered from the oak of Dodona, and the priests\nset forth their decrees on its leaves. Nutpi or Neith, the goddess\nof divine life, was by the Egyptians represented as seated among the\nbranches of the Tree of Life, in the paradise of Osiris. The \"Hom,\" the\nsacred tree of the Persians, is spoken of in the Zendavesta as the \"Word\nof Life,\" and, when consecrated, was partaken of as a sacrament. An oak\nwas the sacred tree of the ancient Druids of Britain. We inherit their\ncustom of gathering the sacred mistletoe at Yule-tide, while in our\nChristmas Tree we have a remnant of the old Norse tree-worship. During\nthe Middle Ages the worship of trees was forbidden in France by the\necclesiastical councils, and in England by the laws of Canute. A learned\nantiquary remarks that \"the English maypole decked with colored rags and\ntinsel, and the merry morice-dancers (the gaily decorated May sweeps)\nwith the mysterious and now almost defunct personage, Jack-in-the-green,\nare all but worn-out remnants of the adoration of gods in trees that\nonce were sacred in England.\"\n\nNow the serpent and the tree were originally both symbolic of the\ngenerative powers of nature, and they were interchangeable. Sometimes\none was employed, sometimes the other, and sometimes both. But in\nthat great religious reformation which took place in the faiths of the\nancient world about 600 years before the time of Christ, the serpent\nwas degraded, and made to stand as a symbol of Ahriman, the god of evil,\nwho, in the Persic religion, waged incessant war against Ormuzd, the god\nof beneficence. The Persian myth of the Fall is thus rendered from the\nZendavesta by Kalisch:--\n\n\"The first couple, the parents of the human race, Meshia and Meshiane,\nlived originally in purity and innocence. Perpetual happiness was\npromised them by Ormuzd, the creator of every good gift, if they\npersevered in their virtue. But an evil demon (Dev) was sent to them\nby Ahriman, the representative of everything noxious and sinful. He\nappeared unexpectedly in the form of a serpent, and gave them the fruit\nof a wonderful tree, Hom, which imparted immortality and had the power\nof restoring the dead to life. Thus evil inclinations entered their\nhearts; all their moral excellence was destroyed. Ahriman himself\nappeared wider the form of the same reptile, and completed the work of\nseduction. They acknowledged him instead of Ormuzd as the creator of\neverything good; and the consequence was they forfeited for ever the\neternal happiness for which they were destined.\"\n\nEvery reader will at once perceive how similar this is to the Hebrew\nstory of the Fall. The similarity is intelligible when we remember that\nall the literature of the ancient Jews was put into its present form by\nthe learned scribes who returned with the remnant of the people from the\nBabylonish captivity, and who were full of the ideas that obtained in\nthe Persian religion as reformed by the traditional Zoroaster.\n\nAs we have said, the Hebrew story of the Fall contains clear relics of\nTree and Serpent worship. There is also abundant proof that during the\nlong ages in which the Jews oscillated between polytheism and monotheism\nthis worship largely prevailed. Even up to the reign of Hezekiah, as we\nfind in the Second Book of Kings, the serpent was worshipped in groves,\nto the great anger of the king, who cast out the idolatry from among his\npeople.\n\nHaving explained the subject thus, let us now assume with orthodox\nChristians that the serpent in Eden was animated by the Devil, or was\nindeed the Devil himself incarnate.\n\nWe have already observed that the Devil excels his three rivals in\nwisdom and in power. While they were toiling so strenuously to create\nthe world and all that therein is, he quietly stood or sat by as a\nspectator. \"All right,\" he might have murmured, \"work away as hard as\nyou please. You've more strength than sense. My turn will soon come.\nWhen the job is finished we shall see to whom all this belongs.\" When\nthe work was completed and they had pronounced all things good, in\nstepped the Devil, and in the twinkling of an eye rendered imperfect\nall that they had so labored to create perfect;'turning everything\ntopsy-turvey, seducing the first pair of human beings, sowing the seeds\nof original sin, and at one stroke securing the wholesale damnation\nof our race. What were they about, to let him do all this with such\nconsummate ease? Surely they must have slept like logs, and thus left\nthe whole game in his hands. He made himself the \"prince of this\nworld,\" although they created it; and if those may laugh who win, he was\nentitled to roar out his mirth to the shaking of the spheres.\n\nBesides being the prince of this world and of the powers of darkness,\nthe Devil is described as the father of lies. This, however, is a gross\nlibel on his character. Throughout the contest with his rivals he played\nwith perfect fairness. And from Genesis to Revelation there can be\nadduced no single instance in which he departs from the strict line of\ntruth. On one occasion when Jehovah desired a lying spirit to go forth\nand prophesy falsely to his people, he found one ready to his hand in\nheaven and had no need to trouble Satan for a messenger. The Lord God\nhad told Adam, \"Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thow shalt\nnot eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thow shalt surely\ndie.\" Nay, said the Devil, when he began business \"ye shall not surely\ndie; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes\nshall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.\" Every\nword of his speech was true. Instead of dying \"in the day\" that he ate\nof the fruit Adam lived to the fine old age of nine hundred and thirty\nyears.\n\nAnd after the \"fall\" the Lord God said, \"Behold, the man is become as\none of us, to know good and evil.\" The Devil's truthfulness is thus\namply vindicated.\n\nSatan's visit to Eve was paid in the form of a serpent. She manifested\nno astonishment at being accosted by such a creature. It may be that the\nwhole menagerie of Eden spoke in the human tongue, and that Balaam's\nass was only what the biologists would call \"a case of reversion\" to\nthe primitive type. Josephus and most of the Fathers conceived of the\nserpent as having had originally a human voice and legs; so that if he\ncould not have walked about with Eve arm in arm, he might at least have\naccompanied her in a dance. Milton, however, discredits the legs, and\nrepresents the serpent thus:\n\n     \"Not with indented wave,\n     Prone on the ground, as since, but on his rear,\n     Circular base of rising folds, that towered,\n     Fold above fold, a surging maze, his head\n     Crested aloft, and carbuncle his eyes;\n     With burnish'd neck of verdant gold, erect\n     Amidst his circling spires, that on the grass\n     Floated redundant.\"\n\nVery splendid! But the doctors differ, and who shall decide? What\nfollowed the eating of the forbidden fruit we have dealt with in \"Eve\nand the Apple.\" We shall therefore at once come to the curse pronounced\nupon the serpent \"And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou\nhast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast\nof the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all\nthe days of thy life: and I will put enmity between thee and the woman,\nand between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou\nshalt bruise his heel.\"\n\nThe final portion of this curse is flagrantly mythological Among the\nHindoos, Krishna also, as the incarnation of Vishnu, is represented\nnow as treading on the bruised head of a conquered serpent, and now\nas entwined by it, and stung in the heel. In Egyptian pictures and\nsculptures, likewise, the serpent is seen pierced through the head by\nthe spear of the goddess Isis. The \"enmity\" between mankind and the\nserpent is, however, not universal Amongst the Zulus the snake is held\nin great veneration, as their dead ancestors are supposed to reappear in\nthat form; and in ancient times, as we have already observed, serpents\nwere actually worshipped.\n\nThe middle portion of the curse has not yet been fulfilled. The serpent\nlives on more nutritious food than dust. In the Zoological Gardens the\ninmates of the serpent-house enjoy a more solid diet The fact is, we\nhave here an oriental superstition. Kalisch points out that \"the great\nscantiness of food? on which the serpent can subsist, gave rise to the\nbelief, entertained by many Eastern nations, that they eat dust.\" This\nbelief is referred to in Micah vii, 17, Isaiah lxv., 25, and elsewhere\nin the Bible. Among the Indians the serpent is believed to live on wind.\n\nThat the serpent \"goes\" upon its \"belly\" is, of course, a fact. Before\nthe curse it must have moved about in some other way. Milton's poetical\nsolution of the difficulty we have already given. During the Middle Ages\nthose seraphic doctors of theology, who gravely argued how many angels\ncould dance on the point of a needle, speculated also on the serpent's\nmethod of locomotion before the \"fall.\" Some thought the animal had\nlegs, some that it undulated gracefully on its back, and others that it\nhopped about on its tail. The ever bold Delitzsch decides that \"its\nmode of motion and its form were changed,\" but closes the controversy\nby adding, \"of the original condition of the serpent it is, certainly,\nimpossible to frame to ourselves a conjecture.\" All this is mere\nmoonshine. Geology, as Colenso remarks, shows us that the serpent was\nthe same kind of creature as it is now, in the ages long before man\nexisted on the earth.\n\nWhy the serpent was cursed at all is a question which no Christian can\nanswer. The poor animal was seized, mastered, occupied, and employed by\nthe Devil, and was therefore absolutely irresponsible for what occurred.\nIt had committed no offence, and consequently the curse upon it,\naccording to Christian doctrine, was a most brutal and wanton outrage.\n\nHaving done such a splendid stroke of business in Eden, the Devil\nretired, quite satisfied that the direction he had given to the affairs\nof this world was so strong and certain as to obviate the necessity of\nhis personal supervision. Fifteen centuries later the human race had\ngrown so corrupt that God (that is, the three persons in one) resolved\nto drown them all; preserving, however, eight live specimens to repeople\nthe world. How the Devil must have laughed again! He knew that Noah\nand his family possessed the seeds of original sin, which they would\nassuredly transmit to their children, and thus prolong the corruption\nthrough all time. Short-sighted as ever, Jehovah refrained from\ncompleting the devastation, after which he might have started afresh. So\nsure was the Devil's grip on God's creation that, a few centuries after\nthe Flood, there were not found ten righteous men in the whole city of\nSodom, and no doubt other cities were almost as bad.\n\nAccording to the Bible, the Devil's long spell of rest was broken in\nthe reign of King David, the man after God's own heart, but a very great\nscoundrel nevertheless. The Second Book of Samuel (xxiv., 1) tells us\nthat \"Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he\nmoved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.\" Now the\nFirst Book of Chronicles (xxi, 1) in relating the same incident says,\n\"And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel\"\nWho shall reconcile this discrepancy? Was it God, was it Satan, or was\nit both? Imagine David with the celestial and infernal powers whispering\nthe same counsel into either ear! A Scotch minister once told us that\nthis difficulty was only apparent. The Devil, said he, exercises only\na delegated power, and acts only by the express or tacit permission of\nGod; so that it matters not which is said to have provoked David. Yes,\nbut what of the consequences? Because the king, despite all protests,\ntook a census of his people, the Lord sent a destroying angel, who slew\nby pestilence seventy thousand of them. Where, in the whole history of\nreligion, shall we find a viler sample of divine injustice?\n\nBesides, if the Devil acts in all cases only by God's permission, the\nlatter is responsible for all the former's wrongdoing. The principal,\nand not the agent, must bear the guilt. And this suggests a curious\nproblem. Readers of \"Robinson Crusoe\" will remember that when Man Friday\nwas undergoing a course of theological instruction, he puzzled\nhis master by asking why God did not convert the Devil. To his\nunsophisticated mind it was plain that the conversion of the Devil would\nannihilate sin. Robinson Crusoe changed the subject to avoid looking\nfoolish, but Man Friday's question remains in full force. Why does not\nGod convert the Devil? The great Thomas Aquinas is reported to have\nprayed for the Devil's conversion through a whole long night. Robert\nBurns concludes his \"Address to the Deil\" with a wish that he \"wad tak\na thought an' men'.\" And Sterne, in one of his wonderful strokes of\npathos, makes Corporal Trim say of the Devil, \"He is damned already,\nyour honor;\" whereupon, \"I am sorry for it,\" quoth Uncle Toby. Why, oh\nwhy, we repeat, does not God convert the Devil, and thus put a stop for\never to the damnation of mankind? Why do not the clergy pray without\ncease for that one object? Because they dare not. The Devil is their\nbest friend. Abolish him, and disestablish hell, and their occupation\nwould be gone. They must stick to their dear Devil, as their most\nprecious possession, their stock-in-trade, their talisman of power,\nwithout whom they were worse than nothing.\n\nThe Devil's adventures in the Book of Job are very amusing. One day\nthere was a drawing-room or _lev\u00e9e_ held in heaven. The sons of God\nattended, and Satan came also among them. He seems to have so closely\nresembled the rest of the company that only God detected the difference.\nThis is not surprising, for the world has seen some very godly sons of\nGod, so very much like the Devil, that if he met one of them in a dark\nlane by night, he might almost suspect it to be his own ghost. God, who\nknows everything, as usual asked a number of questions. Where had Satan\nbeen, and what had he been doing? Satan replied, like a gentleman of\nindependent means, that he had been going to and fro in the earth, and\nwalking up and down in it. \"Well,\" said the Lord, \"have you observed my\nservant Job? What a good man! perfect and upright I'm proud of him.\"\nOh yes, Satan had observed him. He keeps a sharp eye on all men. As old\nBishop Latimer said, whatever parson is out of his parish the Devil\nis always in his. \"Doth Job fear God for nought?\" said Satan. \"He is\nwealthy, prosperous, happy, and respected; you fence him about from\nevil; but just let trouble come upon him, and he will curse thee to thy\nface.\" This was a new view of the subject; the Lord had never seen it\nin this light before. So he determined to make an experiment. With God's\nsanction Satan went forth to afflict Job. He despoiled his substance,\nslaughtered his children, covered him with sore boils from head to foot,\nand then set on his wife to \"nag\" him. But Job triumphed; he did not\ncurse God, and thus Satan was foiled. Subsequently Job became richer\nthan ever and more renowned, while a fresh family grew up around his\nknees. \"So,\" say the Christians, \"all's well that ends well!\" Not so,\nhowever; for there remains uneffaced the murder of Job's children, who\nwere hurriedly despatched out of the world in the very midst of their\nfestivity. When the celestial and infernal powers play at conundrums, it\nis a great pity that they do not solve them up above or down below,\nand leave the poor denizens of this world free from the havoc of their\ncontention.\n\nIn the New Testament, as in the Old, the Devil appears early on the\nscene. After his baptism in Jordan, Jesus was \"led up of the spirit in\nthe wilderness to be tempted of the Devil.\" When he had fasted forty\ndays and nights he \"was afterward hungered.\" Doctor Tanner overlooked\nthis. The hunger of Jesus only began on the forty-first day. The Devil\nrequests Jesus to change the stones into bread, but he declines to do\nso. Then he sets him \"on a pinnacle of the temple\" in Jerusalem, and\ndesires him to throw himself down. Jesus must have been exceedingly\n_sharp set_ in that position. Meanwhile, where was the Devil posted?\nHe could scarcely have craned his neck up so as to hold a confabulation\nwith Jesus from the streets, and we must therefore suppose that he was\nsharp set on another pinnacle. A pretty sight they must have been for\nthe Jews down below! That temptation failing, the Devil takes Jesus \"up\ninto an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him _all_ the kingdoms of\nthe world, and the glory of them.\" This is remarkably like seeing\nround a corner, for however high we go we cannot possibly see the whole\nsurface of a globe at once. \"All these things,\" says Satan, \"will I give\nthee if thou wilt fall down and worship me.\" What a generous Devil! They\nalready belonged to Jesus, for doth not Scripture say the earth is the\nLord's and the fulness thereof?--a text which should now read \"the\nearth is the landlords' and the emptiness thereof.\" This temptation also\nfails, and the Devil retires in disgust.\n\nWhat a pretty farce! Our burlesques and pantomimes are nothing to it.\nSatan knew Jesus, and Jesus knew Satan. Jesus knew that Satan would\ntempt him, and Satan knew that Jesus knew it. Jesus knew that Satan\ncould not succeed, and Satan knew so too. Yet they kept the farce up\nnight and day, for no one knows how long; and our great Milton in his\n\"Paradise Regained\" represents this precious pair arguing all day long,\nSatan retiring after sunset, and Jesus lying down hungry, cold and wet,\nand rising in the morning with damp clothes to renew the discussion.\n\nSoon after Jesus went into the country of the Gergesenes, where he met\ntwo fierce men possessed with devils whom he determined to exorcise, The\ndevils (for _the_ Devil had grown numerous by then), not liking to be\nturned adrift on the world, without home or shelter, besought Jesus\nto let them enter the bodies of an herd of swine feeding by. This he\ngraciously permitted. The devils left the men and entered the swine;\nwhereupon the poor pigs, experiencing a novel sensation, never having\nhad devils inside them before, \"ran violently down a steep place into\nthe sea, and perished in the waters.\" Whether the devils were drowned\nwith the pigs this veracious history saith not. But the pigs themselves\nwere not paid for. Jesus wrought the miracle at other people's expense.\nAnd the inhabitants of that part took precisely this view of the case.\nFor \"the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they\nbesought him that he would depart out of their coasts.\" No doubt they\nreflected that if he remained working miracles of that kind, at the end\nof a week not a single pig would be left alive in the district. Entering\nin Genesis, the Devil appropriately makes his exit in Revelation. The\ntwelfth chapter of that holy nightmare describes him as \"a great red\ndragon, having seven heads, and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his\nheads; and his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did\ncast them to the earth.\" What a tail! The writer's ideas of size were\nvery chaotic. Bringing a third part of the stars of heaven to this\nearth, is much like trying to lodge a few thousand cannon-balls on the\nsurface of a bullet.\n\nFinally the Devil is to be \"bound for a thousand years\" in hell. Let us\nhope the chain will be strong; for if it should break, the pit has no\nbottom, and the Devil would go right through, coming out on the other\nside to renew his old tricks.\n\nSuch is the Romance of the Bible Devil. Was ever a more ludicrous story\npalmed off on a credulous world? The very clergy are growing ashamed\nof it. But there it is, inextricably interwoven with the rest of the\n\"sacred\" narrative, so that no skill can remove it without destroying\nthe whole fabric. The Devil has been the Church's best friend, but he\nis doomed, and as their fraternal bond cannot be broken, he will drag it\ndown to irretrievable perdition.\n\n\n\n\nTHE TEN PLAGUES;\n\nOr, HOW MOSES HARRIED EGYPT.\n\nBIBLE ROMANCES.--5.\n\n\nBy G. W. FOOTE.\n\n\nIf a man who had never read the Bible before wished to amuse himself\nduring a spare hour among its pages, we should recommend him to try the\nfirst fourteen chapters of Exodus. A more entertaining narrative was\nnever penned. Even the fascinating Arabian Nights affords nothing\nbetter, provided we read it with the eyes of common sense, and without\nthat prejudice which so often blinds us to the absurdities of \"God's\nWord.\" At the end of the fourteenth chapter aforesaid, let the book be\nclosed, and then let the reader ask himself whether he ever met with a\nmore comical story. We have no doubt as to his answer; and we feel\nassured that he will agree with the poet Cowper in thinking that God\n_does_ \"move in a mysterious way his wonders to perform.\" Two hundred\nand fifteen years after the arrival of Israel in Egypt, God's chosen\npeople had fallen into slavery. Yet they were exceedingly prolific, so\nthat \"the land was filled with them.\" Afraid of their growing numbers,\nPharaoh \"spake to the Hebrew midwives\" and told them to kill all their\nmale children at birth and leave only the daughters alive. This\ninjunction the midwives very, properly disobeyed, excusing themselves on\nthe ground that \"the Hebrew women were lively and were delivered ere the\nmidwives came in unto them.\" Had they obeyed Pharaoh, the Jewish race\nwould have been extinguished, and Judaism and Christianity been never\nheard of.\n\nBut the comical fact as to these midwives is that there were only two\nof them, Shiphrah and Puah. What a busy pair they must have been! What\npatterns of ubiquitous industry! When the Jews quitted Egypt soon after\nthey mustered six hundred thousand men, besides women and children. Now,\nsupposing all these were collected together in one city, its size would\nequal that of London. How could two midwives possibly attend to all\nthe confinements among such a population? And how much more difficult\nwould their task be if the population were scattered over a wide area,\nas was undoubtedly the case with the Jews! Words fail us to praise\nthe miraculous activity of these two ladies. Like the peace of God, it\npasses all understanding.\n\nOne of the male children born under the iron rule of Pharaoh was Moses,\nthe son of Amram and Jochebed. The incidents of his eventful life will\nbe fully recorded in our series of \"Bible Heroes.\" Suffice it here to\nsay that he was adopted and brought up by Pharaoh's daughter; that he\nbecame skilled in all the learning of the Egyptians; that he privily\nslew an Egyptian who-had maltreated a Hebrew, and was obliged therefore\nto flee to the land of Midian, where he married Zipporah, a daughter of\nJethro the priest. At this time Moses was getting on to his eightieth\nyear. Now-a-days a man of that age sees only the grave before him, and\nhas pretty nearly closed his account with the world. But in those days\nit was different. At the age of eighty Moses was just beginning his\ncareer. He was indeed a very astonishing old boy.\n\nOne day Moses was keeping his father-in-law's flock near Mount Horeb,\nwhen lo! a strange vision greeted his eyes. The \"angel of the Lord\nappeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush,\" which\nburned without consuming. By \"angel\" we are to understand a vision or\nappearance only, for the being within the bush was God Almighty himself;\nand throughout the rest of the narrative the word \"angel\" is entirely\ndropped, only Lord or God being used. Moses approached this wonderful\nsight; but the Lord called out to him, \"Draw not nigh hither: put off\nthy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy\nground.\" Thereupon Moses hid his face \"for he was afraid to look upon\nGod.\" Could anything be more ludicrous! Fancy God, the infinite spirit\nof the universe, secreting himself in a bush and setting it on fire,\njust to make a little display for the benefit of Moses! Our wonder,\nhowever, is presently lessened; for this God turns out to be only\nJehovah \"the Lord God of the Hebrews,\" a mere local deity, who cared\nonly for his own people, and was quite ready to slaughter any number of\nthe inhabitants of adjacent countries, besides being bitterly jealous\nof their gods. The utmost claimed for him is that he is the biggest God\nextant, and quite capable of thrashing all the other gods with one\nhand tied behind his back. He had heard the cries of his people and had\ndetermined to rescue them from bondage. He had also resolved to give\nPharaoh and the Egyptians a taste of his quality, so that they might be\nforced to-admit his superiority to their gods. \"I will let them know,\"\nsaid he to Moses, \"who I am, and you shall be my agent. We'll confound\ntheir impudence before we've done with them. But don't let us be in a\nhurry, for the little drama I have devised requires a good deal of time.\nYou go to Egypt and ask Pharaoh to let my people go. But don't suppose\nhe will consent. That wouldn't suit my plans at all. I have decided to\nset you two playing at the little game of 'pull Moses, pull Pharaoh,'\nand I shall harden his heart against your demands so that there may be\na fierce tussle. But don't be afraid. I am on your side, and just at the\nend of the game I'll join in and pull Pharaoh clean over. And mind you\ntell him all along that it is my power and not yours which works all\nthe wonders I mean you to perform, for you are only my instrument, and\nI want all the glory myself. Play fair, Moses, play fair!\" Moses was\nnot unwilling to engage in this enterprise, but like a prudent Jew he\nrequired certain assurances of success. He therefore first raised an\nobjection as to his own insignificance--\"Who am I, that I should go unto\nPharaoh?\" To which God replied, \"Certainly I will be with thee; and\nthis shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast\nbrought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this\nmountain.\" Moses, however, required a much less remote token than this;\nso he again objected that nobody would believe him. Thereupon the Lord\nbade him cast his rod on the ground, and lo! it became a serpent Moses\nvery naturally fled before it, till the Lord told him not to run away\nbut to take it by the tail. He did so, and it became again a rod in his\nhand. Then the Lord bade him put his hand in his bosom, and on taking it\nout he found it was \"leprous as snow.\" Again he put it in his bosom, and\nwhen he plucked it out it was once more sound and well. \"There,\" said\nthe Lord, \"those signs will do in Egypt. When you evince them nobody\nwill doubt you.\" Still hesitant, Moses objected that he was very slow of\nspeech. So he frankly desired the Lord to send someone else. No wonder\nthe Lord grew angry at this persistent reluctance; nevertheless he\nrestrained himself, and informed Moses that his brother Aaron, who was\na good speaker, should accompany him. The prudent prophet seems to have\nbeen at length satisfied. At any rate he made no further objection,\nbut after a little further conversation with the Lord, who was very\ntalkative, he set forth on his journey to Egypt.\n\nSingular to relate, the Lord met Moses at an inn on the road, and,\ninstead of wishing him good-speed, sought to kill him. What a strange\nGod, to be sure! Why did he want to kill his own messenger? And why, if\nhe wanted to kill him, did he not succeed in doing it? Truly the ways\nof God are past finding out. The only reason discoverable for this queer\nconduct is that Moses' boy was uncircumcised. Zipporah, his wife, took a\nsharp stone and performed the rite of circumcision herself, casting the\namputated morsel at the feet of the boy's father, with the remark that\nhe was \"a bloody husband.\" The Lord's anger was thereby appeased, and\nthe text naively says that he then let Moses go.\n\nPrompted by the Lord, Aaron went out into the wilderness to meet Moses,\nand they soon appeared together before \"all the elders of the children\nof Israel,\" who readily believed in their mission when they heard\nAaron's account of the Lord's conversation with Moses, and saw the\nwonderful signs. Afterwards the two brothers visited Pharaoh, but God\nhad hardened his heart; so he denied all knowledge of the Lord, and\nrefused to let Israel go. On the contrary, he commanded the taskmaskers\nto be even more rigorous with them, and, instead of giving them straw to\nmake bricks, as theretofore, to make them gather straw for themselves.\nAnd when they complained, Pharaoh replied that they were an idle lot,\nand only wanted to go out and sacrifice to the Lord in order to avoid\nwork. Whereupon they remonstrated with Moses for his interference,\nand he, in turn, remonstrated with God in very plain and disrespectful\nlanguage. \"Nonsense!\" said the Lord, \"now you shall see what I will do\nto Pharaoh.\"\n\nAgain Pharaoh was visited by the two brothers, who this time commenced\nto work the miracle. Aaron cast down his rod, and it became a serpent.\nBut the magicians of Egypt, who were present by invitation of the King,\nwere in nowise astonished. \"Oh,\" said they, \"is that all you can do?\"\nSaying which, every man of them threw down his rod, and it also became\na serpent. That was indeed an age of miracles! The magicians of Egypt\nwrought this wonder without any help from the Lord, and solely \"with\ntheir enchantments.\" Here, then, was a pretty fix! So far, neither\nside had any advantage. Presently, however, Aaron's serpent--which thus\nproved itself a truly Jewish one--created a diversion by swallowing all\nthe others up. We must suppose that it afterwards disgorged them, or\nelse that Aaron's, rod was exceedingly stout when he got it back.\n\nPharaoh's heart remained obdurate, notwithstanding this sign, and he\nstill refused to let the people go. And then the plagues commenced.\n\nThe first was a plague of blood. Aaron stretched forth his rod, and\n_all_ the waters of Egypt, the streams, the rivers, the ponds, and the\npools became blood. Even the water in vessels of stone and wood was\nensanguined. The fish all died, and the river stank; and \"there was\nblood throughout all the land of Egypt.\" This was a good start, but the\nmagicians of Egypt beat it hollow; for, after Aaron had turned _all_ the\nwater of Egypt into blood, they turned the _rest_ into blood. No wonder\nthat Pharaoh's heart remained hardened! He quietly walked into his house\nand let the subject drop.\n\nSeven days later Moses went again to Pharaoh and said, \"Thus saith\nthe Lord, let my people go.\" And Pharaoh said, \"I won't.\" \"Won't you?\"\nanswered Moses, \"we shall see.\" Forthwith Aaron stretched forth his rod\nover the streams, rivers, and ponds, and brought on the second plague\nin the shape of frogs, which swarmed all over the land. They entered the\nhouses, penetrated to the bedrooms, mounted the beds, slipped into the\nkneading-troughs, and even got into the ovens, although one would expect\nfrogs to give such hot places a very wide berth. What a squelching\nof frogs there must have been! The Egyptians could not have stood\nabsolutely still, and the land was covered with them. Still unfoiled,\nthe magicians, \"with their enchantments, followed suit, and brought\nup frogs too.\" Yet, as the land was already covered with frogs, it is\ndifficult to see how the new comers found room, unless they got on the\nbacks of the others, and went hopping about in couples. Pharaoh now\nrelented. He called for Moses, and said, \"Intreat your Lord to take away\nthese nasty frogs, and I will let the people go.\" \"That will I,\" said\nMoses, \"and you shall know that there is none like unto the Lord our\nGod.\" The next day the frogs died out of the houses, villages, and\nfields, and were gathered into heaps, so that again \"the land stank.\"\nBut when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart\nagain, \"as the Lord had said.\"\n\nThe third act of this tragi-comedy was decisive in one sense, for in\nit the magicians of Egypt were obliged to retire from the competition.\nAaron stretched forth his rod again and smote the dust of the earth, all\nof which instantly became _lice_, in man and in beast. Before this dirty\nmiracle the magicians of Egypt shrank dismayed. They made a feeble and\naltogether unsuccessful attempt to imitate Aaron's performance, and then\ndrew back, declining to continue the contest. The lice settled them.\n\"This,\" said they, \"is the finger of God.\" But Pharaoh still refused to\nknuckle under. Even against the force of this supreme wonder his heart\nwas steeled.\n\nSo the fourth plague came. A grievous swarm of flies descended on Egypt,\nso that \"the land was corrupted by reason of them. But not a single\nfly crossed over into the land of Goshe\" where the Jews dwelt. Thereupon\nPharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, and told them he was willing to\nlet their people go and sacrifice to the Lord for three days, but not\noutside Egypt. Moses reiterated his demand for a three days' journey\ninto the wilderness. Whereto Pharaoh replied that they might go, but\n\"not too far.\" Moses then undertook to banish the flies. And he was as\ngood as his word; for there was made such a clean sweep of them that\n\"not one remained.\" This precious narrative always runs to extremes.\nEgypt without a fly in it would be in a very abnormal condition. At\nordinary times the land is infested with flies; so much so, indeed, that\nlarge numbers of the people suffer from diseased eyes, in consequence\nof these insects incessantly fastening on the sores caused by the\nirritating sand which fills the air. It was absurd for this Hebrew\nstory-teller to scotch the last fly; he should have left sufficient to\nmaintain the character of the country.\n\nAgain Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and when the flies were banished\nhe refused to \"let the people go.\" So the fifth plague came. A \"very\ngrievous murrain,\" which spared the cattle of Israel, broke out on the\ncattle of Egypt, and with such virulence that they all died. Pharaoh\nfound on inquiry that there was \"not one of the cattle of the Israelites\ndead,\" yet for all that his heart was hardened, and he would not let the\npeople go.\n\nSo the sixth plague came. Aaron took \"handfuls of ashes of the furnace,\"\nwhich Moses sprinkled towards heaven, and \"it became a boil breaking\nforth with blains upon man and _upon beast_.\" Even the magicians were\nafflicted. Now the readers will bear in mind that _all_ the cattle of\nEgypt were killed by the fifth, plague. What beasts, then, were these\ntortured with boils? Were they dead carcasses, or were they live cattle\nmiraculously created in the interim? Surely this is a thing which \"no\nfellah can understand.\" From the serpent of Eden to Jonah's whale, the\nanimals of the Bible are a queer lot.\n\nPharaoh's heart remaining still hardened, God commanded Moses to make\na special appeal to him, and to get up early in the morning for that\npurpose. So Moses stood before Pharaoh and said, \"Thus saith the Lord\nGod of the Hebrews, let my people go, that they may serve me. If you\nrefuse I shall plague you and your people worse than ever, and so teach\nyou that there is none like me in all the earth. Don't puff yourself up\nwith conceit, for you were made what you are only in order that through\nyou my power might be manifested. You had better cave in at once.\" But\nPharaoh would not harken. He tacitly declared that the Lord God of the\nHebrews might go to Jericho.\n\nSo the seventh plague came. A fierce hail, accompanied by fire that ran\nalong the ground, smote all that was in the field, both man and beast.\nIt smote also _every_ herb of the field and brake _every_ tree of the\nfield. Only those were saved who \"feared the Lord\" and stayed in doors\nwith their servants and cattle. Fortunately the wheat and the rice were\nspared, as they were not grown up; or there would have been a famine in\nEgypt compared with which the seven years of scarcity in Joseph's time\nhad sunk into insignificance. Pharaoh now relented and repented. \"I have\nsinned this time,\" he said, \"the Lord is righteous, and I and my people\nare wicked.\" And Moses, seeing that the king had recognised Jehovah\nas the true cock of the theological walk, procured a cessation of the\nthunder and the hail. But lo! when Pharaoh perceived this, he hardened\nhis heart again, and \"sinned yet more.\" The obduracy of this potentate,\nunder the manipulation of God, is really becoming monotonous. So the\neighth plague came. After a day and a night of east wind, a prodigious\nswarm of locusts went up over the land of Egypt, covering the face of\nthe whole earth, and darkening the ground. They \"did eat every herb of\nthe land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had spared.\" But\nwe were told that the hail smote _every_ herb, and brake _every_ tree.\nWhat then was left for the locusts to eat? The writer of this narrative\nhad a very short memory, or else a stupendous power of belief.\n\nAgain Pharaoh confessed that he had sinned. The locusts were cleared\naway, and so effectually that \"not one remained.\" But \"the Lord hardened\nPharaoh's heart\" for the eighth time, and he refused to let the people\ngo. Whereupon Moses brought darkness over the land of Egypt, a thick\ndarkness that might be felt. This thick darkness lasted in Egypt for\nthree days, during which time the people \"saw not one another, neither\nrose any from his place.\" We presume, therefore, that they all starved\nfor that time. Poor devils! What had they done to be treated thus? All\nthe children of Israel, however, had light in their dwellings. Why then\ndid they not avail themselves of such a fine opportunity to escape? It\nwas a splendid chance, yet they let it slip. Perhaps Moses did not give\nthe word, and they were like a flock of sheep without him. Perhaps\nthey wished to stay and see the rest of the fun. For more was coming,\nalthough it was anything but fun to the poor Egyptians.\n\nTo them indeed it was an awful tragedy such as we lack words to\ndescribe. Moses commanded the Jews to take a male lamb for each\nhousehold, to kill it, and to daub its blood over the two side-posts and\non the upper door-posts of their houses. The flesh they were to eat\nin the night, roasted, with bitter herbs and unleavened bread, as the\ninauguration of the Passover. The Lord meant to pass through the land in\nthe dark, and slay all the firstborn in Egypt; and lest he should make\nsome mistakes he required the Jews' houses to be marked with blood so\nthat he might distinguish them. We should expect God to dispense with\nsuch \"aids to memory.\" What followed must be told in the language of\nScripture: \"At midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land\nof Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on the throne unto the\nfirstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn\nof cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants,\nand all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was\nnot a house where there was not one dead.\" The reader's imagination will\npicture the horror of this scene. That \"great cry in Egypt\" arose from\na people who were the first victims of God's hatred of all who stood\nin the way of his chosen \"set of leprous slaves.\" And in this case the\ntragedy was the more awful, and the more inexcusably atrocious, because\nGod deliberately planned it. He could easily have softened Pharaoh's\nheart, but he chose to harden it. He could have brought his people\nout of Egypt in peace, but he preferred that they should start amidst\nwailings of agony, and leave behind them a track of blood.\n\nYet in the tragedy there is a touch of comedy. Those beasts that were\nfirst killed by the murrian and afterwards plagued by the boil, at last\nlose their firstborn by the tenth plague. Besides, there is a touch of\nthe ludicrous in the statement that _every_ house had one dead. All the\nfirstborn of such a large population could not have been present at that\ntime. Some might have left Egypt for purposes of trade, and others would\ncertainly have been cut off before by death. The story of the tenth\nplague, like the other nine, requires to be taken with a very large\ngrain of salt.\n\nPharaoh and the Egyptians were now anxious to get rid of the Jews. So\nGod's people departed in haste. They took good care, however, not to\ngo empty-handed. They \"borrowed\" of the Egyptians, without the remotest\nintention of ever paying them back, jewels of silver, jewels of gold,\nand raiment. In fact they \"spoiled the Egyptians.\" In recent times the\nmodern Egyptians have wiped off that old score by spoiling a few Jewish\nmoneylenders, and so returned tit for tat.\n\nGod led his people past instead of through the land of the Philistines,\nlest they should be frightened by war, and wish to return to Egypt. He\ndoes not seem to have known their character. Considering the delight\nwith which they subsequently warred against their enemies, and the joy\nthey took in wholesale massacre, we are inclined to think that they\nwould have just liked to get their hands into the business of fighting\nby trying conclusions with the Philistines. Moses carried off the bones\nof Joseph, which must have been rather stale by that time. And God went\nbefore the huge host of six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women\nand children, and a mixed multitude of followers; by day in a pillar of\ncloud, to lead them the way, and by night in a pillar of fire, to give\nthem light, until at length they found themselves encamped before the\nRed Sea.\n\nIn the meanwhile God had again hardened Pharaoh's heart, for the\nexpress purpose of killing some more Egyptians and getting more honor to\nhimself. The Israelites soon heard that Pharaoh was pursuing them with\nan army, and they remembered his dreadful war chariots. They found\nthemselves literally between the devil and the deep sea. Whereupon they\nmurmured against Moses for bringing them out into the wilderness to die.\nBut he, disregarding them, stretched forth his miraculous rod over the\nsea, and lo! the waters parted, forming a wall on either side of a safe\npassage, through which the Jews travelled with dry feet. Pharaoh and\nhis host, however, attempting the same feat, were overwhelmed by\nthe down-rushing sea-ramparts, and all drowned. There remained, says\n_Exodus_, not so much as one of them.\n\nWe have heard a different account of this affair. A negro preacher once\nexplained that the Red Sea, just at that time, was \"a little bit frozen\nover,\" and the Jews, carrying only what they had borrowed \"frum the\nGyptians,\" crossed the ice safely; but when Pharaoh came with his\nthundering war-chariots, the ice broke, and \"dey all was drown'd.\" But a\nnigger in the audience objected that the Red Sea is \"in de quator,\" and\nis never frozen over. \"War did you larn dat?\" asked the preacher. \"In de\njografy,\" was the reply. \"Ah,\" was the ready retort, \"dat's war you made\nde mistake; dis was a very long time ago, and dere was no jografy and no\nquator den.\" That nigger preacher's explanation seems quite as good as\nthe one given by \"Moses.\"\n\nWe leave the Jews with their Lord God on the safe side of the Red Sea,\nwhere Moses heads the men in singing a joyful song of praise, and Miriam\nthe prophetess heads the women with timbrel and with dance. Jehovah has\nended his plaguing of the Egyptians, after more than decimating them. He\nhas covered his name with terrible splendour, and proved \"that there is\nnone like him\" to a world which is very happy to be assured of the fact.\nTwo such monsters would make earth a hell. Reader! did you ever meet\nwith a more extraordinary story than this of the Ten Plagues? and can\nyou regard the book which contains it as God's Word?\n\n\n\n\nJONAH AND THE WHALE.\n\nBIBLE ROMANCES.--6.\n\nBy G. W. FOOTE.\n\nWe have often wondered whether Shakespeare had the story of Jonah in\nhis mind when he wrote that brief dialogue between Hamlet and Polonius,\nwhich immediately precedes the famous closet-scene in the Master's\ngreatest play--\n\n  Hamlet.--Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel?\n  Polonius.--By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed.\n  Hamlet.--Methinks it is like a weasel.\n  Polonius.--It is backed like a weasel.\n  Hamlet.--Or like a whale?\n  Polonius.--Very like a whale.\n\nHaving, however, no means whereby to decide this question, we must\ncontent ourselves with broaching it, and leave the reader to form his\nown conclusion. Yet we cannot refrain from expressing our opinion that\nthe story of the strange adventures of the prophet Jonah is \"very like a\nwhale.\"\n\nIn another of Shakespeare's plays, namely \"The Tempest,\" we find a\nphrase which exactly applies to the romance of Jonah. When Trinculo\ndiscovers Caliban lying on the ground, he proceeds to investigate the\nmonster. \"What,\" quoth he, \"have we here? a man or a fish? dead or\nalive? A fish: he smells like a fish; a very ancient and fish-like\nsmell.\" Now that is a most admirable description of the Book of Jonah.\nIt has \"a very ancient and fish-like smell.\" In fact, it is about the\nfishiest of all the fishy stories ever told.\n\nSailors' \"yarns\" have become proverbial for their audacious and\ndelicious disregard of truth, and the Book of Jonah is \"briny\" from\nbeginning to end. It contains only forty-eight verses, but its brevity\nis no defect. On the contrary, that is one of its greatest charms. The\nmind takes in the whole story at once, and enjoys it undiluted; as\nit were a goblet of the fine generous wine of romance. Varying the\nexpression, the Book of Jonah may be called the perfect cameo of Bible\nfiction.\n\nWhen the Book of Jonah was written no one precisely knows, nor is it\ndiscoverable who wrote it. According to Matthew Arnold some unknown\nman of genius gave to Christendom the fourth gospel, and with sublime\nself-abnegation allowed his name to perish. A similar remark must be\nmade concerning the unknown author who gave to the world this racy story\nof Jonah and the whale. We heartily wish his name had been preserved for\nremembrance and praise.\n\nOur marginal Bibles date the Book of Jonah b.c. cir. 862. Other\nauthorities give, the more recent date of b.c. 880 as that of the events\nrecorded in it. This chronology will suggest an important reflection\nlater on.\n\nThe wonderful story of Jonah and the whale begins in this wise:--\"Now\nthe word of the Lord came unto Jonah, the son of Amittai, saying, Arise,\ngo to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness\nis come up before me.\"\n\nWho Amittai was, and whether man or woman, is a problem still unsolved;\nbut it is reasonable to suppose the name was that of Jonah's father, as\nthe ancient Jews paid no superfluous attentions to women, and generally\ntraced descent from the paternal stem alone. Amittai belonged to a place\ncalled Gathhepher, \"the village of the Cow's tail,\" or, as otherwise\ninterpreted, \"the Heifer's trough.\" Jonah's tomb is said to have been\nlong shown on a rocky hill near the town; but whether the old gentleman\nwas ever buried there no man can say. According to Mr. Bradlaugh, the\nword Jonah means a dove, and is by some derived from an Arabic root,\nsignifying to be weak or gentle. Another interpretation, by Gesenius, is\na feeble, gentle bird. This refractory prophet was singularly ill-named.\nIf his cognomen was bestowed on him by his parents, they must have been\ngreatly deceived as to his character. The proverb says that it is a wise\nson that knows his own father; and with the history of Jonah before us,\nwe may add that it is a wise father who rightly knows his own son.\n\nThe solicitude of \"the Lord God of the Hebrews\" for the welfare of the\nNinevites is to the sceptical mind an extraordinary phenomenon. It is\none of the very few cases in which he shows the slightest concern for\nany other people than the Jews. His ordinary practice was to slaughter\nthem wholesale by pestilence or the sword; and it is therefore very\nrefreshing to meet with such an instance of his merciful care. For once\nhe remembers that the rest of Adam's posterity are his children, and\npossess a claim on his attention.\n\nJonah, however, did not share this benign sentiment; and disrelishing\nthe missionary enterprise assigned him, he \"rose up to flee unto\nTarshish from the presence of the Lord.\" Jehovah does not seem to have\nbeen omnipresent then; that attribute attaches to him only since the\nbeginning of the Christian era, when he assumed universal sway. Long\nbefore the time of Jonah, another man, the first ever born in this\nworld, namely Cain, also \"went out from the presence of the Lord, and\ndwelt in the land of Nod;\" probably so called because the Lord was not\nquite awake in that locality. No one knows were Nod was situated,\nnor can the most learned archaeologists denote the actual position\nof Tarshish. These two places would be well worth study. A careful\nexamination of them would to some extent reveal what went on in those\nparts of the world to which God's presence did not extend; and we should\nbe able to compare their geological and other records with those of\nthe rest of the world. No doubt some striking differences would be\nperceptible.\n\nJonah determined to voyage by the Joppa and Tarshish line. So he went to\nthe former port and embarked in one of the Company's ships, after paying\nhis fare like a man.\n\nHaving a perfectly untroubled conscience, and no apprehension of his\ncoming troubles, Jonah no doubt felt highly elated at having done\nthe Lord so neatly. Perhaps it was this elation of spirits which\nsafe-guarded him from sea-sickness. At any rate he went \"down into the\nsides of the ship,\" and there slept the sleep of the just. So profound\nwas his slumber, that it was \"quite unbroken\" by the horrible tempest\nthat ensued. The Lord had his eye on Jonah, for the prophet had not yet\nreached the safe refuge of Tarshish; and he \"sent out a great wind into\nthe sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was\nlikely to be broken.\" The mariners \"cast forth the wares that were in\nthe ship\" to lighten her, and toiled hard to keep afloat; but their\nefforts were apparently fruitless, and nothing lay before them but the\ncertain prospect of a watery grave. The reader will be able to imagine\nthe tumult of the scene; the dash of ravening waves, the fierce howling\nof the wind, the creaking of masts and the straining of cordage, the\nrolling and pitching of the good ship and the shifting of her cargo,\nthe captain's hoarse shouts of command and the sailors' loud replies,\nalternated with frenzied appeals to their gods for help. Yet amidst all\nthe uproar Jonah still slept, as though the vessel were gaily skimming\nthe waters before a pleasant breeze.\n\nLet us pause here to interpose a question. Did the \"great wind sent\nout into the sea\" by the Lord confine its attentions to the immediate\nvicinity of Jonah's ship, or did it cause a general tempest and perhaps\nsend some other vessels to Davy Jones's locker? As no restrictions are\nmentioned, we presume that the tempest was general, and that the Lord's\nwind, like the Lord's rain referred to by Jesus, fell alike upon the\njust and the unjust. This circumstance very naturally heightens our\nprevious conception of his righteousness.\n\nThat the Lord, or some other supernatural power, caused the tempest, the\nmariners of Jonah's ship and their captain never once doubted. Living\nas they did, and as we do not, under a miraculous dispensation, they\nattributed every unusual, and especially every unpleasant, occurrence\nto the agency of a god. The idea of predicting storms, with which the\ncivilised world is now familiar, they would doubtless have regarded as\nblasphemous and absurd. It is, therefore, by no means wonderful that\nevery man on board (except Jonah, who was fast asleep) \"called unto\nhis god.\" Ignorant of what god was afflicting them, they appealed\nimpartially all round, in the hope of hitting the right one. But the\ncircle of their deities did not include the one which sent the wind; so\nthe tempest continued to prevail, despite their prayers.\n\nIn this extremity a happy thought occurred to the \"ship-master.\" It\nstruck him that the strange passenger down below might know something\nabout the tempest, and that his god might have caused it. Forthwith\nthere dawned within him a recollection of words which Jonah had uttered\non embarking. Had he not told them \"that he fled from the presence of\nthe Lord?\" \"Dear me,\" the captain probably said to himself, \"what a fool\nI was not to think of this before. That chap down below is the occasion\nof all these troubles; I'll go and hunt him up, confound him!\" Thereupon\nhe doubtless slapped his thigh, as is the wont of sailors when they\nsolve a difficulty or hit on a brilliant idea; after which he descended\n\"into the sides of the ship,\" whither Jonah had gone. There he found the\nprophet slumbering as peacefully as a weanling child, with a smile\nof satisfaction playing over his Hebrew features. We can imagine the\ncaptain's profound disgust in presence of this scene. He and his men had\nbeen toiling and praying, and, alas! pitching the cargo overboard,\nin order to save their skins; and all the while the occasion of their\ntrouble had been lying fast asleep! Preserving an outward decorum,\nhowever, he accosted Jonah in very mild terms. \"What meanest thou, O\nsleeper?\" said he, \"Arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will\nthink upon us, that we perish not.\"\n\nWhat exquisite simplicity! It reminds us of the childlike and bland\nSir Henry Drummond Wolff, when he opposed Mr. Brad-laugh's entry to the\nHouse of Commons. That honorable champion of Almighty God objected to\nMr. Bradlaugh on the ground that he acknowledged no God, and was thus\nvastly different from the other members of the House, all of whom\n\"believed in some kind of deity or other.\" You must have a god to be a\nlegislator, it seems, even if that god is, as the Americans say, only a\nlittle tin Jesus. So the captain of this tempest-tost ship desired Jonah\nto call upon his god. He made no inquiry into the character of the god,\nany more than did Sir Henry Drummond Wolff on a later occasion. It was\nenough to know that Jonah had \"some kind of deity or other.\" Any god\nwould do.\n\nNow comes the most remarkable episode in this wonderful story. The\ncaptain and the crew were aware that Jonah had \"fled from the presence\nof the Lord,\" because he had told them; they had, therefore, every\nreason to believe that Jonah's god had caused the tempest. Yet,\ncuriously enough, instead of at once proceeding on this belief, they\nsaid, everyone to his fellow, \"Come, and let us cast lots, that we may\nknow for whose cause this evil is upon us.\" This wholly superfluous\nprocedure may, perhaps, be attributed to their exceptional love of\njustice. They wished to make assurance doubly sure before they \"went\nfor\" Jonah. And with sweet simplicity they had recourse to the casting\nof lots, in which their wills would be inoperative, and the whole\nresponsibility of deciding be thrown on the gods, who alone possessed\nthe requisite information.\n\nThe lot of course fell upon Jonah. Any other result would have spoiled\nthe story. \"Then,\" continues our narrative, \"said they unto him, Tell\nus, we pray thee, for whose cause this evil is upon us? What is thine\noccupation? and whence comest thou? what is thy country? and of what\npeople art thou? And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew, and I fear the\nLord, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land. Then\nwere the men exceedingly afraid, and said unto him, Why hast thou done\nthis? For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the Lord,\nbecause he had told them. Then said they unto him, What shall we do\nunto thee, that the sea may be calm unto us? for the sea wrought and was\ntempestuous. And he said unto them, Take me up, and cast me forth into\nthe sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you: for I know that for my sake\nthis great tempest is upon you.\"\n\nWe are almost dumb with astonishment before this act of self-sacrifice\non the part of Jonah, for which his previous history left us quite\nunprepared. Who would have thought him capable of such disinterested\nconduct? His self-abnegation was assuredly heroic, and may even be\ncalled sublime. No doubt the captain and crew of the ship were as much\nastonished as we are, and their opinion of Jonah went up several hundred\nper cent. They resolved to make a last supreme effort before turning him\ninto a fish-bait. But all their gallant endeavors were discovered to\nbe futile and a mere waste of time. So the men, more in sorrow than\nin anger, finally took Jonah up and threw him overboard. They had done\ntheir best for him, and now, finding that they could do no more except\nat too great a risk, they sadly left him to do the rest for himself.\n\nImmediately, we are told, \"the sea ceased from her raging.\" Jonah\nwas oil upon the troubled waters. What an invaluable recipe does this\nfurnish us against the dangers of the deep sea! The surest method of\nallaying a storm is to throw a prophet overboard. Every ship should\ncarry a missionary in case of need. It would, indeed, be well if the law\nmade this compulsory. The cost of maintaining the missionary would\nbe more than covered by the saving effected in insurance. Here is a\nsplendid field for Christian self-sacrifice! Hundreds of gentlemen who\nare now engaged in very doubtful labor among the heathen, might engage\nin this new enterprise with the absolute certainty of a beneficent\nresult; for poor ungodly mariners would thus be spared a hasty dispatch\nfrom this world without time to repent and obtain forgiveness, and be\nallowed ample leisure to secure salvation.\n\nWhen the men saw that \"the sea ceased from her raging\" on Jonah's being\ncast into her depths, \"they feared the Lord exceedingly, and offered a\nsacrifice unto the Lord, and made vows.\" To the sceptical mind it\nwould seem that they had much more reason to \"fear\" the Lord during the\ncontinuance of the tempest than after it had subsided. It also seems\nstrange that they should have the means wherewith to offer a sacrifice.\nPerhaps they had a billy-goat on board, and made him do duty, in default\nof anything better. Or failing even a billy-goat, as the Lord God of the\nHebrews could only be propitiated by the shedding of blood, they perhaps\ncaught and immolated a stray rat. The nature of their \"vows\" is not\nrecorded, but it is not unreasonable to assume that they swore never\nagain to take on board a passenger fleeing \"from the presence of the\nLord.\"\n\nMeanwhile, what had become of poor Jonah? Most men would be effectually\nsettled if thrown overboard in a storm. But there are some people who\nwere not born to be drowned, and Jonah was one of them. He was destined\nto another fate. The Lord, it appears, \"had prepared a great fish\nto swallow up Jonah,\" and the feat was of course duly performed. Our\nnarrative does not describe the character of this \"great fish,\" but\nlight is cast on the subject by another passage of Scripture. In\nthe twelfth chapter of St. Matthew, and the fortieth verse, Jesus is\nrepresented as saying, \"For as Jonas was three days and three nights\nin the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three\nnights in the heart of the earth.\" The great fish was then a whale.\nJesus said so, and there can be no higher authority. Sharks and such\nravenous fish have an unpleasant habit of \"chawing\" their victims pretty\nconsiderably before swallowing them; so, on the whole, we prefer to\nbelieve that it was a whale. Yet the Levant is a curious place for a\nwhale to be lurking in. The creature must have been miraculously led\nthere to go through its appointed performance. It must also have been\n\"prepared,\" to use the language of the Bible, in a very remarkable way,\nfor the gullet of a whale is not large enough to allow of the passage\nof an object exceeding the size of an ordinary herring. Swallowing\nJonah must have been a tough job after the utmost preparation. With a\nfrightfully distended throat, however, the whale did its best, and by\ndint of hard striving at last got Jonah down.\n\nHaving properly taken Jonah in out of the wet, the poor whale doubtless\nsurmised that its troubles had ended. But alas they had only just begun!\nSwallowing a prophet is one thing; digesting him is another. For three\ndays and three nights the whale struggled desperately to digest\nJonah, and for three days and nights Jonah obstinately refused to _be_\ndigested. Never in the entire course of its life had it experienced such\na difficulty. During the whole of that period, too, Jonah carried on a\nkind of prayer meeting, and the strange rumbling in its belly must have\ngreatly added to the poor animal's discomfort At last it grew heartily\nsick of Jonah, and vomited him up on dry land. We have no doubt that\nit swam away into deep waters, a sadder but wiser whale; and that ever\nafterwards, instead of bolting its food, it narrowly scrutinised every\nmorsel before swallowing it, to make sure it wasn't another prophet.\nAccording to its experience, prophets were decidedly the most\nunprofitable articles of consumption.\n\nWe are of course aware that the narrative states that \"the Lord spake\nunto the fish, and it vomited Jonah upon the dry land.\" But this we\nconceive to be a mere pleasantry on the part of the unknown author. The\nidea of the Lord whispering into a whale's ear is ineffably ludicrous:\nbesides, the whale had a very natural inclination to rid itself of\nJonah, and needed no divine prompting.\n\nJonah's prayer \"unto the Lord his God out of the fish's belly\" is very\namusing. There is not a sentence in it which bears any reference to\nthe prophet's circumstances. It is a kind of Psalm, after the manner of\nthose ascribed to David. Our belief is that the author found it floating\nabout, and thinking it would do for Jonah, inserted it in his narrative,\nwithout even taking the trouble to furbish it into decent keeping with\nthe situation.\n\nThe word of the Lord came unto Jonah a second time, and presuming no\nmore to disobey, he went to Nineveh. It is to be supposed, however,\nthat he first well-lined his poor stomach, for both he and the whale had\nfasted for three days and nights, and must have been sadly in want of\nvictuals.\n\nNineveh, according to our author, was a stupendous city of \"three days'\njourney.\" This means its diameter and not its circumference, for we are\ntold that Jonah \"entered into the city a day's journey.\" If we allow\ntwenty miles as a moderate days' walk, Nineveh was sixty miles through\nfrom wall to wall, or about twenty times as large as London; and if\ndensely populated like our metropolis, it must have contained more\nthan eighty million inhabitants. This is too great a stretch even for a\nsailor's yarn. Our author did not take pains to clear his narrative of\ndiscrepancy. In his last verse he informs us that the city contained\n\"more than six score thousand persons that cannot discern between their\nright hand and their left.\" If this number is correct Nineveh was a\nlarge place, but its dimensions were very much less than those stated in\nthe Book of Jonah.\n\nJonah obeyed the Lord this time and began to preach. \"Yet forty days,\"\ncried he, \"and Nineveh shall be overthrown.\" How the prophet made\nhimself understood is an open question! Either the Lord taught him their\nlanguage, or he miraculously enabled them to understand Hebrew. Further,\nthey worshipped Baal, and Jonah preached to them in the name of his\nforeign God. According to ancient, and to a large extent modern custom,\nwe should expect them in such a case to kill the presumptuous prophet,\nor at least to shut him up as a madman. Yet they did nothing of the\nkind. On the contrary, \"the people of Nineveh believed God.\" Even the\nking was converted. He covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.\nHe also decreed that neither man nor beast in the city should eat\nor drink anything; but, said he, \"let man and beast be covered with\nsackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from\nhis evil way.\" What an enormous consumption of sackcloth there must have\nbeen! The merchants who sold it did a surprising business, and no doubt\nquotations went up immensely. We wonder, indeed, how they managed\nto supply such a sudden and universal demand. And what a sight was\npresented by the whole population of the city! Men, women, and children,\nhigh and low, rich and poor, were all arrayed in the same dingy\ngarments. Even the horses, cows, pigs and sheep, were similarly attired.\nWhat a queer figure they must have cut! And what an astonishing chorus\nof prayer ascended to heaven! According to the text, the beasts had to\n\"cry mightily\" as well as the men. Since the confusion of tongues at\nBabel, neither history nor tradition records such a frightful hubbub.\n\nTheir supplications prevailed. God \"saw their works, that they had\nturned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had\nsaid that he would do unto them; and he did it not.\" Immutable God\nchanges his mind, infallible God repents!\n\nGod spared Nineveh, but only for a brief while, for it was destroyed a\nfew years later by Arbaces, the Mede. The merciful respite was thus not\nof long continuance. Yet it \"displeased Jonah exceedingly.\" He had been\nsuspicious from the first, and he only fulfilled God's mission under\nconstraint. And now his worst suspicions were confirmed. After he had\ntold the Ninevites that their city would be overthrown in forty days,\nGod had relented, and utterly ruined Jonah's reputation as a prophet.\nSo he made himself a booth outside the city, and sat in its shadow, to\nwatch what would happen, with a deep feeling, which he plainly expressed\nto the Almighty, that now his reputation was gone he might as well die.\nThe Lord considerately \"prepared a gourd,\" which grew up over Jonah's\nhead to protect him from the heat; at which the sulky prophet was\n\"exceedingly glad,\" although it would naturally be thought that the\nbooth would afford ample protection. He, however, soon found himself\nsold; for the Lord prepared a worm to destroy the gourd, and when the\nsun arose he sent \"a vehement east wind\" which beat upon poor Jonah's\nhead, and made him so faint that he once more asked God to despatch him\nout of his misery. Whereupon the Lord said coaxingly, \"Doest thou well\nto be angry?\" And Jonah pettishly answered, \"Yes, I do.\" Then the Lord,\nwith a wonderful access of pathos, altogether foreign to his general\ncharacter, twitted Jonah with having pity for the gourd and none for the\ninhabitants of \"that great city.\" With this the story concludes. We\nare unable to say whether the poor prophet, so wretchedly sold, ever\nrecovered from his spleen, or whether it shortened his days and brought\nhim to an untimely grave.\n\nThe Book of Jonah is as true as Gospel, for Jesus endorsed it. The\nBible contains the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.\nSo without expressing any sceptical sentiments, we will end by repeating\nByron's words, \"Truth is strange--stranger than fiction.\"\n\n\n\n\nTHE WANDERING JEWS.\n\nBIBLE ROMANCES.-VII.\n\nBy G. W. FOOTE.\n\n\nThe Middle Ages had a legend of the Wandering Jew. This person was\nsupposed to have been doomed, for the crime of mocking Jesus at the\ncrucifixion, to wander over the earth until his second coming. No\none believes this now. The true Wandering Jews were those slaves whom\nJehovah rescued from Egyptian bondage, with a promise that he would lead\nthem to a land flowing with milk and honey, but whom he compelled to\nroam the deserts instead for forty years, until all of them except two\nhad perished. Of all the multitude who escaped from Egypt, only Joshua\nand Caleb entered the promised land. Even Moses had to die in sight of\nit.\n\nThese poor Wandering Jews demand our pity. They were guilty of many\ncrimes against humanity, but they scarcely deserved such treatment as\nthey received. Their God was worse than they. He was quick-tempered,\nunreasonable, cruel, revengeful, and dishonest. Few of his promises\nto them were performed. They worshipped a bankrupt deity. The land of\npromise was a Tantalus cup ever held to their lips, and ever mocking\nthem when they essayed to drink. God was their greatest enemy instead of\ntheir best friend. Their tortuous path across the wilderness was marked\nby a track of bleaching bones. All the evils which imagination can\nconceive fell on their devoted heads. Bitten by serpents, visited by\nplagues, cursed with famine and drought, swallowed by earthquake, slain\nby war, and robbed by priests, they found Jehovah a harder despot than\nPharaoh. Death was to them a happy release, and only the grave a shelter\nfrom the savagery of God.\n\nCommentators explain that the Jews who left Egypt were unfit for the\npromised land. If so, they were unfit to be the chosen people of God.\nWhy were they not allowed to remain in Egypt until they grew better, or\nwhy was not some other nation selected to inherit Canaan?\n\nAt the end of our number on \"The Ten Plagues\" we left the Jews on the\nsafe side of the Red Sea. We must now ask a few questions which we had\nno space for then.\n\nHow, in a period of two hundred and fifteen years, did the seventy males\nof Jacob's house multiply into a nation of over two millions? Experience\ndoes not warrant belief in such a rapid increase. The Jewish chroniclers\nwere fond of drawing the long bow. In the book of Judges, for\ninstance, we are told that the Gileadites, under, Jephthah, slew 42,000\nEphriamites; and that the Benjamites slew 40,000 Israelites, after which\nthe Israelites killed 43,000 Benjamites, all of these being \"men\nof valor\" that \"drew the sword.\" The book of Samuel says that the\nPhilistines had 30,000 war chariots, and that they slew 30,000 footmen\nof Israel. The second book of Chronicles says that Pekah, king of\nIsrael, slew of Judah in one day 120,000 \"sons of valor,\" and carried\naway 200,000 captives; that Abijah's force consisted of 400,000, and\nJeroboam's of 800,000, 500,000 of whom were killed! At the battle of\nWaterloo the total number of men killed on our side was 4,172. The\nstatistics of slaughter in the Bible were clearly developed from the\ninner consciousness of the Jewish scribes; and no doubt the same holds\ngood with respect to the statistics of the flight from Egypt.\n\nThis view is corroborated by a singular statement in the third chapter\nof Numbers. We are there informed that when the census was taken \"All\nthe first-born males, from a month old and upwards of those that were\nnumbered, were twenty and two thousand two hundred and three score and\nthirteen.\" Now as there were about 900,000 males altogether, it follows\nthat every Jewish mother must have had on an average _forty-two sons_,\nto say nothing of daughters! Such extraordinary fecundity is unknown to\nthe rest of the world, except in the reign of romance. The Jews bragged\na great deal about Jehovah, and they appear to have obtained some\ncompensation by bragging a great deal about themselves.\n\nHow did the Jews manage to quit Egypt in one night? There were 600,000\nmen on foot, besides women and children, not to mention \"the mixed\nmultitude that went up also with them.\" The entire population must have\nnumbered more than two millions, and some commentators estimate it at\nnearly three. They had to come in from all parts of Goshen to Rameses,\nbringing with them the sick and infirm, the very old and the very young.\nAmong such a large population there could not have been less than two\nhundred births a day. Many of the Jewish women, therefore, must have\nbeen just confined. How could they and their new-born children have\nstarted off in such a summary manner? Many more women must have been at\nthe point of confinement How could these have been hurried off at all?\nYet we are told that not a single person was left behind.\n\nHow were the flocks and herds driven out in such haste? There were about\ntwo million sheep and two hundred thousand oxen. The sheep alone would\nhave required grazing-land as extensive as the whole county of Bedford,\nbesides what would have been needed for the oxen. Is it credible that\nall these animals were collected together from such a wide area, and\ndriven out of Egypt in one night? Yet we are told that not a single hoof\nwas left behind!\n\nHow did the huge multitude of people march? If they travelled fifty men\nabreast, as is supposed to have been the practice in the Hebrew armies,\nthe able-bodied warriors alone would have filled up the road for about\n_seven miles_, and the whole multitude would have formed a dense column\n_twenty-two miles long_. The front rank would have been two days'\njourney in advance of the rear.\n\nHow did the sheep and cattle march? How was it possible for them to keep\npace with their human fellow-travellers? They would naturally not march\nin a compact array, and the vast drove must therefore have spread widely\nand lengthened out for miles.\n\nWhat did the drove live upon during the journey from Barneses to\nSuccoth, and from Succoth to Etham, and from Etham to the Red Sea? Such\ngrass as there was, even if the sheep and cattle went before the men,\nwomen, and children, could not have been of much avail; for what was not\neaten by the front ranks must have been trodden under foot at once, and\nrendered useless to those that followed. After they \"encamped by the Red\nSea,\" on the third day, there was no vegetation at all. The journey\nwas over a desert, the surface of which was composed of hard gravel\nintermixed with pebbles. After crossing the Red Sea, their road lay over\na desert region, covered with sand, gravel, and stone, for about nine\nmiles; after which they entered a boundless desert plain, called _El\nAti_ white and painfully glaring to the eye; and beyond this the ground\nwas broken by sand-hills. How were the two million sheep and two hundred\nthousand oxen provisioned during this journey?\n\nWhat did the Jews themselves live on? The desert afforded them no\nsustenance until God miraculously sent manna. They must, therefore, have\ntaken a month's provisions for every man, woman, and child. How could\nthey possibly have provided themselves with so much food on so short\na notice? And how could they have carried it, seeing that they were\nalready burdened with kneading-troughs and other necessaries for\ndomestic use, besides the treasures they \"borrowed\" of the Egyptians.\n\nHow did they provide themselves with tents? Allowing ten persons for\neach tent, they must have required two hundred thousand. Were these\ncarefully got ready in expectation? In the land of Goshen they lived in\nhouses with \"lintels\" and \"side-posts.\" And how were the tents carried?\nThe Jews themselves were already well loaded. Of course the oxen remain,\nbut, as Colenso observes, they were not trained to carry t goods on\ntheir backs, and were sure to prove refractory under such a burden.\n\nWhence did the Jews obtain their arms? According to Exodus (xiii, 18)\n\"the children of Israel went up _harnessed_ out of the land of Egypt.\"\nThe Hebrew word which is rendered \"harnessed\" appears to mean \"armed\" or\n\"in battle array\" in all the other passages where it occurs, and is so\ntranslated. Some commentators, scenting a difficulty in this rendering,\nurge that the true meaning is \"by five in a rank.\" But if 600,000 men\nmarched out of Egypt \"five in a rank,\" they must have formed a column\nsixty-eight miles long, and it would have taken several days to start\nthem all off, whereas they went out altogether \"that self-same day.\"\nBesides, the Jews had arms in the desert, and how could they have\npossessed them there unless they obtained them in Egypt? If they went\nout of Egypt \"armed,\" why did they cry out \"sore afraid\" when Pharaoh\npursued them?\n\nAccording to Herodotus, the Egyptian army, which formed a distinct\ncaste, never exceeded 160,000 men. Why were the Jews so appalled by less\nthan a third of their own number? Must we suppose, with Kalisch, that\ntheir bondage in Egypt had crushed all valor and manhood out of their\nbreasts? Josephus gives a different explanation. He says that the\nday after Pharaoh's host was drowned in the Red Sea, \"Moses gathered\ntogether the weapons of the Egyptians, which were brought to the camp\nof the Hebrews by the current of the sea and the force of the wind\nassisting it. And he conjectured that this also happened by Divine\nProvidence, that so they might not be destitute of weapons.\" But, as\nColenso observes, though body-armor _might_ have been obtained in this\nway, swords, spears and shields _could not_ in any number. The Bible,\ntoo, says nothing about such an occurrence. We must therefore assume\nthat 600,000 well-armed Jews were such utter cowards that they could not\nstrike a blow for their wives and children and their own liberty against\nthe smaller army of Pharaoh, but could only whimper and sigh after their\nold bondage. Yet a month later they fought bravely with the Amalekites,\nand ever afterwards they were as eager for battle as any Irishman at\nDonnybrook: fair. How can this difference be accounted for? Could a\nnation of hereditary cowards become stubborn warriors in the short space\nof a month?\n\nLet us now follow the Wandering Jews through the Desert, which they\nshould have crossed in a week or two, but which they travelled up and\ndown for forty years. People who want to make an expeditious journey had\nbetter do without a divine guide.\n\nComing to Marah, they found only bitter water to drink, at which they\nbegan to murmur. But the Lord showed Moses a certain tree, which when\ncast into the water made it sweet. It must have been a wonderful tree to\nsweeten water for two millions of people. Bitter water, also, quenches\nthirst more readily than sweet, and it stimulates the appetite, which\nwould be highly desirable under a fierce relaxing sun.\n\nA month after they left Egypt they came to the wilderness of Sin.\nThere they began to murmur again. Finding themselves without food, they\nremembered \"the flesh pots\" of Egypt, and reproached Moses with having\nbrought them into the desert to die of hunger. Both Moses and the Lord\nseem to have thought it unreasonable on their part to ask for something\nto eat. Oliver Twist was stared at when he asked for more, but the Jews\nsurprised God by asking for something to begin with. Yet reflecting,\nperhaps, that they were after all unable to live without food, the Lord\nrained down manna from heaven. After the dew evaporated in the morning,\nthey found this heavenly diet lying on the ground. It was \"like a\ncoriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with\nhoney.\" No doubt the angels subsist on it in paradise. Moses preserved\na pot of it for the instruction of future generations. The pot has,\nhowever, not been discovered up to the present day. Some future\nexplorers may light upon it \"in the fulness of time,\" and so-help to\nprove the historical character of the Pentateuch.\n\nThe manna, as might be expected, had some peculiarities. No matter how\nmuch or how little he gathered, every man found on measuring that he had\nexactly an omer of it. Although it fell regularly every week day, none\nfell on Sunday. A double quantity had, therefore, to be gathered on\nSaturday. It melted in the sun, but could nevertheless be baked and\nseethed. Any of it left overnight stank in the morning and bred worms.\n\nFor forty years \"the children of Israel did eat manna.\" But more than\nonce their gorge rose against it. Manna for breakfast, manna for lunch,\nmanna for dinner, manna for tea, and manna for supper, was a little more\nthan they could stand, The monotony of their diet became intolerable.\nAccordingly, we read in the twenty-first chapter of _Numbers_, that\nthey complained of it and asked for a slight change in the bill of fare.\n\"There is no bread,\" said they, \"neither is there any water; and our\nsoul loatheth this light food.\" This small request so incensed the Lord\nthat he sent a lot of fiery serpents among them, which bit them so\nthat \"much people of Israel died.\" Like Oliver Twist, the Jews quickly\nrepented their presumption. They humbled themselves before Moses, and he\ninterceded with God for them. The prophet then made a brass serpent\nand set it on a pole, and on looking at it all who had been bitten\nrecovered.\n\nOn another occasion, as we read in the eleventh of _Numbers_, they were\nguilty of a similar offence. This time it was the more surprising, as\nGod had just burnt a lot of them up with raging fire for 'complaining.'\nThey remembered \"the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the\ncucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the\ngarlick.\" \"Now,\" said they, \"there is nothing at all, besides this\nmanna, before our eyes-Who shall give us flesh to eat?\" The Egyptian\nbill of fare was certainly enough to make their mouths water, and it\nproves that if Pharaoh made them work hard he did not starve them, as\nJehovah very nearly succeeded in doing. They were so affected by their\nrecollection of the luscious victuals they enjoyed in Egypt, that they\nactually cried with sorrow at their loss. Moses heard them weeping,\n\"every man in the door of his tent.\" This put the Lord in a very bad\ntemper; and Moses, who seems to have been much less irascible than\nJehovah, \"also was displeased.\" God determined to give them a surfeit.\n\"Ye shall,\" said he, \"not eat flesh one day, nor two days, nor five\ndays, neither ten days nor twenty days; but even a whole month, until\nit come out at your nostrils, and be loathsome unto you.\" Thereupon\nthe Lord sent a wind which brought quails from the sea. They were so\nplentiful that they fell in heaps two cubits high for about twenty miles\naround the camp. That worthy commentator, the Rev. Alexander Cruden,\nsays that the miracle of this occurrence consisted, not in the great\nnumber of quails, but in their being \"brought so seasonably\" to the\nJewish camp. The quantity did not trouble his credulous mind. \"Some\nauthors,\" says he, \"affirm that in those eastern and southern countries,\nquails are innumerable, so that in one part of Italy within the compass\nof five miles, there were taken about an hundred thousand of them every\nday for a month together; and that sometimes they fly so thick over the\nsea, that being weary they fall into ships, sometimes in such numbers,\nthat they sink them with their weight.\" The good man's easy reliance\non 'some authors.' and his ready acceptance of such fables, show what\ncredulity is engendered by belief in the Bible.\n\nThe Jews gathered quails for two days and a night, and joyfully carried\nthem home. But \"while the flesh was yet between their teeth,\" the Lord\nsmote them with a very great plague, so that multitudes of them died.\nPoor devils! They were always in hot water.\n\nHow the sheep and cattle were provisioned the Bible does not inform us.\nThere was scarcely a nibble of grass to be had in the desert, and as\nthey could not very well have lived on sand and pebbles, they must\nhave been supported miraculously. Perhaps the authors of the Pentateuch\nforgot all about this.\n\nNot only were the Jews, like their flocks and herds, miraculously\nsupported; they were also miraculously found in clothes. For forty years\ntheir garments and shoes did not wear out. How was this miracle wrought?\nWhen matter rubs against matter, particles are lost by abrasion. Did the\nLord stop this process, or did he collect all the particles that were\nworn off during the day and replace them by night, on the soles of\nshoes, on the elbows of coats, and on the knees of pantaloons? If\nthe clothes never wore out, it is fair to suppose that they remained\nabsolutely unchanged. Imagine a toddling urchin, two years old at the\nexodus from Egypt, wearing the same rig when he grew up to manhood!\nJustin, however, says that the clothes grew with their growth. Some\nJewish rabbis hold that angels acted as tailors in the wilderness, and\nso the garments were all kept straight. But Augustine, Chrysostom, and\nother Fathers abide by the literal interpretation that, through the\nblessing of God, the clothes and shoes never wore out, so that those\nwho grew to manhood were able to hand them over, as good as new, to the\nrising generation. According to this theory, _everybody_ must have had\na poor fit, unless there was a transference of garments every twelve\nmonths or so.\n\nThe history of the Wandering Jews is full of miracles and wonders. It\nsays that all the congregation of Israel, numbering over two millions,\nassembled at the door of the Tabernacle. As the whole width of the\nTabernacle was eighteen feet, only nine men could have stood in front\nof it; and therefore the warriors of Israel alone, to say nothing of the\nrest of the population, if we allow eighteen inches between each rank of\nnine men, would have formed a column nearly _twenty miles_ long! We\nfind also that Moses, and Joshua after him, addressed not only the whole\ncongregation of Israel, including men, women, and children, but the\n\"mixed multitude\" of strangers as well. Their voices were distinctly\nheard by a crowded mass of people as large as the entire population of\nLondon. They must have had stentorian lungs, or the people must have had\na wonderful sense of hearing.\n\nWhen the Jews were encamped, according to Scott's estimate, they lived\nin a sort of \"moveable city, _twelve miles square_,\" nearly as large as\nLondon. The people had to go outside this vast camp every day to bring\nin a supply of water and fuel, after cutting the latter down where they\ncould find it! All their rubbish had to be carried out in like manner,\nfor Jehovah used sometimes to take a walk among them, and he was highly\ndispleased at seeing dirt. Every man, woman, and child, including the\nold, the sick, and the infirm, had to go outside the camp to attend\nto the necessities of nature! All the refuse of their multitudinous.\nsacrifices had to be lugged out of the camp by the three priests,\nAaron, Eleazer, and Itharnar. Colenso reckons that the sacrifices alone,\nallowing less than three minutes for each, would have occupied them\nincessantly during the whole twenty-four hours of every day. The pigeons\nbrought to them daily as sin offer-ings must have numbered about 264,\nand as these had to be consumed by the three priests, each of them had\nto eat 88 pigeons a day, besides heaps of roast beef and other victuals!\n\nSoon after the first fall of manna, the Jews murmured again because they\nhad no water. Whereupon Moses smote a rock with his magical rod, and\nwater gushed from it. The precious fluid came just in time to refresh\nthem for their fight with the Amalekites. These people were very\nobstinate foes, and it required a miracle to defeat them. Moses ascended\na hill and held up his hand. While he did so the Israelites prevailed,\nbut when he let down his hand the Amalekites prevailed. To ensure\nvictory, Aaron and Hur stood on either side of him, and held up his\nhands until the sun set. By this means Joshua discomfited the Amalekites\nwith great slaughter. Moses built an altar to celebrate the event,\nand God swore that he would \"have war with Amelek from generation to\ngeneration.\" As Jehovah's vengeance was so lasting, it is no wonder that\nhis worshipers carried on their wars ever afterwards on the most hellish\nprinciples.\n\nIn the thirty-first chapter of Numbers we read that 12,000 Israelites\nwarred against Midian. The brag of the chronicler is evident in this\nnumber or in those which follow. This little army polished off all the\nkings of Midian, burnt all their cities and castles, slew 48,000 men,\nand carried off 100,000 captives, besides, 675,000 sheep, 72,000 oxen,\nand 61,000 asses. What prodigious spoil there was in those days! Of the\ncaptives Moses ordered 48,000 women and 20,000 boys to be massacred in\ncold blood; while the remaining 32,000 \"women that had not known man\nby lying with him\" were reserved for another fate. The Lord's share of\nthese was thirty-two! They were of course handed over to the priests\nas his representatives. Parsons, who rail against the immorality of\nscepticism, say that this is all true.\n\nThese Midianites were a tough lot; for although they were _all killed_\non this occasion, and their cities and castles burnt, we find them a\npowerful nation again in the sixth of _Judges_, and able to prevail\nagainst the Jews for seven years.\n\nAnother people badly punished by the Jews were the inhabitants of Bashan.\nAll their cities were destroyed to the number of sixty. Their king, Og,\nwas a gigantic fellow, and slept on an iron bed twelve feet long. The\ncities of Heshbon were destroyed in the same way. All the men, women,\nand children, were slaughtered. Not one was spared.\n\nWe shall hereafter follow the Jews under Joshua. For the present we must\ncontent ourselves with a last reference to their wanderings under Moses.\nWhile they were encamped round Mount Sinai, their leader received an\ninvitation to go up and visit God who had been staying there for six\ndays. They had much to talk about, and the interview lasted forty days\nand forty nights. At the end of it Moses descended, carrying with him\nthe Ten Commandments, written by the finger of God on two tables of\nstone. In his absence the Wandering Jews had given him up as lost, and\nhad induced Aaron to make them a god, in the shape of a golden calf, to\ngo before them. This image they were worshipping as Moses approached the\ncamp, and his anger waxed so not that he threw down the tables and broke\nall the Ten Commandments at once. He then burnt the calf in fire and\nground it to powder, mixed it with water and made them drink it. He also\nsent the Levites among them, who put three thousand men to the edge of\nthe sword. God wanted to destroy them altogether, but Moses held him\nback. \"Let me alone,\" said the Lord. \"No, no,\" said Moses, \"just think\nwhat the Egyptians will say; they'll laugh at you after all as a poor\nsort of a god; and remember, too, that you are bound by an oath to\nmultiply your people and to let them inherit the land of promise.\" So\nthe Lord cooled down, and wrote out the Decalogue again on two fresh\ntables of stone. This Decalogue is supposed to be the foundation of\nmorality. But long before the time of Moses moral laws were known and\nobserved in Egypt, in India, and among all the peoples that ever lived.\nMoral laws are the permanent conditions of social health, and the\nfundamental ones must be observed wherever any form of society exists.\nTheir ground and guarantee are to be found in human nature, and do not\ndepend on a fabulous episode in the history of the Wandering Jews.\n\n\n\n\nTHE TOWER OF BABEL.\n\nBIBLE ROMANCES.--VIII.\n\nBy G. W. FOOTE.\n\n\nThe Bible, it is frequently asserted, was never meant to teach us\nscience, but to instruct us in religion and morality; and therefore\nwe must not look to it for a faithful account of what happened in\nthe external world, but only for a record of the inner experiences of\nmankind. Astronomy will inform us how the heavenly bodies came into\nexistence, and by what laws their motions are governed; Geology will\nacquaint us with the way in which the earth's crust was formed, and with\nthe length of time occupied by the various stages of the process; and\nBiology will tell us all about the origin and development of living\nthings. God has given us reason, by exercising which we may gather\nknowledge and establish sciences, so as to explain the past, illustrate\nthe present, and predict the future; and as reason is sufficient for all\nthis, there is no need of a divine revelation in such matters. But\nas reason is insufficient to teach the will of God and the laws of\nmorality, a divine revelation of these is necessary, and the Bible\ncontains it.\n\nThis plausible contention cannot, however, be maintained. The Bible\nis not silent with respect to astronomy, geology, or biology. It makes\nfrequent and precise statements concerning them, and in nearly every\ninstance it contradicts scientific truth as we have amply proved in\nprevious numbers of this series.\n\nThe eleventh chapter of Genesis gives an explanation of the diversity\nof languages on the earth. It does this in the truest spirit of romance.\nPhilologists like Max M\u00fcller and Whitney must regard the story of the\nTower of Babel, and the confusion of tongues, as a capital joke. A great\nmany parsons may still believe it, but they are not expected to know\nmuch.\n\nOne fact alone is enough to put the philology of Genesis out of court.\nThe native languages of America are all closely related to each other,\nbut they have no affinity with any language of the Old World. It is\ntherefore clear that they could not have been imported into the New\nWorld by emigrants from the plains of Central Asia. The Genesaic theory\nis thus proved to be not of universal application, and consequently\ninvalid.\n\nLet us come to the Bible story. Some time after the Flood, and before\nthe birth of Abraham, \"the whole earth was of one language and one\nspeech;\" or, as Colenso translates the original, \"of one lip, and of one\nlanguage.\" This primitive tongue must have been Hebrew. God spoke it in\nEden when he conversed with our first parents, and probably it is spoken\nin heaven to this day. For all we know it may be spoken in hell too. It\nprobably is, for the Devil and his angels lived in heaven before they\nwere turned into hell, and we may conclude that they took their native\nlanguage with them. It was spoken by Adam when he named his wife in\nParadise; by Eve, after the expulsion when she gave names to her sons,\nCain and Seth; by Lamech, shortly before the Flood, when he explained the\nname of Noah; and indeed, as Colenso observes, \"it is obvious that the\nnames of the whole series of Patriarchs from Adam to Noah, and from Noah\nonwards, are in almost every instance pure Hebrew names.\" Delitzsch,\nhowever, thinks it comparatively more probable that the Syriac or\nNabataan tongue, preserved after the dispersion at Babylon, was the one\noriginally spoken. Yet he dismisses the possibility of demonstrating it.\nHe supposes that the names of Adam and the other patriarchs have been\naltered, but not so as to lose any of their original meaning; in other\nwords, that they have been, by God's grace, translated with perfect\naccuracy from the primeval speech. But Colenso very justly remarks that\nthe original documents do not allude to a process of translation, and\nthat we have no right to assume it. He also adds that \"if the authority\nof Scripture is sufficient to prove the fact of a primeval language, it\nmust also prove that this language was Hebrew.\"\n\nYet the Bible is wrong, for Hebrew could not have been the primitive\nspeech. It is only a Semitic dialect, a branch of the Semitic stem.\nSanscrit is another stem, equally ancient; and according to Max M\u00fcller\nand Bunsen, both are modifications of an earlier and simpler language.\nNeither has the least affinity with Chinese, which again, like them,\ndiffers radically from the native dialects of America. As Hosea Biglow\nsings,\n\n     \"John P. Robinson, he\n     Says they didn't know everything down in Judee.\"\n\nAnd most certainly they did not know the true origin and development of\nthe various languages spoken by the nations of the earth.\n\nThe people who dwelt on the earth after the Deluge, and all spoke one\nlanguage, journeyed from the east, found a plain in, the land of Shinar,\nand dwelt there. Shinar is another name for Babylon. After dwelling\nthere no one knows exactly how long, \"they said one to another, Go\nto, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for\nstone, and slime had they for morter.\" The writer of this story was very\nfond of short cuts. It took men a long time to learn the art of making\nbricks; and the idea of their suddenly saying to each other \"let us make\nbrick,\" and at once proceeding to do so, is a wild absurdity.\n\nHaving made a lot of bricks, they naturally wished to do something with\nthem. So \"they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose\ntop may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be\nscattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.\" How could making\na name, for the information of nobody but themselves, prevent their\ndispersion? And how could they resolve to build a \"city,\" when they had\nnever seen one, and had no knowledge of what it was like? Cities are not\nbuilt in this manner. \"Rome wasn't built in a day\" is a proverb which\napplies to all other places as well. London, Paris, and Rome, are\nthe growth of centuries, and the same must have been true of ancient\ncapitals.\n\nThe reason assigned by Scripture for the work of these primitive\nbuilders is plainly inadequate. A more probable reason is that they\nmistrusted God's promise never again to destroy the earth with a flood,\nand therefore determined to build a high tower, so that, if another\ndeluge came, they might ascend above the waters, or, if need be step\nclean into heaven itself. Their lack of faith is not surprising. We find\nthe same characteristic on the part of believers in our own day. They\nbelieve in God's promises only so far as it suits their interest and\nconvenience. Scripture says, \"Whoso giveth unto the poor lendeth unto\nthe Lord.\" Yet there are thousands of rich Christians who seem to\nmistrust the security.\n\nHow high did these primitive builders think heaven was? According to\nColenso, they said, \"Come, let us build for us a city, and a tower _with\nits head in heaven_.\" Did they really think they would ever succeed in\nbuilding so high? Perhaps they did, for their Natural Philosophy was\nextremely limited. They doubtless imagined the blue vault of heaven as a\nsolid thing, in which were stuck the sun, moon, and stars, and no higher\nthan the sailing clouds.\n\nTheir simple ignorance is intelligible, but how can we explain the\nignorance of God? Their project alarmed him. He actually \"came down to\nsee the city and the tower which the children of men builded.\" Heaven\nwas too distant for him to see from with accuracy, and telescopes\nwere not then invented. A close inspection led him to believe that his\nambitious children would succeed in their enterprise. They thought they\nmight build into heaven, and he thought so too. What was to be done? If\nthey once got into heaven, it might be very difficult to turn them\nout again. It took several days' hard fighting to expel Satan and the\nrebellious angels on a previous occasion, and these newcomers might be\nstill more obstinate. In this dangerous extremity, \"the Lord said [unto\nwhom is unknown], Behold, the people is one, and they have all one\nlanguage; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained\nfrom them which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down,\nand there confound their language, that they may not understand one\nanother's speech.\"\n\nWhy did the Lord resolve to take all this trouble? Had he forgotten the\nlaw of gravitation and the principles of architecture? Was he, who made\nthe heaven and the earth, ignorant of the distance between them? He\nhad only to let the people go on building, and they would eventually\nconfound themselves; for, after reaching a certain height, the tower\nwould tumble about their ears. Gravitation would defeat the cohesion\nof morter Why did not God leave them alone? Why did he take so much\nunnecessary trouble? The answer is that this \"Lord\" was only \"Jehovah\"\nof the Jews, a tribal god, who naturally knew no more about the facts\nand laws of science than his worshippers who made him.\n\nThe Lord carried out his resolution. He \"confounded their language,\" so\nthat no man could understand his neighbors. Probably this judgment was\nexecuted in the night; and when they awoke in the morning, instead of\nusing the old familiar tongue, one man spoke Chinese, another Sanscrit,\nanother Coptic, another American, another Dutch, another Double Dutch,\nand so on to the end of the chapter.\n\nAccording to the Bible, this is the true philology. No language on\nthe earth is more than four thousand years old, and every one was\nmiraculously originated at Babel. Is there a single philologist living\nwho believes this? We do not know one.\n\nThe result of this confusion of tongues was that the people \"left off\nto build the city,\" and were \"scattered, abroad on the face of all the\nearth.\" But why did they disperse? Their common weakness should have\nkept them together. Society is founded upon our wants. Our necessity,\nand not our self-sufficience, causes association and mutual helpfulness.\nHad these people kept company for a short time, they would have\nunderstood each other again. A few common words would have come into\ngeneral use, and the building of the tower might have been resumed.\n\nHow was their language \"confounded?\" Did God destroy their verbal\nmemory? Did he paralyse a part of their brain, so that, although they\nremembered the words, they could not speak them? Did he affect the\norgans of articulation, so that the sounds of the primeval language\ncould not be reproduced? Will some theologian kindly explain this\nmystery? Language is not a gift, but a growth. Different tribes and\nnations have had different experiences, different wants, and different\nsurroundings, and the result is a difference in their languages, as\nwell as in their religious ideas, political organisations, and social\ncustoms.\n\nBefore we leave this portion of the subject, we beg to introduce Milton\nagain. In the last Book of \"Paradise Lost\" he adds from his fertile\nimagination to the Bible story, and supplies a few deficiencies about\nwhich the mind is naturally curious. He makes the Archangel Michael tell\npoor Adam and Eve, as part of his panoramic description of future times,\nthat a mighty hunter shall arise, claiming dominion over his fellows,\nand gather under him a band of adherents. This is clearly Nimrod. Milton\nseparates him and his subjects from the rest of mankind, and represents\nthem as the people who settled on \"the plain in the land of Shinar.\"\n\nAccording to our great poet, therefore, the confusion of tongues applied\nonly to them, and the other inhabitants of the earth retained the\nprimeval language in all its original purity. This detachment, says\nMichael--\n\n     Marching from Eden towards the west, shall find\n     The plain, wherein a black bituminous gurge,\n     Boils out from underground, the mouth of Hell:\n     Of brick, and of that stuff they cast to build\n     A city and a tower, whose top may reach to Heaven;\n     And get themselves a name, lest, far dispersed\n     In foreign lands, their memory be lost,\n     Regardless whether good or evil fame.\n     But God, who oft descends to visit men\n     Unseen, and through their habitations walks\n     To mark their doings, them beholding soon,\n     Comes down to see their city, ere the tower\n     Obstruct Heav'n-tow'rs, and in derision sets\n     Upon their tongue a various spirit to rase\n     Quite out their native language, and instead\n     To sow a jangling noise of words unknown.\n     Forthwith a hideous gabble rises loud\n     Among the builders; each to other calls\n     Not understood, till hoarse, and all in rage,\n     As mock'd, they storm: great laughter was in Heaven,\n     And looking down, to see the hubbub strange\n     And hear the din; thus was the building left\n     Ridiculous, and the work Confusion named.\n\nIf the Tower of Babel was built over the mouth of Hell it would be wise\nto explore its site and make proper excavations, so as to settle the\ngeography and physical character of the bottomless-pit. The Churches\nare sadly in want of a little information about hell, and here is an\nopportunity for them to acquire it, We hope the explorers will all be\nselected for their extreme piety, so that they may be as fire-proof as\nShadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and happily escape cremation.\n\nBecause the Lord \"did there confound their language\" the place was\n\"called Babel.\" The Hebrew root, _balal_ to confound, is not, however,\nthat from which the word \"Babel\" is derived, It is a compound of \"Bel,\"\nand may mean the \"House of Bel,\" \"Court of Bel,\" or \"Gate of Bel.\"\nSome, including Professor Rawlinson, suppose it be a compound of \"El\" or\n\"il,\" in which case \"Bab-El\" means the \"Gate of God.\"\n\nIt is evident that the story of the Tower of Babal was borrowed by the\nJehovist author of this part of Genesis from the tradition of the famous\nunfinished Temple of Belus, one of the wonders of antiquity. \"Birs\nNimroud\" is thus described by Kalisch:--\n\n\"The huge heap, in which bricks, stone, marble, and basalt, are\nirregularly mixed, covers a surface of 49,000 feet; while the chief\nmound is nearly 300 feet high, and from 200 to 400 feet in width,\ncommanding an extensive view over a country of utter desolation. The\nTower consisted of seven distinct stages or square platforms, built of\nkiln-burnt bricks, each about twenty feet high, gradually diminishing\nin diameter. The upper part of the brickwork has a vitrefied appearance;\nfor it is supposed that the Babylonians, in order to render their\nedifices more durable, submitted them to the heat of the furnace;\nand large fragments of such vitrefied and calcined materials are also\nintermixed with the rubbish at the base. This circumstance may have\ngiven rise to, or at least countenanced, the legend of the destruction\nof the Tower by heavenly fire, still extensively adopted among the\nArabians. The terraces were devoted to the planets, and were differently\ncolored in accordance with the notions of Sab\u00e6an astrology--the lowest,\nSaturn's, _black_; the second, Jupiter's, _orange_; the third, Mars,\n_red_; the fourth, the Sun's, _yellow_; the fifth, Venus's, _white_;\nthe sixth, Mercury's, _blue_; the seventh, the Moon's, _green_.\nMerodach-adan-akhi is stated to have begun it B.C. 1100. It was finished\nfive centuries afterwards by Nebuchadnezzar, who left a part of its\nhistory on two cylinders, which have lately been excavated on the spot,\nand thus deciphered by Rawlinson. 'The building, named the Planisphere,\nwhich was the wonder of Babylon, I have made and finished. With bricks,\nenriched with lapis lazuli, I have exalted its head. Behold now the\nbuilding, named \"The Stages of the Seven Spheres,\" which was the wonder\nof Borsippa, had been built by a former king. He had completed forty-two\ncubits of height: but he did not finish the head. From the lapse of time\nit became ruined. They had not taken care of the exit of the waters; so\nthe rain and wet had penetrated into the brickwork. The casing of burnt\nbrick lay scattered in heaps. Then Merodach, my great lord, inclined\nmy heart to repair the building. I did not change its site, nor did I\ndestroy its foundation-platform. But, in a fortunate month, and upon an\nauspicious day, I undertook the building of the raw-brick terrace and\nthe burnt-brick casing of the Temple. I strengthened its foundation, and\nI placed a titular record on the part which I had rebuilt. I set my\nhand to build it up, and to exalt its summit. As it had been in ancient\ntimes, so I built up its structure. As it had been in former days, thus\nI exalted its head.'\"\n\nProfessor Rawlinson assigns B.C. 2300 as the date of the building of the\nTemple. But as Colenso remarks, his reasoning is very loose. His date,\nhowever, is _antecedent_ to the supposed time of the building of\nBabel, and according to his own chronology the latter _may_ have been\na tradition of the former. Add to this that the ruins of _Birs Nimroud_\nare extant, while there is no vestige of the ruins of Babel. According\nto Kalisch's chronology, _Birs Nimroud_ was built long after the\nsupposed time of Moses; and if _he_ wrote the Pentateuch our position\ncannot be maintained. But he did not write the Pentateuch or any portion\nof it. The writer of the Jehovist portion of Genesis, which contains the\nstory of the Tower of Babel, certainly did not flourish before the\ntime of Solomon, about b.c. 1015--975. Here, then, is an interval of\na century. That is a short period for the growth of a legend. Yet, as\nColenso observes, \"as the _tower_ was apparently an observatory, and\nthe fact of its being dedicated to the seven ancient planets shows\nthat astronomical observations had made considerable progress among the\nChaldeans at the time when it was built, the traditions connected with\nit may have embodied stories of a much earlier date, to which the new\nbuilding gave fresh currency.\"\n\nThe Temple of Jupiter Belus with its tower was partially destroyed\nby Xerxes b.c. 490; upon which, says Kalisch, \"the fraudulent priests\nappropriated to themselves the lands and enormous revenues attached to\nit, and seem, from this reason, to have been averse to its restoration.\"\nA part of the edifice still existed more than five centuries later, and\nwas mentioned by Pliny. But the other part was, in the time of Alexander\nthe Great, a vast heap of ruins. He determined to rebuild it, but\ndesisted from the enterprise, when he found that ten thousand workmen\ncould not remove the rubbish in two months. Benjamin of Tudela described\nit in the twelfth century, after which, for more than six hundred\nyears, it remained unnoticed and unknown. The ruins were rediscovered\nby Niebuhr in 1756; subsequent explorers more accurately described\nthem; and they were thoroughly examined, and their monumental records\ndeciphered, about thirty years ago.\n\nThe myth attaching to it is not unique. As Kalisch observes, \"most\nof the ancient nations possessed myths concerning impious giants, who\nattempted to storm heaven, either to share it with the immortal gods, or\nto expel them from it.\" And even the orthodox Delitzsch allows that\n\"the Mexicans have a legend of a tower-building, as well as of a Flood.\nXelhua, one of the seven giants rescued in the flood, built the great\npyramid of Cholula, in order to reach heaven, until the gods, angry at\nhis audacity, threw fire upon the building, and broke it down, whereupon\nevery separate family received a language of its own.\" To lessen the\nforce of this, Delitzsch says that the Mexican legend has been much\ncolored by its narrators, chiefly Dominicans and Jesuits; but he is\nobliged to admit that there is great significance in the fact that the\nMexican terrace-pyramid closely resembles the construction of the Temple\nof Belus. No argument can vitiate the conclusion that as similar myths\nto that of Genesis abounded in ancient times, it is highly illogical to\nattach particular importance to any one of them. If one is historic, all\nare historic. We are justified in holding that the Jewish story of the\nTower of Babel is only a modification of the older story of the Temple\nof Belus.\n\nWe will conclude this Number by mentioning a few facts, not\nspeculations, which are exceedingly curious, and which present grave\ndifficulty to the orthodox believer.\n\nAccording to the Bible, in Abraham's time, not four centuries after the\nDeluge, the descendants of Noah's three sons had multiplied into the\nfour great kingdoms of _Shinar_ (Babylon), _Elam_, _Egypt_, and _Gerar_,\nbesides a multitude of smaller nations. Does any instructed man believe\nin the possibility of such multiplication? It is altogether incredible.\n\nSome of these nations had reached a high degree of civilisation. Indeed,\nthe temples, tombs, pyramids, manners, customs, and arts of Egypt\nbetoken a _full-grown_ nation. The sculptures of the Fourth Dynasty, the\nearliest extant, and which must be assigned to the date of about 3500\nb.c., are almost as perfect as those of her Augustan age, two thousand\nyears later. Professor Rawlinson seeks to obviate this difficulty by\nappealing to the version of the Seventy instead of to the Hebrew text,\nby which he obtains the remote antiquity of 8159 B.C., instead of 2848,\nfor the Deluge. But this chronology does not reach within four hundred\nyears of the civilisation denoted by the sculptures referred to! And\nthere must have been milleniums of silent progress in Egypt before that\nperiod.\n\nOn the ancient monuments of Egypt the negro head, face, hair, form,\nand color, are the same as we observe in our own day. Consequently, the\northodox believer must hold that, in a few generations, the human family\nbranched out into strongly marked varieties. History discountenances\nthis assumption, and Biology plainly disproves it. Archdeacon Pratt\nsupposes that Shem, Ham, and Japheth \"had in them elements differing as\nwidely as the Asiatic, the African, and the European, differ from each\nother.\" He forgets that they were brothers, sons of the same father\nand presumably of the same mother! Such extraordinary evolution throws\nDarwinism into the shade.\n\nNoah lived fifty-eight years after the birth of Abraham. Shem lived a\nhundred and ten years after the birth of Isaac, and fifty years after\nthe birth of Jacob. How was it that neither Abraham, Isaac, nor Jacob\nknew either of them. They were the most interesting and important men\nalive at the time. They had seen the world before the Flood. One of\nthem had seen people who knew Adam. They had lived through the confusion\nof tongues at Babel, and were well acquainted with the whole history of\nthe world. Yet they are never once mentioned in Scripture during all\nthe centuries they survived their exit from the ark. Why is this?\nNoah before his death was the most venerable man existing. He was five\nhundred years older than any other man. He must have been an object\nof universal regard. Yet we have no record of the second half of his\ncareer; no account is given of his burial; no monument was erected to\nhis memory. Who will explain this astounding neglect? The Bible is a\nstrange book, and they are strange people who believe it.\n\n\n\n\nBALAAM'S ASS.\n\nBIBLE ROMANCES.--IX.\n\nBy G. W. FOOTE.\n\n\nThe ass has figured extensively in romance. His long ears and peculiar\nbray are explained by a story which goes back to the Flood. On that\noccasion, it is said, the male donkey was inadvertently left outside the\nark, but being a good swimmer, he nevertheless managed to preserve his\nlife. After many desperate efforts he at last succeeded in calling out\nthe patriarch's name, as nearly as the vocal organs of a jackass would\nallow. \"No-ah, No-ah,\" cried the forlorn beast. Noah's attention was at\nlast aroused, and on looking out of window to see who was calling, he\nperceived the poor jackass almost spent and faintly battling with the\nwaves. Quickly opening the window, he caught Neddy by the two ears\nand hauled him in. This he did with such vigor that Neddy's aural\nappendages were considerably elongated; and ever since donkeys have had\nlong ears, and brayed \"No-ah, No-ah\" at the approach of wet weather. For\nthe sake of Christians who are not well acquainted with God's Word, we\nadd that this story is not in the Bible.\n\nClassical scholars and students of modern literature know how the ass\nhas been treated by poets and romancers. The stolid animal has generally\nbeen made the subject of comedy. Drunken and impotent Silenus, in the\nPagan mythology, joins in the professions of Bacchus on a sober ass, and\nthe patient animal staggers beneath the heavy burden of a fat-paunched\ntipsy god. Apulius and Lucian transform the hero of their common\nstory into an ass, and in that shape he encounters the most surprising\nexperiences. Voltaire makes an ass play a wonderful part in his\n\"Pucelle.\" And in all these cases it is worth noticing how the profane\nwits remember the ass's relation to Priapian mysteries, from his fabled\ninterruption of the garden-god's attempt on the nymph Lotis downwards,\nand assign to him marvellous amatory adventures. Erasmus, in his \"Praise\nof Folly,\" does not forget the ass, with whom he compares the majority\nof men for stupidity, obstinacy, and lubricity; nor is the noble\nanimal forgotten by Rabelais, who cracks many a joke and points many a\nwitticism at his expense.\n\nOur own genial humorist, Charles Lamb, confesses however to a deep\ntenderness for Neddy, and dwells with delight on the protection which\nhis thick hide affords against the cruel usuage of man. He has, says\nLamb, \"a tegument impervious to ordinary stripes. The malice of a child\nor a weak hand can make feeble impressions on him. His back offers no\nmark to a puny foeman. To a common whip or switch his hide presents an\nabsolute-insensibility. You might as well pretend to scourge a schoolboy\nwith a tough pair of leather breeches on.\" Lamb also quotes the\nfollowing passage from a tract printed in 1595, entitled \"The Noblenesse\nof the Asse; a Work Rare, Learned, and Excellent\": \"He refuseth no\nburden; he goes whither he is sent, without any contradiction. He lifts\nnot his foote against any one; he bytes not; he is no fugitive, nor\nmalicious affected. He doth all-things in good sort, and to his liking\nthat hath cause to employ him. If strokes be given him, he cares not for\nthem.\" True, the ass is not much given to kicking or biting, but he has\nan awkward knack of quietly lying down when he is indisposed to work,\nand of rolling over with equal quietude if a rider happens to be on his\nback. But the old author is so enchanted with the \"asse\" that he does\nnot stay to notice this scurvy trick. He even goes on to express his\nliking for the ass's bray, calling Neddy \"a rare musitian,\" and saying\nthat \"to heare the musicke of five or six voices changed to so many of\nasses is amongst them to heare a song of world without end.\"\n\nSterne, in his \"Sentimental Journey,\" has a chapter entitled \"The\nDead Ass,\" wherein the animal is lifted into the sphere of pathos. And\nlastly, Coleridge has some very pious musings on an ass, wherein the\nanimal is lifted into the sphere of religion.\n\nNow, dear reader, you begin to see the drift of this long exordium,\nalthough my purpose was indeed twofold. First, I wished, after the\nexample of my betters in literature, to give you a slight glimpse of the\nimmense extent of my learning. Secondly, I wished to lead you through\nthe various stages of literary treatment of the ass, from the comic\nto the pathetic, and finally to-the religious, in order that you might\napproach in a proper frame of mind the consideration of Balaam's ass,\nwho is the most remarkable of all the four-legged asses mentioned in the\nBible. There were others. Asses were being sought by Saul, the son\nof Kish, when he found a kingdom of subjects instead. Jesus rode into\nJerusalem on an ass, and also apparently on a colt, having probably\none leg over each. With the jawbone of an ass Samson slew a thousand\nPhilistines; and if the rest of the animal accorded with that particular\nbone, he must have been a tough ass indeed. But all these are of little\ninterest or importance beside the wonderful ass of the prophet\nBalaam, whose history is contained, with that of his master, in the\ntwenty-second, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth chapters of the Book of\nNumbers.\n\nSoon after the Wandering Jews in the desert were plagued by \"fiery\nserpents\" for asking Moses to give them a slight change in their\nmonotonous bill of fare, they warred against the Amorites and pretty\nnearly exterminated them. Whereupon Balak the son of Zippor, king of\nMoab, grew \"sore afraid.\" He called together the \"elders of Midian\" with\nthose of Moab, and said that in his opinion the Jews would lick them all\nup as the ox licked up the grass of the field.\n\nAgainst such a ferocious gang as the Jews, with a bloody God of Battles\nto help them, human valor promised little success; so Balak resolved to\nsolicit supernatural aid. Accordingly he sent messengers unto Balaam the\nson of Beor, a renowned and potent soothsayer, desiring him to come and\ncurse the people of Israel.\n\nThe King had implicit confidence in Balaam. \"Whom thou blessest,\" said\nhe, \"is blessed, and whom thou cursest is cursed.\" This great prophet\nmust have wrought prodigious wonders in his time to gain so magnificent\na reputation; and if the king's panegyric on him was true, he must have\nbeen a dangerous person to those who annoyed him and made him swear.\n\nThe \"elders of Moab and the elders of Midian,\" who were Balak's\nmessengers, went to Pethor, where Balaam resided. As the reader might\nexpect, they did not go empty-handed, but took with them \"the rewards\nof divination.\" What these were we are not told. No doubt they were very\nhandsome. The prophetical business requires large profits to compensate\nfor the absence of quick returns; and in any case it is not to be\nsupposed that a man who can do what no one else can, will begin work\nwithout a heavy retaining fee. We conclude that Balaam, like nearly\nevery prophet mentioned in history, had a good eye for the main chance,\nand did not trust very much in the bounty of the gods. He was never\nhard up for bread and cheese while other people were hard up for divine\nassistance, and as that was an ignorant and credulous age, we presume\nthat his larder was well-stocked. He must, indeed, have had a fine\ntime, for he was the biggest pot in his own line of business in all that\ndistrict.\n\nBalaam knew his business well. It would never do for a prophet, a\nsoothsayer, a wizard, or a diviner, to give prompt answers to his\napplicants, or even to make his answers plain when he does give them.\nThat would render the profession cheap and rob it of mystery. So Balaam,\ntherefore, said to the messengers, \"Lodge here this night, and I will\nbring you word again, as the Lord shall speak unto me.\"\n\nNow this reference to _the Lord_ is very surprising. The Moabites\nworshipped Baal, and no doubt they had the utmost contempt for Jehovah.\nYet Balaam, who was a prophet of their religion, tells them that he will\nconsult the god of Israel on the subject of their visit! This is one of\nthe self-contradictions with which the Bible abounds.\n\nThe next incident of the story is no less remarkable. God, the infinite\nspirit of the universe, paid Balaam a visit; and although he knows\neverything, past, present, and to come, he asked the prophet \"What\nmen are these with thee?\" Balaam gave a straightforward reply, for he\ndoubtless knew that prevarication and subterfuge were useless with\nGod. Said he, \"Balak the son of Zippor, King of Moab, has sent unto me,\nsaying, Behold there is a people come out of Egypt, which covereth the\nface of the earth: come now, curse me them; peradventure I shall be able\nto overcome them and drive them out.\" The precision of Balaam's language\nis admirable, and so is its accuracy. He neither desired to keep the\nLord in suspense, nor to leave him in ignorance of necessary details.\nGod's answer was equally brief and perspicuous: \"Thou shalt not go with\nthem; thou shalt not curse the people: for they are blessed.\"\n\nThis interview between God and Balaam, like the following ones, occurred\nin the night. The Lord seems to have been always afraid of daylight, or\nelse to have had a peculiar fondness for the dark. Perhaps he thought\nthat during the night there was less chance of the conversation being\ninterrupted, and it is well known that the Lord loves privacy and does\nnot like conversing with more than one at a time. He agrees with us that\n\"two's company and three's none.\"\n\nIn the morning Balaam got out of bed and told Balak's messengers to\nreturn and say that the Lord would not let him come; and they at once\nset out for the capital.\n\nBalak, however, was not to be so easily put off. He seems to have\nregarded the prophet's talk about the Lord's prohibition as \"all my\neye.\" \"Perhaps,\" said he to himself, \"my messengers were small fry in\nthe sight of Balaam, and he is therefore displeased. My presents also\nmay have been too small I should have recollected that Balaam has a\nvery exalted opinion of himself, and is renowned for his avarice. What a\nstupid I was, to-be sure. However, I'll try again. This time I'll send\na deputation of big guns, and promise him great wealth and high position\nin the state. He can't refuse such a tempting offer.\" Straight-way he\n\"sent yet again princes, more and more honorable\" than those who went\nbefore, and commanded them to urge Balaam to let nothing hinder him from\ncoming.\n\nBalaam slightly resented this treatment. He told the messengers-that if\nBalak would give him his house full of silver and gold, he could not\ngo beyond the word of the Lord, to do more or less. Yet he apparently\ndeemed it politic to make another trial. He was, of course, quite aware\nthat God is unchangeable, but somehow he thought the Lord might alter\nhis mind. So he bade the messengers to tarry there that night while he\nconsulted God afresh.\n\nBalaam's expectation was realised. The Lord did change his mind. He\n\"came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call\nthee, rise up and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say\nunto thee, that shalt thou do.\" So the prophet rose up in the morning,\nsaddled and mounted his wonderful ass, and went off with the princes of\nMoab.\n\nPoor Balaam, however, did not reflect that as the Lord had changed his\nmind once he might change it twice, and the omission very nearly cost\nhim his life. He was unfortunately ignorant of what happened to Moses on\na similar occasion. After the Lord had dispatched the Jewish prophet\nto Egypt to rescue his people from bondage, he met him at an inn, where\nperhaps they both put up for the night, and sought to kill him. The same\nthing happened now. No sooner had Balaam set out on his journey than\n\"God's anger was kindled against him because he went.\" This Jehovah is\na queer God and dreadfully hard to please. If you don't obey his orders\nyou run the risk of being damned, and if you do you stand a good chance\nof being murdered. The only safe course is to get out of his way and\nhave nothing to do with him.\n\nThe \"angel of the Lord\" stood in Balaam's path, with a drawn sword in\nhis hand, ready to kill the prophet whose only crime was having done\nexactly what he was told. But neither Balaam nor his two servants saw\nhim. The ass, however, had better eyesight. Being only an ass, and not a\nman, he had a greater aptitude for seeing angels. Not liking the look\nof this formidable stranger, Neddy bolted from the pathway into a field.\nBalaam, who saw no reason for such behavior except sheer perverseness,\nbegan to whack his ass and tried to turn him * into the right road.\nNeddy succumbed to this forcible argument and jogged on again. The angel\nof the Lord had apparently, in the meantime, made himself invisible\neven to a jackass. His intention was ultimately to kill Balaam, but he\ndelayed the fatal stroke in order to make the most of the comedy\nwhich he foresaw. Going a little in front, he \"stood in a path of the\nvineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that\" Neddy caught\nsight of the angel again, and being unable this time to bolt into\nthe field, he lurched against the wall, and gave Balaam's foot a good\nscrunching. Still the prophet suspected nothing out of the common, for\nthat was an ordinary trick of refractory asses. Poor Neddy, therefore,\ngot another thrashing. Then the angel of the Lord went on further, and\n\"stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to\nthe right hand or to the left.\" Neddy estimated the certain penalty of\nrefusing to proceed and the probable penalty of going forward. After\ncomparing them he decided to stop where he was, and then quietly laid\ndown. Balaam's anger was once more kindled by this stupid obstinacy, and\nhe whacked the ass again with his staff.\n\n     * Balaam's ass was a \"she,\" but the sex is immaterial, and\n     as we commenced with the masculine gender we will continue\n     with it.\n\nThen the Lord intervened, and brought about the most extraordinary\nincident of this wonderful story. He \"opened the mouth of the ass,\" and\nlo! instead of braying Neddy spoke. Without a note of preparation he\nbegan to upbraid his master in good Moabitish. \"What have I done,\" said\nhe, \"that thou hast smitten me these three times.\"\n\nSingular to relate, Balaam was not in the least astonished at hearing\nan ass speak. He took it as quite an ordinary occurrence. One is almost\ninclined to think that the prophet and his donkey had held many a\nconversation before. In the Bible no one ever is astonished at anything,\nhowever wonderful. When the serpent accosted Eve in the garden of Eden,\nshe was not at all surprised, but went on with the colloquy as though\ntalking serpents were common things. If a dumb animal were nowadays\nto address a man with \"How d'ye do?\" he would certainly be very much\nstartled; but when the same thing occurred in the old Bible days, the\nman at once replied \"Very well, thank you, how are you?\"\n\nBalaam promptly answered the ass's question. \"Because,\" said he, \"thou\nhast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I\nkill thee.\" Then the ass rejoined, \"Am not I thine ass, upon which thou\nhast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? Was I ever wont to\ndo so unto thee?\" This was a poser. Balaam scratched his head and\nreflected, but at last he was obliged to say \"Nay.\"\n\nNeddy had so far the best of the argument. But Balaam had the practical\nargument of the stick left, and no doubt he was about to convince the\ndonkey with it. All arguments, practical or otherwise, would however\nhave left the dispute exactly where it stood. Neddy saw the angel, and\nthat was enough for him. Balaam did not see the angel, but only Neddy's\nobstinate stupidity. In short, they reasoned from different premises,\nand could not therefore arrive at the same conclusion. They might have\nargued till doomsday had not the Lord again intervened. He \"opened\nBalaam's eyes,\" so that he also \"saw the angel of the Lord standing in\nthe way, and his sword drawn in his hand.\" Then Balaam \"bowed his head,\nand fell flat on his face,\" and there he and Neddy laid side by side,\ntwo asses together.\n\nNow, dear reader, you will observe that the ass, being indeed an ass,\nsaw the angel first, and that Balaam, who was a wise man, did not see\nthe angel until his wits were disordered by the wonder of a talking\ndonkey. Does this not bear out great Bacon's remark that \"in all\nsuperstition, wise men follow fools\"? And may we not say, that if asses\ndid not see angels first, wise men would never see them after?\n\nThe angel of the Lord said to Balaam, while he remained flat on his\nface, \"Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold,\nI went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me:\nand the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had\nturned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive.\"\nThe moral of this is that asses stand the best chance of salvation, and\nthat wise men run a frightful risk of damnation until they lose their\nwits.\n\nBalaam recognised the awful mess he was in, and being by this time as\nlimp as a wet rag, he made the most abject apology. \"I have sinned,\" he\nsaid, \"for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me.\" This\nstrange reasoning shows still more clearly how the poor prophet had\ntaken leave of his senses. He had not sinned at all, for he was\nstrictly obeying God's commands; nor was it his fault that the angel\nremained so long invisible. When the Lord \"opened his eyes,\" and made\nhis vision like unto the vision of an ass, he saw the angel plainly\nenough; and how could he possibly have done so before?\n\n\"I'll go back,\" added Balaam, thinking that if he sinned so greatly in\ngoing forward, he had better return home. But the angel of the Lord,\nwho had intended to kill him for advancing, now told him to \"go with the\nmen.\" And Balaam went with them, keeping his weather eye open during the\nrest of the journey.\n\nBalak was heartily glad to see Balaam. The prophet had been a long time\ncoming, but better late than never. The next day they went \"up into the\nhigh places of Baal,\" from which they could see the utmost part of\nthe people of Israel. \"There they are,\" said Balak, \"confound them!\nleprous slaves out of Egypt, bent on stealing other people's lands, and\nsticking to all they can lay hands on; bloodthirsty vagabonds, who fight\npeople with whom they have no quarrel, and kill men, women, and children\nwhen they are victorious. Now, Balaam, do your duty. Curse them, and lay\nit on thick.\"\n\nSeven altars were built, and seven oxen and seven rams sacrificed on\nthem. But all this good meat was wasted, for when Balaam \"went to an\nhigh place,\" God met him, according to agreement, and told him what to\nsay. And lo! when the prophet returned to the king, he blessed the Jews\ninstead of cursing them.\n\n\"Hullo, Balaam, what's this?\" cried the king. \"I asked you to curse\nmy enemies and you've gone and blessed them. What d'ye mean?\" \"True,\"\nanswered Balaam, \"but I told you that I could only speak what the Lord\nput into my mouth.\"\n\nBalak appears to have been just as sceptical as Pharaoh about the God\nof the Jews. He attributed his disappointment to a freak of the prophet,\nand not being easily baffled he resolved to try again. So he took Balaam\nup another high place, and built seven fresh altars, and sacrificed\non them seven more bullocks and rams; after which he repeated his\ninvitation. Again Balaam went farther to consult the Lord, whom he found\nwaiting for him, and received his instructions. And lo! when he returned\nto Balak he again blessed the Jews instead of cursing them.\n\nBalak resolved to try again. He took Balaam to another high place, built\nseven more altars, and sacrificed seven more bullocks and seven more\nrams. But again the prophet blessed Israel, and a third time the king\nwas sold. Then he gave it up, and Balaam and his ass went home.\n\nWhat became of the ass is unknown. Perhaps he went into the prophetical\nbusiness himself, and eventually retired on a very handsome fortune.\nPerhaps he went about as a preacher of the gospel as it was then\nunderstood; in which case, judging from the rule of success in later\nages, we have no doubt that he attracted large audiences and delighted\nall who were fortunate enough to sit under him. And when he died all the\ntwo-legged asses in Moab probably wept and refused to be comforted.\n\nBalaam's end was tragic. The thirteenth chapter of _Joshua_ informs us\nthat he was eventually slain by the very people he had thrice blessed.\nAfter an account of one of the bloody wars of Jehovah's bandits we read\nthat \"Balaam also the son of Beor, the sooth-sayer, did the children\nof Israel slay with the sword among them that were slain by them.\" The\nangel of the Lord spared him, but God's butchers cut his throat at\nlast. On the whole he might as well have cursed the Jews up and down to\nBalak's satisfaction, and taken the handsome rewards which were offered\nhim on such easy terms.\n\nHere endeth the story of Balaam's Ass. I hope my reader still believes\nit, for if not, he will be reprobate while he lives and damned when he\ndies.\n\n\n\n\nGOD'S THIEVES IN CANAAN.\n\nBIBLE ROMANCES.--X.\n\nBy G. W. FOOTE.\n\n\nSome years ago the righteous indignation of England was roused by\nthe daily record of atrocities perpetrated in Bulgaria by the Turkish\nbashi-bazouks. Men were wantonly massacred, pregnant women ripped up,\nand maidens outraged by brutal lust. Our greatest statesman uttered a\nclarion-cry which pealed through the whole nation, and the friends of\nthe Turk in high places shrank abashed and dismayed before the stern\nresponse of the people. Many clergymen attended public meetings, and\ndenounced not only the Turks, but also their Mohammedanism. They alleged\nthat the Koran sanctioned, even if it did not command, the horrors which\nhad been wrought in Eastern Europe, and they declared that there was\nno hope for a country which derived its maxims of state from such an\naccursed book. Those denunciations did honor to their hearts, but very\nlittle to their heads. For every brutal injunction in the Koran, twenty\nmight be found in the Bible. Before the clergy cry out against the\nScriptures of Islam, they should purge their own of those horrid\nfeatures which are an insult to man and a blasphemy against God.\nMohammed gave savage counsels to his followers with respect to waging\nwar, but these sink into insignificance beside the counsels given to the\nJews by Moses in the name of God.\n\nBible Romances are generally comic, but this one is infinitely tragic.\nThe whole range of history affords no worse instances of cold-blooded\ncruelty than those which God's thieves, the Jews, perpetrated in Canaan,\nwhen they took forcible possession of cities they had not built and\nfields they had never ploughed. \"How that red rain will make the harvest\ngrow!\" exclaims Byron of the blood shed at Waterloo; and surely the\nfirst harvests reaped by the Jews in Canaan must have been luxuriantly\nrich, for the ground had been drenched with the blood of the slain.\n\nBefore Moses died, according to the Bible, he delivered an elaborate\ncode of laws to his people in the name of God. The portions referring to\nwar are contained in the twentieth chapter of _Deuteronomy_. Here they\nstand in all their naked hideous-ness:--\n\n\"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim\npeace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and\nopen unto thee, then it shall be that all the people that is found\ntherein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And\nif it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then\nthou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into\nthine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the\nsword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all\nthat is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto\nthyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord\nthy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which\nare very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these\nnations. But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God\ndoth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that\nbreatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them.\"\n\nSuch were the fiendish commands of Jehovah, the bloody maxims of\ninspired war. Let us see how the Jews carried them out.\n\nDuring the lifetime of Moses they made a good beginning; for in their\nwar against Midian they slew 48,000 men, 48,000 women, and 20,000 boys,\nand took as spoil 32,000 virgins. But they did much better under Joshua.\n\nAfter God had dispatched Moses and secretly buried him, so that nobody\nshould ever discover his sepulchre, Joshua was appointed leader in his\nstead. He was \"full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his\nhands upon him.\" Then, as now, religious superiors transmitted holiness\nto their inferiors through the skull. God accepted the nomination of\nMoses and instructed Joshua in his duties. He told him to be above all\n\"strong and very courageous,\" and to fight the enemy according to the\nlaw of Moses. Joshua was not the man to neglect such advice.\n\nJoshua was soon ordered to cross the river Jordan and begin the holy\nwar. But before doing so, he dispatched two spies to reconnoitre\nJericho, the first place to be attacked. They reached the city by night,\nand of course required lodgings. Instinct led them to the house of\nRahab, the harlot. She proved a very good friend; for when messengers\ncame from the king in the morning to inquire about them, she said that\nthey had gone, and advised the messengers to go after them, which they\ndid. Meanwhile she hid the spies under some flax on the roof of her\nhouse, and at night \"let them down by a cord through the window, for she\ndwelt on the town wall.\" Before they left, however, she made a covenant\nwith them. Like many other ladies of easy virtue, or no virtue at\nall, Rahab was piously inclined. She had conceived a great respect\nfor Jehovah, and was assured that his people would overcome all their\nenemies. But she had also a great respect for her own skin; so she made\nthe two spies promise on behalf of the Jews that when they took Jericho\nthey would spare her and all her relatives; and they were to recognise\nher house by the \"line of scarlet thread in the window.\" They got back\nsafe to Joshua and told him it was all right; the people were in a\ndreadful funk, and all the land would soon be theirs.\n\nJoshua got up early the next morning and told the Jews that the Lord was\ngoing to do wonders. They wanted to get \"on the other side of Jordan.\"\nand the Lord meant to ferry them across in his own style. Twelve men\nwere selected, one from each tribe, to follow the priests who bore the\nark in front, and all the Jewish host came after them. As it was harvest\ntime, the river had overflowed its banks. When the priests' feet \"were\ndipped in the brim of the water,\" the river parted in twain; on one side\nthe waters \"stood and rose up upon an heap,\" while on the other side\nthey \"failed and were cut off.\" As no miracle was worked further up the\nriver to stop the supplies, the \"heap\" must have been a pretty big one\nbefore the play ended. A clear passage having been made, the Jews all\ncrossed on dry ground. They seem to have done this in less than a day,\nbut three millions of people could not march past one spot in less than\na week. Perhaps the Lord gave them a shove behind.\n\nThe twelve selected Jews, one from each tribe, took twelve big stones\nout of the bed of the river, which were \"pitched in Gilgal\" as \"a\nmemorial unto the children of Israel for ever.\" For ever is a long time\nand is not yet ended. Those stones should be there now. Why don't the\nclergy try to discover them? If brought to London and set up on the\nThames embankment they would throw Cleopatra's needle into the shade.\n\nWhen God had ferried the Jews across, and picked out the twelve\nbig stones as aids to memory, the \"heap\" of water tumbled down and\noverflowed the banks of the river. Joshua and his people then encamped\nnear Jericho, in readiness for greater wonders to come.\n\nThree days afterwards the manna ceased. Jehovah's fighting cocks wanted\na more invigorating diet. This time they did not ask for a change, but\nthe Lord vouchsafed it spontaneously.\n\nAll the males, too, were circumcised by God's orders. This Jewish rite\nhad been neglected during the forty years' wandering in the wilderness,\nbut it was now resumed. From the text it seems that Joshua circumcised\nall the males himself. As they numbered about a million and a half it\nmust have been a long job. Allowing a minute for each amputation, it\nwould in the natural course of things have taken him about three years\nto do them all; but being divinely aided, he finished his task in a\nsingle day. Samson's jaw-bone was nothing to Joshua's knife.\n\nSoon after Joshua, being near Jericho, like Balaam's ass saw an angel\nwith a drawn sword in his hand. When he had made obeisance, by falling\nflat and taking off his shoes, he received from this heavenly messenger\nprecise instructions as to the capture of the doomed city. The Lord's\nway of storming fortresses is unique in military literature. Said he to\nJoshua--\"Ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round\nabout the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days. And seven priests\nshall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams' horns: and the seventh\nday ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow\nwith the trumpet? And it shall come to pass that when they make a long\nblast with the ram's horn, and when ye hear the sound of the trumpet\nall the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city\nshall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight\nbefore him.\"\n\nDid ever another general receive such extraordinary instructions from\nhis commander-in-chief? God's soldiers need no cannon, or battering\nrams, or bombshells; all they require is a few rams' horns and good\nlungs for shouting.\n\nGod's orders were obeyed. Six days in succession did the Jews march\nround the walls of Jericho, no doubt to the great bewilderment of its\ninhabitants, who probably wondered why they didn't come on, and felt\nthat there was something uncanny in this roundabout siege. On the\nseventh day they went round the city seven times. How tired they must\nhave been! Jericho, being a capital city, could not have been less than\nseveral miles in circumference. The priests blew with the trumpets,\nthe people shouted with a great shout, and the walls of Jericho fell\nflat--as flat as the simpletons who believe it.\n\nA scene of horror ensued. The Jews \"utterly destroyed all there was in\nthe city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass,\nwith the edge of the sword.\" Only Rahab and her relatives were spared.\nThe silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, were put\ninto the Lord's treasury--that is, handed over to the priests; and then\nthe city was burnt with fire. God commanded this, and his chosen people\nexecuted it Could Jericho have been treated worse if the Devil himself\nhad planned the fight, and the vilest fiends from hell had conducted it?\n\nRahab the harlot, being saved with all her relatives, who were perhaps\nas bad as she, dwelt with the Jews ever afterwards. Whether she\ncontinued in her old profession we are unable to say. But it is certain\nthat the Jews soon after grew very corrupt, and the Lord's anger was\nkindled against them. The first result of God's displeasure was that the\nJews became demoralised as warriors. Three thousand of them, who went up\nagainst Ai, were routed, and thirty-six of them were slain. This seems\na very small number, but, as we have already observed, the Jewish\nchroniclers were much given to bragging. Their losses were always very\nsmall, and the enemy's very great.\n\nAfter this rebuff the Jews funked; their hearts \"melted and became as\nwater.\" Joshua rent his clothes, fell upon his face before the ark, and\nremained there until the evening. The elders of Israel did likewise,\nand they all put dust on their heads. To conclude the performance Joshua\nexpostulated with God, asked him whether he had brought his people over\nJordan only to betray them to their enemies, and expressed a hearty wish\nthat they had never crossed the river at all.\n\nThe Lord told Joshua to get up, as it was no use lying there. Israel had\nsinned, and God had determined not to help them until they had purged\nthemselves. Some one, in fact, had stolen a portion of the spoil of\nJericho, all of which belonged to the Lord, that is to the priests,\nwho evidently helped to concoct this pretty story. Joshua forthwith\nproceeded to hunt the sinner out. His method was very singular. He\nresolved to go through the twelve tribes until the culprit was found.\nThe tribe of Judah was examined first, and luckily in the very first\nfamily \"Achan was taken,\" although we are not told how he was spotted.\nAchan confessed that he had appropriated of the spoil a \"goodly\nBabylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of\ngold of fifty shekels weight,\" which he had hidden under his tent. His\ndoom was swift and terrible; he was stoned to death, and his body burnt\nwith fire. We may think his punishment severe, but we cannot deny his\nguilt. He, however, was not the only sufferer. Jehovah was not to be\nsatisfied with a small quantity of blood. Achans's sons and daughters\nwere stoned with him, and their bodies were burnt like his. His very\noxen, asses, and sheep were served in the same manner. A great heap of\nstones was raised over their cinders, and then \"the Lord turned from\nthe fierceness of his anger.\" Jehovah acted just like the savage old\nchieftain of a savage tribe. As irascible tempers do not improve with\nage, we presume that he is still as peppery as ever. Yet we are asked to\nlove, venerate, and worship this brutal being, as the ideal of all that\nis merciful, just, and pure.\n\nImmediately after Joshua sent thirty thousand men against Ai, which they\ntook with great ease. All its inhabitants, from the oldest man to the\nyoungest babe, were massacred. The city itself was burnt into a desolate\nheap. The King of Ai was reserved to furnish the Jews with a little\nextra sport, by way of dessert to the bloody feast. He was hanged on a\ntree until eventide, when his carcass was taken down and \"buried under\na heap of stones.\" Joshua \"then built an altar unto the Lord God of\nIsrael in mount Ebal,\" who appears to have been mightily well pleased\nwith the whole business.\n\nJoshua's next exploit was indeed miraculous. He gathered all the Jews\ntogether, men, women, children, and even the strangers, and read to them\nall the laws of Moses, without omitting a single word. It must have been\na long job, and Joshua's throat must have been rather dry at the end.\nBut the greatest wonder is how he made himself heard to three millions\nof people at once. No other orator ever addressed so big an audience.\nEither their ears were very sharp, or his voice was terribly loud. The\npeople in the front rank must have been nearly stunned with the sound.\nJoshua could outroar Bottom the weaver by two or three miles.\n\nThe people of Gibeon, by means of messengers who palmed themselves off\non Joshua as strangers from a distant country, contrived to obtain a\nleague whereby their lives were spared. When their craft was detected\nthey were sentenced to become hewers of wood and drawers of water to the\nJews; in other words, their slaves.\n\nAdoni-zedec, king of Jerusalem; Hoham, king of Hebron; Piram, king\nof Jamuth; Japhia, king of Lachish; and Debir, king of Eglon; banded\nthemselves together to punish Gibeon for making peace with the Jews.\nJoshua went with all his army to their relief. He fell upon the armies\nof the five kings, discomfitted them with great slaughter, and chased\nthem along the way to Beth-horon. As they fled the Lord joined in the\nhunt. He \"cast down great stones from heaven upon them\" and killed a\nhuge number, even \"more than they whom the children of Israel slew with\nthe sword.\"\n\nWhen we read that Pan fought with the Greeks against the Persians at\nMarathon, we must regard it as a fable; but when we read that Jehovah\nfought with the Jews against the five kings at Gibeon, we must regard it\nas historical truth, and if we doubt it we shall be eternally damned.\n\nNot only did the Lord join in the war-hunt, but Joshua wrought the\ngreatest miracle on record by causing a stationary body to stand still.\nHe stopped the sun from \"going down\" and lengthened out the day for\nabout twelve hours, in order that the Jews might see to pursue and kill\nthe flying foe. \"The sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the\npeople had avenged themselves upon their enemies.\" What Joshua really\nstopped, if he stopped anything, was the earth, for its revolution,\nand not the motion of the sun, causes the phenomena of day and night.\nScience tells us that the arrest of the earth's motion would generate a\nfrightful quantity of heat, enough to cause a general conflagration.\nYet nothing of the kind happened. How is it, too, that no other ancient\npeople has preserved any record of this marvellous occurrence? The\nEgyptians, for instance, carefully noted eclipses and such events, but\nthey jotted down no memorandum of Joshua's supreme miracle. Why is this?\nHow can Christians explain it?\n\nWhen Jupiter personated Amphytrion, and visited his bride Alcmena, the\namorous god lengthened out the night in order to prolong his enjoyment.\nWhy may we not believe this? Is it not as credible, and quite as moral,\nas the Bible story of Jehovah's lengthening out the day to prolong a\nmassacre? Were the Greeks any bigger liars than the Jews?\n\nIt has been suggested that Joshua was so elated with the victory that\nhe drank more than was good for him, and got in such a state that in the\nevening he saw two moons instead of one. Nobody liked to contradict him,\nbut the elders of Israel, to harmonise their leader's vision, declared\nthat it comprised the sun and the moon, instead of two moons, which\nwere clearly absurd. The court poet improved on this explanation, and\ncomposed the neat little poem which is partially preserved by the Jewish\nchronicler, who asks \"Is not this written in the book of Jasher?\" The\nwaggish laureate Jasher is supposed by some profane speculators to have\ngot up the whole miracle himself.\n\nThe five kings fled with their armies and \"hid themselves in a cave at\nMakkedah.\" Joshua ordered the mouth to be closed with big stones until\nthe pursuit was ended. At last they were brought out and treated with\ngreat ignominy. Their necks were made footstools of by the captains of\nIsrael, and they were afterwards hung on trees until the evening, when\ntheir carcasses were flung into the cave. After this highly civilised\ntreatment of their captives, the Jews took all the capital cities of\nthese five kings and slew all the inhabitants. Then they desolated the\nhills and vales. Joshua \"left none remaining, but utterly destroyed\nall that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.\" Hazor and many\nother places were also treated in the same way, \"there was not any left\nto breathe.\"\n\nJehovah was not, however, able to execute his intentions completely. The\nchildren of Judah could not drive the Jebusites out of Jerusalem; nor\ncould the children of Manasseh entirely drive out the Canaanites from\ntheir cities. After Joshua's death, as we read in the book of _Judges_,\n\"the Lord was with Judah, and he drave out the inhabitants of the\nmountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because\nthey had chariots of iron.\" Iron chariots were too strong for the\nAlmighty! Yet he managed to take off the wheels of Pharaoh's chariots\nat the Red Sea. Why could he not do the same on this occasion? Were the\nlinch-pins too tight or the wheels too heavy?\n\nJoshua died at the ripe old age of a hundred and ten. Whatever else he\nmay have been, he was certainly one of the gamest fighting cocks that\never lived. Jehovah never found a better instrument for his bloody\npurposes. They buried him at Timnath-serah. Joseph's old bones, which\nMoses brought out of Egypt, were buried at Shechem. Had they been kept\nmuch longer some Hebrew \"old-clo' man\" might have carried them off and\nmade an honest penny by them.\n\nAfter Joshua's death, the tribe of Judah fought against Adoni-bezek.\nWhen they caught him they cut off his thumbs and his big toes. He\nacknowledged the justice of his punishment, and admitted that God had\nserved him just as he had himself served seventy kings, whose great toes\nhe had cut off, and made them eat under his table. Kings must have been\nvery plentiful in those days.\n\nDuring Joshua's lifetime the Jews served God, and they kept pretty\nstraight during the lifetime of the elders who had known him. But\ndirectly these died they went astray; \"they forsook the Lord and\nworshipped Baal and Ashtaroth.\" God punished them by letting their\nenemies oppress them. \"Nevertheless,\" says the story, \"the Lord raised\nup judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled\nthem. And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went\na whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them; and they\nturned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the\ncommandments of the Lord; but they did not so..... And it came to pass,\nwhen the judge was dead, that they returned and corrupted themselves\nmore than their fathers, in following other Gods to serve them, and\nto bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from\ntheir stubborn way.\"\n\nGod's selection of the Jews as his favorite people does not seem to\nreflect much credit on his sagacity. All who came out of Egypt, except\ntwo persons, turned out so badly that they were pronounced unfit to\nenter the promised land, and doomed to die in the wilderness. The new\ngeneration who entered Canaan, after being circumcised to make them\nholy; after seeing the miracles of Jordan and the valley of Ajalon;\nafter having gained a home by God's assistance in a land flowing with\nmilk and honey; this very generation proved worse than their fathers.\nThe original inhabitants of Canaan, whom they dispossessed, could hardly\nhave surpassed them in sin against Jehovah; and therefore the ruthless\nslaughter of their conquest was as unreasonable as it was inhuman. So\nmuch for \"God's Thieves in Canaan.\"\n\n\n\n\nCAIN AND ABEL.\n\nBIBLE ROMANCES.--11.\n\nBy G. W. FOOTE.\n\n\nGod completed the immense labors described in the first chapter of\nGenesis by creating man \"in his own image,\" after which he serenely\ncontemplated \"everything that he had made, and; behold, it was very\ngood.\" Yet the first woman deceived her husband, the first man was\nduped, and their first son was a murderer. God could not have looked\nvery far ahead when he pronounced everything \"very good.\" It is clear\nthat the original pair of human beings were very badly made. As the Lord\nwas obliged to take a rest on the seventh day, it is not unreasonable to\nsuppose that he was pretty tired on the sixth, and scamped the work.\nAll the sin and suffering in this world is the consequence of man having\nbeen the fag-end of creation. If the Lord had rested on the sixth day\nand created man on the seventh, how different things might have been!\nThe Devil would probably have done no business in this world, and the\npopulation of hell would be no more now than it was six thousand years\nago.\n\nAfter leaving the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, having no fear of\nMalthus in their hearts, began to \"multiply and replenish the earth.\"\nWhen their first child was born, Eve said, \"I have gotten a man from\nthe Lord,\" poor Adam's share in the youngster's advent being quietly\nignored. She christened him Cain, a name which comes from a Hebrew root\nsignifying to _acquire_. Cain was regarded as an _acquisition_, and his\nmother was very proud of him. The time came when she wished he had never\nbeen born.\n\nSome time after, but how long is unknown, Eve gave birth to a second\nson, called Abel. Josephus explains this name as meaning _grief_, but\nHebrew scholars at present explain it as meaning _nothingness, vanity,\nfrailty_. The etymology of Abel's name shows conclusively that the story\nis a myth. Why should Eve give her second boy so sinister a name? How\ncould she have so clearly anticipated his sad fate? Cain's name has,\ntoo, another significance besides that of \"acquisition,\" for, as\nKalisch points out, it also belongs to the Hebrew verb to _strike_, and\n\"signifies either the man of violence and the sire of murderers, or\nthe ancestor of the inventors of iron instruments and of weapons of\ndestruction.\"\n\nCain and Abel had to get their own living. Being born after the Fall,\nthey were of course debarred from the felicities of Eden, and were\ncompelled to earn their bread by the sweat of their brows, in accordance\nwith God's wide-reaching curse. Both, so to speak, were forced to deal\nin provisions. Abel went in for meat, and Cain for vegetables. This was\nan admirable division of labor, and they ought to have got on very well\ntogether; one finding beef and mutton for dinner, and the other potatoes\nand greens. They might even have paid each other handsome compliments\nacross the table. Abel might have said \"My dear Cain, these vegetables\nare first-rate,\" and Cain might have replied, \"My dear Abel, I never\ntasted a better cut.\"\n\nDelitzsch, whose criticisms are huge jokes, frowns on this picture of\nfraternal peace. He opines that Cain and Abel were vegetarians and never\nenjoyed a beef-steak or a mutton-chop. Abel kept only small domestic\ncattle, such as sheep and goats, whose woolly skin might be used to\ncover \"their sinful nakedness.\" The utmost Delitzsch allows is that they\nperhaps drank milk, which, although animal nutriment, is not obtained\nthrough the destruction of animal life. But, as Colenso observes,\nanimals were slain for sacrifices, and they may have been killed also\nfor eating. Besides, even a vegetable diet involves infinite destruction\nof minute animal life. On the whole we prefer to disregard Delitzsch\nin this matter, and to stand by our pleasant picture of the two first\nbrothers at dinner.\n\nTheir admirable arrangement, however, brought mischief in the end. It\nwas right enough so far as they were concerned, but it worked badly\nin relation to God. They liked a mixed diet, but the Lord was purely\ncarnivorous and liked all meat. He devoured Abel's provisions with\ngreat relish, but turned up his nose at Cain's vegetables. The mealiest\npotatoes, the tenderest green peas, had no charm for him; and even the\nleeks, the garlic, the onions, and the cucumbers, which were afterwards\nso beloved by his Jewish favorites, were quite unattractive. In the\nlanguage of Scripture, \"Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an\noffering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of\nhis flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and\nto his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had no respect\"\nElsewhere in the Bible we read \"God is no respecter of persons,\"\nbut Scripture is full of contradictions, and such things present no\ndifficulty to the spirit of faith, which, like hope, \"believeth all\nthings.\"\n\nWhy was Cain's offering slighted? The Bible does not tell us, but many\nreasons have been advanced by commentators. The Talmud supposes that\nCain did not offer his _best_ produce, but only the inferior kinds, thus\ngiving God what he did not require himself, and treating the holy rite\nof sacrifice as a means of working off his refuse vegetables. Kalisch\nwaives this theory, and thinks it probable that Cain's sin was primarily\nnot against God, but against man. \"The supposition,\" he says, \"is\nobvious that envy and jealousy had long filled the heart of Cain, when\nhe contrasted his laborious and toilsome life with the pleasant and easy\nexistence of his brother Abel. With incessant exertion, tormented by\nanxiety, and helplessly dependent on the uncertainty of the skies,\nhe forced a scanty subsistence out of the womb of the repugnant soil;\nwhilst his brother enjoyed a life of security and abundance, in the\nmidst of rich valleys, beautiful hills, and charming rural scenes. And\nwhile he envied Abel's prosperity, he despised his idleness, which was\nindebted for the necessaries of life to the liberality of nature, rather\nthan to personal exertions. This hatred and jealousy took root in Cain's\nheart. He beheld the happiness of his brother with the feelings-of an\nenemy. The joy at the success of his own labors was embittered by the\naspect of his brother's greater affluence. How could God look with\ndelight upon an offering which the offerer himself did not regard with\nunalloyed satisfaction? How could he encourage by his applause a man\nwhose heart was poisoned by the mean and miserable passion of envy?\"\n\nBut all this is gratuitous and far-fetched. Cain was not afflicted with\nso laborious an occupation. Adam supported himself and Eve, and all Cain\nhad to do was to provide himself, and perhaps Abel, with vegetables. Nor\ncould Abel's occupation have been light, for flocks and herds require\na good deal of attendance, and in those early days they needed vigilant\nprotection against the ravages of wild beasts. Abel's task must have\nbeen quite as heavy as Cain's. Our opinion is that the Lord showed his\nusual caprice, hating whom he would and loving whom he would. Jehovah\nacted like the savage hero of Mr. Browning's \"Caliban on Setebos,\" who\nsprawls on the shore watching a line of crabs make for the sea, and\nsquashes the twentieth for mere variety and sport. If Jehovah is\nrequested to explain his loves and hates, he answers with Shylock, \"it\nis my whim.\" It was his whim to love Jacob and hate Esau, and it was no\ndoubt his whim to accept Abel's offering and reject Cain's.\n\nMythologically the acceptance of Abel's offering and the rejection of\nCain's are easily intelligible. The principle of sacrifice was deeply\nimbedded in Judaism. Without shedding of blood there could be no\nremission of sin. Under the Levitical law the duties of the priesthood\nchiefly consisted in burning the sin offerings of the people. It is,\ntherefore, not difficult to understand how the Jewish scribes who wrote\nor revised the Pentateuch after the Babylonish captivity should give\nthis coloring to the narrative of Genesis; nor is it hard to conceive\nthat for centuries before that date the popular tradition had already,\nunder priestly direction, taken such a color, so as to give the oldest\nand deepest sanction to the doctrine of animal sacrifice.\n\nIt must also be noticed that Abel, who found favor with God, was \"a\nkeeper of sheep,\" while Cain, whose offering was contemned, was \"a\ntiller of the ground.\" This accords with the strongest traditional\ninstincts of the Jews. The Persian religion decidedly favors\nagriculture, which it regards as a kind of divine service. Brahminism\nand Buddhism countenance it still more decidedly, and even go to the\nlength of absolutely prohibiting the slaughter of animals. The Jews,\non the other hand, esteemed the pastoral life as the noblest, and\nthe Hebrew historian very naturally represented it as protected and\nconsecrated by the blessing of Jehovah, while agriculture was declared\nto have been imposed on man as a _punishment_. The nomadic origin of the\nJews accounts for their antipathy to that pursuit, which survived\nand manifested itself, long after they settled in Palestine, devoted\nthemselves to the cultivation of the soil, and enacted agrarian laws.\nThey always esteemed agriculturalists as inferior to shepherds; men of\nsuperior attainments in their histories and legends rose from pastoral\nlife; and kings kept their flocks. David, the man after God's own heart,\nand the national hero of the Jews, was a shepherd, and the Lord came\nto him while he was keeping his father's sheep. Moses was keeping his\nfather-in-law's sheep when God appeared to him in the burning bush at\nMount Horeb; Jacob kept his uncle Laban's sheep when he fled from Esau;\nand Abraham, the father of the faithful, was rich in flocks and herds.\n\nTo recur to our story. Abel probably enjoyed the conspicuous mark\nof divine favors conferred on him. Cain, however, experienced very\ndifferent feelings. He \"was very wroth, and his countenance fell.\"\nWhereupon the Lord somewhat facetiously asked him what was the matter.\n\"Why,\" said he, \"art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If\nthou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well,\nsin lieth at the door.\" This was all very well, but as a matter of fact\nCain's offering had already been _rejected_, and according to the Bible\nhe had done nothing to deserve such harsh treatment.\n\nThe Lord's final words on this occasion read thus in our English Bible:\n\"And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.\" These\nwords are construed as applying to Cain's mastery over Abel, as the\nelder brother; but they seem quite unmeaning in that connexion; for\nAbel left no offspring, and the prophecy, if such it were, was never\nfulfilled. Kalisch throws light on this obscure passage. The Lord,\nhe says, was referring not to Abel but to Cain's secret sin, and the\npassage should read \"And to thee is _its_ desire, but thou shalt rule\nover it.\"\n\nCain then \"talked with Abel his brother.\" Gesenius supposes that he\ncommunicated to him the words of God, and treats this as the first step\ntowards a reconciliation. However that may be, we hear nothing more of\nit, for the very next words relate the murder of the younger brother by\nthe elder. \"And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain\nrose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.\"\n\nThis abrupt narrative certainly requires explanation. Kalisch seems to\nthink that Cain went about his work, after the interview with God, in a\nbetter frame of mind; but while he toiled hard \"in the field\" he became\nincensed at the sight of Abel loafing under a fine umbrageous tree\nand calmly watching his flock. Forgetting the divine admonitions,\nand listening only to the voice of passion, he madly killed his only\nbrother, and made himself the first murderer. The Talmud gives several\nlegends about the hatred between the two brothers. One imputes the\ndifference to Cain's avarice, another to his ambition, another to his\ninnate sinfulness, and another to his envy and jealousy on account\nof Abel's wife. The last of all seems the truest; namely, that they\ndiffered \"in their views regarding Providence, the moral government of\nthe world, and the efficacy of virtuous deeds for happiness.\" This idea\ninforms Byron's tragedy on the subject. In \"Cain\" the younger, brother's\noffering is burnt up with supernatural fire, while the elder's altar\nremains unkindled; whereupon Cain inveighs against God's partiality, and\ndenounces the bloody sacrifice which finds greater favor than his own\npeaceful tribute of fruit and flowers. He then advances to scatter the\nrelics of Abel's offering from the altar, but is thwarted by his brother\nwho resists the sacrilege. Abel is felled in the struggle, and Cain, who\nhad no intention of killing him, finds himself an actual murderer before\nhis brother's corpse.\n\nWe are bound to conclude that the first quarrel in the world, like\nnine-tenths of those that have occurred since, was about religion. Cain\nthought God should be worshiped in one way, Abel thought he should be\nworshiped in another; and they settled the question, after the manner of\nreligious disputants in all ages, by the stronger knocking the weaker on\nthe head. In religion there is no certitude on this side of the grave;\nif we are ever destined to know the truth on that subject, we must die\nto find it out. We may therefore argue fruitlessly until the day of\njudgment. The only effectual way of settling a religious problem is to\nsettle your opponents.\n\nAfter the murder the Lord paid Cain another visit, and asked him where\nAbel was. Cain replied that he was not his brother's keeper and didn't\nknow. He does not appear to have thought God a particularly well\ninformed person. Then the Lord said that Abel's blood cried unto him\nfrom the ground. \"And now,\" he continued, \"art thou cursed from the\nearth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from\nthy hand; when thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield\nunto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be on the\nearth. And Cain said unto the Lord, my punishment is greater than I\ncan bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the\nearth; and from thy face shall I be hid, and I shall be a fugitive and\na vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass that every one\nthat findeth me shall slay me. And the Lord said unto him, Therefore\nwhosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And\nthe Lord set a mark on Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. And\nCain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of\nNod, on the east of Eden.\"\n\nNow let us examine this story. Why was Cain so solicitous about his\nsafety? Why did he fear that everybody would try to kill him? He had\nslain his brother, and his father and mother were the only people in\nthe world besides himself and perhaps his sisters (? who knew). Kalisch\nsuggests that he apprehended the future vengeance of mankind when the\nworld grew more populous. But how, in that case, could a distinctive\nmark be any protection? It would publish his identity to all beholders.\nBesides, one would suppose that Cain, the first man ever born into the\nworld, would always be well known without carrying about a brand like a\nspecial wine or a patent edible. And what was the mark? Kalisch thinks\nit was only a villainous expression. Others think it was the Mongolian\ntype impressed upon the features of Cain, who became the founder of that\ngreat division of the human race. A negro preacher started a different\ntheory. When the Lord called out in a loud voice \"Cain, where is thy\nbrother Abel,\" Cain, who was a black man, like Adam, turned pale with\nfear, and never regained his original color. All his children were pale\ntoo; and that, said the preacher, \"accounts for de white trash you see\nebery war in dese days.\"\n\nHow did Cain manage to go \"out from the presence of the Lord,\" who is\neverywhere? Satan does the same thing in the Book of Job, and Jonah\ntries to do it later on. Jehovah was clearly a local as well as a\nvisible God, and not the infinite spirit of the universe.\n\nWhere was the land of Nod situated? East of Eden, says the Bible. But\nnobody knows where Eden was. As we pointed out in \"The Creation Story,\"\nscores of different positions have been assigned to it. The only point\nof agreement among the commentators is that it was _somewhere_. All that\ncan safely be affirmed, then, is that Nod was east of Somewhere. The\nname itself is very appropriate. No doubt the Lord was not quite awake\nin that locality, and hence we may explain how Cain managed to go \"out\nfrom his presence.\"\n\nIn this strange land of Nod, Cain \"knew his wife.\" Who was she? Probably\nhis own sister, but the Bible does not tell us anything about her. Their\nfirst son was called Enoch. Cain then \"builded a city, and called\nthe name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.\" But this is\ndirectly opposed to the curse \"a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be\nin the earth.\"\n\nDelitzsch notices this, and, as usual, seeks to explain it away. Cain,\nhe says, \"in this way set himself against the divine curse, in order\nto feel it inwardly so much the more, as outwardly he seems to have\novercome it.\" To which we reply--first, that there is no evidence\nthat Cain felt the curse \"more inwardly\" after he built the city; and,\nsecondly, the idea of a man successfully setting himself against an\nomnipotent curse is a trifle too absurd for credence or criticism.\n\nNow Adam and Eve, when Cain fled after the murder of Abel, were left\nchildless, or at least without a son. But it was necessary that they\nshould have another, in order that God's chosen people, the Jews, might\nbe derived from a purer stock than Cain's. Accordingly we read that\nAdam, in his hundred and thirtieth year, \"begat a son in his own\nlikeness, after his image, and called his name Seth.\" Why was not Cain\nbegotten in the same way? Had he been so, the cradle of the world might\nnot have been defiled with the blood of fratricide. Seth being \"the\nimage\" of Adam, and Adam \"the image\" of God, Seth and the Almighty were\nof course very much alike. He was pious, and from him were descended the\npious patriarchs, including Noah, from whom was descended Abraham the\nfounder of the Jewish race. God's chosen people came of a good stock,\nalthough they turned out such a bad lot.\n\nFrom Seth to Noah there are ten Patriarchs before the Flood. This is\nclearly mythological. The Hindus believed in _ten_ great saints, the\noffspring of Manu, and in _ten_ different personifications of Vishnu.\nThe Egyptians had _ten_ mighty heroes, the Chaldeans _ten_ kings before\nthe Flood, the Assyrians _ten_ kings from Ham to Ninyas, and as many\nfrom Japhet to Aram; and Plato enumerates _ten_ sons of Neptune, as the\nrulers of his imaginary Island of Atlantis, submerged by the Deluge.\n\nCain's descendants were of course drowned by the Flood, but they did a\ngreat deal more for the world than the descendants of pious Seth, who\nseems to have done little else than trust in God. The Cainites laid the\nbasis of civilisation. One of them Jabal, founded _cattle-keeping_; his\nbrother, Jubal, invented _musical instruments_; and their half-brother\nTubal-cain first practised _smithery_. Seth's descendants had nothing\nbut piety. Even their morals were no better than those of the Cainites;\nfor at the Flood only eight of them were found worthy of preservations,\nand they were a poor lot. Noah got beastly drunk after the waters\nsubsided, and one of his three sons brought a curse on all his\noffspring. What then must we think of the rest?\n\nTuch excellently explains the mythological significance of the story\nof Cain and Abel and Seth. \"There lies,\" he says, \"in this myth the\nperfectly correct reminiscence, that in the East _ancient_ nations\nlived, under whom in very early times culture and civilisation extended,\nbut at the same time the assertion, that these could not prejudice the\nrenown of the Western-Asiatics, since the prerogatives, which their\ndescent from the first-born would secure to them, were done away through\nGod's Curse, which lighted on their ancestor, Cain. Thus the East is\ncut off from the following history, and the thread fastened on, which\ncarries us on in Genesis, right across through the nations, to the only\nchosen people of Israel.\" The entire history of the world before the\nFlood is dismissed in five chapters, and that from the Flood to Abraham\nin two more. After that the mighty antique civilisations are never\nnoticed except so far as they affect the history of the Jews. The ages\nof the Patriarchs also dwindle down from nine centuries in the beginning\nto almost the normal longevity in the semi-historical period. Could\nanything more conclusively prove the mythical character of the\nnarrative?\n\nOne of the Patriarchs descended from Seth, namely Enoch, which\nsingularly enough is also the name of Cain's eldest son, never died. We\nread that \"he was not, for God took him.\" It is about time that the\nLord took the whole lot out of his Word, and gave us a little ancient\n_history_ instead. We want a _revised_ Bible in the fullest sense of\nthe word. The old book needs to be completely rewritten. How thankful\nwe should all be if the Lord inspired _another_ \"Moses\" to rectify the\nerrors and supplement the deficiencies of the first, and to give us\nscientific truth instead of fanciful myths about the early history of\nour race! But the Lord never inspires anybody to do a useful piece of\nwork, and our Darwins will therefore have to go on with their slow and\nlaborious task of making out a history of mankind from the multitudinous\nand scattered traces that still survive the decay of time.\n\n\n\n\nLOT'S WIFE.\n\nBIBLE ROMANCES.--12.\n\nBy G. W. FOOTE.\n\n\nLot and his family were a queer lot. Their history is one of the\nstrangest in the whole Bible. They dwelt amongst a people whose\ndebauchery has become a by-word, and in a city which has given a name to\nthe vilest of unnatural crimes. Lot, his wife, and their two unmarried\ndaughters, were the only persons preserved from the terrible fate which\nJehovah, in one of his periodic fits of anger, inflicted upon the famous\nCities of the Plain. They witnessed a signal instance of his ancient\nmethod of dealing with his disobedient children. In the New Testament,\nGod promises the wicked and the unbelievers everlasting fire after they\nare dead; in the Old Testament, he drowns them or burns them up in this\nworld. Lot and his family saw the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by\n\"brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven\"; and they, four persons\nin all, just half the number that survived the Flood a few centuries\nbefore, were the only ones that escaped. God specially spared them. Yet\nLot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back as she fled\nfrom the doomed city, and the old man himself soon after got drunk and\ncommitted incest with his daughters. From this crime sprang Moab and\nAmmon, the founders of two nations who became for many centuries the\nmost implacable enemies of God's chosen people.\n\nWhy did the Lord spare these four persons? Why did he not profit by the\nlesson of the Flood? The eight persons rescued from drowning in that\ngreat catastrophe were infected with original sin, and the consequence\nwas that the world peopled from their stock was a great deal worse than\nthe ante-diluvian world. It would clearly have been better to destroy\nall and start absolutely afresh. The eight rescued persons were\napparently just as bad as those who were drowned. So with the four\npersons spared at the destruction of Sodom. The people of that city\ncould hardly have been much worse than Lot and his children. The Lord\nappears to have been as stupid in his mercy as he was brutal in his\nwrath.\n\nLot was Abraham's nephew, and evidently came of a bad stock. The uncle's\nevil career will be sketched in our series of \"Bible Heroes.\" For\nthe present we content ourselves with the remark that no good could\nreasonably be expected from such a family. Lot's father was Haran, a son\nof Terah, and brother to Abraham.\n\nHe \"died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of\nthe Chaldees.\" A city was called by his name in the land of Canaan, and\nTerah and the family dwelt there after they left Ur, until the patriarch\ndied and Abraham was called out from his kindred to found a new house.\nThe \"father of the faithful\" took his orphaned nephew with him. Lot\naccompanied his uncle on the journey to Egypt, where Abraham passed his\nwife off as his sister, and showed his natural bent by lying right and\nleft.\n\nSoon afterwards we learn that Abraham and Lot had grown very rich, the\nformer \"in cattle, in silver, and in gold,\" and the latter in \"flocks,\nand herds, and tents.\" Indeed \"their substance was so great that they\ncould not dwell together, and there was strife between the herdmen of\nAbram's cattle and the herd-men of Lot's cattle.\" Whereupon Abraham said\n\"Don't let us quarrel within the family, but let us part. You can go\nwhere you like. If you go to the right I'll go to the left, and if you\ngo to the left I'll go to the right\" It was necessary to separate Lot\nfrom the fortunes of Abraham, in order that God's dealings with the\nlatter might be uninterrupted and his family kept distinct; and so the\nHebrew chronicler very naturally separates them here, in a manner which\nreflects great credit on Abraham, and exhibits him in a most amiable\nlight.\n\nCunning Lot took full advantage of the offer. He \"lifted up his eyes,\nand beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere,\neven as the garden of the Lord.\" So they parted, and Lot \"pitched his\ntent towards Sodom,\" whose inhabitants, says our naive story, \"were\nwicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.\" Commentators explain\nthat Lot's approach to such a detestable sink of iniquity indicated the\nnative corruption of his heart, or at least a sad lack of horror at the\nsins which made the place stink in the nostrils of God.\n\nIn the next chapter we find Lot living in Sodom, although we are not\ntold when he moved there. Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of\nEllasar, Chedorlaorner king of Elam, and Tidal \"king of nations,\" made\nwar with Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of\nAdmah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the \"king of Bera, which is Zoar.\"\nA great battle was fought in the vale of Siddim, which is alleged to\nbe now covered by the Dead Sea. The four kings were victorious over\nthe five. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and the victors spoiled\ntheir cities, taking with them many captives, among whom was \"Lot,\nAbram's brother's son.\" How Abraham went out with a handful of men,\ndefeated the triumphant forces of the allied kings, and rescued his\nnephew, is a pretty little story which we reserve for our life of that\npatriarch. All the other captives were rescued also, and Lot, returning\nwith his friends, continued to dwell in Sodom as before.\n\nWe hear no more of him for a considerable time. During the interval\nAbraham has a child by Hagar. Ishmael, with the rest of the patriarch's\nhousehold, is circumcised. And finally the Lord visits Abraham again to\ntell him that, notwithstanding their advanced ages, he and Sarah shall\nyet have a son. What happened during the interview properly belongs to\nthe life of Abraham, but we shall here consider so much of it as relates\nto the fortunes of Lot.\n\nThe Lord complained that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was \"very\ngrievous,\" and said that the great cry of it had reached him in heaven.\nBeing much concerned about their \"goings on,\" he had resolved to drop\ndown and see for himself if they were realty as bad as he suspected.\n\"If not,\" said he, \"I will know.\" In the Old Testament, God, who knows\neverything, is always seeking information.\n\nAbraham surmised that the Lord meant to play the devil with the\nSodomites, and he was anxious about Lot who dwelt with them. So he\nbegan a parley. \"Now, my Lord,\" said Abraham, \"you surely don't mean to\ndestroy indiscriminately; you, the judge of all the earth, must act on\nthe square. Suppose there are fifty righteous men in Sodom, won't you,\njust for their sake, spare the place?\" Knowing that there were nothing\nlike fifty righteous men in Sodom, the Lord promptly acceded to\nAbraham's-request; so promptly indeed that Abraham smelt a rat, and\ndetermined to drive a closer bargain. So he asked the Lord to knock off\nfive. \"Very well,\" was the reply, \"if I find forty-five righteous men\nI'll spare the city.\" Abraham was still suspicious. He knew that Jehovah\nloved a bit of destruction, and was not easily moved when he had once\nmade up his mind to indulge himself. So he returned to the charge. \"I\nbeg pardon,\" said he, \"for troubling you so, but do you mind knocking\noff another ten, and making thirty of it?\" \"Not at all,\" answered the\nLord, \"we'll say thirty.\" Abraham felt there-was something wrong. This\namiable readiness to oblige thoroughly perplexed him. If the Lord had\nhaggled over the thirty, he would have known that there was about that\nnumber of righteous men in the place; but in the actual condition of\naffairs, he felt that he had considerably overshot the mark. The-game\nwas very dangerous, but he decided to renew it. \"My Lord,\" he began,\n\"I'm a dreadful bore, but I'm not quite satisfied with our contract and\nshould like to re-open it. I don't wish to be importunate, but will you\nknock off another ten?\" \"With all my heart,\" replied the Lord, \"we'll\nsay twenty.\" Still dissatisfied, Abraham resolved on a final effort. \"My\ngood Lord,\" said he, \"this is really the last time of asking. I promise\nto bother you no more. Will you knock off another ten?\" \"All right,\" was\nthe reply, \"anything to oblige. Well say ten altogether. If there are so\nmany righteous men in Sodom I'll spare it. Good afternoon, Abraham,\ngood afternoon.\" And the Lord was off. Abraham ruefully watched the\nretreating figure, perfectly assured that the Lord had got the best of\nthe bargain, and that he himself had been duped, worsted, and befooled.\n\nGod did not go to Sodom himself, but sent two angels to inspect it. They\nreached its gate in the evening, and found Lot sitting there. In eastern\ntowns the places before the gate are the appointed localities for\nmeetings; and in ancient times they were used for still more extensive\npurposes. There the judge pronounced his decisions, and even kings held\nthere occasionally their courts of justice; there buying and selling\nwent on; the people assembled there to see each other and hear the news;\nand almost all public affairs were transacted there, from religious\nworship to the smallest details of civil life. It is not surprising,\ntherefore, that Lot should be sitting in the gate when the two strangers\narrived at the city. Some commentators have even conjectured that he\nwent out to meet them; but others object that this is contradictory to\nthe narrative, which does not exhibit Lot as recognising the angels, and\nthat it implies \"too ideal a notion of its virtue.\" Some have supposed\nthat Lot had attained to the dignity of a judge, and that he was sitting\nto act in that capacity on this occasion; but later circumstances refute\nthis supposition; for, in the quarrel which ensued, the people of Sodom\nreproached him as \"a stranger\" who set himself up as a judge of their\nconduct.\n\nLot advanced to the strangers, greeted them with a profound bow,\naddressed them as \"my lords,\" and asked them to stay over night at his\nhouse, where he would wash their feet, give them something to eat, and\nfind them a bed. They declined his frank hospitality, and said they\nmeant to pass the night in the streets. Kalisch observes, as though he\nknew all about their motives, that \"it was their intention to try\nhis character, and to give him an opportunity of showing whether his\ngenerosity was merely a momentary emotion, or had become a settled\nfeature in his character.\" He also dismisses the idea that they wished\nto remain in the streets in order to study \"the moral state of the\nSodomites,\" as they required no such knowledge, for \"they were not only\nthe angels of God, but God himself acted in them.\" But Kalisch should\nbear in mind that God told Abraham he was going on purpose to \"see\nwhether they have done altogether according to the cry of it\"; and that,\nas the angels could not know more than God, it was after all necessary\nthat they should make inquiries. Lot, however, \"pressed upon them\ngreatly,\" and at last they entered his house. He then \"made them a\n_feast_\" which seems to have consisted of nothing but unleavened bread.\nPerhaps the angels, who had dined heavily with Abraham on veal, butter,\nand milk, were afraid of bad dreams, and only wanted a light supper\nbefore going to roost.\n\nThey were not, however, destined to enjoy a good night's sleep. Before\nthey \"lay down,\" the men of Sodom \"compassed the house round, both old\nand young, all the people from every quarter.\" And they called unto\nLot, and said unto him, \"Where are the men which came in unto thee this\nnight? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.\"\n\nWe are reluctant to criticise this dirty story, but duty compels us.\nGod's Word is full of disgusting narratives, and if we scrupled to\nexamine them we should have to leave the book alone. We have no love\nof filth, and if the Bible were not held up as a divine work we should\nnever condescend to notice its beastly tales of fornication, adultery,\nsodomy, and incest.\n\nWhy did _all_ the men of Sodom, both old and young, flock to Lot's\nhouse? Is it likely that _every_ male in the city, past the age of\npuberty, should burn with unnatural lust at one and the same time? Did\nthey suppose that _all_ of them could abuse the two strangers? The story\nis as silly as it is nasty.\n\nFor a parallel to Lot's answer to the demand of his neighbors we must\ngo to the nineteenth chapter of _Judges_, where the men of Gibeah clamor\nfor the Levite as the men of Sodom clamor for the two angels, and where\nhis host offers them instead his own daughter as well as the Levite's\nconcubine. A woman's honor was a very trivial thing to God's chosen\npeople. In itself it counted as next to nothing. The man's right of\npossession gave it all its importance and worth.\n\nLot went out and shut the door after him. Then he rebuked his neighbors\nfor desiring to do \"so wickedly,\" and immediately made them an offer\nwhich he seems to have thought perfectly fair and square. \"Behold, now,\"\nhe said, \"I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray\nyou, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes:\nonly unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow\nof my roof.\" The laws of hospitality are sacred, and Lot did well to\nmaintain them; but he had no right to sacrifice to them a still more\nsacred law. Instead of strenuously opposing the committal of one crime,\nhe proposes another as heinous.\n\nThe Sodomites scorned his offer. They had a _penchant_ for a different\npleasure. Ravishing virgins was not in their line. So they reviled Lot\nfor setting himself up as a judge amongst them, called him \"fellow,\"\nthreatened to deal worse with him than with the strangers, and actually\npressed so sore upon him that they \"came near to break the door.\"\n\nThen the strangers manifested their power. They \"put forth their hand,\nand pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut too the door. And they\nsmote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both\nsmall and great; so that they wearied themselves to find the door.\"\nHowever blind they were surely they might have found the door by feeling\nfor it. Kalisch makes this episode more reasonable by substituting\n\"blind confusion\" for \"blindness.\"\n\nThe angels continued to act promptly. They informed Lot that they\nintended to destroy the place because of its sin, and told him to\ngather all his family together and leave at once. Lot spoke to his\n\"sons-in-law, which married his daughters,\" but they appear to have\nthought him daft. Early in the morning \"the angels hastened Lot\" who\nstill lingered. They laid hold of his hand, his wife's, and his two\nunmarried daughters', led them outside the city, and said, \"Escape now\nfor thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain;\nescape to the mountains lest thou be consumed.\" Lot did not relish this\nprospect of a hard climb. He therefore asked the angels to let him flee\nunto the city of Zoar, because it was near and \"a little one.\" That\nis what the servant girl said to her mistress when she produced an\nillegitimate child, \"please 'm its only a very little one.\" She thought\nthat a small illegitimate baby wasn't as bad as a big illegitimate baby,\nand Lot thought that a little wicked city wasn't as bad as a big wicked\ncity.\n\nLot's request was granted, and he was told to look sharp. He made good\nspeed, and reached Zoar when \"the sun was risen.\"\n\n\"Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire\nfrom the Lord out of heaven; and he overthrew those cities, and all the\nplain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon\nthe ground.\" It is a mistake to suppose that brimstone and fire are\ncharacteristic of hell, for the Lord evidently keeps a large stock of\nthose commodities in heaven. Nor must it be supposed that Lot was spared\nbecause he was righteous. He was spared because the Lord \"was merciful\nunto him.\" His virtues, Kalisch remarks, were not sufficient for his\nsalvation, which he owed to \"the piety of Abraham.\" Abraham may have\nhad \"piety\" enough to save a Lot, but he had scarcely \"virtue\" enough to\nsave a mouse.\n\nKalisch says that \"about the situation of Zoar there remains little\ndoubt.\" He identifies it with \"the considerable ruins found in Wady\nKerek, on the eastern side of the Dead Sea.\" But he has no such\nassurance as to the situation of Sodom. He deprecates De Saulcy's\nassumption, that Sodom is traceable in the heap of stones found near the\nSalt Mountain, Udsum; and adds--\"We may hope rather than expect, that\nauthentic ruins of the four destroyed towns will ever be discovered.\nBiblical historians and prophets already speak of them as localities\nutterly and tracelessly swept away; and the remark of Josephus, that\n'shadows' of them still existed in his time, is vague and doubtful.\"\n\nIn the South of Palestine there is an extraordinary lake of mysterious\norigin. It is about thirty-nine miles long, and from eight to twelve\nmiles broad. It is fed by the river Jordan, and drained by the\nevaporation of a fierce and terrible sun. Its water is clear and\ninodorous, but nauseous like a solution of alum; it causes painful\nitching and even ulceration on the lips and if brought near a wound, or\nany diseased part, produces a most excruciating sensation. It contains\nmuriatic and sulphuric acid, and one-fourth of its weight is salt. No\nfishes live in it; and according to tradition, which however is not\ntrue, birds that happen to fly over its surface die. Near it is said to\ngrow the Apple of Sodom, beautiful in appearance, but containing only\nashes. This lake is appropriately called the Dead Sea.\n\nThe natives say that at low water they glimpse fragments of buildings\nand pillars rising out of the bottom of the lake. But this is only a\nfancy. Yet beneath the waters of the Dead Sea are thought to lie the\nCities of the Plain. The northern part of the lake is very deep, the\nsouthern part very shallow. The bottom consists of two separate plains,\none elevated, the other depressed. The latter is by some held to be the\noriginal bottom of the lake, and the former to have been caused by the\ndestruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. But this also is only a fancy. The\nbitumen, which is found in such large quantities in and near the lake,\nis a symptom and remnant of the volcanic nature of the region. Several\nlines of earthquake are traced from it in a north-eastern direction;\nand it is conjectured that the three lakes, Merom, Tiberias, and\nAsphaltites, together with the river Jordan, are the remaining traces of\nthe huge gulf once filled by the Dead Sea before the land was lifted by\na geological catastrophe. Volcanic action has caused all the remarkable\nphenomena of the district, which were of immemorial antiquity thousands\nof years ago; and the story of the Cities of the Plain is only one of\nthe legends which ancient peoples associated with every striking aspect\nof nature.\n\nLet us recur to Lot. His sons, his married daughters, and their\nhusbands, perished in the deluge of brimstone and fire. He and his two\nunmarried daughters fled to Zoar as fast as their legs could carry\nthem. But his wife was less fortunate. She ran behind Lot, and with the\nnatural curiosity of her sex she looked back on the doomed city. For\nthis violation of the angels' orders she was turned into \"a pillar of\nsalt.\" Some commentators try to blink this unpleasant fact by artful\ntranslations; such as \"she fell into a salt-brook,\" or \"she was covered\nwith a salt crust,\" or she was \"_like_ a pillar of salt.\" Josephus\npretended to have seen this old woman of salt, but others have been less\nlucky, although many travellers and pilgrims have searched for it as for\na sacred relic. But let us not despair. Lot's wife may yet be discovered\nand exhibited in the British Museum.\n\nWhat became of Lot and his daughters? Fearing to dwell in Zoar, they\nleft it and \"dwelt in a cave.\" The damsels, who had heard their father\noffer them to the promiscuous embrace of a lustful crowd, could not\nbe expected to be very scrupulous in their conduct. They were alone,\nwithout husbands to make them mothers, and to be childless was a\ncalamity and a reproach; so they put their heads together and devised\na nasty scheme. Two nights successively they made their father blind\ndrunk, and got him to commit incest with them. This is very beastly and\nvery absurd. Lot was _old_; he was so drunk that he knew nothing of what\nhappened; yet he got two virgins with child! The porter in \"Macbeth\"\nwould have laughed at such a ridiculous story.\n\nThese improper females were by no means ashamed of their action; on the\ncontrary, they boast of their bastards; and the historian does not utter\na word in condemnation of their crime.\n\nLot was the father of his own grandchildren; his daughters were the\nmothers of their own brothers; and his other children were destroyed by\nheavenly brimstone and fire. Were they not, as we said at the outset, a\nqueer lot? But the queerest lot was Lot's wife. Whatever may be said of\nthe rest of the family, no one can say that she was not worth her salt,\nfor the Lord thought she was worth enough to make a pillar. Let us hope\nthat the old lady will some day be (un)covered, and that her pillar of\nsalt may yet, to the confusion of sceptics, stand as a veritable pillar\nin the house of God, and there defy the attacks of all the infidel\nSamsons, world without end. Amen.","title":"Bible Romances, First Series","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":47384}