{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39118/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39118","id":"gutenberg_39118","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39118","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity -- Controversial literature"],"text":"*THE CHRISTIAN CREED; OR, WHAT IT IS BLASPHEMY TO DENY*\n\n                                  _By_\n\n                             *Annie Besant*\n\n _SHOWING SOME OF THE ERRORS, CONTRADICTIONS, AND ABSURDITIES, GIVEN ON\n     DIVINE AUTHORITY,IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT_\n\n                                 London\n\n                                 _1883_\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN CREED, OR, WHAT IT IS BLASPHEMY TO DENY\n\n\nA struggle has began, which promises to be one of the fiercest that this\ncentury has seen, between the bigots and persecutors on the one hand and\nthe supporters of free speech on the other.\n\nIt appears, then, worth while to look closely into this Christian creed,\nwhich claims the right to imprison and torture men of pure life for\nnon-belief in its tenets. Christianity threatens us with persecution\nhere and damnation hereafter if we do not believe its doctrines. \u201cHe\nthat believeth not shall be damned,\u201d says Jesus. \u201cHe that believeth not\nshall be imprisoned and pick oakum,\u201d says Mr. Justice North. The threat\nof damnation would trouble us little if it stood alone\u2014we could put off\nconsideration of that until we arrived in the other world; but the\nthreat of imprisonment here is unpleasant. If we are to burn for ever\nhereafter, the Christians might really allow us to enjoy ourselves here;\nis their malice (like their hell) such a bottomless pit that an eternity\nof torture is not enough to fill it up?\n\nLet us see what we must believe on peril of damnation and Newgate. (1)\nWe must believe the \u201cHoly Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be\nof divine authority;\u201d (2) we must believe each \u201cone of the persons in\nthe Holy Trinity to be God,\u201d while (3) we also believe that there are\nnot \u201cmore gods than one;\u201d (4) we must believe the \u201cChristian religion to\nbe true;\u201d we are strictly forbidden to publish any \u201cludicrous matter\nrelating to God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible, or the formularies of the\nChurch of England as by law established,\u201d and are warned that we shall\nnot be saved by our remarks being \u201cintended in good faith as an argument\nagainst any doctrine or opinion.\u201d\n\n(1) We must believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to\nbe of Divine Authority.\n\nThis first demand on our faith is a very large one, and can only be met\nby refusing to read any scientific book, to look at any geological or\nantiquarian collections, to study any kind of natural knowledge; we must\nerase from our memories all the facts we have learned about the world;\nwe must reject purity and decency of morals; we must revert to a\ncondition of barbarous ignorance and barbarous conduct before we can\nbelieve very many parts of the Holy Scriptures are of divine authority.\nStill, as we are to be imprisoned and damned for not believing this, we\nmust try, and we had better examine a little more exactly what we are to\nbelieve on divine authority. Only some of our imposed feats of\n_leger-de-foi_ will be examined. Those who can accomplish these will not\nbungle over the rest.\n\nIt is of divine authority that god made \u201ca firmament in the midst of the\nwaters\u201d and divided the waters, putting some above it and some below,\nand this firmament is \u201cheaven\u201d (Gen. i., 6\u20148). This heaven has windows\nin it which let the rain through (Gen. vii., 11), and when these windows\nare closed the rain stops (Gen. viii., 2). It has doors, through which\nthe manna was rained down on the Israelites (Ps. lxxviii., 23, 24). This\n\u201csky\u201d is very \u201cstrong,\u201d as is indeed necessary remembering all it has to\nsupport above it, and resembles \u201ca molten looking-glass\u201d (Job. xxxvii.,\n18). Another reason why it should be very strong is that god has \u201cset\u201d\nin it the sun, moon and stars. Some of the stars are large and solid,\nand require a very strong setting.\n\nMy unbelieving reader, you may have some difficulty in crediting all\nthis. You may argue that the sky is not strong at all, but is only a\nvast space, and that to apply the word strong to space shews gross\nignorance. Divine authority says the sky _is_ strong, and if you persist\nin believing facts instead of the Bible, you will at least find Newgate\nstrong and its space limited. You may argue that the stars are at very\nvarious distances, and cannot all be set in one arching roof resembling\na molten looking-glass; that when it rains, the rain is due to\ncondensation of watery vapor within our atmosphere, at a distance of at\nthe most very few miles, and not to the opening of any windows at a\ndistance of many billions of miles; that the firmament must be at least\n5,480,490,000,000 miles away, as the stars are set in it, and the\nnearest fixed star is at that distance, while the furthest is beyond\ncalculation. All these contentions of yours are facts, I admit, but they\nfly in the teeth of the fictions which are of divine authority; and as\nMr. Justice North is armed with full power to vindicate the divine\nauthority, you had better, if you want to keep out of gaol, give up the\nfacts and pretend to believe in the fictions.\n\nIt is of divine authority that god made grass and herb and fruit tree on\nthe \u201cthird day of creation,\u201d the day before he created the sun, two days\nbefore he made fishes and birds, and three days before he made animals.\nIn the face of this it is a mere trifle, my dear sceptical reader, that\nno herb could yield seed, no fruit tree could yield fruit, without the\naid of the sun. It is quite true that a plant without the sun-rays can\nform no chlorophyll; that without chlorophyll no starch, no reparation\nnor growth of tissues can proceed. What are these mere botanical facts\nbeside the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures? It is also true that\nin the study of fossils no traces of all these grasses, herbs, and fruit\ntrees are found precedent to all animal life. That the earliest living\nthing which has left a trace was an animal, not a plant. That fishes\nprecede fruit trees in the fossilised history of the globe, although\nfruit trees precede fishes in the divinely authoritative fable. These\ngeological facts must follow the botanical, my heretic, and you must be\ncontent to take the Holy Scriptures on faith, for they are not even\ntales founded on fact.\n\nIt is of divine authority that sun, moon, and stars were created on the\nfourth day, after the world had been in existence for three. It is true\nthat to talk of a member of a solar system like our earth as existing\nthree days before the central sun came into being is to talk nonsense.\nBut that is of no importance if the nonsense is of divine authority. It\nis also true that the light travelling from part of the Milky Way at the\nrate of 186,000 miles per second would take 9,000 years (Madler) to\nreach our earth, so that if the Holy Scriptures are of divine authority\nwe should be unable to see these stars, which we nevertheless do see.\nWho would rashly put the testimony of everybody\u2019s eyes against the\nauthority of this old book written in an unknown tongue, by an unknown\nauthor, at an unknown date? If the stars are there, they ought not to\nbe, and if we can see them we ought not to be able to do so. I am not\nsure that they are not committing a silent and perpetual blasphemy by\ntheir very existence; but then Mr. Justice North cannot reach them to\nput them out, odious as is the outrage they commit on the feelings of\nthe Christian public, and I doubt if the sentence of damnation\nthreatened by Jesus would run in that distant spot.\n\nIt is of divine authority that on the 6th day of creation, just 5,887\nyears ago, god created man, male and female. It is true that man has\nleft his bones in the ground as a record of his existence hundreds of\nthousands of years ago, although he has only existed during 5,887 years.\nBut that was a thoughtless and irreverent action on his part, which\ncannot be allowed to have any weight as compared with the divine\nauthority of the Holy Scriptures. Men should not leave their bones about\nin caves and drifts as arguments for the wicked unbeliever and puzzles\nfor the faithful soul.\n\nIt is of divine authority that everything was once created in two\ndifferent ways, perfectly incompatible the one with the other, and both\nequally true. The two stories of the creation are mutually exclusive;\nbut, as they are both of divine authority, both must be believed, on\nperil of prison here and of damnation hereafter. It is blasphemy to deny\nthat the world was covered with water, so that god was obliged to gather\nit away into one place to let the land appear, which forthwith brought\nforth from its moist surface herb and grass and tree (Gen. i., 12), and\nthat the world was at the same time so dry that god could not set in it\nthe herb and plant which he had previously made (Gen. ii., 5). It is\nblasphemy to deny that the vegetation was brought forth by the earth\nitself at the mere command of god: \u201cLet the earth bring forth grass,\u201d\netc. (Gen. i., 11). It is also blasphemy to deny that \u201cthe Lord God\nmade... every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every\nherb of the field before it grew,\u201d and that the reason for this creation\nbefore planting was that \u201cthe Lord God had not caused it to rain upon\nthe earth, and there was not a man to till the ground\u201d (Gen. ii., 5).\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that god made man, the last of his works, after\nthe earth was clothed with vegetation, after the seas were filled with\nlife, and after fowl were flying in the air, and beasts and cattle and\ncreeping things were roaming over the earth (Gen i, 11, 12, 20\u201427). It\nis also blasphemy to deny that god made man, the first of his works,\nbefore any vegetation was growing on the earth, before a single fowl of\nthe air or a single beast of the field was made (Gen ii., 5, 7, 8,\n9,19).\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that god commanded the \u201cwaters\u201d to \u201cbring forth\nabundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly\nabove the earth\u201d (Gen. i., 20). It is also blasphemy to deny that \u201cout\nof the ground the Lord God formed... every fowl of the air\u201d (Gen. ii.,\n19). If wicked sceptics say that the fowl cannot have been brought forth\nby the waters if \u201cevery fowl\u201d was formed out of the ground, the only\nanswer is that both these contradictory statements are of divine\nauthority, and \u201che that believeth not shall be damned.\u201d Convincing, is\nit not?\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that man was created with woman, in the likeness\nof god (Gen. i., 27, and v., 1,2), and came into a world replete with\nlife, with fowl and every living thing, over which god gave him dominion\n(Gen. i., 28). It is also blasphemy to deny that man was created without\nwoman, and came into a world where there was no life, and that god,\npitying his loneliness, formed all living things in the attempt to make\na help meet for the man, and that failing in this attempt he lastly made\na woman, not with man but long afterwards (the making and naming of all\nanimals and birds intervening), out of one of the man\u2019s ribs which he\ndetached for that purpose from his skeleton while the man was asleep\n(Gen. ii., 7, 18, 19\u201422).\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that god gave man for food \u201cevery tree in the\nwhich is the fruit of a tree\u201d (Gen. i., 29), while it is equally\nblasphemy to deny that the \u201cLord God\u201d withheld from him as food one of\nthe trees (Gen. ii., 17.)\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that god, who is \u201cthe truth,\u201d said that Adam\nshould die \u201cin the day that\u201d he eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge\n(Gen. ii., 7), and it is blasphemy to deny that so far from dying in\nthat day, \u201call the days that Adam lived were 930 years,\u201d and that \u201che\nbegat sons and daughters\u201d (Gen. iv., 5, 4) long after the day on which,\nunless we blaspheme and make god a liar (1 John v., 10), we must believe\nthat he died.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny the fable of the Fall. It is of divine authority\nthat a talking snake persuaded Eve to eat the fruit of the forbidden\ntree, and that by eating this fruit man and woman found out that they\nwere naked, a sufficiently obvious fact of which they appear to have\nbeen ignorant. The first result of eating the forbidden fruit was a\nregard for decency, and they made some somewhat inadequate clothes out\nof fig leaves, sewing them together. There is no divine authority as to\nthe implements used, nor as to the discovery of the needles and thread\nwhich seem necessary for the sewing. God who is \u201ca spirit\u201d (John iv.,\n24) and who is \u201cwithout body\u201d and \u201cparts\u201d (1 Art of the Church\nestablished by law) \u201cwalked in the garden\u201d (Gen. iii., 8) soon\nafterwards; it is blasphemy to deny that god walked, and blasphemy to\nassert that he has legs. The method of walking without legs is not\nrevealed to us on divine authority, so we must believe (literally)\nwithout understanding.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that \u201cthe eyes of the Lord are in every place;\u201d\nit is also blasphemy to assert that the eyes of the Lord were in the\nspecial place wherein Adam and his wife \u201chid themselves from the\npresence of the Lord God amongst the trees\u201d (Gen. iii., 8). The only way\nto reconcile these contradictions is to believe that Adam and his wife\nand the trees behind which they hid themselves were nowhere, and to\nbelieve this comes perilously near the blasphemy of denying the whole\nstory.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that god cursed the serpent\u2014 who had\nunfortunately lost the power of speech just at the time at which he most\nrequired it\u2014for being the helpless tool of Satan, and condemned him to\ngo on his belly and to eat dust. Divine authority does not say how\nsnakes went about before this literal fall, whether on their heads or\ntheir tails, so that the method of their locomotion is not of faith.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that god made coats of skins for Adam and Eve,\nalthough coat-making seems rather a curious employment for a deity, and\nscarcely as dignified as world-making. We are not told what became of\nthe animals whom god deprived of their skins for this purpose; nor\nwhether he killed them first. If he did, then death first entered into\nthe world by god\u2019s immediate act. As it is blasphemy to deny that death\nentered into the world by sin (Rom. v., 12), it is difficult to avoid\nidentifying god with sin, and this, again, is, I fear me, blasphemy.\n\nIf in any other old eastern book we read about trees the eating of the\nfruit of which gave knowledge, serpents which talked, gods who walked in\ngardens and who made coats, we should at once understand that we were\nreading old myths, and should never dream of regarding them as a record\nof historical facts. If we apply the same reasoning to the Bible,\nJustice North will send us to pick oakum here, and we shall be burned\nfor ever hereafter.\n\nIt is blasphemy not to believe that \u201cCain went out from the presence of\nthe Lord\u201d (Gen. iv., 16)\u2014whom it is blasphemy to deny is everywhere\npresent\u2014and that god put a mark on him lest any one\u2014there being only in\nexistence his own family\u2014\u201cfinding him should kill him\u201d (Gen. iv., 15).\nIt is blasphemy not to believe that having a wife, who was also his\nsister, and who bare him a son, he \u201cbuilded a city\u201d (Gen. iv., 17) for\nhimself, his wife and child. How many houses there were in the city, and\nwhether each of the three inhabitants lived in a separate house, or the\ntrio moved from house to house, so as to inhabit \u201cthe city,\u201d these\nthings are not revealed by divine authority.\n\nIt is blasphemy not to believe that Adam lived 930 years, Cain 910\nyears, Methuselah 969 years; and that the rest of the antediluvian\npatriarchs lived to approximate ages. It is useless to allege that such\npreposterous terms of life are contrary to all experience. \u201cHe that\nbelieveth not shall be damned.\u201d\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that all the human race are descended from one\nman, Adam, created 5,887 years ago. It is true that there was existing\nin Egypt a settled government more than 11,000 years ago, and as a\nsettled government implies centuries upon centuries of political\nevolution, it is hard to reconcile this fact with the declaration made\non divine authority that man has only existed for about half this\nperiod. Egyptian antiquities are not safe subjects of study for the true\nbeliever, and a nation which has blasphemy laws on its statute books\nshould shut up its museums and burn its collections of Egyptian\ntreasures, for each room stored with these objects is a training school\nfor blasphemers and a standing menace to the faith of the young. Justice\nNorth should also ask that the delta of the Mississipi should be blown\nup with dynamite to the depth of at least a thousand feet, for that\nblasphemous ground has given up human bones, says the blasphemer\nGliddon, which formed parts of living men 57,000 years ago.\n\nIt is of divine authority that \u201cthe strength of Israel will not lie nor\nrepent, for he is not a man that he should repent\u201d (1 Sam. xv., 29). It\nis of equally divine authority that \u201cit repented the Lord that he had\nmade man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart\u201d (Gen. vi., 6).\nIt is blasphemy to deny that god knows all things before they take\nplace; that before he created man he knew what man would do, and slew a\nlamb from the foundation of the world (Rev. xiii., 8) to atone for the\nsins not then committed, but which man would commit in due time; that at\nthis same period the book of life was written containing the names of\nall those who were to be saved (Rev. xvii., 8); that no sin occurs that\ngod does not himself do, (Is. xlv., 7; Amos iii., 6), so that he need\nnot have any difficulty in avoiding sin if he objects to it. Since it is\nblasphemy to deny any of these propositions, it is a great trial to\nfaith to believe that god repented when he saw happen the facts he\nfore-ordained, and grieved over the wickedness which he caused; yet hard\nas this is, you will be damned if you do not believe it, so you had\nbetter try to do so.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that god, \u201cwhose tender mercy is over all his\nworks\u201d (Prayer-book), said that he would destroy \u201cboth man and beast,\nand the creeping things and the fowls of the air\u201d (Gen. vi., 7). We are\nnot told what sins had been committed by the beasts and fowls and\ncreeping things, so that god exclaimed: \u201cit repenteth me that I have\nmade them.\u201d If the Bible were a mere human book, and \u201cthe Lord\u201d were a\nmere ordinary man, I should say that he was behaving like a naughty,\npassionate child, who has lost his temper because the paper animals he\nhas cut out very badly will not stand properly, and who tears them up in\na rage. But as it is blasphemy to say this, and blasphemy to deny that\ngod did act exactly in the fashion that would be naughty if he were a\nchild, I can only suppose that the conduct for which a child would be\nput in the corner is admirable when displayed by a god.\n\nOut of all the wicked men there was one man, Noah, who found \u201cgrace in\nthe eyes of the Lord\u201d (Gen. vi., 8). Noah was not what Atheists would\nregard as a very good man, so far as his conduct is recorded in Holy\nScripture. In fact, we are not told of any one good action that he\ncommitted. He was a very selfish man, for he saved himself and his\nfamily in the ark, and left all his poor fellow-creatures to drown; he\ndrank so much wine that he misbehaved himself shamefully before his\nchildren (Gen. ix., 21), and in any respectable society would have had a\nsack thrown over him, and would have been carried on a stretcher to the\nnearest police station; he cursed and swore at his poor grandson because\nhis son, the young man\u2019s father, had told his brethren of the condition\nto which Noah had reduced himself (Gen. ix., 25). Yet, in spite of all\nthis disgusting misbehavior, it is blasphemy to deny that \u201cNoah found\ngrace in the eyes of the Lord.\u201d\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that in a vessel 300 cubits long, 50 cubits\nbroad, and 30 cubits high, divided into three floors, with only one\nwindow in it, 1 cubit square, for purposes of light and ventilation, and\nthis window kept shut till nearly the end of the time (compare Gen.\nviii., 6), eight persons with pairs or sevens \u201cof every living thing of\nall flesh,\u201d lived for one year and seventeen days. It is blasphemy to\ndeny that into this floating Black Hole went \u201cof every living thing of\nall flesh, two of every sort\u201d (Gen. vi., 19), and although only two of\nevery sort went in, yet of some sorts \u201csevens\u201d went in, \u201cthe male and\nhis female\u201d (Gen. vii., 2), so that two and fourteen signify the same\nnumber when the multiplication table is of faith. What the number of\nthis numerous live cargo of fowls, of cattle, and of every creeping\nthing (Gen. vi., 20) must have been, may be faintly imagined by the fact\nthat there are known 6,200 species of the \u201cfowls of the air\u201d alone. As\nthe fowls were to be taken \u201cby sevens,\u201d there must have been an aviary\nin the ark containing 86,800 birds, and some of these, such as the\neagles, the ostriches, and the condors would require considerable room.\nOf Mammalia some 1,600 species are known, and elephants, hippopotami,\nrhinoceroses, buffaloes, giraffes\u2014to take but a few instances\u2014are fairly\nlarge, and one might imagine\u2014were it not blasphemy to think so\u2014 that\nlions, tigers, pumas, leopards, wolves, etc., would not only be\ndifficult to manage among the sevens of sheep, goats, and oxen, but\nwould also suffer from the want of exercise necessitated by their caged\ncondition. As the ark must have been packed quite closely in every\ndivision, from floor to ceiling, it is difficult to understand how the\ncreatures survived their voyage, while it is blasphemy to deny that\nevery one of them in due time \u201cwent forth out of the ark\u201d (Gen. viii.,\n19).\n\nIn addition to all the living creatures, Noah took with him into the ark\n\u201cof all food that is eaten\u201d (Gen. vi., 21). As there could be no room\nfor Noah and his family to walk about distributing the food (and it\nwould have been scarcely safe to have left it to natural selection), we\nmust suppose that layers of animals and layers of food were packed\nalternately all through, and even this arrangement must have given rise\nto some awkward complications if, in order to save space, a pair of\ncaterpillars were dropped in among the cabbages packed round the noses\nof a pair of guinea-pigs. One might almost imagine that the going forth\nfrom the ark must have been a lively ante-type of the general\nresurrection of the dead.\n\nBut yet again, in my efforts to realise this beautiful and divinely\ninspired history, I am almost afraid that I am being beguiled into\nblasphemy. \u201cLord, I (do not) believe. Help thou mine unbelief.\u201d\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that 4,232 years ago a universal flood took\nplace, covering \u201call the high hills that were under the whole heaven\u201d\n(Gen. vii., 19); the manner in which this was done is partly explained\nby Peter, who tells us that at that time the earth was \u201cstanding out of\nthe water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being\noverflowed with water, perished\u201d (2 Pet. iii., 5, 6). This world\u2014half\nin, half out of the water\u2014is not any world known to history nor to\nscience; there is not a shadow of proof of its existence, except that of\ndivine authority; such a world has nothing in common with our own globe,\na planet circling round the sun; the solar system, as we know it, would\nhave been disorganised by the sudden increase in mass of one of its\nmembers; our globe has most certainly not been \u201coverflowed with water\u201d\ndaring the last 5,000 years, for the cones built up of scori\u00e6 from Mount\nEtna have been undisturbed for at least 12,000 years. If you believe the\ntestimony of these hills, you must believe that divine authority has\nblundered over the deluge; but then, if you think this you will be\ndamned, and if you say it Justice North will send you to pick oakum.\n\nIt is of divine authority that the ark came to land upon the mountains\nof Ararat (Gen. viii., 4) after its long and stormy voyage. The\nhumming-birds, the tropical butterflies, the monkeys and the animals of\nthe equatorial zone must have found it rather chilly during their\nseven-months\u2019 stay in the region of perpetual snow, especially as there\ncan have been no facilities for hot-water pipes in the ark. All the\nliving things, tropical or polar, must have also suffered much from the\ndifficulty of breathing on that exalted spot, as the waters went down\nand the higher atmosphere regained its normal rarity. But what are\nlittle difficulties of this sort to the true believer, especially when\ninto the scale of belief are thrown the smile of god and the approval of\nMr. Justice North?\n\nIt is of divine authority that Noah sent out of the ark a dove, which\nreturned to him finding \u201cno rest for the sole of her foot,\u201d \u201cfor the\nwaters were on the face of the whole earth\u201d (Gen. viii., 9); yet seven\ndays later the same dove returned from a second excursion with \u201can olive\nleaf pluckt off,\u201d \u201cin her mouth\u201d (v., 11). It is, therefore, blasphemy\nto deny that an olive tree stood firm beneath the crushing weight of the\ntons of water which covered every high hill, and was so little injured\nby its submersion of eleven months that it promptly budded out as the\nwater left uncovered its topmost boughs.\n\nIt is of divine authority that \u201cevery beast, every creeping thing, and\nevery fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth after their kinds,\nwent forth out of the ark\u201d (Gen. viii., 19), and that Noah, lest his god\nshould not have had his appetite for slaughter satiated by the\nputrifying masses of the drowned dead, scattered over the face of the\nwhole earth, took \u201cof every clean beast and of every clean fowl\u201d (v.\n20), and offered up his puny sacrifice by fire from the few living\nthings left from the huge sacrifice by water. It is blasphemy to deny\nthat as the fumes of the roasting animals went up \u201cthe Lord smelled a\nsweet savor\u201d (v. 21), and gratefully declared: \u201cneither will I again\nsmite any more every thing living, as I have done\u201d (v. 21). So that god\nappears to have made man, then to have repented that he made him, then\nto have destroyed him, and then to have been half sorry once more,\ndeclaring that he would not do it again. And this is the god in \u201cwhom is\nno variableness, neither shadow of turning\u201d (James i., 17). It certainly\nrequired a revelation to tell us so.\n\nIt is of divine authority that the \u201cfear\u201d and \u201cdread\u201d of man is on every\n\u201cbeast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that\nmoveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea\u201d (Gen. ix.,\n2). This fear is not very evident in the tiger as he tears a man in\npieces, in the vulture who picks out the eyes of the dying traveller, in\nthe shark who snaps in twain the swimming sailor; yet it is consoling to\nknow that they are all trembling with dread of their prey as they\nswallow the toothsome morsel. The \u201ccovenant which is between me and you\nand every living creature of all flesh\u201d (Gen. ix., 15) is rather funny;\nif it were not blasphemy to deny it I should scarcely have conceived of\ngod entering into a covenant with, say, a black-beetle. The covenant is\nnot of much use to individuals apparently, though entered into with\n\u201cevery\u201d one of them, for though god promises that he will not again\ndrown them all _en masse_, he gives no pledge as to drowning in detail,\nand this is quite as unpleasant to the victims.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that 4,130 years ago \u201cthe whole earth was of one\nlanguage and of one speech\u201d (Gen. xi., 1), and the whole science of\nphilology is therefore a delusion and a snare. As \u201cthey\u201d\u2014the whole\nearth\u2014\u201cjourneyed from the east,\u201d they \u201cfound a plain,\u201d and made up their\nminds to build \u201ca city and a tower whose top may reach unto heaven\u201d\n(verses 2 and 4). It is blasphemy to deny that god\u2014who at that time\nappears to have known little about the laws of gravitation or the\ndifficulty of breathing, say, five miles up\u2014thought they might succeed,\nand, being omnipresent, he changed his place, and \u201ccame down to see the\ncity and the tower which the children of men builded.\u201d In order to\nprevent the appearance of the top of the tower in heaven\u2014heaven being\nabove the firmament, the firmament having the stars set in it, and the\nnearest fixed star being 5,480,490,000,000 miles away, so that if they\nhad directed their tower towards this star, and had built at the rate of\nten miles a day, it would have taken them more than 1,501,504,109 years\nto reach heaven, that is, they would have had to build for 1,501,599,979\nyears onwards from the present time\u2014god being afraid that they would\nstorm his realm, took the trouble to confound their language, so that\nthey might not understand each other\u2019s speech. When we read of the\nTitans trying to storm heaven, we know that the story is a myth; but the\nsame fable is \u201cBible truth\u201d in Genesis, and it is blasphemy to deny it,\nfoolish as it is.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that when Terah was 70 years of age he begat\nAbram (Gen. xi., 26), and that he died when he was 205 years of age\n(verse 32); it is blasphemy to deny that Abram was 75 years old when he\ndeparted out of Haran and went into Canaan (Gen. xii., 4, 5); it is\nblasphemy to deny that Abram stayed in Haran until after his father\u2019s\ndeath (Acts vii., 4); that is, it is blasphemy to deny that the 135\nyears of Terah\u2019s life are of exactly the same length as the 75 years of\nAbram\u2019s life. Anyone who believes not that 135=75 will be damned. Moral,\nparents should not allow their children to learn arithmetic, for by so\ndoing they imperil their immortal souls, and risk their committal to\ngaol by the tender mercies of Mr. Justice North.\n\nSarai, about whose age there is some doubt, in consequence of the great\nlength of her husband\u2019s years, was a very fair woman; reckoning by\nTerah\u2019s age, she must have been at this time at least 160 years old\n(supposing that she married at 15), but she seems to have been only 90\nyears of age at least 25 years later (Gen. xvii., 17). However, whether\nshe was a fair woman of 160 summers, or a gay young thing of only 65,\nshe proved to be indeed a treasure to her husband. For it is of divine\nauthority that faithful Abraham pretended that his wife was only his\nsister, and allowed King Pharaoh to take her and to pay him for her\n\u201csheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and\nshe-asses, and camels\u201d (Gen. xii., 16); it is blasphemy to deny that god\nplagued poor innocent \u201cPharaoh and his house with great plagues\u201d because\nthey were deceived by his friend\u2019s shameless venality and lying, and\nthat when Pharaoh discovered the fraud, Abram took himself off with his\nwife and all he had gained by her sale, being, as the sacred narrative\nnaively remarks, \u201cvery rich\u201d (Gen. xiii., 2) after this transaction.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that \u201che [god] is faithful that promised\u201d (Heb.\nx., 23); it is also blasphemy to deny that he [god] broke his promises.\nFor he promised Abram, over and over again, that he would give to him as\nwell as to his seed the land of Canaan (Gen. xiii., 15; xv., 7, 8;\nxvii., 8, etc.); yet we find that Abram was obliged to buy a sepulchre\nfor his wife\u2019s corpse, and never inherited the land at all. Even as far\nas his seed was concerned, god broke the \u201ceverlasting covenant\u201d (Gen.\nxvii., 9) he made, to give to \u201cthee and to thy seed after thee, the land\nwherein thou art a stranger, even the land of Canaan for an everlasting\npossession\u201d (Gen. v., 8), for the Jews only possessed part of this land\nfor a short time, instead of for ever, and as defined by god, \u201cthis\nland, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates\u201d\n(Gen. xv., 18), they never had it at all. It is comforting to notice\nthat this promise-breaking god is the same who in the person of his son\ndeclared: \u201che that believeth not shall be damned for as he did not keep\nhis word in the one case perhaps he will not do so in the other.\n\nOne day, as Abram was returning from the slaughter of some of his\nenemies, a certain Melchizedek, named with charming appropriateness King\nof Peace (Heb. vii., 2), went out to meet him, and blessed him. Nothing\nis said in Genesis to make us regard Melchizedek as the extraordinary\nbeing that he really was; for it is blasphemy to say that Melchizedek\nwas ever born, that he had any ancestors, that he ever died (Heb. vii.,\n3); like Topsy, \u201c\u2019spects he growed\u201d; where he is now nobody knows; he\nwould be a most useful \u201cChristian antiquity,\u201d but he is not producible.\nOn the world\u2019s stage he made but this one appearance, \u201cpositively for\nthe first and last time.\u201d Melchizedek is a type of Jesus Christ. Jesus\nwas born; Melchizedek was not. Jesus had a mother; Melchizedek had none.\nJesus had his descent from David; Melchizedek was without descent. Jesus\ndied; Melchizedek had no end of life. The correspondence between them is\nreally striking. The only similarity is that they were both without any\nacknowledged father, and this peculiarity they share with many pagan\nheroes and with some less important folk.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that Abram, the \u201cfriend of God,\u201d took to himself\nhis wife\u2019s maid, Hagar, and that when this poor slave was about to bear\nhim a child he chivalrously handed her over to her jealous mistress,\nSarai, saying: \u201cBehold, thy maid is in her hand; do to her as it\npleaseth thee\u201d (Gen xvi., 6). An ordinary man, under such circumstances,\nwould have had some tender, pitiful feeling towards the mother of his\nunborn child; but Abram was a saint of God, and was above all weak\nsentiment of that kind, so he stood quietly by while Sarai ill-treated\nthe woman who had lain in his arms, and let her flee away into the\nwilderness unhelped and unpitied. God\u2019s angel drove poor Hagar back to\nher bondage, and after her return her son was born. At this time Abram\nwas 86 years of age; fourteen years later Sarah had a son, Isaac, and\nsome time after she insisted on turning out poor Ishmael, with his\nmother, Hagar. A sweet, womanly creature was Sarah. Abraham made no\nobjection, but \u201crose up early in the morning\u201d to send off his first-born\nson and his mother, and was generous enough to take \u201cbread and a bottle\nof water,\u201d and to make this splendid present to Hagar \u201cputting it on her\nshoulder, and the child, and sent her away.\u201d \u201cThe child\u201d was now about\nfifteen years of age, and would have been a little heavy for poor Hagar\nto carry if he had been an ordinary well-grown boy; he was, however,\ncuriously small for his age, for we learn that when \u201cthe water was spent\nin the bottle\u201d \u201cshe cast the child under one of the shrubs\u201d (Gen. xxi.,\n15). It is blasphemy to deny that Hagar carried this big baby, and threw\nhim about like a toy.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that \u201cthe Lord\u201d appeared to Abraham in the\nplains of Mamre, and that he, with two others, eat dressed calf, butter\nand milk (Gen. xviii., 1\u20148). It is blasphemy to say that god has parts\n(Art. I.), but it is difficult to understand how he eat without teeth,\nand swallowed without a throat; besides, what became of the eaten meat\nif there was no stomach to receive it? Truly, the gate is narrow which\nleadeth unto life, and narrow must be the brains that go in there\nthrough.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that god, who knows everything, did not know\nwhat was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah.\n\nHe said: \u201cBecause the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because\ntheir sin is very grievous, I will go down now, and see whether they\nhave done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me;\nand if not, I will know\u201d (Gen. xviii., 20, 21). Much faith is necessary\nto believe that god knew and that he did not know all at once, but \u201che\nthat believeth not shall be damned.\u201d\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that the same god who did not punish Lot and his\ndaughters for incest, punished Lot\u2019s poor wife because she committed the\nterrible crime of looking back towards her burning home. She was turned\ninto a \u201cpillar of salt\u201d (Gen. xix., 26), and Jesus bids us remember her\n(Luke xvii, 32), but does not say why we should do so. If god had\nforgotten her and had turned the two daughters into salt, the family\nhistory would have been less scandalous than it is.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that god \u201crained upon Sodom and Gomorrah\nbrimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven\u201d (Gen. xix., 24). Heaven\nmust be a pleasant place if it contains stores of brimstone and fire\nwhich can be rained down in this fashion. Action of this kind is\nsupposed to be wicked when done by man, but a divine O\u2019Donovan Rossa is\napparently held up for our admiration. I have sometimes wondered whether\nthis brimstone may not possibly have come from the lake of brimstone and\nfire connected with the bottomless pit (Rev. xx., 10); if so, it is very\nprobable that as the earth turned round and Sodom and Gomorrah came\nopposite the bottomless pit, so that it was above those \u201ctowns,\u201d god\nlifted the lid and let out some of the contents. This view should\ncommend itself to the religious, as it cannot be pleasant for them to\nlook forward to spending eternity in the close neighborhood of a\ncelestial manufactory of dynamite.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that \u201cjust Lot\u201d (2 Pet. ii., 7) offered his two\nvirgin daughters to satiate the lust of the crowd surrounding his house:\n\u201clet me, I pray you,\u201d said this good father, \u201cbring them out unto you,\nand do ye to them as is good in your eyes.\u201d This generous offer, which\nwould be vile in any one but a saint, throws much light on his later\nrelations with these young women. The frightful crime related in Gen.\nxix., 30\u201436, seems to have been much approved of by god; for we learn in\nDeut. ii., 9 and 19, that the Moabites and Ammonites were not to be\nmolested, for their lands were given \u201cunto the children of Lot for a\npossession,\u201d and the reference Bible refers us back on this to the\nbeautiful story in Genesis. Little English girls are given this story to\nread, and it would be blasphemous to teach them that Lot and his\ndaughters were criminals of the filthiest type. The holy book of god\nsays that Lot was a \u201cjust\u201d man, and there is not a word of disapproval\nof his vice. If it were not that all good little girls must read the\nBible, it would be far better that they should not know that such crimes\nare committed at all. Children\u2019s thoughts should never be turned towards\nsexual matters in any fashion, and they do not so turn of themselves,\nand it would be one of the worst mischiefs done by the Bible\u2014if it were\nnot the book of god\u2014that it destroys this natural healthy indifference\nin children\u2019s minds. It is not wonderful that such frightful tales of\nfamily immorality are but too often told at the assizes, or that poor\nignorant people, believing with blind faith in the Bible, repeat the\ncrime of Lot and his daughters, and are startled when our human laws\npunish peremptorily the crime which in the Bible is blessed of god.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that god plagued the innocent household of\nAbimelech, the king of Gerar, because Abimelech had been deceived by the\nlie of Abraham, god\u2019s friend. From the story as related in Genesis xx.\nwe learn that Abimelech took Sarah\u2014then over ninety years of age\u2014\nbelieving her to be Abraham\u2019s sister; next, that finding out the trick\nplayed on him, he gave her back to her base husband, rebuking him in\n\u201cthat thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin next, that\nSarah was Abraham\u2019s half-sister, although she was also his wife, and\nthat such marriage unions between children of the same father by\ndifferent mothers are pleasing to god; next, that Abraham accepted\n\u201csheep and oxen and men-servants and women-servants\u201d from Abimelech with\nhis restored wife, as well as \u201ca thousand pieces of silver,\u201d ironically\nbestowed on him as her \u201cbrother;\u201d and, finally, we learn that it is\nblasphemy to deny that just the same sequence of events happened twice\nover to Abraham, and also happened to Isaac his son (Gen. xx vi., 7\u201411),\nwho inherited the family untruthfulness and the family cowardice with\nthe family property.\n\nIt is blasphemy for a man to say \u201cwhen he is tempted, I am tempted of\ngod; for god cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man\u201d\n(James i., 13). Yet it is blasphemy to deny that \u201cafter these things god\ndid tempt Abraham (Gen. xxii., 1). If anybody is infidel enough to ask\nhow a god that tempts no one could have tempted Abraham, the best answer\nis: \u201cHe that believeth not shall be damned.\u201d Perhaps Abraham was no one,\nand in that case both statements would be true.\n\nEveryone knows the beautiful story of Abraham and the sacrifice of\nIsaac. How this noble father led his child to the slaughter; how Isaac\nmeekly submitted; how the farce went on till the lad was bound and laid\non the altar, and how god then stopped the murder, and blessed the\nintending murderer for his willingness to commit the crime. If anyone\nnow tries to emulate Abraham\u2019s faith, he is treated as a dangerous\nlunatic; but it is blasphemy to deny that that which would be murder now\nwas virtue then.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that Isaac was born when his father and mother\nwere too old for his birth to be natural (Gen. xvii., 17); in fact,\nAbraham was \u201cas good as dead\u201d and Sarah \u201cwas past age\u201d (Heb. xi., 11,\n12), and we are told that when \u201che was about an hundred years old\u201d \u201chis\nown body\u201d was \u201cnow dead\u201d (Rom. iv., 19). Although it is blasphemy to\nassert that he was _not_ too old at 100 to become the father of one son,\nit is also blasphemy to assert that he _was_ too old more than 37 years\nlater to become the father of six sons (Gen. xxv., 2). We are bound to\nbelieve that Abraham was naturally capable of becoming a father when he\nwas 86 years of age, and when he was over 137 years of age, but that it\nwas only by a miracle that he was capable of becoming a father when he\nwas 100 years of age. Truly there are in the Bible \u201csome things hard to\nbe understood\u201d (2 Pet. iii., 16).\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that before Esau and Jacob were born god chose\none as his favorite, and declared: \u201cJacob have I loved, but Esau have I\nhated\u201d (Rom. ix., 13). If anyone should carpingly allege that it was\nwrong to hate poor unborn Esau before he had committed \u201cany good or\nevil\u201d (Rom. ix., 11), the right answer is that \u201cgod\u2019s ways are not as\nour ways,\u201d and that which would be wickedness in man is righteousness in\ngod. God loved Jacob. Jacob would not give his starving brother food\nuntil he had bargained for his birthright in return (Gen. xxv., 29\u201434);\nbut god loved Jacob. Jacob cheated his blind father, pretending to be\nhis brother, and deceived the old man\u2019s sense of touch, the sense of\nvision having failed (Gen. xxvii., 11, 12, 15, 16, 22, 23); but god\nloved Jacob. Jacob was a hypocrite, and when he took a kid dressed to\nimitate venison to his father, pretended that he had found it quickly\n\u201cbecause the Lord thy god brought it to me\u201d (v. 20); but god loved\nJacob. Jacob was a liar, declaring that he was his brother Esau (v. 19,\n24); but god loved Jacob. Jacob was a coward, and ran away from his\ndefrauded brother; but god loved Jacob. Jacob hated his wife (Gen.\nxxix., 31); yet god loved Jacob. Jacob swindled his hospitable uncle\nLaban out of his flocks and herds (Gen. xxx., 31-43); yet god loved\nJacob. Jacob ran away from his uncle with his ill-gotten gains, like a\nthief in the night (Gen. xxxi, 20); yet god loved Jacob. Jacob was once\nmore a coward, afraid of the brother he had wronged, and sent on some of\nhis people to get killed that he might escape (Gen. xxxii., 7, 8); yet\ngod loved Jacob. It is instructive to know the kind of men that god\nloves, and to know that god loves a bargaining, cheating, hypocritical,\nlying, swindling coward. As to poor Esau, on whom fell the awful hate of\ngod before he was born, he seems to have been a brave, loving,\ngenerous-hearted man. The kindly words of the man god hated, as he\nrefused his cringing brother\u2019s present: \u201cI have enough, my brother; keep\nthat thou hast unto thyself\u201d (Gen. xxxiii., 9), contrast forcibly with\nthe mean, despicable conduct of the man god loved. It is blasphemy to\ndeny that god abetted pious Jacob\u2019s frauds, for we learn that \u201cgod hath\ntaken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me\u201d (Gen. xxxi.,\n9), and that in suggesting the method of fraud god reminded him of the\nshare due to himself by the vow he had made (Gen. xxxi, 13), the said\nvow being that \u201cof all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the\ntenth to thee\u201d (Gen. xxviii., 22).\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that the foul stories of Tamar and Onan, of\nTamar and Judah, and of the births of Pharez and Zarah\u2014the children of\nJudah and his daughter-in-law \u2014with all the details of the several\nevents (Gen. xxxviii.), are of divine authority. If any one but god had\ntold the stories they would be indecent, and the teller would be liable\nto prosecution under Lord Campbell\u2019s act. Out of the filthiest\nliterature the story told in verses 27\u201430 could not be paralleled, and I\ndoubt if Holywell Street has anything fouler on its book-shelves. Yet\nlittle innocent girls are given the book containing these perfectly\nuseless and indescribable nastinesses; and if decent people venture to\ncriticise the book, avoiding the parts of it only fit for pious hands,\nthey are liable to be sent to gaol, and the judge accuses them of\nundermining morality! The sooner the morality built on Judah, Tamar, and\nthe stories of Onan and Pharez, is undermined the better for decent\nsociety.\n\nThe story of Joseph and Potiphar\u2019s wife is told in the next chapter\n(Gen. xxxix), and I have heard a clergyman read this story out in church\nwithout the smallest hesitation to listening men, women, and children.\nChristianity blunts the very commonest feelings of human decency in the\nminds of its followers; and the clergy, who deprave the minds of the\nyoung by circulating the Holy Book, have the insolence to accuse\nunbelievers in its divinity of undermining morality!\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that god blessed the Egyptian midwives for\ntelling a deliberate lie (Ex. i., 19, 20). It is also blasphemy to deny\nthat \u201cLying lips are an abomination to the Lord\u201d (Prov. xii., 22). The\nonly deduction we can draw from these two facts, both given on divine\nauthority, is that god blesses that which is an abomination to him. Once\nagain we must say piously: \u201cHis ways are not as our ways.\u201d\n\nWith the second chapter of Exodus begins the story of Moses, \u201cthe man of\ngod.\u201d Like most of the Bible saints, Moses was a great sinner from the\npoint of view of ordinary morality. He began his public career with a\nmurder. \u201cAnd it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that\nhe went out unto his brethren and looked on their burdens; and he spied\nan Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren. And he looked this\nway and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the\nEgyptian and hid him in the sand\u201d (Ex. ii., 11, 12). The careful looking\n\u201cthis way and that way\u201d before he interferes shows the care for his own\nperson that characterises Moses. A man might have been moved by honest\nindignation to smite an oppressor. The careful looking round and the\nhiding of the body do not impress us with a sense of the heroic.\n\nAfter this adventure Moses ran away from Egypt and dwelt in Midian, and\nwhile looking after his father-in-law\u2019s flock, he saw a remarkable\nsight, a bush burning, but not consumed. It is blasphemy to deny that\ngod was in the \u201cmidst of the bush\u201d (Ex. iii., 4), and it is blasphemy to\nsuggest, what is nevertheless true, that this legend of a god in the\nmidst of a bush is a trace of the old tree-worship so common in Eastern\nlands, a worship constantly referred to later in the Hebrew scriptures\nunder the name of \u201cthe grove.\u201d This god who spoke to Moses was one of\nthe gods of the grove. It is very unfortunate that the truth should be\nso blasphemous.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that god said: \u201cThou shalt not steal\u201d (Ex. xx.,\n15), and also blasphemy to deny that he commanded the Israelites to rob\nthe Egyptians (Ex. iii., 21, 22). Little discrepancies of this sort must\nnot be allowed to trouble the true believer. Moses did not believe what\ngod said, and in later times he that believeth not shall be damned. But\nin those days god treated sceptics more mercifully, and instead of\ndamning Moses god performed two miracles to convince him. What a pity\nthat Mr. Foote did not live in the days of Moses; if his walking-stick\nhad turned into a snake, and then when he had caught hold of the snake\u2019s\ntail it had turned back into a walking-stick, perhaps he might have\nbecome a believer. It puzzles me a little, however, why the performance\nof useless and childish miracles of this sort should be admitted as\nproving anything. If I go to Maskelyne and Cooke\u2019s I see much more\nwonderful transformations than those performed on Mount Horeb, but I do\nnot, therefore, feel inclined to worship Mr. Maskelyne or to take Mr.\nCooke as my guide and mentor. Miracles are hopelessly irrelevant; if\nthey were all true they would prove nothing beyond the dexterity of the\nmiracle-worker.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that the rod changed into a serpent; yet who can\nbelieve this who tries to realise what the words mean? a piece of wood,\nof vegetable tissue, is suddenly transformed into a snake, into bones\nand muscle, and nerve and blood, and skin! We are here in the region of\nfairy-tale, not of history. We may also note that when this wonderful\ntransformation-scene was repeated before Pharoah, the Egyptian jugglers\nproved themselves to be quite as skilful at snake-making as were Moses\nand Aaron. The scene ended, however, with a grand effect: for \u201cAaron\u2019s\nrod swallowed all their rods\u201d (Ex. vii., 12). The sacred narrative does\nnot state the result on the triumphant stick, nor whether it showed the\nthickness of all the rods combined, when it turned back again into a\nstick.\n\nMoses appears to have shared my doubts as to the point of the miracles,\nfor he persisted that he did not want to go, until god, who is without\npassions (Art. I.) got very angry (Ex. ix., 14). At last, he agreed to\ngo, and god informed him as to Pharoah: \u201cI will harden his heart, that\nhe shall not let the people go\u201d (Ex. ix., 21). This unhappy Pharaoh was\n\u201craised up\u201d by god in order that god\u2019s power might be manifested in\ntormenting him and his miserable people; over and over again, god\n\u201chardened his heart,\u201d and Paul, instead of being ashamed of this awful\nconduct actually justifies it (see p. 25). If any human being forced a\nhelpless creature into crime, and then punished him for committing it,\nno words of abhorrence could be found too strong to express the loathing\nwhich would fill every just and righteous heart in contemplating such\nconduct. Yet it is blasphemy to deny that the \u201cheavenly Father\u201d behaved\nin this fashion towards Pharaoh.\n\nThe odd little interlude which takes up vv. 24, 25, 26 of the same\nchapter has been a sore trouble to commentators. Why \u201cthe Lord\u201d tried to\nkill somebody, who it was he tried to kill, where \u201cthe inn\u201d was by which\nhe met him, what the mutilation of her son by Zipporah had to do with\nthe quarrel, all these things have been discussed and re-discussed _ad\nnauseam_. Students of ancient religions will find that nature-worship\nthrows some light on the matter, but it is blasphemous light, and must\nbe carefully avoided by all true believers who are anxious about the\nsalvation of their souls.\n\nIt is blasphemy to say that god was known to Abraham \u201cby my name\nJehovah\u201d (Ex. vi., 8); it is also blasphemy to deny that Abraham knew\nhim as Jehovah and \u201ccalled the name of the place Jehovah-jireh\u201d (Gen.\nxxii., 14).\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that Moses turned all the water in Egypt, the\nwater in streams, rivers, ponds, pools, as well as all in vessels; after\n_all_ the water had been thus turned into blood, the Egyptian magicians\nturned the rest into blood (Ex. vii., 19, 20, 22). This is a very\nremarkable miracle, showing great skill on the part of the Egyptians.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny the historical truth and perfect accuracy of the\nBiblical account of the miracles wrought by the hand of the Lord in the\nland of Egypt. It is very hard work to believe, but we must try, for it\nis clear that if we go to gaol for denying them, we shall not get out\n\u201ctill we have paid the uttermost farthing\u201d demanded by law.\n\nFirst, we must believe that \u201cthe Lord\u201d kept on sending messages to\nPharaoh, commanding him to let the people go, while at the same time\n\u201cthe Lord hardened Pharaoh\u2019s heart, so that he would not let the\nchildren of Israel go\u201d (Ex. x., 20). It is blasphemy to deny that god\nbehaved in this horribly wicked manner, compelling Pharaoh to refuse,\nand then plaguing him and his people for the refusal; we deserve\ndamnation if we do not agree with Paul, when he writes: \u201cIt is not of\nhim that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth\nmercy. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose\nhave I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my\nname might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy\non whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou will say\nthen unto me, Why doth he yet find fault, for who hath resisted his\nwill? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the\nthing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus?\u201d\n(Rom. ix., 16\u201420.) Yes, most certainly it should so say, if it be a\nliving sentient thing, capable of enjoyment and of agony. No god has the\nright to create sentient beings, to harden them, and then to find fault\nwith them and torture them for being hardened. The challenge, \u201cWhy doth\nhe yet find fault?\u201d is a very proper one, and Paul cannot answer it, so\nhe falls back on god\u2019s power to do as he chooses; but the exercise of\nthe power would be a crime, and if it be blasphemy to say that such\nunutterable wickedness is criminal, then I will blaspheme as long as I\nlive, rather than turn flattering courtier to a monarch more cruel than\nCaligula, a despot more tyrannical than any Eastern potentate known to\nhistory.\n\nAfter the duel about the water between Moses and the Egyptian magicians\n\u2014 in which the magicians certainly shewed the greater power and\ndexterity\u2014Moses and Aaron covered the land of Egypt with frogs (Ex.\nviii., 6), and again the magicians proved quite as capable. Exit frogs.\nEnter lice. This was too much for the magicians; \u201call the dust of the\nland became lice\u201d (viii., 17)\u2014note this proof of spontaneous\ngeneration\u2014so the material was lacking to the magicians, but as they had\ndone so well in turning the water into blood after it had all become\nblood already, it is disappointing to find that they broke down at this\ncritical period. Perhaps they were tired.\n\nExit lice. Enter flies. That was a very horrid plague. Blue-bottles\neverywhere. They filled the cream-jugs, they covered the joints, they\nfell into the jam, they stuck in the treacle. Fly-papers went up 100 per\ncent, and several gentlemen in the profession made fortunes during the\nrush. \u201cA greater than\u201d these, however, came to the rescue: \u201cthe Lord\u201d\nhimself \u201cremoved the swarms of flies,\u201d and joyful to relate, \u201cthere\nremained not one\u201d (viii., 31). I should like to have spent the remainder\nof that summer in Egypt. As day after day went on, and not a solitary\nbuzz was heard, how joyfully must the maids and matrons of Egypt have\nchanted in thankful chorus: \u201cFly not yet!\u201d\n\nPharaoh\u2019s heart remaining petrified, an attack was made on the flocks\nand herds. \u201cA very grievous murrain\u201d was sent \u201cupon thy cattle which is\nin the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the\noxen, and upon the sheep\u201d (Ex. ix., 3). And they _all_ died. Between the\ndead frogs and the dead cattle Egypt must have been.... well, let us say\nfragrant. While they were all lying there dead, god sent boils on them;\nthe object of this is not clear, and it is a little difficult to\nunderstand how the boils flourished on cold corpses; still the\nScriptures cannot lie, and thus it is written. With that appropriateness\nwhich shews real genius, Moses, at the Lord\u2019s command, sprinkled\n\u201chandfuls of ashes of the furnace,\u201d and in \u201cthese ashes glowed their\nformer fires,\u201d and they caused \u201ca boil.\u201d\n\nThe next miracle is a very remarkable one. Forgetting that all the\nbeasts were dead and boiled, the Lord said: \u201cSend therefore now and\ngather thy cattle and all that thou hast in the field; for upon every\nman and beast which shall be found in the field and shall not be brought\nhome, the hail shall come down upon them and they shall die\u201d (ix., 19).\nSome made their dead \u201ccattle flee into the houses,\u201d thus showing a skill\nand a miracle-working power which must have made Moses very jealous;\nothers left theirs in the field, probably thinking that the boil-covered\ncarcases were not worth the trouble of carriage. Down came the hail, and\nsmote \u201call that was in the field, both man and beast\u201d (ix., 25). Here\nindeed was an exemplification, so far as the cattle were concerned, of\nthe second death.\n\nNext came the locusts, to \u201ceat the residue of that which is escaped,\nwhich remaineth unto you from the hail\u201d (x., 5). As the hail \u201csmote\n_every_ herb of the field and brake _every_ tree of the field\u201d (ix.,\n25), there cannot have been much left for the locusts; however, they\nmade a clean sweep of all the vegetable life in Egypt, \u201cand there\nremained not any green thing in the trees or in the herbs of the fields\u201d\n(x., 15). On the whole it was by a merciful dispensation of Providence\nthat the cattle were all dead, and were not left to starve. As all the\nanimals were dead and there were no plants left, the Lord had nearly\ncome to the end of his plagues; so he sent \u201cdarkness which may be felt\u201d\nfor three days, while trying to invent some more. None of the Egyptians,\nwe are told, rose \u201cfrom his place for three days;\u201d why nobody struck a\nlight we are not told; now-a-days we often have plagues of darkness in\nLondon from the fogs, but we make shift with gas and the electric light\nuntil the sunlight returns.\n\nThe last miracle in Egypt was a very wonderful one; it was the killing\nfor the third time of some\u2014the first-born\u2014 cattle. The first-born of men\nwere also slain; but that was only for the first time, and all men are\nmortal. This was too much for the Egyptians, and they rose up to drive\nout the Israelites, the latter picking up, as they went, \u201cjewels of\nsilver, jewels of gold, and raiment\u201d (xii. 35), and so robbing their\nunlucky hosts of the little property they had left.\n\nBut poor Pharaoh was not yet safe: \u201cThe Lord hardened the heart of\nPharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel\u201d\n(xiv. 8). He yoked into his chariots the twice-slain horses, and mounted\nhis men on others of these re-revivified quadrupeds, and galloped after\nthe flying robbers. God, to deliver his people, divided the sea before\nthem, piling up the waters on each side as a wall. Down along this\ncurious and unique path plunged the men and the horses, the latter\nprobably thinking that one death, more or less, couldn\u2019t hurt them. A\nnew difficulty arose. God pulled off their chariot-wheels, and so\ndelayed them; and then suddenly down came the water-walls, and the poor\nEgyptians were all drowned. Like the flies and the locusts, \u201cthere\nremained not so much as one of them\u201d (xiv. 28). The horses also were\ndrowned, and let us hope they did not come to life again.\n\nThus endeth the story of the miracles of Egypt, which story is part of\nthe Christian creed as defined by law, and which it is blasphemy to\ndeny.\n\nAfter the Lord had thrown \u201cthe horse and his rider\u201d into the sea, the\nchildren of Israel went on into the wilderness, and found no water for\nthree days. At the end of that time they found some \u201cbitter\u201d water, but\nthe Lord showed Moses a tree which made the water sweet. Genus and\nspecies not revealed to us. It is very odd that, when the Bible mentions\nanything that might be practically useful, it never gives such\nparticulars as would enable us to repeat the experiment.\n\nThe next trial to our faith is the story of the manna. The people might\nwell ask: \u201cWhat is this?\u201d It was so expansible and contractile that,\nwhen they measured it, having \u201cgathered some more, some less,\u201d if a man\ngathered much he had \u201cnothing over, and he that gathered little had no\nlack\u201d (Ex. xvi., 17, 18). This curious result of measuring it \u201cwith an\nomer\u201d is, however, susceptible of explanation, for we read, in Ex. xvi.,\n36, that \u201can omer is the tenth part of an ephah,\u201d whereas, in Ezech.\nxiv., the ephah contains \u201cthe tenth part of an homer.\u201d Perhaps in\nmeasuring some of the Jews dropped their h\u2019s. The variable expansion of\nthe manna is not its only peculiarity. Manna gathered on Thursday \u201cbred\nworms and stank\u201d if kept till Friday; manna gathered on Friday \u201cdid not\nstink, neither was there any worm therein\u201d on Saturday (xvi., 20 and\n24).\n\nThe bread difficulty disposed of, the water difficulty again came to the\nfront, but Moses smote a rock, and water came out of it (Ex. xvii., 6).\nLater, under very similar circumstances, Moses smote another rock with\nthe like result (Numb, xx., 11.), and the Lord was very angry with him,\nand refused to let him enter \u201cthe promised land.\u201d It is curious that in\nboth these cases the place was called Meribah, because of the complaints\nof the Israelites; but it would be blasphemy to say that two traditions\nof one incident have been inserted in the text.\n\nSoon after this a wonderful battle took place, in which Israel fought\nagainst Amalek, and \u201cit came to pass when Moses held up his hand that\nIsrael prevailed, and when he let down his hand Amalek prevailed\u201d (Ex.\nxvii., 11). The relation of cause and effect is not clear, but it is\nsatisfactory to know that Moses\u2019 hands were held up by main force until\nevening stopped the slaughter.\n\nIt is blasphemy to say that there are more gods than one (Statute of\nWill. III.), yet it is blasphemy to deny that \u201cthe Lord is greater than\nall gods\u201d (Ex. xviii., 11). It is hard to understand how the Lord can be\ngreater than gods which do not exist; nevertheless \u201che that believeth\nnot shall be damned.\u201d\n\nChapters xix. and xx. of Exodus can only be believed by those who have\nnot risen above the most anthropomorphic conception of their god. God is\neverywhere, yet Moses went backwards and forwards between the people and\ngod (xix., 3\u20149). God is everywhere, yet Moses \u201cbrought forth the people\nout of the camp to meet with God\u201d (v., 17), and \u201cthe Lord descended\nupon\u201d a particular mountain (v. 18), and \u201ccame down upon Mount Sinai, on\nthe top of the mount\u201d (v. 20). God is invisible, one \u201cwhom no man hath\nseen nor can see\u201d (1 Tim. vi., 16), whom \u201cno man hath seen at any time\u201d\n(John L, 18); yet he was afraid lest the people should \u201cbreak through\nunto the Lord to gaze\u201d (Ex. xix., 21), and up the mount went \u201cMoses, and\nAaron, and Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and\nthey saw the God of Israel\u201d (Ex. xxiv., 9, 10). God dwells \u201cin the light\nwhich no man can approach unto\u201d (1 Tim. vi., 16), and \u201cGod is light and\nin him is no darkness at all\u201d (1 John i., 5); yet \u201cMoses drew near onto\nthe thick darkness where God was\u201d (Ex. xx., 21). It is blasphemy to deny\nthat all these contradictions are true.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that god, on Mount Sinai, gave commands among\nwhich we find the following revolting and immoral ones: If the owner of\na Hebrew slave give the slave a wife, and the slave goes out at the end\nof seven years, \u201cthe wife and her children shall be her master\u2019s; he\nshall go out by himself\u201d (Ex. xxi., 4). The wife is like any other\nfemale animal; she and her young belong to her master, and she may be\nused to increase his stock. If the husband and father clings to his\nfamily, god mercifully allows him to buy the right to live with them\nwith the price of his freedom. A man may sell his daughter to be a\nconcubine, and if her purchaser starve her, or let her go naked, or does\nnot perform his marital duty, she may leave him (vv. 7\u201411). A man may\nbeat his man or woman slave to death, provided that he or she lives \u201ca\nday or two\u201d after the flogging, for \u201che is his money\u201d (vv. 20, 21), and\nthe loss of his valuable chattel is punishment sufficient. If an ox gore\na man, the ox is to be stoned (v. 28), a form of vivisection which Lord\nColeridge can scarcely approve; but, as Paul says: \u201cDoth god take care\nfor oxen?\u201d (1 Cor. ix., 9). If the ox gore a slave, the owner of the\nslave is to be paid for the value of his property (v. 32). If a thief be\nunable to restore the double or fourfold value, as the case may be, of\nthat which he has stolen, \u201cthen he shall be sold for his theft\u201d (xxii.,\n3). A witch is to be murdered (v. 20). An idolater is to be murdered (v.\n20). \u201cThe first-born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Likewise shalt\nthou do with thine oxen and with thy sheep\u201d (vv. 29, 30). Is it credible\nthat by the law of England it should be blasphemy to deny that these\nhorrible commands are \u201cof divine authority\u201d?\n\nAnd as though to show that this book is of purely human origin, with the\nmingled good and evil inseparable from all early efforts at legislation,\nwe read, after the foregoing horrors the following noble and generous\nteaching:\n\n\u201cThou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked\nto be an unrighteous witness. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do\nevil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest\njudgment. Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.\n\nIf thou meet thine enemy\u2019s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely\nbring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee\nlying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt\nsurely help with him. Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in\nin his cause. Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and\nrighteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked. And thou\nshalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the\nwords of the righteous. Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye\nknow the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of\nEgypt.\u201d (xxiii., 1\u20149.)\n\nHere we see the pen of some lofty and tender lawgiver, who has nothing\nin common with the savage chief who \u201cbreathed out threatenings and\nslaughter.\u201d\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that the Lord on Mount Sinai gave a number of\nfrivolous commands, about a candlestick (Ex. xxv., 31\u201439) with its\nsnuff-dishes, and curtains, and hangings, and dresses, with their\ntrimmings of \u201ca golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a\npomegranate, upon the hem,\u201d and \u201choly ointment,\u201d and \u201cperfume,\u201d etc.,\netc. (Ex. xxv.\u2014xxx.). After the making of stars and suns it seems but\npoor work to give directions about \u201cloops,\u201d and \u201ctaches,\u201d and a \u201ccurious\ngirdle,\u201d fitter employment for a cabinet maker and a tailor than for a\ngod with \u201cthunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and\nthe voice of the trumpet exceeding loud.\u201d While Moses and the Lord were\ndiscoursing on upholstery the people were getting into trouble down\nbelow, and god, who is \u201cwithout passions,\u201d (Art. 1) felt his wrath \u201cwax\nhot against them\u201d (Ex. xxxii., 10). Moses did not ask for forgiveness on\nthe ground of god\u2019s goodness, but he appealed to his vanity, and\nreminded him that the Egyptians would crow over him if he destroyed his\nown people (xxxii., 12.) Thereupon god, who is not a man \u201cthat he should\nrepent\u201d (Numb, xxiii., 19), \u201crepented of the evil which he thought to\ndo\u201d (Ex. xxxii., 14). God who is \u201cwithout body\u201d (Art 1) had written two\ntables with his \u201cfinger\u201d (Ex. xxxi., 18), and these tables \u201cwere the\nwork of god, and the writing was the writing of god\u201d (xxxii, 16). So\ncareless was Moses of this unique specimen that he lost his temper and\nbroke it in pieces, and then, arriving at the camp, he sent the sons of\nLevi through the camp, bidding them \u201cslay every man his brother, and\nevery man his companion, and every man his neighbor,\u201d and when 3,000 men\nhad fallen he bade the murderers: \u201cConsecrate yourselves to-day to the\nLord, even every man upon his son and upon his brother, that he may\nbestow a blessing upon you\u201d (w., 27\u201429). Yet it is blasphemy to deny\nthat this great wickedness was god-inspired.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that \u201cthe Lord spake unto Moses face to face\u201d\n(Ex. xxxiii., 11); also it is blasphemy to deny that god told Moses:\n\u201cThou canst not see my face, for there shall no man see me and live\u201d (v.\n20, compare with ch. xxiv., 10, 11). And while it is blasphemy to deny\nthat god is \u201cwithout parts\u201d (Art 1), it is equally blasphemy to deny\nthat he has \u201cback parts\u201d (Ex. xxxiii., 23). Either the Prayer Book or\nthe Bible clearly needs revision; meanwhile it is blasphemy to deny\neither.\n\nIt is interesting to observe the fashion in which Christians pick and\nchoose among the commandments given \u201cby divine authority\u201d while they\nimprison heretics for attacking those of which they, in their turn,\ndisapprove. Thus we have (Ex. xxxv., 2, 3): \u201cSix days shall work be\ndone, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a sabbath\nof rest to the Lord; whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.\nYe shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath\nday.\u201d The Sabbatarians quote verse 2 as a reason for shutting up all\nmuseums and art galleries on \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day,\u201d and they abuse as rebels\nagainst the law of god all the liberal-minded of their own creed. But\nthey quietly ignore verse 3, because that would cause discomfort to\nthemselves, and the very peers who, in the House of Lords, vote to shut\nworking men out of art education go home to sit over their comfortable\nfires, and to wander through their own galleries wanned by a fire\nkindled against their god\u2019s direct command. Wonderful, indeed, are the\nways of religious men!\n\nThe book of Leviticus is \u201cof divine authority.\u201d It is blasphemy to deny\nthat a bullock, flayed and cut into pieces and burned, makes a sweet\nsmell to god (Lev. L, 5\u20149). Tastes differ. Also burning a goat, with\n\u201cthe fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the\ninwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by\nthe flanks\u201d (iii., 14, 15), makes a sweet savor as it frizzles and\ndrips. The tabernacle of the congregation must have smelt like the\nkitchen of a dirty cook. Yet it is blasphemy to deny that god enjoyed\nit. \u201cAll the fat is the Lord\u2019s\u201d (16). Not a morsel of fat might the\nIsraelite eat (17). Personally, I should have been quite willing to give\nall the fat to the Lord, but some of the people probably felt envious.\n\nIt would be wearisome to recite all the extraordinary commands given by\ngod in this \u201cthird book of Moses.\u201d Christians disregard them, on the\npretence that the ceremonial law is not binding on them, yet it is\nblasphemy to deny that \u201cwhosoever shall break one of these least\ncommandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in\nthe kingdom of heaven\u201d (Matt, v., 19).\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that the hare chews the cud (xi., 6); as a\nmatter of mere fact it does nothing of the kind. It is blasphemy to deny\nthat the locust, the beetle, and the grasshopper have more than four\nfeet (xi., 21\u201423); as a matter of fact they each have six. It is very\nawkward when fact and faith clash in this numerical fashion.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that god concerns himself with the way a man\ncuts his beard; \u201cneither shalt thou,\u201d says he, \u201cmar the corners of thy\nbeard\u201d (xix., 27). Is it conceivable that the creator of the universe\nshould trouble himself with such barber\u2019s work as this? If such a being\nexisted would it not rather be blasphemy to ascribe such directions to\nhim?\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that Jahveh, like other gods of his time,\ncommanded human sacrifice. He says: \u201cNo devoted thing that a man shall\ndevote unto the Lord of all that he hath, both _of man_ and beast, and\nof the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted\nthing is most holy unto the Lord. None devoted which shall be devoted\n_of men_ shall be redeemed, but _shall surely be put to death_\u201d (xxvii.,\n28, 29). This abomination is commanded by divine authority, and he is in\ndanger of gaol and damnation who shall honestly repudiate the detestable\nthing.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that Jahveh ordained the disgusting trial of a\nwife suspected of infidelity which is related in Numbers v., 12\u201431. If\nthe \u201cspirit of jealousy\u201d come on a man, he is to bring his wife to the\npriest. \u201cAnd the priest shall take holy water in an earthern vessel; and\nof the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall\ntake, and put it into the water;\u201d this delectable but dirty drink is to\nbe swallowed by the woman, after a charm has been repeated by the\npriest, as \u201can oath of cursing,\u201d and if the woman has been unfaithful\nthe water will have very unpleasant physical results, while if the\nsuspicion of her husband be false \u201cshe shall be free.\u201d This prompt way\nof settling matters would obviate all the expenses and formalities of a\ndivorce court, and if the arrangement could be extended to include\nunfaithful husbands, this Christian country would be saved much cost.\nBut though the Christians punish other people for unbelief they are\nthorough infidels themselves in all practical matters. They would far\nrather trust Sir James Hannen than dirty holy water, when they suspect\nconjugal infidelity.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that Jahveh was so passionate (God is without\npassions, Art. I.), and so vain that he could only be restrained from\nsmiting his people by the appeal of Moses to his vanity: \u201cThen the\nEgyptians shall hear it.... and they will tell it to the inhabitants of\nthis land.... the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak,\nsaying: Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land\nwhich he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the\nwilderness\u201d (Numbers xiv., 12\u201416). This suggestion, most ingeniously\nintroduced by Moses \u2014 who \u201cmanaged\u201d Jahveh with admirable tact \u2014 proved\nsuccessful, and \u201cthe Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word\u201d\n(v. 20). Yet it is blasphemy to say that god changes his purpose.\n\nFurthermore, although it is blasphemy to deny that u he is faithful that\npromised\u201d (Heb. x., 23), yet we must believe that Jahveh declared to the\nIsraelites, \u201cye shall know my breach of promise\u201d (Numbers xiv., 34).\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that Jahveh commanded that a man who \u201cgathered\nsticks upon the sabbath day\u201d (xv., 32\u201436) should be stoned to death. Yet\nis it equally blasphemy to deny that Jesus, the representative and\nfirst-begotten of Jahveh, condemned the Pharisees who declared that his\ndisciples did \u201cthat which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day\u201d\n(Matt, xii., 2), when they gathered corn.\n\nThe poor Pharisees tried to obey the law as given by Jahveh; their\nreward was to be condemned by his son. Yet it is blasphemy to deny that\n\u201cI and my Father are one\u201d (John x., 30).\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that Jahveh commanded the Israelites to \u201cmake\nthem fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their\ngenerations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a riband\nof blue: and it shall be unto you for a fringe\u201d (Numbers xv., 38, 39).\nIt is hard to believe, though it is blasphemy to deny, that the \u201cEternal\nSpirit\u201d troubled himself about \u201ca fringe.\u201d\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that there is a \u201cpit,\u201d within the earth, into\nwhich people may fall alive, when the earth opens her mouth and swallows\nthem up; further, that Korah, Dathan and Abiram, their wives, their sons\nand their little children, were so swallowed up, and \u201cwent down alive\ninto the pit, and the earth closed upon them\u201d (Numb, xvi., 27\u201433).\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that a plague so fierce that it slew 14,700\npeople in a few hours could be stopped by a man with a censer full of\nincense who \u201cstood between the dead and the living\u201d (xvi., 46\u201449). One\ncan only suppose that the plague advanced steadily across the camp, like\na fog, killing every person it covered. Thus only could a man stand\nbetween the living and the dead. Yet no such advancing destruction is\nknown to history.\n\nIt is blasphemy to deny that a dry old rod belonging to Aaron blossomed\nmiraculously when eleven other dry old rods behaved in the normal\nfashion (xvii., 2\u20149). And not only did Aaron\u2019s rod bud and blossom, but\nit also yielded almonds, and this all in the course of one night. It is\nblasphemy to suggest that Moses, Aaron\u2019s brother, who took the rods and\nwho hid them \u201cbefore the Lord in the tabernacle of witness,\u201d quietly\nsubstituted a blooming and fruiting branch in the place of his brother\u2019s\nrod, and yet this would be the explanation which would be at once\nsuggested if a similar trick were played now-a-days. But in those\neasy-going and credulous times very little skill was needed to impose\nupon a crowd ready to be deceived.\n\nIt is interesting to note, in passing, the admirable provision made by\nJahveh\u2014through the mouth of his servant, Moses \u2014for Aaron and his\nfamily. \u201cAll the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine, and of\nthe wheat, the first fruits of them which they shall offer unto the\nLord, them have I given thee. And whatsoever is first ripe in the land,\nwhich they shall bring unto the Lord, shall be thine\u201d (Numb, xviii., 12,\n13). This claim on the part of the priesthood has never been regarded as\npart of that ceremonial law which has been \u201cdone away in Christ.\u201d\n\nThe story of Balaam is one of the tests to which true faith must be\nsubmitted. We learn in this that when Balak sent to ask Balaam to go to\nhim that he might curse Israel, god at first commanded him not to go\n(Numbers xxii., 12), but a little later commanded him to go (20). God,\nas we know, never changes. When Balaam obeyed god\u2019s command and went,\n\u201cgod\u2019s anger was kindled against him because he went\u201d (22), that is\nbecause Balaam did what god told him to do, and \u201cthe angel of the Lord\nstood in the way for an adversary against him.\u201d Balaam was riding on a\ndonkey, and the donkey saw the angel, though no one else did, \u201cand the\nass turned aside out of the way.\u201d Again the angel placed himself in\nfront of the donkey, and the donkey squeezed past him, crushing Balaam\u2019s\nfoot against the wall. For the third time the angel confronted the\ndonkey, and on this occasion in a narrow place, \u201cwhere there was no way\nto turn either to the right hand or to the left.\u201d Then the donkey\ntumbled down. Balaam was, not unnaturally, disturbed at his donkey\u2019s\nextraordinary behavior, and he had struck her each time that she had, as\nhe thought, misbehaved. And now occurred a wonderful thing. \u201cThe Lord\nopened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done\nunto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said\nunto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in\nmy hand, for now would I kill thee. And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not\nI thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto\nthis day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.\u201d\nSensible persons are expected to believe this absurd story of a\nconversation between a man and a donkey. Peter speaks of it without any\nexpression of doubt, saying: \u201cthe dumb ass, speaking with man\u2019s voice,\nforbad the madness of the prophet\u201d (2 Peter ii., 16). It is blasphemy to\ndeny it; it is madness to believe it. Balaam\u2019s ass stands on a level\nwith Mahomet\u2019s, and only the credulous and superstitious can yield\ncredence to the stories of either.\n\nIt is not worth while to delay over Balaam\u2019s rhapsodies, except to note\ntheir extreme inaccuracy. \u201cGod is not a man that he should lie\u201d (Numbers\nxxiii,, 19); yet \u201cI, the Lord, have deceived that prophet\u201d (Ezech. xiv.,\n9). \u201cNor the son of man that he should repent\u201d (Numbers xxiii., 19); yet\n\u201cit repented the Lord that he had made man\u201d (Gen. vi., 6). \u201cHe hath not\nbeheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel\u201d\n(Numbers xxiii., 21); yet, \u201cI have seen this people, and behold it is a\nstiff-necked people;\u201d \u201chow long will this people provoke me?\u201d (Exodus\nxxxii., 9, and Numbers xiv., 11). This declaration is the more startling\nwhen we find Moses\u2014 whose acquaintance with the people was more intimate\nthan that of Balaam\u2014saying: \u201cRemember, and forget not, how thou\nprovokedst the Lord thy God to wrath in the wilderness; from the day\nthat thou didst depart out of the land of Egypt, until ye came unto this\nplace, ye have been rebellious against the Lord.... Ye have been\nrebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you\u201d (Deut. ix., 7\nand 24). It is needless to accumulate these contradictory statements,\nall of which we are commanded to believe on peril of damnation.\n\nImmediately after Balaam\u2019s declaration of Israel\u2019s holiness, we read how\nthe people reverted to idolatry, and how \u201cthe anger of the Lord was\nkindled against them\u201d (Numbers xxv., 3). Some more murders were\ncommitted to pacify Jahveh, and he himself slew 24,000 by a plague.\n\nIn Numbers xxxi. we have one of the most horrible stories related even\nin the Bible, the story of the slaughter of the Midianites. Jahveh sent\nhis tribes against this unhappy race, and, after their usual wicked\nfashion, they \u201cslew all the males.\u201d Moved, however, by an unwonted touch\nof pity, they \u201ctook all the women of Midian captives, and their little\nones,\u201d and brought them alive back to their camp. Moses, Jahveh\u2019s\nfriend, \u201cwas wroth with the officers of the host\u201d for their unworthy\nhumanity, and shrieked out in his rage: \u201cHave ye saved all the women\nalive?\u201d And then he commanded them to \u201ckill every male among the little\nones, and kill every woman\u201d that had been married, \u201cbut all the women\nchildren that\u201d were virgins \u201ckeep alive for yourselves.\u201d This\nbloodthirsty and loathsome command is of \u201cdivine authority.\u201d It is\nblasphemy to deny that it was god-given. Yet what of the blasphemy that\nascribes an order so fiendish to \u201cthe God of the spirits of all flesh?\u201d\nThese baby boys and prattling children, kill every one; these mothers\nand matrons of Midian, murder them one after another. Such is the\ncommand of Jahveh, who said: \u201cThou shalt not kill.\u201d And these fair and\npure maidens, these helpless women-children, whose natural guardians ye\nhave slain, keep these for the satisfactions of your passions. Such is\nthe command of Jahveh, who said: \u201cThou shalt not commit adultery.\u201d\n\nSome of these fair girls were claimed as \u201cthe Lord\u2019s tribute,\u201d 352 in\nall. These were handed over to the Levites, and small doubt can be felt\nas to their fate.\n\nTo add a touch of the comic to this tragic scene, we learn that after\nall the fighting and the slaughter, not one solitary Israelite was\nmissing, while the Midianitish nation, of which not a male was left\nalive, turns up again later as merrily as though it had never been\ndestroyed, and \u201cprevailed against Israel, and because of the Midianites\nthe children of Israel made them the dens which are in the mountains,\nand caves, and strongholds\u201d (Judges vi., 2).\n\nThe book of Deuteronomy is awkward for the true believer, because it is\na recital of the story related in the preceding book, and constantly\ncontradicts the previous narrative. Thus Moses commands Israel to make\nno likeness or similitude of Jahveh on the ground that when he spake to\nthem \u201cout of the midst of the fire,\u201d \u201cye heard the voice of the words\nbut saw no similitude\u201d (Deut. iv., 12); yet turning back we read that\nseventy-four of them \u201csaw the god of Israel, and there was under his\nfeet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the\nbody of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of\nIsrael he laid not his hand: also they saw God\u201d (Ex. xxiv., 10,11). It\ncan scarcely be pretended that when they saw a visible being with \u201cfeet\u201d\nand a \u201chand,\u201d they \u201csaw no similitude.\u201d\n\nIn Deut. v., 15, the reason for keeping holy the sabbath day is\ndifferent from the reason given in Ex. xx., 11. Both of these are given\nas the very words of Jahveh, spoken from \u201cHoreb\u201d or \u201cSinai.\u201d One of the\nversions must be inaccurate, yet it is blasphemy to deny either. In\nDeut. v., 22, Moses says that after the ten commandments \u201che added no\nmore.\u201d In Exodus he added a large number of other commands (see\nxx.\u2014xxiii.).\n\nWe learn in Deut. viii., 4, that during the forty years wasted in the\nwilderness \u201cthy raiment waxed not old upon thee.\u201d This was very\nsatisfactory for the adults, but what happened to the growing children?\nThe raiment of a week-old baby can scarcely have been suitable to the\nman of forty; did the clothes grow with the body, and as the numbers of\nthe people increased very much during the forty years, were new clothes\nborn as well as new babies? If such questions are regarded as\nblasphemous, I can only answer that they are suggested by Moses\u2019\nassertion of the remarkable durability of the raiment, and raiment that\ndid not become old might surely also grow and reproduce itself. Once\nbegin miracle-working on old clothes, and none can say how far it may\ngo.\n\nIt is blasphemy to assert that it is wrong to swear, for the Bible\ncommands: \u201cThou shalt fear the Lord thy God.... and swear by his name\u201d\n(Deut. x., 20). It is blasphemy to assert that it is right to swear, for\nthe Bible commands: \u201cSwear not at all\u201d (Matt, v., 34).\n\nDeuteronomy xiii., from the first verse to the last, is a disgrace to\nthe book in which it is contained, and a scandal to the community which\npermits it to be circulated as of divine authority. Yet it is blasphemy\nto attack it and to show its horrible atrocity. If a prophet or dreamer\narise and try to turn away the Hebrews from Jahveh, then they are told:\n\u201cThe Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your\nGod\u201d (v. 3). Yet, although it is Jahveh\u2019s own doing, that unfortunate\n\u201cprophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death\u201d (v. 5). The\nsame fate is to befall \u201cthy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son,\nor thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as\nthine own soul\u201d (v. 6), if such try to turn any away from Jahveh\u2019s\nworship; with a refinement of cruelty, devilish in its wickedness,\n\u201cthine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death\u201d (v. 9). The\nwife, passionately loved, is to see her husband, in whose bosom she has\nlain, raise his hand against her, foremost of a howling mob, greedy for\nher blood. The daughter is to clasp her father\u2019s knees in vain; he must\nstrike her down as she clings to him in her agony. The trusting and\ntrusted friend is to be betrayed to the slaughterers, and the hand most\nclosely grasped in love is to be the first to catch up the heavy stone\nand to beat out the faithful life. And it is blasphemy to cry out\nagainst this horror, but not blasphemy to ascribe its invention to the\ngod \u201cwhose tender mercy is over all his works.\u201d\n\nThe murder commenced in the family circle is to be continued in the\nnational policy. If a city of the Hebrews reject Jahveh, \u201cthou shalt\nsurely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword,\ndestroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof,\nwith the edge of the sword\u201d (v. 15); nothing is to escape, a burning\nbloodstained ruin is to be left \u201cfor the Lord thy God\u201d (v. 16), and then\nJahveh will bless his brutal servants, who have done \u201cthat which is\nright in the eyes of the Lord thy God\u201d (v. 18). This command is of\ndivine authority, and has been largely obeyed in Christendom, but people\nhave fortunately become too civilised to carry it out now.\n\nIn Deut. xiv., some of the natural history blunders of Lev. xi. are\nrepeated. It is confusing, however, after reading in Lev. xi., 21\u201423,\n\u201cthese may ye eat, of every flying creeping thing,\u201d etc., to find in\nDeut. xiv., 19, \u201cEvery creeping thing that flieth is unclean unto you;\nthey shall not be eaten.\u201d So that the Israelites are deprived of those\nremarkable four-legged locusts, beetles and grasshoppers which \u201chave\nlegs above their feet.\u201d (Do other animals carry their feet above their\nlegs?) It is delightful to find Moses speaking of a bat as a bird;\nclearly in those days the schoolmaster was not abroad, but it is hard\nthat we should be compelled to choose between the blasphemy of speaking\nof the bat as a mammal, and the falsehood of treating it as a bird. A\nbeautiful touch of generosity is to be found in v. 21: \u201cYe shall not eat\nof anything that dieth of itself; thou shalt give it unto the stranger\nthat is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an\nalien.\u201d\n\nThe general law of warfare laid down in Deut. xx., 10\u201415, is brutal in\nthe extreme. If any foreign city ventures to defend itself against\nHebrew aggression, and closes its gates against the invader, then it is\nto be besieged, and \u201cwhen the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine\nhands, thou shalt Smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword.\u201d\nA yet worse fate is to be dealt out to the cities of Palestine, for in\nthese \u201cthou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth\u201d (v. 16). Of course\nsuch method of war has nothing surprising, when we consider the cruelty\nand barbarism of the Eastern nations of which the Hebrews were one, but\nit is surprising that in the nineteenth century the bloody customs of a\nsavage tribe should be set forth as founded on \u201cdivine authority.\u201d\n\nIf possible, still viler is the treatment of captive women; when thou\n\u201cseest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her\nthat thou wouldst have her to thy wife; then thou shalt bring her home\nto thine house.... and after that thou shalt.... be her husband, and she\nshall be thy wife. And it shall be if thou have no delight in her,\u201d thy\npassions being satisfied, \u201cthen thou shalt let her go whither she will\u201d\n(Deut. xxi., 11\u201414). No wonder that prostitution is rife in every\nChristian city, when this command is placed before young men\u2019s eyes as\n\u201cof divine authority.\u201d Similar low views are taken in Deut. xxiv., 1.\nWhile this degrading teaching is that of Jahveh, Manu, a mere man, with\nno \u201cdivine authority,\u201d but with only a human heart, taught his followers\nto treat every aged woman as their mother, every young woman as their\nsister.\n\nIt is rather odd to note in passing that he is declared to be cursed who\nmarries \u201chis sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his\nmother\u201d (Deut. xxvii., 22), when we remember that Abraham said of his\nwife Sarah: \u201cIndeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father,\nbut not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife\u201d (Gen. xx.,\n12). Thus Abraham, who is so highly blessed in one part of god\u2019s word,\nis cursed in another.\n\nThe book of Joshua is taken up with the bloody wars of the Israelites;\nit is a mere record of savage butchery; every page reeks with slaughter.\n\u201cThey utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman,\nyoung and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword\u201d\n(Josh, vi., 21). This, repeated _ad nauseam_, is the book of Joshua. The\ntale is varied now and then with the record of absurd miracles, as that\nof the falling down of the walls of Jericho, or the standing still of\nthe sun and moon at the command of Joshua. From its ferocity and\nabsurdity, the book is beneath contempt, yet it is of \u201cdivine\nauthority.\u201d\n\nIn the Book of Judges we have the record of a number of utterly\nunimportant victories and defeats in the history of the Hebrew nation.\nWhy should these be accepted as \u201cof divine authority\u201d any more than any\ncorresponding history of some other equally obscure and barbarous\npeople?\n\nOver the barbarous stories of Ehud stabbing Eglon, with its disgusting\ndetails (iii., 21, 22); of Jael murdering her guest, in defiance of all\ndesert laws of hospitality, and receiving for her treachery the blessing\nof the Lord, a blessing shared only with Mary, the mother of Jesus (v.\n24, compare Luke i., 28); of Gideon and of Abimelech, with the evil\nspirit sent by god (Judges ix., 23); of Jephthah and his vow and his\nsacrifice of his daughter (xi., 29\u201439), as Agamemnon sacrificed\nIphigenia; of Samson with his absurd and brutal conduct (xiv., 19; xv.,\n4, 5; and 14\u2014 19, etc.); of the Levite and his concubine, and the foul\ndetails thereon (xix.)\u2014what can any say of these save that such coarse\nand brutal stories belong to the childhood of every nation, and that\nwhile other peoples look back on their savage history as a thing that is\npast, these Hebrew stories are preserved in perennial freshness, and are\nplaced as a burden on the consciences of the civilised nations of\nEurope, and, to our shame, are defended from criticism by the brutal\nlaws of blasphemy invented in savage times and sanctioned in England\nto-day.\n\nThe books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah are\ninteresting for the light they throw on the growth of the Israelitish\npeople, but regarded as of divine authority, they give manifold occasion\n\u201cfor the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme.\u201d\n\nThus we read how the \u201cark of God\u201d was carried to battle, and how the\nPhilistines were afraid, and asked: \u201cWho shall deliver us out of the\nhand of these mighty Gods?\u201d But they wisely determined to try and save\nthemselves, and bade each other: \u201cQuit yourselves like men, and fight.\u201d\nSo they overcame Israel and his \u201cmighty Gods,\u201d and took the ark itself\ncaptive (chap. iv.). Jahveh, however, if he could not fight the\nPhilistines, was strong enough to fight their gods, and when he was\noffered the hospitality of Dagon\u2019s temple, and was left quiet for the\nnight, he knocked poor Dagon down. The Philistines put Dagon up again,\nand this so annoyed Jahveh that on the following night he knocked Dagon\ndown again, and cut off his head and \u201cthe palms of his hands\u201d on the\nthreshold. After that Jahveh performed a miniature edition of the\nplagues of Egypt in the various towns to which his ark was carried,\nuntil some clever priests hit upon the idea of putting the ark on a cart\nand harnessing in two milch kine, and letting them go wherever they\npleased. Off marched the kine to Bethshemesh, and there they met the\nfate of all the unlucky creatures that did Jahveh any service, for the\nmen of Bethshemesh took them and offered them as \u201ca burnt offering to\nthe Lord.\u201d Then Jahveh broke out on the poor men of Bethshemesh, and\nkilled 50,070 of them, because they (all of them?) had peeped into the\nark (chaps, v., vi.). And it is actually blasphemy to deny any detail of\nthis absurd story.\n\n1 Samuel xv. is a chapter that many a pious soul must wish blotted out\nfrom the Old Testament. Samuel, as bloodthirsty as Moses, gave in \u201cthe\nLord\u2019s\u201d name the horrible command: \u201cGo and smite Amalek, and utterly\ndestroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and\nwoman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass\u201d (v. 3). This\nfiendish command was not wholly obeyed, for Saul saved the king, and the\nbest of the sheep and of the other animals. Thereupon Samuel came down\nand cursed Saul vigorously, and then committed the absurdity of telling\nSaul that the \u201cStrength of Israel,\u201d whose change of purpose he had just\nannounced, and who \u201crepented that he had made Saul king\u201d (v. 35), was\n\u201cnot a man that he should repent\u201d (v. 29). After this manifest untruth,\nhe murdered poor Agag, hewing him \u201cin pieces before the Lord\u201d (v. 33).\nYet it is blasphemy to deny that this tissue of bloodshed and lying is\ninspired by \u201cthe spirit of truth.\u201d\n\nAfter this the contradictions about the connexion of Saul and David are\nof small moment. In chap. xvi., 18\u201423, David is brought to play the harp\nto Saul, and he is described as \u201ca mighty valiant man and a man of war,\u201d\nand he became Saul\u2019s arm or-bearer as well as musician. In the next\nchapter David leaves him (v. 15) and goes back to feed his father\u2019s\nsheep, when a war breaks out; a curious proceeding for a \u201cmighty valiant\nman.\u201d Six weeks later David carries some food to his brethren in the\ncamp, and hearing the Philistine giant Goliath utter a challenge, he\noffers to go and fight him. Saul points out to the man who six weeks\nbefore was \u201cmighty valiant\u201d and \u201ca man of war,\u201d that he could not fight\nthe Philistine, for he was \u201cbut a youth,\u201d while Goliath was \u201ca man of\nwar from his youth.\u201d David then relates the story of a struggle he had\nwith a curious composite animal, a \u201clion and a bear,\u201d who stole a lamb,\nand \u201cI went out after him and smote him, and delivered it out of his\nmouth, and when he arose against me I caught him by the beard and slew\nhim.\u201d Saul then put his armor on him, but the former armor-bearer and\nman of war had forgotten how to use armor, and refused to wear it. He\nthen killed the Philistine, and Saul, in whose court he had lived six\nweeks before, and who \u201cloved him greatly\u201d (xvi., 21), asked one of his\ncaptains who he was, and bade him \u201cinquire whose son the stripling is\u201d\n(xvii., 55, 56). We can only understand the king\u2019s loss of memory when\nwe think how much changed David was; the \u201cman of war\u201d had become a\n\u201cstripling,\u201d the \u201cmighty valiant man,\u201d the armor-bearer, had changed\ninto a \u201cyouth\u201d who could not wear armor. No wonder poor Saul was\npuzzled, and if he could not understand it when he was on the spot, how\ncruel to threaten us with imprisonment and damnation if we blunder about\nit 3,000 years afterwards. Almost immediately after David is playing\naway on his harp \u201cas at other times\u201d (xviii., 10).\n\nThe bloodthirsty, treacherous, profligate character of David is so well\nknown that I will not deal with it here, further than to call attention\nto the fact that this deep-dyed criminal was the man \u201cafter God\u2019s own\nheart,\u201d the man who \u201cdid that which was right in the eyes of the Lord,\nand turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of\nhis life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite\u201d (1 Kings xv.,\n5).\n\nThere is one grave difficulty of identity that meets us here which we\nmust not overlook. In 1 Sam. xxiv, 1, we read: \u201cThe anger of the Lord\nwas kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say: go\nnumber Israel and Judah.\u201d In 1 Chron. xxi., 1, we _read_: \u201cAnd\n\nSatan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.\u201d Are\n\u201cGod\u201d and \u201cSatan\u201d convertible terms? It is clearly blasphemy to say that\nthey are not, since the above verses prove that they are, yet I fancy it\nmust be blasphemy to say that they are.\n\nThe barbaric magnificence of the temple built by Solomon is fully\ndescribed in 1 Kings vi.\u2014viii., and we are bound to believe that Solomon\noffered up 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep! It would scarcely have been\npossible for him to have killed more than one animal in five minutes,\nfor each corpse would have to be dragged away to make room for the next,\nand this is supposing that others prepared the dead animals for\nsacrifice. Yet at this rapid rate, without stopping for food or rest or\nsleep, it would have taken Solomon 11,833 hours and 15 minutes to\ncomplete his task, or 493 days. As he must have stopped for food and\nsleep we may double this time, and a pleasant 2 3/4 years poor Solomon\nmust have passed.\n\nNumberless contradictions may be found in these historical books, but I\npass over them all at present, as well as over the succeeding books\nuntil we come to the prophets, for to these I must devote the remainder\nof the space allotted to this part of my subject. We may note in passing\nthe ludicrous absurdity of the headings, \u201creciprocal love of Christ and\nhis Church,\u201d etc., put by commentators over the sensual and suggestive\ndescriptions of male and female beauty in the amorous \u201cSong of Solomon.\u201d\n\nIsaiah is by far the finest and least objectionable of the seventeen\nprophets whose supposed productions form the latter part of the Old\nTestament. A distinctly higher moral tone appears in the writings called\nby his name, and this is especially noticeable in the \u201csecond Isaiah,\u201d\nwho wrote after the Babylonish captivity. There is also much fine\nimagery and poetic feeling, and a distinct effort to raise the people\nabove the brutal savagery of animal sacrifice to the recognition that\njustice and right-doing are more acceptable to Jahveh than dead animals.\nJahveh himself has wonderfully altered, and though there are many traces\nof the savage Mosaic deity, the prevailing thought is of the \u201cHigh and\nlofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose Name is Holy\u201d (Is. lvii., 15).\n\nIt seems strange, after reading some of the more beautiful passages, to\nsuddenly come upon such a passage as that in chapter xxxiv., 6\u20148. Yet\nall are equally inspired, and must be equally accepted as divine. It is\nhard to imagine that the coarse indecency of chapter xxxvi., 12, is\ndictated by \u201ca God of purity.\u201d Nor is it easy to see what good Isaiah\ndid by walking about \u201cnaked and barefoot\u201d (chap. xx., 2,3). The\ncompleteness of the nakedness is not left in doubt (v. 4). In any\ncivilised community Isaiah would have been taken up by the police. A\nfresh difficulty is thrown in the believer\u2019s way by the statement: \u201cThe\ngrave cannot praise thee; death cannot celebrate thee; they that go down\ninto the pit cannot hope for thy truth\u201d (chap. xxxviii., 18). It is\ntherefore blasphemy to say that there is any \u201chope\u201d for the dead. Yet it\nis equally blasphemy to deny that the dead have hope of resurrection.\n\nJeremiah is a most melancholy prophet. He wails from beginning to end;\nhe is often childish, is rarely indecent, and although it may be\nblasphemy to say so, he and his \u201cLamentations\u201d are really not worth\nreading.\n\nEzekiel is both childish and obscene in the grossest sense. I can fancy\nhow Sir W. V. Harcourt would characterise Ezekiel if he were not\nprotected by law. In the first chapter we are introduced to a wonderful\nchariot, borne by four living creatures, each of whom had four wings and\nfour faces, and four sides, and they had a \u201clikeness\u201d which was separate\nfrom them, for \u201cit went up and down among the living creatures\u201d (chap.\ni., 18); and the chariot had four wheels, or perhaps eight, for there\nwas \u201cas it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel\u201d (v. 16); these wheels\n\u201cwent upon their four sides\u201d (v. 17), which must have been very awkward,\nand they were full of eyes\u2014what do wheels do with eyes?\u2014 and were \u201cso\nhigh that they were dreadful\u201d (v. 18); on the top of this conglomeration\nof four-faced creatures and eyed wheels was a firmament, and on the\nfirmament a throne, and on the throne a man, amber-colored, and fire\nenwrapped, and the man was \u201cthe Lord.\u201d And it is blasphemy to deny the\ntruth of this unintelligible jargon of absurdities. Then this man\nconverses with Ezekiel, and \u201ca hand\u201d\u2014apparently minus an arm and a\nbody\u2014brings a book (chap. ii., 9), and Ezekiel eats this \u201croll\u201d (chap.\niii., 1\u20143), a very indigestible one, 1 should fancy. Then Ezekiel takes\na tile, and sketches a town on it, and pretends to besiege the tile, and\nsticks up an iron pan which he makes believe is an iron wall, and then\nhe lies before it, making a fort and a mount, and bringing battering\nrams to bear on his old brickbat (chap. iv., 1\u20144). And it is blasphemy\nnot to believe that this midsummer madness was god-inspired. The\nremainder of his conduct (w. 9\u201415) is too disgusting to mention, and as\nwe are not protected, to print it would bring us under Lord Campbell\u2019s\nAct. The same remark applies to the unutterable nastiness of chaps, xvi.\nand xxiii. And this is in a book put into the hands of little boys and\ngirls, without one protest from the Home Secretary. After all this we\nare not surprised to read \u201cthe spirit\u201d lifted Ezekiel up in the air,\n\u201cthe form of a hand\u201d taking him \u201cby a lock of mine head\u201d (chap. viii.,\n3). When we read that Gabriel lifted Mahomet in this manner, we say it\nis an impudent fraud; when we read it of Ezekiel it is \u201cthe very truth\nof God.\u201d\n\nThe book of Daniel has been so utterly destroyed by criticism that it\nwould be wasted time to dwell upon it. Yet this book is kept as one of\nthe \u201cprophets,\u201d although it has been proved to demonstration that the\npretended prophecies were written after the event.\n\nThe \u201cminor prophets\u201d deserve a pamphlet to themselves, so full of\nabsurdities are they. Hosea, judging by chap. i., 2, 3, and iv., 1, 2,\nmust have been a man of very indifferent character. His writings have\nthe _two_ characteristics of the minor prophets, indecency and maniacal\nraving; sexual vice is played upon in a manner that is wearisomely\ndisgusting (see v., 1\u201413; iv., 12\u201414; v., 3, 4; vi., 10, etc., etc.).\nAmos tells us how \u201cthe Lord stood upon a wall made by a plumbline, with\na plumbline in his hand. And the Lord said unto me, Amos, what seest\nthou? And I said, a plumbline\u201d (chap. vii., 7, 8). Amos was always\nseeing queer things, and \u201cthe Lord\u201d was always asking him what he saw!\nHe saw some grasshoppers (vii., 1, 2), and a basket of summer fruit\n(viii., 1), and the \u201cLord standing upon the altar\u201d (ix., 1). Jonah\u2019s\nadventures are famous, and it is blasphemy to deny that throwing Jonah\ninto the sea stilled the waves, that a great fish swallowed him, that\nthe fish was a whale (Matt, xii., 40), that he lived in the whale\u2019s\nstomach for three days and three nights, said his prayers there, and was\nthrown up safe and sound after living for seventy-two hours inside an\nanimal! Zechariah is as bad for vision-seeing as Amos. He sees red,\nspeckled and white horses among myrtle trees (i., 8), and then four\nhorns (v. 18); a friendly angel talks with him (v. 9), and explains\nmatters in a fashion that makes them more confused. Then there is a \u201cman\nwith a measuring line\u201d (ii., 1), and Joshua the high priest \u201cin filthy\ngarments,\u201d whom they undressed and dressed up again (iii., 1\u20145). And\nthere are a candlestick, and two olive-trees, and some pipes which\n\u201cempty the golden oil,\u201d and which are the \u201ctwo anointed ones\u201d (iv.).\nNext comes \u201ca flying roll,\u201d and then can anyone make sense of the\nfollowing: \u201cThen the angel that talked with me went forth, and said unto\nme, Lift up now thine eyes, and see what is this that goeth forth. And I\nsaid, what is it? And he said, this is an ephah that goeth forth. He\nsaid moreover, this is their resemblance through all the earth. And,\nbehold, there was lifted up a talent of lead, and this is a woman that\nsitteth in the midst of the ephah. And he said, This is wickedness. And\nhe cast it into the midst of the ephah; and he cast the weight of lead\nupon the mouth thereof. Then lifted I up mine eyes, and looked, and\nbehold there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for\nthey had wings like the wings of a stork: and they lifted up the ephah\nbetween the earth and the heaven. Then said I to the angel that talked\nwith me, whither do these bear the ephah? And he said unto me, to build\nit an house in the land of Shinar: and it shall be established, and set\nthere upon her own base.\u201d (Zech. v., 5\u201411.) Yet if we do not believe\nthis we shall be dammed.\n\nI might heap together yet more of these absurdities, but to what end?\nWho but a lunatic could have written such incoherent matter? Yet this\nOld Testament, containing error, folly, absurdity and immorality is by\nEnglish statute law declared to be of divine authority, a blasphemy \u2014if\nthere were anyone to be blasphemed\u2014blacker and more insolent than any\nword ever written or penned by the most hotheaded Freethinker.\n\n                                  \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014","title":"The Christian Creed; or, What it is Blasphemy to Deny","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":19554}