The Christian Creed; or, What it is Blasphemy to Deny

It is blasphemy to deny that "just Lot" (2 Pet. ii., 7) offered his two virgin daughters to satiate the lust of the crowd surrounding his house: "let me, I pray you," said this good father, "bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes." This generous offer, which would be vile in any one but a saint, throws much light on his later relations with these young women. The frightful crime related in Gen. xix., 30-36, seems to have been much approved of by god; for we learn in Deut. ii., 9 and 19, that the Moabites and Ammonites were not to be molested, for their lands were given "unto the children of Lot for a possession," and the reference Bible refers us back on this to the beautiful story in Genesis. Little English girls are given this story to read, and it would be blasphemous to teach them that Lot and his daughters were criminals of the filthiest type. The holy book of god says that Lot was a "just" man, and there is not a word of disapproval of his vice. If it were not that all good little girls must read the Bible, it would be far better that they should not know that such crimes are committed at all. Children's thoughts should never be turned towards sexual matters in any fashion, and they do not so turn of themselves, and it would be one of the worst mischiefs done by the Bible-if it were not the book of god-that it destroys this natural healthy indifference in children's minds. It is not wonderful that such frightful tales of family immorality are but too often told at the assizes, or that poor ignorant people, believing with blind faith in the Bible, repeat the crime of Lot and his daughters, and are startled when our human laws punish peremptorily the crime which in the Bible is blessed of god.

It is blasphemy to deny that god plagued the innocent household of Abimelech, the king of Gerar, because Abimelech had been deceived by the lie of Abraham, god's friend. From the story as related in Genesis xx. we learn that Abimelech took Sarah-then over ninety years of age- believing her to be Abraham's sister; next, that finding out the trick played on him, he gave her back to her base husband, rebuking him in "that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin next, that Sarah was Abraham's half-sister, although she was also his wife, and that such marriage unions between children of the same father by different mothers are pleasing to god; next, that Abraham accepted "sheep and oxen and men-servants and women-servants" from Abimelech with his restored wife, as well as "a thousand pieces of silver," ironically bestowed on him as her "brother;" and, finally, we learn that it is blasphemy to deny that just the same sequence of events happened twice over to Abraham, and also happened to Isaac his son (Gen. xx vi., 7-11), who inherited the family untruthfulness and the family cowardice with the family property.

It is blasphemy for a man to say "when he is tempted, I am tempted of god; for god cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man" (James i., 13). Yet it is blasphemy to deny that "after these things god did tempt Abraham (Gen. xxii., 1). If anybody is infidel enough to ask how a god that tempts no one could have tempted Abraham, the best answer is: "He that believeth not shall be damned." Perhaps Abraham was no one, and in that case both statements would be true.

Everyone knows the beautiful story of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac. How this noble father led his child to the slaughter; how Isaac meekly submitted; how the farce went on till the lad was bound and laid on the altar, and how god then stopped the murder, and blessed the intending murderer for his willingness to commit the crime. If anyone now tries to emulate Abraham's faith, he is treated as a dangerous lunatic; but it is blasphemy to deny that that which would be murder now was virtue then.

It is blasphemy to deny that Isaac was born when his father and mother were too old for his birth to be natural (Gen. xvii., 17); in fact, Abraham was "as good as dead" and Sarah "was past age" (Heb. xi., 11, 12), and we are told that when "he was about an hundred years old" "his own body" was "now dead" (Rom. iv., 19). Although it is blasphemy to assert that he was not too old at 100 to become the father of one son, it is also blasphemy to assert that he was too old more than 37 years later to become the father of six sons (Gen. xxv., 2). We are bound to believe that Abraham was naturally capable of becoming a father when he was 86 years of age, and when he was over 137 years of age, but that it was only by a miracle that he was capable of becoming a father when he was 100 years of age. Truly there are in the Bible "some things hard to be understood" (2 Pet. iii., 16).

It is blasphemy to deny that before Esau and Jacob were born god chose one as his favorite, and declared: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Rom. ix., 13). If anyone should carpingly allege that it was wrong to hate poor unborn Esau before he had committed "any good or evil" (Rom. ix., 11), the right answer is that "god's ways are not as our ways," and that which would be wickedness in man is righteousness in god. God loved Jacob. Jacob would not give his starving brother food until he had bargained for his birthright in return (Gen. xxv., 29-34); but god loved Jacob. Jacob cheated his blind father, pretending to be his brother, and deceived the old man's sense of touch, the sense of vision having failed (Gen. xxvii., 11, 12, 15, 16, 22, 23); but god loved Jacob. Jacob was a hypocrite, and when he took a kid dressed to imitate venison to his father, pretended that he had found it quickly "because the Lord thy god brought it to me" (v. 20); but god loved Jacob. Jacob was a liar, declaring that he was his brother Esau (v. 19, 24); but god loved Jacob. Jacob was a coward, and ran away from his defrauded brother; but god loved Jacob. Jacob hated his wife (Gen. xxix., 31); yet god loved Jacob. Jacob swindled his hospitable uncle Laban out of his flocks and herds (Gen. xxx., 31-43); yet god loved Jacob. Jacob ran away from his uncle with his ill-gotten gains, like a thief in the night (Gen. xxxi, 20); yet god loved Jacob. Jacob was once more a coward, afraid of the brother he had wronged, and sent on some of his people to get killed that he might escape (Gen. xxxii., 7, 8); yet god loved Jacob. It is instructive to know the kind of men that god loves, and to know that god loves a bargaining, cheating, hypocritical, lying, swindling coward. As to poor Esau, on whom fell the awful hate of god before he was born, he seems to have been a brave, loving, generous-hearted man. The kindly words of the man god hated, as he refused his cringing brother's present: "I have enough, my brother; keep that thou hast unto thyself" (Gen. xxxiii., 9), contrast forcibly with the mean, despicable conduct of the man god loved. It is blasphemy to deny that god abetted pious Jacob's frauds, for we learn that "god hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me" (Gen. xxxi., 9), and that in suggesting the method of fraud god reminded him of the share due to himself by the vow he had made (Gen. xxxi, 13), the said vow being that "of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth to thee" (Gen. xxviii., 22).

It is blasphemy to deny that the foul stories of Tamar and Onan, of Tamar and Judah, and of the births of Pharez and Zarah-the children of Judah and his daughter-in-law – with all the details of the several events (Gen. xxxviii.), are of divine authority. If any one but god had told the stories they would be indecent, and the teller would be liable to prosecution under Lord Campbell's act. Out of the filthiest literature the story told in verses 27-30 could not be paralleled, and I doubt if Holywell Street has anything fouler on its book-shelves. Yet little innocent girls are given the book containing these perfectly useless and indescribable nastinesses; and if decent people venture to criticise the book, avoiding the parts of it only fit for pious hands, they are liable to be sent to gaol, and the judge accuses them of undermining morality! The sooner the morality built on Judah, Tamar, and the stories of Onan and Pharez, is undermined the better for decent society.

The story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife is told in the next chapter (Gen. xxxix), and I have heard a clergyman read this story out in church without the smallest hesitation to listening men, women, and children. Christianity blunts the very commonest feelings of human decency in the minds of its followers; and the clergy, who deprave the minds of the young by circulating the Holy Book, have the insolence to accuse unbelievers in its divinity of undermining morality!

It is blasphemy to deny that god blessed the Egyptian midwives for telling a deliberate lie (Ex. i., 19, 20). It is also blasphemy to deny that "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord" (Prov. xii., 22). The only deduction we can draw from these two facts, both given on divine authority, is that god blesses that which is an abomination to him. Once again we must say piously: "His ways are not as our ways."

With the second chapter of Exodus begins the story of Moses, "the man of god." Like most of the Bible saints, Moses was a great sinner from the point of view of ordinary morality. He began his public career with a murder. "And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren and looked on their burdens; and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren. And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian and hid him in the sand" (Ex. ii., 11, 12). The careful looking "this way and that way" before he interferes shows the care for his own person that characterises Moses. A man might have been moved by honest indignation to smite an oppressor. The careful looking round and the hiding of the body do not impress us with a sense of the heroic.

After this adventure Moses ran away from Egypt and dwelt in Midian, and while looking after his father-in-law's flock, he saw a remarkable sight, a bush burning, but not consumed. It is blasphemy to deny that god was in the "midst of the bush" (Ex. iii., 4), and it is blasphemy to suggest, what is nevertheless true, that this legend of a god in the midst of a bush is a trace of the old tree-worship so common in Eastern lands, a worship constantly referred to later in the Hebrew scriptures under the name of "the grove." This god who spoke to Moses was one of the gods of the grove. It is very unfortunate that the truth should be so blasphemous.

It is blasphemy to deny that god said: "Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. xx., 15), and also blasphemy to deny that he commanded the Israelites to rob the Egyptians (Ex. iii., 21, 22). Little discrepancies of this sort must not be allowed to trouble the true believer. Moses did not believe what god said, and in later times he that believeth not shall be damned. But in those days god treated sceptics more mercifully, and instead of damning Moses god performed two miracles to convince him. What a pity that Mr. Foote did not live in the days of Moses; if his walking-stick had turned into a snake, and then when he had caught hold of the snake's tail it had turned back into a walking-stick, perhaps he might have become a believer. It puzzles me a little, however, why the performance of useless and childish miracles of this sort should be admitted as proving anything. If I go to Maskelyne and Cooke's I see much more wonderful transformations than those performed on Mount Horeb, but I do not, therefore, feel inclined to worship Mr. Maskelyne or to take Mr. Cooke as my guide and mentor. Miracles are hopelessly irrelevant; if they were all true they would prove nothing beyond the dexterity of the miracle-worker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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