BIBLE ROMANCES

First Series

By G. W. Foote

CONTENTS:

 THE CREATION STORY. NOAH'S FLOOD. EVE AND THE APPLE. THE BIBLE DEVIL. THE TEN PLAGUES; JONAH AND THE WHALE. THE WANDERING JEWS. THE TOWER OF BABEL. BALAAM'S ASS. GOD'S THIEVES IN CANAAN. CAIN AND ABEL. LOT'S WIFE. 

THE CREATION STORY. 

BIBLE ROMANCES. --1. 

By G. W. FOOTE. 

The Book of Genesis is generally thought, as Professor Huxley says, tocontain the beginning and the end of sound science. The mythology of theJews is held to be a divine revelation of the early history of man, andof the cosmic changes preparatory to his creation. The masses of thepeople in every Christian country are taught in their childhood that Godcreated the universe, including this earth with all its flora and fauna, in five days; that he created man, "the bright consummate flower" ofhis work, on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh. Yet every studentknows this conception to be utterly false; every man of science rejectsit as absurd; and even the clergy themselves mostly disbelieve it Why, then, do they not disabuse the popular mind, and preach what they deemtrue instead of what they know to be false? The answer is very simple. Because they feel that the doctrine of the Fall is bound up with theGenesaic account of Creation, and that if the latter be discredited theformer will not long be retained. The doctrine of the Fall being thefoundation of the scheme of Atonement, the clergy will never admit theCreation Story to be mythical until they are forced to do so by externalpressure. At any rate they cannot be expected to proclaim its falsity, since by so doing they would destroy the main prop of their power. Whatthe recognised teachers of religion will not do, however, should notbe left undone, especially when it is so needful and important. Men ofscience, by teaching positive and indisputable truths, are graduallybut surely revolutionising the world of thought, and dethroning thepriesthoods of mystery and superstition. Yet their influence on themasses is indirect, and they do not often trouble themselves to show thecontradiction between their discoveries and what is preached from thepulpit. Perhaps they are right. But it is also right that others shouldappeal to the people in the name not only of science, but also ofscholarship and common sense, and show them the incredible absurdity ofmuch that the clergy are handsomely paid to preach as the veritable andinfallible Word of God. 

The Creation Story, with which the Book of Genesis opens, is incoherent, discrepant, and intrinsically absurd, as we shall attempt to show. It isalso discordant with the plainest truths of Science. Let us examine it, after casting aside all prejudice and predilection. 

If the universe, including this earth and its principal inhabitant, man, was created in six days, it follows that less than six thousand yearsago chaos reigned throughout nature. This, however, is clearly untrue. Our earth has revolved round its central sun for numberless millions ofyears. Geology proves also that million years have elapsed sinceorganic existence first appeared on the earth's surface, and this worldbecame the theatre of life and death. Darwin speaks of the known historyof the world as "of a length quite incomprehensible by us, " yet eventhat he affirms "will hereafter be recognised as a mere fragment oftime" com-pared with the vast periods which Biology will demand. Theinstructed members of the Church have long recognised these-statementsas substantially true, and they have tried to reconcile them withScripture by assuming that the word which in the History of Creation isrendered _day_ really means a _period_, that is an elastic space of timewhich may be expanded or contracted to suit all requirements. But thereare two fatal objections to this assumption. In the first place, thesame word is rendered _day_ in the fourth commandment, and if itmeans period in Genesis it means period in Exodus. In that case we arecommanded to work six periods and rest on the seventh, and each periodmust cover a geological epoch. How pleasant for those who happen to beborn in the seventh period, how unpleasant for those born in one of thesix! The lives of the one class all work, those of the other all play!In the second place, the account of each day's creation concludes withthe refrain "and the evening and the morning were the first (orother) day. " Now evening and morning are terms which mark the luminousgradations between night and day, and these phenomena, like nightand day, depend on the earth's revolving on its axis and presentingdifferent portions of its surface to the sun. Evening and morningclearly imply a space of twenty-four hours, and the writer of Genesis, whoever he was, would probably be surprised at any other interpretationof his words. It is sometimes argued, as for instance by Dr. M'Caul, that these primeval days were of vast and unknown duration, the eveningand the morning not being dependent on their present causes. But thissupposition could only apply to the first three days, for the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day, expressly "to rule over theday and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. " Thefifth and sixth days, at least, must be understood as of normal length, and thus the chronological difficulties remain. All animal life wasbrought into existence on the last two days, and therefore the Biblestill allows an antiquity of less than six thousand years for theworld's fauna. Geology and Biology allow millions of years. Here thenScience and the Bible are in flagrant and irreconcilable contradiction. 

The fact that the writer of Genesis represents light as existing threedays before the creation of the sun, the source of light, has frequentlybeen noticed. One learned commentator supposed that God had infused acertain "luminosity" through the air, which was not exactly the sameas the light of the sun. But light is not a _thing_; it is a phenomenoncaused by definite laws of astronomy and optics. Such explanations arebut fanciful refuges of superstition. "God said let there be light andthere was light, " is not the language of science and history, but thelanguage of poetry. As such it is sublime. We find a similar expressionin the Vedas of the Hindoos: "He thought, I will create worlds, and theywere there!" Both become ridiculous when presented to us as a scientificstatement The physical astronomer knows how worlds are formed, as wellas how their movements are determined; he knows also the causes oflight; and he knows that none of these processes resembles the accountsgiven in the Creation Stories of the Hebrews and the Hindoos. 

Science knows nothing of six creative epochs, any more than of sixcreative days; and it is quite certain that the order of Creation givenin Genesis differs widely from the revelations of Geology. For instance(and one instance in such a case is as good as a thousand), fish andfowl are said to have been created on the same day. Let us, for the sakeof argument, assume that day means period. The conclusion still is thatfish and fowl were created together. Starting from this conclusion, whatshould we expect to find in our geological researches? Why, the fossilremains of fish and of fowl in the same epochs. But we find nothing ofthe kind. Marine animals antedate the carboniferous period, during whichall our coal deposits were laid, but no remains of fowl are found untila later period. Now the carboniferious period alone, according to SirWilliam Thompson, covers many millions of years; so that instead of fishand fowl being contemporaneous, we find them geologically separated byinconceivable spaces of time. Here again the Bible and Science fatallydisagree. 

Even if we admit that the fifth day of creation was a _period_, thechronology of the Bible is still fatally at variance with factWith respect to the antiquity of the human race, it is precise andunmistakable. It gives us the age of Adam at his death, and the ages ofthe other antediluvian patriarchs. From the Flood the genealogies arecarefully recorded, until we enter the historic period, after whichthere is not much room for dispute. From the creation of Adam tothe birth of Christ, the Bible allows about four thousand years. Theantiquity of the human race, therefore, according to Scripture, is lessthan six thousand years. Science, however, proves that this is but afragment of the vast period during which man has inhabited the earth. There was a civilisation in Egypt thousands of years before the allegedcreation of Adam. The Cushite civilisation was even more ancientArchaeology shows us traces of man's presence, in a ruder state, longbefore that. The researches of Mr. Pengelly in Kent's Cavern prove thatcave-men lived there more than two-hundred thousand years ago; whilegeological investigations in the Valley of the Somme have establishedthe fact that primitive men existed there in the tertiary period. Professor Draper writes:--"So far as investigations have gone, theyindisputably-refer the existence of man to a date remote from us bymany hundreds of thousands of years. It must be borne in mind thatthese investigations are quite recent, and confined to a very limitedgeographical space. No researches have yet been made in those regionswhich might reasonably be regarded as the primitive habitat of man. We are thus carried back immeasurably beyond the six thousand years ofPatristic chronology. It is difficult to assign a shorter date for thelast glaciation of Europe than a quarter of a million of years, and_human existence antedates that_. The chronology of the Bible is thusaltogether obsolete. "

The idea of a seven-days' creation was not confined to the Jews: itwas shared by the Persians and Etruscans. The division of the year intomonths and weeks is a general, although not a universal practice. Theancient Egyptians observed a ten-days' week, but the seven-days' weekwas well known to them. The naming of the days of the week after theseven Planets was noted by Dion Cassius as originally an Egyptiancustom, which spread from Egypt into the Roman Empire. The Brahmins ofIndia also distinguish the days of the week by the planetary names. Thisdivision of time was purely astronomical. The Jews kept the Feast ofthe New Moon, and other of their ceremonies were determined by lunar andsolar phenomena. We may be sure that the myth of a seven-days' creationfollowed and did not precede the regular observance of that period. 

There is one feature of the Hebrew story of creation which shows howanthropomorphic they were. The Persians represent Ormuzd as keeping highfestival with his angels on the seventh day, after creating all thingsin six. But the Hebrews represent Jehovah as _resting_ on the seventhday, as though the arduous labors of creation had completely exhaustedhis energies. Fancy _Omnipotence_ requiring rest to recruit itsstrength! The Bible, and especially in its earlier parts, is grosslyanthropomorphic. It exhibits God as conversing with men, sharing theirrepasts, and helping them to slaughter their foes. It represents him asvisible to human eyes, and in one instance as giving Moses a back viewof his person. Yet these childish fancies are still thrust upon asdivine truths, which if we disbelieve we shall be eternally damned!

Let us now examine the Creation Story internally. In the first placewe find two distinct records, the one occupying the whole of the firstchapter of Genesis and the first three verses of the second, at whichpoint the other commences. These two records belong to different periodsof Jewish history. The older one is the Elohistic, so called because thecreator is designated by the plural term _Elohim_, which in our versionis translated _God_. The more modern one is the Jehovistic, in whichElohim is combined with the singular term _Jehovah_, translated inour-version _the Lord God_. The Elohistic and Jehovistic accounts bothrelate the creation of man, but instead of agreeing they widely differ. The former makes God create man in his own image; the latter does noteven allude to this important circumstance. The former represents man ascreated male and female at the outset; the latter represents the maleas created first, and the female for a special reason afterwards. Inthe former God enjoins the primal pair to "be fruitful and multiply andreplenish the earth;" in the latter there is no such injunction, but onthe contrary, the bringing forth of children in sorrow is imposed uponthe woman as a punishment for her sin, and she does not appear to haveborne any offspring until after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Lastly, the Elohistic record makes no mention of this Paradise, inwhich, according to the Jehovistic record, the drama of the Fall wasenacted, but represents man as immediately commissioned to subdueand populate the world. Such discrepancies are enough to stagger theblindest credulity. 

We now proceed to examine the Jehovistic account of Creation in detail. We read that the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, theHebrew word for which is _adamah_. The word Adam means "be red, " and_adamah_ may be referred to the red soil of Palestine. Kalisch alsoobserves that man may have been originally called Adam on account of thered color of his skin. The Chinese represent man as kneaded of _yellow_earth, and the _red_ Indians of _red_ clay. The belief that man wasformed of earth was not confined to the Jews, but has been almostuniversal, and undoubtedly arose from the fact that our bodies afterdeath return to the earth and resolve into the elements. The Lord Godplaced this forlorn first man in the Garden of Eden with the command totill it, and permission to eat of the fruit of all its trees except "thetree of knowledge of good and evil. " How Adam trespassed and fell, andbrought a curse upon himself and all his innocent posterity, we shallconsider in another pamphlet. The story of the Fall is infinitelycurious and diverting, and must be treated separately. 

Adam's first exploit, after he had taken a good look round him, was verymarvellous. All the cattle and beasts of the field and fowl of the airwere brought before him to be named, and "whatsover Adam called everyliving creature, that was the name thereof. " This first ZoologicalDictionary is unfortunately lost, or we should be able to call everyanimal by its right name, which would doubtless gratify them as well asourselves. The fishes and insects were not included in this primitivenomenclature, so the loss of the Dictionary does not concern them. 

The Lord made the animals pass before Adam seemingly with theexpectation that he would choose a partner from amongst them. Nothing, however, struck his fancy. If he had fallen in love with a femalegorilla or ourang-outang, what a difference it would have made in theworld's history!

After this wonderful exploit "the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall uponAdam, " who surely must have been tired enough to fall into a good soundnatural sleep, without a heavenly narcotic. While in this state one ofhis ribs was extracted for a purpose we shall presently refer to, andwhich he discovered when he awoke. This curious surgical operationinvolves a dilemma. If Adam was upright after it, he must have beenlopsided before; if he was upright before it, he must have been lopsidedafter. In either case the poor man was very scurvily treated. 

It has been maintained that God provided Adam with another rib in placeof the one extracted. But this is a mere conjecture. Besides, if theLord had a spare rib in stock he might have made a woman of it, withoutcutting poor Adam open and making a _pre mortem_ examination of hisinside. 

The divine operator's purpose was a good one, whatever we may think ofhis means. He had discovered, what Omniscience would have foreknown, that it was not good for man to be alone, and had resolved to make him ahelp-meet. Adam's "spare rib" was the raw material of which his wifewas manufactured. The Greenlanders believed that the first woman wasfashioned out of the man's _thumb_. The woman was brought to Adam, whosaid--"This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. " Not a worddid he say about "soul of my soul. " Perhaps he suspected she had none, and with some truth, if we go no further than our English version. Whenthe Lord God made man, he "breathed into his nostrils the breath oflife, and man became a living soul, " but apparently no such operationwas performed on Eve. Indeed, it is very difficult to prove from theBible that woman has a soul at all. Women should reflect on this. Theyshould also reflect on the invidious fact that they were not includedin the original scheme of things, but thrown in as a make-weightafterwards. Let them ponder this a while, and the churches and chapelsin which this story is taught would soon be emptied. The majority ofthose who occupy seats in such places wear bonnets, and most of thosewho don't, go there for the sake of those who do. 

When Adam had thus accosted his bride he grew prophetical. "Therefore, "said he, "shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleaveunto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. " In his desire to give theinstitution of marriage the highest sanction, the writer of this storyperpetrated a gross anachronism. Adam had no parents, nor anyexperience of marriage. Unless, therefore, we credit him with superhumanprescience, it is absurd to make him talk in this way. 

Eve's name, no less than Adam's, betrays the mythological character ofthe story. It means the "mother of all, " and was evidently applied toher by the Jewish writers in order to signify her supposed relationshipto the human race. 

While God was engaged in the work of creation, why did he not make twohuman couples, instead of one? The arrangement he adopted involved thepropagation of the human species through incest Adam and Eve's sons musthave had children by their sisters. If two couples had been created, their families might have intermarried, and mankind would not then havesprang from the incestuous intercourse of the very first generation. Surely omnipotence might have obviated the necessity of a crime againstwhich civilised consciences revolt with unspeakable disgust. 

Adam and Eve were placed by God in the Garden of Eden. "Eden, " saysKalisch, "comprised that tract of land where the Euphrates and Tigrisseparate; from that spot the 'garden in Eden' cannot be distant. Let itsuffice that we know its general position. " Its exact position can neverbe ascertained. What a pity it is that Noah did not occupy some of hisleisure time, during the centuries he lived after his exit from the ark, in writing a typography of the antediluvian world! The Greeks placedParadise in the Islands of the Blessed, beyond the Pillars of Herculesin the western main. The Swede, Rudbeck, asserts that Paradise was inScandinavia; some Russian writers supposed it to have been in Siberia;and the German writers, Hasse and Schulz, on the coast of Prussia. Eastern traditions place it in Ceylon, and regard the mountain of Rahounas the spot where Adam was buried. Some old Christian writers hazardedthe theory that Paradise was beyond the earth altogether, on the otherside of the ocean which they conceived to encircle it, and that Noahwas conveyed to our planet by the deluge. Kalisch gives a long list ofancient and modern authorities on the subject, who differ widely fromeach other as to the actual position of Eden, their only point ofagreement being that it was _somewhere_. 

The Creation Story of the Bible cannot be considered as anything but aHebrew myth. Scholars have abundantly shown the absurdity of supposingthat Moses wrote it. Doubtless, as a piece of traditional mythology, itis very ancient, but it cannot be traced back in its present literaryform beyond the Babylonish captivity. Men of science without exceptiondisbelieve it, not only with regard to the world in general, but alsowith regard to the human race. In his famous article on "The Method andResults of Ethnology, " Professor Huxley made this declaration:--"Thereare those who represent the most numerous, respectable, and would-beorthodox of the public, and who may be called 'Adamites, ' pure andsimple. They believe that Adam was made out of earth somewhere in Asia, about six thousand years ago; that Eve was modelled from one of hisribs; and that the progeny of these two having been reduced to the eightpersons who landed on the summit of Mount Ararat after an universaldeluge, all the nations of the earth have proceeded from these last, have migrated to their present localities, and have become convertedinto negroes, Australians, Mongolians, etc. , within that time. Five-sixths of the public are taught this Adamitic Monogenism as ifit were an established truth, and believe it. I do not; and I am notacquainted with any man of science, or duly instructed person, whodoes. " The clergy, then, who go on teaching this old Creation Story astrue, are either unduly instructed or dishonest, ignorant or fraudulent, blind guides or base deceivers. It is not for us to determine to whichclass any priest or preacher belongs: let the conscience of each, asassuredly it will, decide that for himself. But ignorant or dishonest, we affirm, is every one of them who still teaches the Creation Story asa record of actual facts, or as anything but a Hebrew myth. 

The origin of the human race is far different from that recorded inGenesis. Man has undoubtedly been developed from a lower form of life. The rude remains of primitive men show that they were vastly inferior tothe present civilised inhabitants of the world, and even inferior tothe lowest savages with whom we are now acquainted. Their physical andmental condition was not far removed from that of the higher apes; andthe general opinion of biologists is that they were descended fromthe Old World branch of the great Simian family. There is, indeed, no_absolute_ proof of this, nor is it probable that there ever will be, asthe fossil links between primitive man and his Simian progenitor, if they exist at all, are most likely buried in that sunken continentover which roll the waters of the South Pacific Ocean. But as the lineof natural development can be carried back so far without break, thereis no reason why it should not be carried farther. The evolution theoryis now almost universally accepted by men of science, and few of themsuppose that man can be exempted from the general laws of biology. Atany rate, the Bible account of Creation is thoroughly exploded, and whenthat is gone there is nothing to hinder our complete acceptance of theonly theory of man's origin which is consistent with the facts of hishistory, and explains the peculiarities of his physical structure. 

NOAH'S FLOOD. 

BIBLE ROMANCES--2. 

By G. W. FOOTE. 

The Bible story of the Deluge is at once the biggest and the mostridiculous in the whole volume. Any person who reads it with the eyes ofcommon sense, and some slight knowledge of science, must admit that itis altogether incredible and absurd, and that the book which contains itcannot be the Word of God. 

About 1, 656 years after God created Adam, and placed him in the gardenof Eden, the world had become populous and extremely wicked; indeed, every thought and imagination of man's heart was evil continually. Whatwas the cause of all this wickedness we are not informed; but we aretold that the sons of God took unto them wives of the daughters of menbecause they were fair, and we are led to suppose that these matchesproduced giants and other incurably wicked offspring. No physiologicalreason is assigned for this Strange result, nor perhaps was there anypresent to the mind of the writer, who probably had witnessed unhappymarriages in his own family, and was anxious to warn his readers, however vaguely, against allowing their daughters to be inveigled intomatrimonial bonds with pious sniffling fellows, who professed themselvespeculiarly the children of their Father in heaven. However, thenarrative is clear as to the fact itself: men had all gone irrecoverablyastray, and God had repented that he ever made them. In such a casean earthly human father would naturally have attempted to improve hisfamily; but the Almighty Father either was too indifferent to do so, orwas too well aware of the impossibility of reforming his own wretchedoffspring; and therefore he determined to drown them all at one fellswoop, just as cat-loving old ladies dispose of a too numerous andembarrassing feline progeny. Bethinking him, however, God resolved tosave alive one family to perpetuate the race: he was willing to give hiscreatures another chance, and then, if they persisted in going the wrongway, it would still be easy to drown the lot of them again, and thatwithout any reservation. He had also resolved at first to destroy everyliving thing from off the face of the earth; but he afterwards decidedto spare from destruction two of every species of unclean beasts, maleand female, and fourteen, male and female, of all clean beasts and ofall fowls of the air and of every creeping thing. Noah, his wife, histhree sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and their wives (eight persons inall), were the only human beings to be preserved from the terrible fateof drowning. 

Noah was commanded by God to build an ark for the reception-of theprecious living freight, the dimensions of which were to be, in Englishmeasure, 550 _feet long_, 93 _feet wide_, _and 55 feet deep_. Into thisfloating box they all got; the flood then came and covered the earth, and all besides were drowned. 

Now this is a very strange, a very startling story; it seems more likea chapter from the "Arabian Nights" or the "Adventures of BaronMunchausen" than from the sacred Scriptures of any Religion. Carnalreason prompts us to ask many questions about it. 

1. How did Noah contrive to bring these beasts, birds, and insects alltogether in one spot? The task seems superhuman. Some species could befound only in very remote places--the kangaroo only in Australia, thesloth only in South America, the polar bear only in the Arctic regions. How could Noah, in those days of difficult locomotion, have journeyed insearch of these across broad rivers, and over continents and oceans?Did he bring them singly to his dwelling-place in Asia, or did he travelhither and thither with his menagerie, and finish the collection beforereturning home? There are, according to Hugh Miller, 1, 658 known speciesof mammalia, 6, 266 of birds, 642 of reptiles, and 550, 000 of insects;how _could_ one man, or a hundred men, have collected specimens of thesein those days, and in such & brief space of time? The beasts, clean andunclean, male and female, might be got together by means of terribleexertion; but surely to assemble the birds and reptiles and insects musttranscend human capacity. Some of the last class would of course notrequire much seeking; they visit us whether we desire their company ornot; and the difficulty would not be how to get them into the ark, buthow on earth to keep them out. Others, however, would give infinitetrouble. Fancy Noah occupied in a _wild-goose_ chase, or selectingspecimens from a wasps' or hornets' nest, or giving assiduous chase to avigilant and elusive bluebottle fly!

But suppose Noah to have succeeded in his arduous enterprise, thequestion still remains, how did he keep his wonderful zoologicalcollection alive? Some of them could live only in certain latitudes; theinhabitants of cold climates would melt away amidst the torrid heat ofCentral Asia. Then, again, there are some insects that live only a fewhours, and some that live a few days at the utmost: what means wereadopted for preserving these? Some animals, too, do not pair, but runin herds; many species of fish swim in shoals; sometimes males andsometimes females predominate, as in the case of deer, where one maleheads and appropriates a whole herd of females, or in the case of bees, where many males are devoted to the queen of the hive. These couldnot have gone in pairs, or lived in pairs; their instincts pointedto another method of grouping. How did Noah provide for _their_ duepreservation? When these questions are answered others speedily arise;in fact, there is no end to the difficulties of this marvellous story. 

2. Whence and how did Noah procure the food for his huge menagerie?That he was obliged to do so, that the animals were not miraculouslypreserved without food, we are certain; for he was expressly commandedby God to gather food for himself and for them. "Take thou unto thee, "it was said to him, "of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gatherit to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them. " Whatprovision was made for the _carnivorous_ animals, for lions, tigers, vultures, kites, and hawks? Some of these would require not simply meat, but _fresh_ meat, which could not be provided for them unless superfluousanimals were taken into the ark to be killed, or Noah had learned theart of potting flesh. Otters would require fish, chameleons flies, woodpeckers grubs, night-hawks moths, and humming-birds the honey offlowers. What vast quantities of water also would be consumed! Infact, the task of collecting food to last all the inmates of the ark, including the eight human beings, for more than a year, must have beengreater even than that of bringing them together in the first place fromevery zone. The labors of Hercules were mere trifles compared with thoseof Noah. Poor old patriarch! He amply earned _his_ salvation. Had hebeen possessed of one tithe of Jacob's cunning and business sagacity, hewould have struck a better bargain with God, and have got into the arkon somewhat easier terms. Few men would have undertaken so much to gainso little. 

3. How were all the animals, with their food, got into the ark? Thedimensions as given in the Bible would be insufficient to accommodate atithe of them; the ark could not have contained them all, if they werepacked together like herrings or sardines. Even if they were so packed, space would still be required for their food; and for what a vastquantity! An animal even with man's moderate appetite would consume inthe course of twelve months solid matter to the extent of four or fivetimes its own weight, and some animals are of course far more voracious. This difficulty as to stowing the animals and their food into the ark isquite insuperable; it is not to be obviated by any employment ofmiraculous intervention. Not even omnipotence can make a clock strikeless than one, and God himself must fail to make two things occupy thesame space at the same time. 

4. How where the inmates of this floating menagerie, supposing them gotin, supplied with fresh air? According to the Bible narrative the arkwas furnished with but one window of a cubit square, and one doorwhich was shut by God himself, and it may be presumed, quite securelyfastened. Talk about the Black-hole of Calcutta, why it was nothing tothis! What a scramble there must have been for that solitary windowand a mouthful of fresh air! Lions, tigers, jackals, hyaenas, boa-constrictors, kangaroos, eagles, owls, bees, wasps, bluebottles, with Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and their wives, all in one fiercemelee. But the contention for the precious vital air must, howeverviolent, have soon subsided: fifteen minutes would have settled themall. Yet curiously enough the choking animals-suffered no appreciableinjury; by some occult means they were all preserved from harm; whichfurnishes another illustration of the mysterious ways of God. Whatpowerful perfumes, too, must have arisen from all those animals! Sopowerful indeed that even the rancid flavor of foxes and skunks musthave been undistinguishable from the blended scents of all their fellowpassengers. Those who have visited Wombwell's menagerie, or stood inthe monkey-house of the Zoological Gardens, doubtless retain a livelyrecollection of olfactory disgust, even although in those places themust scrupulous cleanliness is observed; but their experience of suchsmells would have been totally eclipsed if they could but for a momenthave stood within Noah's ark amidst all its heterogeneous denizens. However the patriarch and his sons managed to cleanse this worse thanAugean stable passes all understanding. And then what trampings theymust have had up and down those flights of stairs communicating with thethree storeys of the ark, in order to cast all the filth out of that onewindow. No wonder their children afterwards began to build a tower ofBabel to reach unto heaven; it was quite natural that they should desireplenty of steps, to mount, so as to gratify fully the itch of climbingthey had inherited from their parents. 

5. Where did all the water come from? According to the Bible story thewaters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days, and coveredall the high hills and mountains under the whole heaven. Now mountArarat itself, on which the Ark eventually rested, is seventeen thousandfeet high, and the utmost peaks of Himalaya are nearly twice as highas that; and to cover the whole earth with water to such a tremendousheight would require an immense quantity of water; in fact, about eighttimes as much as is contained in all the rivers, lakes, seas, and oceansof our globe. Whence did all this water come? The Scripture explanationis sadly insufficient; the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened, and the rain was upon the earthfor forty days and forty nights. The writer evidently thought that therewere great fountains at the bottom of the sea, capable of supplyingwater in unlimited quantities from some central reservoir; but scienceknows nothing whatever about them; nay, science tells us that theinternal reservoir, if there be one, must contain not water, but liquidfire. If _this_ great reservoir poured its contents into the sea, theresult would be similar to that frightful catastrophe imagined by theYankee who wished to see Niagara Falls pour into Mount Vesuvius. 

The supply from that quarter thus failing, we are forced back upon therain which descended from the windows of heaven, wherever they may be. It rained forty days and forty nights. Forty days and forty nights!Why forty million days and nights of rain would not have sufficed. Thewriter was evidently in total ignorance of the laws of hydrology. Therain which falls from the clouds originally comes from the waters of theearth, being absorbed into the atmosphere by the process of evaporation. The utmost quantity of water that can thus be held in suspensethroughout the entire atmosphere is very small; in fact, ifprecipitated, it would only cover the ground to the depth of aboutfive inches. After the first precipitation of rain, the process ofevaporation would have to be repeated; that is, for every additionaldescent of rain a proportionate quantity of water would have to beextracted from the rivers, lakes, and seas below. Now, surely every saneman must perceive that this pretty juggle could not add one single dropto the previously existing amount of water, any more than a man couldmake himself rich by taking money out of one pocket and putting it intoanother. The fabled man who is reported to have occupied himself withdipping up water from one side of a boat and emptying it over on theother, hoping thereby to bale the ocean dry, must have been the realauthor of this story of Noah and his wonderful ark. 

Some Christian writers, such as Dr. Pye Smith, Dr. Barry, and HughMiller, have contended that the author of the book of Genesis isdescribing not a universal but a partial deluge; not a flood whichsubmerged the whole earth, out one that merely covered some particularpart of the great Central Asian plains. But surely, apart from anyconsideration pertaining to the very emphatic language of the text, rational men must perceive that the difficulty is not obviated by thisexplanation, but rather increased. How could the waters ascend in oneplace to the height of seventeen thousand feet (the height of MountArarat) without overflowing the adjacent districts, and, indeed, thewhole earth, in conformity to the law of gravitation? Delitzch is boldenough to assert that the flood of water was ejected with such forcefrom the fountains beneath that it assumed quite naturally a conicalshape. But then, even supposing that this explication were anythingbut sheer silliness, which it is not, how would the learned commentatoraccount for the water retaining its conical shape for months after theforce of upheaval had expended itself? These explanations are entirelyfanciful and groundless. The language of the narrative is sufficientlyexplicit "And _all_ flesh died that moved upon the earth;" "all inwhose nostrils was the breath of life;" "and every living substancewas destroyed which was upon the face of the ground;" and "Noah _only_remained alive and they that were with him in the ark. " Such are theprecise unmistakeable words of Scripture, which no sophistry can explainaway. But even if the contention for a partial deluge could be madegood, the fundamental difficulties would still remain. As Colensoobserves, the flood, "whether it be regarded as a _universal_ or a_partial_ deluge, is equally incredible and impossible. "

Geology absolutely contradicts the possibility of any such catastropheas the deluge within the historic period. According to Sir CharlesLyell, no devastating flood could have passed over the forest zone ofÆtna during the last twelve thousand years; and the volcanic cones ofAuvergne, which enclose in their ashes the remains of extinct animals, and present an outline as perfect as that of Ætna, are deemed olderstill. Kalisch forcibly presents this aspect of the question: "Geologyteaches the impossibility of a universal deluge since the last sixthousand years, but does not exclude a partial destruction of theearth's surface within that period. The Biblical text, on the otherhand, demands the supposition of a universal deluge, and absolutelyexcludes a partial flood. "

6. What became of all the fish? In such a deluge the rivers and seasmust have mingled their waters, and this, in conjunction with theterrific outpour from the windows of heaven, must have made the waterbrackish, too salt for fresh-water fish, and too fresh for salt-waterfish; and consequently the aquatic animals must all have perished, unless, indeed, they were miraculously preserved--a contingency whichanyone is free to conjecture, out no one is at liberty to assert, seeingthat the inspired writer never even hints such a possibility. Now thereis no evidence whatever that Noah took and _fish_ with him into the ark;under natural circumstances they must have perished outside; yet theseas and rivers still teem with life. When did the new creation of fishtake place?

7. What became of all the vegetation? Every particle of it musthave rotted during such a long submergence. But even if mysteriouslypreserved from natural decay, it must still have been compressed into amere pulp by the terrific weight of the super-incumbent water. Colensoestimates that the pressure of a column of water 17, 000 feet high wouldbe 474 tons upon each square foot of surface--a pressure which nothingcould have resisted. Yet, wonderful to relate, just prior to the restingof the ark on Mount Ararat, the dove sent out therefrom returned withan olive leaf in her mouth _just pluckt off_. A fitting climax to thiswonderful story. 

Finally the story relates how the ark rested on the top of Mount Ararat, whence its inmates descended to the plains below, which were then quitedry. Mount Ararat towers aloft three thousand feet above the region ofeternal snow. How the poor animals, aye, even the polar bear, must haveshivered! And what a curious sight it must have been to witness theirdescent from such a height Often have I speculated on the probable wayin which the elephant got down, and after much careful thought I haveconcluded thus: either he had waxed so fat with being fed so long onmiraculous food that he rolled pleasantly down like a ball, with noother injury than a few scratches; or he had become so very, very thinwith living simply on expectations, in default of more substantialfare, that he gently floated down by virtue of levity, like a descendingfeather. 

And then what journeys some of the poor animals would have to make; thekangaroo back to Australia, the sloth to South America, the polar bearto the extreme north. How they lived on the road to their ultimatedestinations the Lord only knows. There was no food for them; the delugehad destroyed all vegetation for the herbiverous animals, all flesh forthe carniverous. Not even a nibble was left for the sheep. 

As for poor Noah, the first thing recorded of him after his wateryexpedition is that he drank heavily of wine and got into a state ofbeastly inebriation. And who can wonder that he did so? The poor old manhad floated about on oceans of water for more than a year, and probablyhe was heartily sick of his watery prospect. The astonishing thing isthat he did not get water on the brain. It was quite natural thathe should swill deep potations of some stronger fluid on the firstavailable opportunity. Surely he had water enough during that twelvemonths to last a lifetime; enough to justify his never touching thewretched fluid again. 

While Noah was dead drunk, his second son. Ham, saw "the nakednessof his father, " and reported the fact to his two brethren, who took agarment and, walking backwards so that they might not see, coveredthe patriarch's nudity. On recovering from his drunken stupor, Noahdiscovered "what his younger son had done unto him, " and proceeded atonce to vigorous cursing. Ham was the offender, if there was any offenceat all, which is not very clear; but punishment in the Bible isgenerally vicarious, and we read that the irate patriarch cursed Canaan, the son of Ham, for his father's misdemeanor. Flagitiously unjust asit is, this proceeding thoroughly accords with Jehovah's treatmentof Adam's posterity after he and Eve had committed their first sin byeating of the forbidden fruit. 

Before Noah got drunk he had received from God the assurance that theworld should never more be destroyed by a flood. As a perpetual sign ofthis covenant the rainbow was set in the heavens. But the rainbowmust have been a common sight for centuries before. This phenomenon ofrefraction is the result of natural causes which operated beforethe Flood, as well as after. The earth yielded its fruits for humansustenance, and therefore rain must have fallen. If rain fell before theDeluge, as we are bound to conclude, the rainbow must have been then asnow. The usual practice of commentators is to explain this portionof the narrative by assuming that the rainbow was visible beforethe covenant with Noah, but only after the covenant had a specialsignificance. But, as Colenso observes, the writer of the storysupposes the rainbow was then first set in the clouds, and is evidentlyaccounting for the _origin_ of this beautiful phenomenon, which mightwell appear _super_natural to his uninstructed imagination. 

Besides the manifold absurdities of this story there are other aspectsof it even more startling. What a picture it presents of fiendishcruelty and atrocious vindictiveness! What an appalling exhibitionof divine malignity! God, the omnipotent and omniscient ruler of theuniverse, is represented as harboring and executing the most diabolicalintentions. He ruthlessly exterminates all his children except a favoredfew, and includes in his vengeance the lower animals also, althoughthey were innocent of offence against his laws. Every creature in whosenostrils was the breath of life, with the exception of those perseveredin the ark, was drowned, and the earth was turned into a vastslaughter-house. How imagination pictures the terrible scene as thewaters rise higher and higher, and the ravening waves speed after theirprey! Here some wretched being, baffled and hopeless, drops supinelyinto the raging flood; there a stronger and stouter heart struggles tothe last. Here selfish ones battling for their own preservation; therehusbands and wives, parents and children, lovers and maidens, affordingmutual aid, or at last, in utter despair, locked in a final embrace andmeeting death together. And when the waters subside, what a sickeningscene presents itself! Those plains, once decked with verdure, and lovely in the sun and breeze, are covered with the bones of aslaughtered world. How can the Christian dare to justify such awfulcruelty? The God of the Pentateuch is not a beneficent universal father, but an almighty fiend. 

This story of Noah's Flood is believed still because people neverexamine what is taught them as the word of God. Every one who analysesthe story must pronounce it the most extraordinary amalgam of immoralityand absurdity ever palmed off on a credulous world. 

EVE AND THE APPLE. 

BIBLE ROMANCES. -3. 

By G. W. FOOTE. 

Christianity is based upon the story of the Fall. In Adam all sinned, asin Christ all must be sayed. Saint Paul gives to this doctrine thehigh sanction of his name, and we may disregard the puny whipsters oftheology, who, without any claim to inspiration, endeavor to explain theGenesaic narrative as an allegory rather than a history. If Adam did notreally fall he could not have been cursed for falling, and his posteritycould not have become partakers either in a sin which was nevercommitted or in a malediction which was never pronounced. Nor canOriginal Sin be a true dogma if our first parents did not transmit thegerms of iniquity to their children. If Adam did not fall there was noneed for Christ to save us; if he did not set God and man at variancethere was no need for an atonement; and so the Christian scheme ofsalvation would be a _fiasco_ from beginning to end. This will never do. No Garden of Eden, no Gethsemane! No Fall, no Redemption! No Adam, noChrist!

Mother Eve's curiosity was the motive of the first transgression ofGod's commandments in the history of the world, and the whole humanrace was brought under the risk of eternal perdition because of herpartiality to fruit. Millions of souls now writhe in hell because, six thousand years ago, she took a bite of an apple. What a tender andbeautiful story! God made her to be Adam's helpmeet. She helped him toa slice of apple, and that soon helped them both outside Eden. The sourstuff disagreed with him as it did with her. It has disagreed, with alltheir posterity. In fact it was endowed with the marvellous power oftransmitting spiritual stomach-ache through any number of generations. 

How do we know that it was an _apple_ and not some other fruit? Why, onthe best authority extant after the Holy Scriptures themselves, namely, our auxiliary Bible, "Paradise Lost;" in the tenth book whereof Satanmakes the following boast to his infernal peers after his exploit inEden:--

 "Him by fraud I have seduced From his Creator, and, the more to increase Your wonder, with an _apple_. "

Yet another authority is the profane author of "Don Juan, " who, in thefirst stanza of the tenth canto, says of Newton:

 "And this is the sole mortal who could grapple, Since Adam, with a fall, or with an _apple_. "

Milton, being very pious, was probably in the counsel of God. How elsecould he have given us an authentic version of the long colloquies thatwere carried on in heaven? Byron, being very profane, was probably inthe counsel of Satan. And thus we have the most unimpeachable testimonyof two opposite sources to the fact that it was an _apple_, and not ararer fruit, which overcame the virtue of our first parents, and playedthe devil with their big family of children. 

This apple grew on the Tree of Knowledge, which God planted in the midstof the Garden of Eden, sternly enjoining Adam and Eve not to eat of itsfruit under pain of death. Now the poor woman knew nothing of death andcould not understand what a dreadful punishment it was; and there wasthe fruit dangling before her eyes every hour of the day. Is it anywonder that she brooded incessantly on the one thing forbidden, that herwoman's curiosity was irresistably piqued by it, and that at last herlonging grew so intense that she exclaimed, "Dear me! I can't refrainany longer. Let the consequences be what they will, I must have a bite. "God made the woman; he knew her weakness; and he must have known thatthe plan he devised to test her obedience was the most certain trap thatcould be invented. Jehovah played with poor Eve just as a cat plays witha mouse. She had free-will, say the theologians. Yes, and so has themouse a free run. But the cat knows she can catch it again, and finishit off when she is tired of playing. 

Not only did God allow Eve's curiosity to urge her on to sin, he alsopermitted the serpent, "more subtil than any beast of the field, " tosupplement its action. This wily creature is popularly supposed to havebeen animated on the occasion by the Devil himself; although, as weshall explain in another _Romance_ entitled "The Bible Devil, " the bookof Genesis makes not even the remotest allusion to such a personage. If, however, the tempter _was_ the Devil, what chance had the poor womanagainst his seductive wiles? And even if he was only a serpent, he wasvery "subtil" as we are told, and able to talk like a book, and we knowthat these creatures have fatal powers of fascination. Surely Mother Evewas heavily handicapped. God might have given her fair play, and lefther to fight the battle without furnishing auxiliaries to the strongside. 

The serpent, we have said, could converse in human speech. Hisconversation and his conduct will be dealt with in the _Romance_ justreferred to. Suffice it here to say that he plainly told the woman thatGod was a liar. "He, " said the tempter, "has said ye shall surely die ifye touch the fruit of this tree. Don't believe it. I tell you, ye shallnot surely die. " What could poor Eve think? In addition to her nativecuriosity here was another incentive to disobedience. Which of these twospoke the truth? There was only one way of deciding. She stretched forthher hand, plucked an apple, and began to eat. And immediately, saysMilton, "Earth felt the wound, and nature from her seat, Sighing through all her works, gave signs of woe That all was lost. "

What a rumpus about a trifle! It reminds us of the story of a Jew whohad a sneaking inclination for a certain meat prohibited by his creed. One day the temptation to partake was too strong; he slipped into aplace of refreshment and ordered some sausages. The weather happened tobe tempestuous, and just as he raised his knife and fork to attack thesavory morsel, a violent clap of thunder nearly frightened him out ofhis senses. Gathering courage, he essayed a second time, but anotherthunderclap warned him to desist. A third attempt was foiled in the sameway. Whereupon he threw down his knife and fork and made for the door, exclaiming "What a dreadful fuss about a little bit of pork. "

Eve's transgression, according to the learned Lightfoot, occurred "about_high noone_, the time of eating. " The same authority informs us thatshe and Adam "did lie comfortlesse, till towards the cool of the day, or_three o'clock afternoon_. " However that may be, it is most certain thatthe first woman speedily got the better of the first man. She told himthe apple was nice and he took a bite also. Perhaps he had resolved toshare her fortunes good or bad, and objected to be left alone with hismenagerie. Lightfoot describes the wife as "the weaker vessell, " buta lady friend of ours says that the Devil stormed the citadel first, knowing well that such a poor outpost as Adam could easily be carriedafterwards. 

Having eaten of the fruit, and thus learned to distinguish between goodand evil, Adam and Eve quickly discovered that they were naked. So they"sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. " We are not toldwho gave them lessons in sewing. Perhaps they acquired the art throughintuition. But the necessary implements could not have been gained inthat way. Dr. Thomas Burnet, whose mind was greatly exercised by theastounding wonders of the Bible, very pertinently asked "Whence hadthey a needle, whence a thread, on the first day of their creation?"He, however, could give no answer to the question, nor can we, except wesuppose that some of the female angels had attended a "garden party"in Eden and carelessly left their needles and thread behind them. Anyreader who is dissatisfied with this explanation must inquire of thenearest parson, who, as he belongs to a class supposed to know almosteverything, and believed to have access to the oracles of God, willdoubtless be able to reveal the whole gospel truth on the subject. 

A little later, God himself, who is everywhere at once, came down fromeverywhere to the Garden of Eden, for the purpose of taking a "walk inthe cool of the day. " He had perhaps just visited the infernal regionsto see that everything was ready for the reception of the miserablecreatures he meant to damn, or to assure himself that the Devil wasreally not at home; and was anxious to cool himself before returning tohis celestial abode, as well as to purify himself from the sulphuroustaint which might else have sent a shudder through all the seraphichosts. Apparently he was holding a soliloquy, for Adam and Eve "heardhis voice. " Colenso, however, renders this portion of the Romancedifferently from our authorised version--"And they heard the soundof Jehovah-Elohim walking in the garden in the breeze of the day. "Delitzsch thinks they heard the sound of his footsteps, for God used tovisit them in the form of a man! Could the force of folly farther go?Any devout Theist, who candidly thought over this petty fiction, wouldfind its gross anthropomorphism inexpressibly shocking. 

Knowing that God was everywhere, Adam and Eve nevertheless "hidthemselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of thegarden. " But they were soon dragged forth to the light. Adam, whoseems to have been a silly fellow, explained that he had hidden himselfbecause he was _naked_, as though the Lord had not seen him in thatstate before. "Naked!" said the Lord, "Who told thee that thou wastnaked. Hast thou eaten of that tree, eh?" "O, Lord, yes, " replied Adam;"just a little bit; but it wasn't my fault, _she_ made me do it, O Lord!O Lord!" Whereupon God, who although he knows everything, even before ithappens, was singularly ill-informed on this occasion, turned fiercelyupon the woman, asking her what she had done. "Oh, if you please, "whimpered poor Eve, "it _was_ I who took the first bite; but the serpentbeguiled me, and the fault you see is not mine but his. Oh dear! ohdear!" Then the Lord utterly lost his temper. He cursed the serpent, cursed the woman, cursed the man, and even cursed the ground beneaththeir feet Everything about at the time came in for a share of themalison. In fact, it was what the Yankees would call a good, all-round, level swear. 

The curse of the serpent is a subject we must reserve for our pamphleton "The Bible Devil, " The curse of the woman was that she should bringforth children in pain and sorrow, and that the man should rule overher. With her present physiological condition, woman must always havesuffered during conception as she now does; and therefore Delitzschinfers that her structure must have undergone a change, although hecannot say in what respect He dwells also on the "subjection" of woman, which "the religion of Revelation" has made by degrees more endurable;probably forgetting that the Teutonic women of ancient times wereregarded with veneration, long before Christianity originated. Besides, the subordination of the female is not peculiar to the human race, butis the general law throughout the animal world. 

Adam's curse was less severe. He was doomed to till the ground, and toearn his bread by the sweat of his face. Most of us would rather takepart in the great strenuous battle of life, than loll about under thetrees in the Garden of Eden, chewing the cud like contemplative cows. What men have had to complain of in all ages is, not that they have toearn their living by labour, but that when the sweat of their faces hasbeen plenteously poured forth the "bread" has too often not accrued tothem as the reward of their industry. 

Orthodox Christianity avers that all the posterity of Adam and Evenecessarily participate in their curse, and the doctrine of Original Sinis taught from all its pulpits. Only by baptism can the stains of ournative guilt be effaced; and thus the unbaptized, even infants, perisheverlastingly, and hell, to use the words of a Protestant divine, holdsmany a babe not a span long. A great Catholic divine says--"Hold thoumost firmly, nor do thou in any respect doubt, that infants, whetherin their mothers' wombs they begin to live and then die, or when, aftertheir mothers have given birth to them, they pass from this life withoutthe sacrament of holy baptism, will be punished with the everlastingpunishment of eternal fire. " Horror of horrors! These men call scepticsblasphemers, but they are the real blasphemers when they attribute totheir God such supreme injustice and cruelty. What should we think ofa legislator who proposed that the descendants of all thieves should beimprisoned, and the descendants of all murderers hung? We should thinkthat he was bad or mad. Yet this is precisely analogous to the conductascribed to God, who should be infinitely wiser than the wisest man andinfinitely better than the best. 

The crime of our first parents was indeed pregnant with the direstconsequences. It not only induced the seeds of original sin, but it alsobrought death into the world. Milton sings--

 "Of man's first disobedience, And the fruit Of that forbidden tree, Whose mortal taste _Brought death into the world_. "

And Saint Paul (Romans v. , 12) writes "As by one man sin came into theworld, and death by sin. "

Now this theory implies that before the Fall the inhabited portionof the world was the scene of perfect peace. Birds lived on seeds andeschewed worms, and the fierce carniverous animals grazed like oxen. Thelion laid down with the lamb. "Waal, " said the Yankee, "I don't doubtthat, but I rayther guess the lamb was _inside_. " The fact is thatmost of the carnivorous animals could not live on a vegetable drat;and therefore they must either have subsisted on flesh before the Fall, which of course involves _death_, or their natures must have undergonea radical change. The first supposition contradicts scripture, and thesecond contradicts science. 

Geology shows us that in the very earliest times living creatures diedfrom the same causes which kill them now. Many were overwhelmed byfloods and volcanoes, or engulphed by earthquakes; many died of old ageor disease, for their bones are found distorted or carious, and theirlimbs twisted with pain; while the greater number were devoured, according to the general law of the struggle for existence. Death ruleduniversally before the human race made its appearance on the earth, andhas absolutely nothing to do with Eve and her apple. 

Adam and Eve were warned by God that in the day they ate of the fruit ofthe Tree of Knowledge they should surely die. The serpent declared thisto be rank nonsense, and the event proved his veracity. What age Eveattained to the Holy Bible saith not, for it never considers women ofsufficient importance to have their longevities chronicled. But Adamlived to the remarkably good old age of nine hundred and thirty years. Like our Charles the Second he took "an unconscionable time a-dying. "One of his descendants, the famous Methusaleh, lived thirty-nine yearslonger; while the more famous Melchizedek is not even dead yet, if anycredence is to be placed in the words of holy Saint Paul. 

But all these are mere lambs, infants, or chicken, in comparison withthe primeval patriarchs of India. Buckle tells us that, according to theHindoos, common men in ancient times lived to the age of 80, 000 years, some dying a little sooner and some a little later. Two of their kings, Yudhishther and Alarka, reigned respectively 27, 000 and 66, 000 years. Both these were cut off in their prime; for some of the early poetslived to be about half a million; while one king, the most virtuous aswell as the most remarkable of all, was two million years old when hebegan to reign, and after reigning 6, 800, 000 years, he resigned hisempire and lingered on for 100, 000 years more. Adam is not in the huntwith that tough old fellow. On the principle that it is as well to behung for a sheep as a lamb, faithful Christians should swallow him aswell as Adam. When the throat of their credulity is once distendedthey may as well take in everything that comes. What followed the Curseclearly shows that man was not originally created immortal. Adam and Evewere expelled from the Garden of Eden expressly in order that they mightnot become so. God "drove them forth" lest they should "take also of thetree of life, and eat, and live for ever. " Many orthodox writers, whohave to maintain the doctrine of our natural immortality, preserve adiscreet silence on this text. Our great Milton, who has so largelydetermined the Protestant theology of England, goes right in the face ofScripture when he makes God say of man, "I at first with two fair gifts Created him endowed, with happiness And _immortality_. "

The fact is, the Book of Genesis never once alludes to any such thing, nor does it represent man as endowed with any other soul than that"breath of life" given to all animals. It is also certain that the_ancient_ Jews were entirely ignorant of the doctrine of a life beyondthe grave. The highest promise that Moses is said to have made in theDecalogue was that their "days should be long in the land. " The Jewswere a business people, and they wanted all promises fulfilled on thisside of death. 

Nor is there any real _Fall_ implied in this story. God himself saysthat "the man, " having eaten of the forbidden fruit, "is become as oneof us. " That could scarcely be a fall which brought him nearer to God. Bishop South, indeed, in a very eloquent passage of his sermon on "ManCreated in God's Image, " celebrates the inconceivable perfection ofthe first man, and concludes by saying that "An Aristotle was but therubbish of an Adam, and Athens but the rudiments of Paradise. " But acandid perusal of Genesis obliges us to dissent from this view, Adam andEve were a very childish pair. Whatever intellect they possessedthey carefully concealed. Not a scintillation of it has reached us. Shakespeare and Newton are an infinite improvement on Adam and Eve. Oneof the Gnostic sects, who played such havoc with the early ChristianChurch, utterly rejected the idea of a Fall. "The Ophites, " says Didron, "considered the God of the Jews not only to be a most wicked but anunintelligent being. . . . According to their account, Jalda-baoth, the wicked demi-god adored by the Jews under the name of Jehovah, wasjealous of man, and wished to prevent the progress of knowledge; but theserpent, the agent of superior wisdom, came to teach man what course heought to pursue, and by what means he might regain the knowledge of goodand evil. The Ophites consequently adored the serpent, and cursed thetrue God Jehovah. "

Before expelling Adam and Eve from Eden, the Lord took pity on theirnakedness, and apparently seeing that their skill in needle-work did notgo beyond aprons, he "made coats of skins, and clothed them. " Jehovahwas thus the first tailor, and the prototype of that imperishable classof workmen, of whom it was said that it takes nine of them to make aman. He was also the first butcher and the first tanner, for he musthave slain the animals and dressed their skins. 

Lest they should return he "placed at the east of the Garden of Eden_Cherubims_, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the wayof the tree of life. " As this guard seems never to have been relieved, profane wits have speculated whether the Flood drowned them, andquenched the flaming sword with a great hiss. Ezekiel describes theCherubims with characteristic magnificence. These creatures with wingsand wheels were "full of eyes round about. " And "everyone had low faces:the first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was theface of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the faceof an eagle. " What monsters! No wonder they effectually frightened poorAdam and Eve from attempting a re-entrance into the Garden. 

Perhaps the reader would like to know what became of the Tree ofKnowledge. One legend of the Middle Ages relates that Eve along withthe forbidden fruit broke off a branch which she carried with her fromParadise. Planted outside by her hand, it grew to a great tree, underwhich Abel was killed; at a later time it was used in building the mostholy place of Solomon's temple; and finally it yielded the beams out ofwhich the cross was made! Another legend says that, after the Fall, God rooted out the Tree of Knowledge, and flung it over the wall ofParadise. A thousand years after it was found by Abraham, none the worsefor its long absence from the soil. He planted it in his garden, andwhile doing so he was informed by a voice from heaven that this was thetree on whose wood the Redeemer should be crucified. 

Space does not allow us to dwell at length on the Paradise Myths ofother ancient peoples, which singularly resembled that of the Jews. Formerly it was alleged that these were all corruptions of the Genesaicstory. But it is now known that most of them date long anterior to thevery existence of the Jewish people. As Kalisch says, "they belonged tothe common traditionary lore of the Asiatic nations. " The Bible story ofParadise is derived almost entirely from the Persian myth. It was aftercontact with the reformed religion of Zoroaster, during their captivity, that the remnant of the Jews who returned to Palestine collated theirancient literature, and revised it in accordance with their new ideas. The story of Eve and her Apple is, as every scholar knows, an orientalmyth slightly altered by the Jewish scribes to suit the national taste, and has absolutely no claims on our credence. And if this be so, thedoctrine of the Fall collapses, and down comes the whole Christianstructure which is erected upon it. 

THE BIBLE DEVIL. 

BIBLE ROMANCES. --4. 

By G. W. FOOTE. 

The Christian Godhead is usually spoken and written of as a Trinity, whereas it is in fact a Quaternion, consisting of God the Father, Godthe Son, God the Holy Ghost, and God the Devil. The Roman Catholics addyet another, Goddess the Virgin Mary. God the Devil, whom this _Romance_treats of so far as his history is contained in the Bible, is popularlysupposed to be inferior to the other persons of the Godhead. In reality, however, he is vastly their superior both in wisdom and in power. For, whereas they made the world, he has appropriated it almost entirely tohimself; and, whereas they who created all its inhabitants, have onlybeen able to lay down a very narrow-gauge railway to the Kingdom ofHeaven, he has contrived to lay down an exceedingly broad-gauge railwayto the Kingdom of Hell. Few passengers travel by their route, andits terminus on this side is miserably small; but his route is almostuniversally patronised, its terminus is magnificent, and there is anextraordinary rush for tickets. 

According to the Christian scheme, the Devil tempted Adam and Eve fromtheir allegiance to God in the form of a serpent. He played the devilwith Eve, she played the devil with Adam, and together they have playedthe Devil with the whole human race ever since. 

But let any unbiassed person read the Genesaic story of the Fall, and hewill certainly discover no reference to the Devil A serpent is spokenof as "more subtle than any beast of the field;" it is throughoutrepresented simply as a serpent; and nowhere is there the faintestindication of its possessing any supernatural endowments. 

The Story of the Fall contains clear relics of that Tree and Serpentworship which in ancient times prevailed so extensively over the East. The serpent was formerly regarded as the symbol of a beneficent God. InHindustan, says Maurice, "the veneration of the serpent is evidentin every page of their mythologic history, in which every fabulouspersonage of note is represented as grasping or as environed with aserpent. " According to Lajard, the word which signifies "life" in thegreater part of the Semitic languages signifies also "a serpent" AndJacob Bryant says that the word "Ab, " which in Hebrew means Father, hasalso the same meaning as the Egyptian "Ob, " or "Aub, " and signifies "aserpent, " thus etymologically uniting the two ideas. The Tree andthe Serpent were frequently associated, although they were sometimesworshipped apart. The Aryan races of the Western world mostly worshippedthe Tree alone. The Scandinavians had their great ash "Yggdrasill, "whose triple root reaches to the depths of the universe, while itsmajestic stem overtops the heavens and its branches fill the world. TheGrecian oracles were delivered from the oak of Dodona, and the priestsset forth their decrees on its leaves. Nutpi or Neith, the goddessof divine life, was by the Egyptians represented as seated among thebranches of the Tree of Life, in the paradise of Osiris. The "Hom, " thesacred tree of the Persians, is spoken of in the Zendavesta as the "Wordof Life, " and, when consecrated, was partaken of as a sacrament. An oakwas the sacred tree of the ancient Druids of Britain. We inherit theircustom of gathering the sacred mistletoe at Yule-tide, while in ourChristmas Tree we have a remnant of the old Norse tree-worship. Duringthe Middle Ages the worship of trees was forbidden in France by theecclesiastical councils, and in England by the laws of Canute. A learnedantiquary remarks that "the English maypole decked with colored rags andtinsel, and the merry morice-dancers (the gaily decorated May sweeps)with the mysterious and now almost defunct personage, Jack-in-the-green, are all but worn-out remnants of the adoration of gods in trees thatonce were sacred in England. "

Now the serpent and the tree were originally both symbolic of thegenerative powers of nature, and they were interchangeable. Sometimesone was employed, sometimes the other, and sometimes both. But inthat great religious reformation which took place in the faiths of theancient world about 600 years before the time of Christ, the serpentwas degraded, and made to stand as a symbol of Ahriman, the god of evil, who, in the Persic religion, waged incessant war against Ormuzd, the godof beneficence. The Persian myth of the Fall is thus rendered from theZendavesta by Kalisch:--

"The first couple, the parents of the human race, Meshia and Meshiane, lived originally in purity and innocence. Perpetual happiness waspromised them by Ormuzd, the creator of every good gift, if theypersevered in their virtue. But an evil demon (Dev) was sent to themby Ahriman, the representative of everything noxious and sinful. Heappeared unexpectedly in the form of a serpent, and gave them the fruitof a wonderful tree, Hom, which imparted immortality and had the powerof restoring the dead to life. Thus evil inclinations entered theirhearts; all their moral excellence was destroyed. Ahriman himselfappeared wider the form of the same reptile, and completed the work ofseduction. They acknowledged him instead of Ormuzd as the creator ofeverything good; and the consequence was they forfeited for ever theeternal happiness for which they were destined. "

Every reader will at once perceive how similar this is to the Hebrewstory of the Fall. The similarity is intelligible when we remember thatall the literature of the ancient Jews was put into its present form bythe learned scribes who returned with the remnant of the people from theBabylonish captivity, and who were full of the ideas that obtained inthe Persian religion as reformed by the traditional Zoroaster. 

As we have said, the Hebrew story of the Fall contains clear relics ofTree and Serpent worship. There is also abundant proof that during thelong ages in which the Jews oscillated between polytheism and monotheismthis worship largely prevailed. Even up to the reign of Hezekiah, as wefind in the Second Book of Kings, the serpent was worshipped in groves, to the great anger of the king, who cast out the idolatry from among hispeople. 

Having explained the subject thus, let us now assume with orthodoxChristians that the serpent in Eden was animated by the Devil, or wasindeed the Devil himself incarnate. 

We have already observed that the Devil excels his three rivals inwisdom and in power. While they were toiling so strenuously to createthe world and all that therein is, he quietly stood or sat by as aspectator. "All right, " he might have murmured, "work away as hard asyou please. You've more strength than sense. My turn will soon come. When the job is finished we shall see to whom all this belongs. " Whenthe work was completed and they had pronounced all things good, instepped the Devil, and in the twinkling of an eye rendered imperfectall that they had so labored to create perfect;'turning everythingtopsy-turvey, seducing the first pair of human beings, sowing the seedsof original sin, and at one stroke securing the wholesale damnationof our race. What were they about, to let him do all this with suchconsummate ease? Surely they must have slept like logs, and thus leftthe whole game in his hands. He made himself the "prince of thisworld, " although they created it; and if those may laugh who win, he wasentitled to roar out his mirth to the shaking of the spheres. 

Besides being the prince of this world and of the powers of darkness, the Devil is described as the father of lies. This, however, is a grosslibel on his character. Throughout the contest with his rivals he playedwith perfect fairness. And from Genesis to Revelation there can beadduced no single instance in which he departs from the strict line oftruth. On one occasion when Jehovah desired a lying spirit to go forthand prophesy falsely to his people, he found one ready to his hand inheaven and had no need to trouble Satan for a messenger. The Lord Godhad told Adam, "Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thow shaltnot eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thow shalt surelydie. " Nay, said the Devil, when he began business "ye shall not surelydie; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyesshall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. " Everyword of his speech was true. Instead of dying "in the day" that he ateof the fruit Adam lived to the fine old age of nine hundred and thirtyyears. 

And after the "fall" the Lord God said, "Behold, the man is become asone of us, to know good and evil. " The Devil's truthfulness is thusamply vindicated. 

Satan's visit to Eve was paid in the form of a serpent. She manifestedno astonishment at being accosted by such a creature. It may be that thewhole menagerie of Eden spoke in the human tongue, and that Balaam'sass was only what the biologists would call "a case of reversion" tothe primitive type. Josephus and most of the Fathers conceived of theserpent as having had originally a human voice and legs; so that if hecould not have walked about with Eve arm in arm, he might at least haveaccompanied her in a dance. Milton, however, discredits the legs, andrepresents the serpent thus:

 "Not with indented wave, Prone on the ground, as since, but on his rear, Circular base of rising folds, that towered, Fold above fold, a surging maze, his head Crested aloft, and carbuncle his eyes; With burnish'd neck of verdant gold, erect Amidst his circling spires, that on the grass Floated redundant. "

Very splendid! But the doctors differ, and who shall decide? Whatfollowed the eating of the forbidden fruit we have dealt with in "Eveand the Apple. " We shall therefore at once come to the curse pronouncedupon the serpent "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thouhast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beastof the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat allthe days of thy life: and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thoushalt bruise his heel. "

The final portion of this curse is flagrantly mythological Among theHindoos, Krishna also, as the incarnation of Vishnu, is representednow as treading on the bruised head of a conquered serpent, and nowas entwined by it, and stung in the heel. In Egyptian pictures andsculptures, likewise, the serpent is seen pierced through the head bythe spear of the goddess Isis. The "enmity" between mankind and theserpent is, however, not universal Amongst the Zulus the snake is heldin great veneration, as their dead ancestors are supposed to reappear inthat form; and in ancient times, as we have already observed, serpentswere actually worshipped. 

The middle portion of the curse has not yet been fulfilled. The serpentlives on more nutritious food than dust. In the Zoological Gardens theinmates of the serpent-house enjoy a more solid diet The fact is, wehave here an oriental superstition. Kalisch points out that "the greatscantiness of food? on which the serpent can subsist, gave rise to thebelief, entertained by many Eastern nations, that they eat dust. " Thisbelief is referred to in Micah vii, 17, Isaiah lxv. , 25, and elsewherein the Bible. Among the Indians the serpent is believed to live on wind. 

That the serpent "goes" upon its "belly" is, of course, a fact. Beforethe curse it must have moved about in some other way. Milton's poeticalsolution of the difficulty we have already given. During the Middle Agesthose seraphic doctors of theology, who gravely argued how many angelscould dance on the point of a needle, speculated also on the serpent'smethod of locomotion before the "fall. " Some thought the animal hadlegs, some that it undulated gracefully on its back, and others that ithopped about on its tail. The ever bold Delitzsch decides that "itsmode of motion and its form were changed, " but closes the controversyby adding, "of the original condition of the serpent it is, certainly, impossible to frame to ourselves a conjecture. " All this is meremoonshine. Geology, as Colenso remarks, shows us that the serpent wasthe same kind of creature as it is now, in the ages long before manexisted on the earth. 

Why the serpent was cursed at all is a question which no Christian cananswer. The poor animal was seized, mastered, occupied, and employed bythe Devil, and was therefore absolutely irresponsible for what occurred. It had committed no offence, and consequently the curse upon it, according to Christian doctrine, was a most brutal and wanton outrage. 

Having done such a splendid stroke of business in Eden, the Devilretired, quite satisfied that the direction he had given to the affairsof this world was so strong and certain as to obviate the necessity ofhis personal supervision. Fifteen centuries later the human race hadgrown so corrupt that God (that is, the three persons in one) resolvedto drown them all; preserving, however, eight live specimens to repeoplethe world. How the Devil must have laughed again! He knew that Noahand his family possessed the seeds of original sin, which they wouldassuredly transmit to their children, and thus prolong the corruptionthrough all time. Short-sighted as ever, Jehovah refrained fromcompleting the devastation, after which he might have started afresh. Sosure was the Devil's grip on God's creation that, a few centuries afterthe Flood, there were not found ten righteous men in the whole city ofSodom, and no doubt other cities were almost as bad. 

According to the Bible, the Devil's long spell of rest was broken inthe reign of King David, the man after God's own heart, but a very greatscoundrel nevertheless. The Second Book of Samuel (xxiv. , 1) tells usthat "Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and hemoved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. " Now theFirst Book of Chronicles (xxi, 1) in relating the same incident says, "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel"Who shall reconcile this discrepancy? Was it God, was it Satan, or wasit both? Imagine David with the celestial and infernal powers whisperingthe same counsel into either ear! A Scotch minister once told us thatthis difficulty was only apparent. The Devil, said he, exercises onlya delegated power, and acts only by the express or tacit permission ofGod; so that it matters not which is said to have provoked David. Yes, but what of the consequences? Because the king, despite all protests, took a census of his people, the Lord sent a destroying angel, who slewby pestilence seventy thousand of them. Where, in the whole history ofreligion, shall we find a viler sample of divine injustice?

Besides, if the Devil acts in all cases only by God's permission, thelatter is responsible for all the former's wrongdoing. The principal, and not the agent, must bear the guilt. And this suggests a curiousproblem. Readers of "Robinson Crusoe" will remember that when Man Fridaywas undergoing a course of theological instruction, he puzzledhis master by asking why God did not convert the Devil. To hisunsophisticated mind it was plain that the conversion of the Devil wouldannihilate sin. Robinson Crusoe changed the subject to avoid lookingfoolish, but Man Friday's question remains in full force. Why does notGod convert the Devil? The great Thomas Aquinas is reported to haveprayed for the Devil's conversion through a whole long night. RobertBurns concludes his "Address to the Deil" with a wish that he "wad taka thought an' men'. " And Sterne, in one of his wonderful strokes ofpathos, makes Corporal Trim say of the Devil, "He is damned already, your honor;" whereupon, "I am sorry for it, " quoth Uncle Toby. Why, ohwhy, we repeat, does not God convert the Devil, and thus put a stop forever to the damnation of mankind? Why do not the clergy pray withoutcease for that one object? Because they dare not. The Devil is theirbest friend. Abolish him, and disestablish hell, and their occupationwould be gone. They must stick to their dear Devil, as their mostprecious possession, their stock-in-trade, their talisman of power, without whom they were worse than nothing. 

The Devil's adventures in the Book of Job are very amusing. One daythere was a drawing-room or _levée_ held in heaven. The sons of Godattended, and Satan came also among them. He seems to have so closelyresembled the rest of the company that only God detected the difference. This is not surprising, for the world has seen some very godly sons ofGod, so very much like the Devil, that if he met one of them in a darklane by night, he might almost suspect it to be his own ghost. God, whoknows everything, as usual asked a number of questions. Where had Satanbeen, and what had he been doing? Satan replied, like a gentleman ofindependent means, that he had been going to and fro in the earth, andwalking up and down in it. "Well, " said the Lord, "have you observed myservant Job? What a good man! perfect and upright I'm proud of him. "Oh yes, Satan had observed him. He keeps a sharp eye on all men. As oldBishop Latimer said, whatever parson is out of his parish the Devilis always in his. "Doth Job fear God for nought?" said Satan. "He iswealthy, prosperous, happy, and respected; you fence him about fromevil; but just let trouble come upon him, and he will curse thee to thyface. " This was a new view of the subject; the Lord had never seen itin this light before. So he determined to make an experiment. With God'ssanction Satan went forth to afflict Job. He despoiled his substance, slaughtered his children, covered him with sore boils from head to foot, and then set on his wife to "nag" him. But Job triumphed; he did notcurse God, and thus Satan was foiled. Subsequently Job became richerthan ever and more renowned, while a fresh family grew up around hisknees. "So, " say the Christians, "all's well that ends well!" Not so, however; for there remains uneffaced the murder of Job's children, whowere hurriedly despatched out of the world in the very midst of theirfestivity. When the celestial and infernal powers play at conundrums, itis a great pity that they do not solve them up above or down below, and leave the poor denizens of this world free from the havoc of theircontention. 

In the New Testament, as in the Old, the Devil appears early on thescene. After his baptism in Jordan, Jesus was "led up of the spirit inthe wilderness to be tempted of the Devil. " When he had fasted fortydays and nights he "was afterward hungered. " Doctor Tanner overlookedthis. The hunger of Jesus only began on the forty-first day. The Devilrequests Jesus to change the stones into bread, but he declines to doso. Then he sets him "on a pinnacle of the temple" in Jerusalem, anddesires him to throw himself down. Jesus must have been exceedingly_sharp set_ in that position. Meanwhile, where was the Devil posted?He could scarcely have craned his neck up so as to hold a confabulationwith Jesus from the streets, and we must therefore suppose that he wassharp set on another pinnacle. A pretty sight they must have been forthe Jews down below! That temptation failing, the Devil takes Jesus "upinto an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him _all_ the kingdoms ofthe world, and the glory of them. " This is remarkably like seeinground a corner, for however high we go we cannot possibly see the wholesurface of a globe at once. "All these things, " says Satan, "will I givethee if thou wilt fall down and worship me. " What a generous Devil! Theyalready belonged to Jesus, for doth not Scripture say the earth is theLord's and the fulness thereof?--a text which should now read "theearth is the landlords' and the emptiness thereof. " This temptation alsofails, and the Devil retires in disgust. 

What a pretty farce! Our burlesques and pantomimes are nothing to it. Satan knew Jesus, and Jesus knew Satan. Jesus knew that Satan wouldtempt him, and Satan knew that Jesus knew it. Jesus knew that Satancould not succeed, and Satan knew so too. Yet they kept the farce upnight and day, for no one knows how long; and our great Milton in his"Paradise Regained" represents this precious pair arguing all day long, Satan retiring after sunset, and Jesus lying down hungry, cold and wet, and rising in the morning with damp clothes to renew the discussion. 

Soon after Jesus went into the country of the Gergesenes, where he mettwo fierce men possessed with devils whom he determined to exorcise, Thedevils (for _the_ Devil had grown numerous by then), not liking to beturned adrift on the world, without home or shelter, besought Jesusto let them enter the bodies of an herd of swine feeding by. This hegraciously permitted. The devils left the men and entered the swine;whereupon the poor pigs, experiencing a novel sensation, never havinghad devils inside them before, "ran violently down a steep place intothe sea, and perished in the waters. " Whether the devils were drownedwith the pigs this veracious history saith not. But the pigs themselveswere not paid for. Jesus wrought the miracle at other people's expense. And the inhabitants of that part took precisely this view of the case. For "the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, theybesought him that he would depart out of their coasts. " No doubt theyreflected that if he remained working miracles of that kind, at the endof a week not a single pig would be left alive in the district. Enteringin Genesis, the Devil appropriately makes his exit in Revelation. Thetwelfth chapter of that holy nightmare describes him as "a great reddragon, having seven heads, and ten horns, and seven crowns upon hisheads; and his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and didcast them to the earth. " What a tail! The writer's ideas of size werevery chaotic. Bringing a third part of the stars of heaven to thisearth, is much like trying to lodge a few thousand cannon-balls on thesurface of a bullet. 

Finally the Devil is to be "bound for a thousand years" in hell. Let ushope the chain will be strong; for if it should break, the pit has nobottom, and the Devil would go right through, coming out on the otherside to renew his old tricks. 

Such is the Romance of the Bible Devil. Was ever a more ludicrous storypalmed off on a credulous world? The very clergy are growing ashamedof it. But there it is, inextricably interwoven with the rest of the"sacred" narrative, so that no skill can remove it without destroyingthe whole fabric. The Devil has been the Church's best friend, but heis doomed, and as their fraternal bond cannot be broken, he will drag itdown to irretrievable perdition. 

THE TEN PLAGUES;

Or, HOW MOSES HARRIED EGYPT. 

BIBLE ROMANCES. --5. 

By G. W. FOOTE. 

If a man who had never read the Bible before wished to amuse himselfduring a spare hour among its pages, we should recommend him to try thefirst fourteen chapters of Exodus. A more entertaining narrative wasnever penned. Even the fascinating Arabian Nights affords nothingbetter, provided we read it with the eyes of common sense, and withoutthat prejudice which so often blinds us to the absurdities of "God'sWord. " At the end of the fourteenth chapter aforesaid, let the book beclosed, and then let the reader ask himself whether he ever met with amore comical story. We have no doubt as to his answer; and we feelassured that he will agree with the poet Cowper in thinking that God_does_ "move in a mysterious way his wonders to perform. " Two hundredand fifteen years after the arrival of Israel in Egypt, God's chosenpeople had fallen into slavery. Yet they were exceedingly prolific, sothat "the land was filled with them. " Afraid of their growing numbers, Pharaoh "spake to the Hebrew midwives" and told them to kill all theirmale children at birth and leave only the daughters alive. Thisinjunction the midwives very, properly disobeyed, excusing themselves onthe ground that "the Hebrew women were lively and were delivered ere themidwives came in unto them. " Had they obeyed Pharaoh, the Jewish racewould have been extinguished, and Judaism and Christianity been neverheard of. 

But the comical fact as to these midwives is that there were only twoof them, Shiphrah and Puah. What a busy pair they must have been! Whatpatterns of ubiquitous industry! When the Jews quitted Egypt soon afterthey mustered six hundred thousand men, besides women and children. Now, supposing all these were collected together in one city, its size wouldequal that of London. How could two midwives possibly attend to allthe confinements among such a population? And how much more difficultwould their task be if the population were scattered over a wide area, as was undoubtedly the case with the Jews! Words fail us to praisethe miraculous activity of these two ladies. Like the peace of God, itpasses all understanding. 

One of the male children born under the iron rule of Pharaoh was Moses, the son of Amram and Jochebed. The incidents of his eventful life willbe fully recorded in our series of "Bible Heroes. " Suffice it here tosay that he was adopted and brought up by Pharaoh's daughter; that hebecame skilled in all the learning of the Egyptians; that he privilyslew an Egyptian who-had maltreated a Hebrew, and was obliged thereforeto flee to the land of Midian, where he married Zipporah, a daughter ofJethro the priest. At this time Moses was getting on to his eightiethyear. Now-a-days a man of that age sees only the grave before him, andhas pretty nearly closed his account with the world. But in those daysit was different. At the age of eighty Moses was just beginning hiscareer. He was indeed a very astonishing old boy. 

One day Moses was keeping his father-in-law's flock near Mount Horeb, when lo! a strange vision greeted his eyes. The "angel of the Lordappeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush, " whichburned without consuming. By "angel" we are to understand a vision orappearance only, for the being within the bush was God Almighty himself;and throughout the rest of the narrative the word "angel" is entirelydropped, only Lord or God being used. Moses approached this wonderfulsight; but the Lord called out to him, "Draw not nigh hither: put offthy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holyground. " Thereupon Moses hid his face "for he was afraid to look uponGod. " Could anything be more ludicrous! Fancy God, the infinite spiritof the universe, secreting himself in a bush and setting it on fire, just to make a little display for the benefit of Moses! Our wonder, however, is presently lessened; for this God turns out to be onlyJehovah "the Lord God of the Hebrews, " a mere local deity, who caredonly for his own people, and was quite ready to slaughter any number ofthe inhabitants of adjacent countries, besides being bitterly jealousof their gods. The utmost claimed for him is that he is the biggest Godextant, and quite capable of thrashing all the other gods with onehand tied behind his back. He had heard the cries of his people and haddetermined to rescue them from bondage. He had also resolved to givePharaoh and the Egyptians a taste of his quality, so that they might beforced to-admit his superiority to their gods. "I will let them know, "said he to Moses, "who I am, and you shall be my agent. We'll confoundtheir impudence before we've done with them. But don't let us be in ahurry, for the little drama I have devised requires a good deal of time. You go to Egypt and ask Pharaoh to let my people go. But don't supposehe will consent. That wouldn't suit my plans at all. I have decided toset you two playing at the little game of 'pull Moses, pull Pharaoh, 'and I shall harden his heart against your demands so that there may bea fierce tussle. But don't be afraid. I am on your side, and just at theend of the game I'll join in and pull Pharaoh clean over. And mind youtell him all along that it is my power and not yours which works allthe wonders I mean you to perform, for you are only my instrument, andI want all the glory myself. Play fair, Moses, play fair!" Moses wasnot unwilling to engage in this enterprise, but like a prudent Jew herequired certain assurances of success. He therefore first raised anobjection as to his own insignificance--"Who am I, that I should go untoPharaoh?" To which God replied, "Certainly I will be with thee; andthis shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hastbrought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon thismountain. " Moses, however, required a much less remote token than this;so he again objected that nobody would believe him. Thereupon the Lordbade him cast his rod on the ground, and lo! it became a serpent Mosesvery naturally fled before it, till the Lord told him not to run awaybut to take it by the tail. He did so, and it became again a rod in hishand. Then the Lord bade him put his hand in his bosom, and on taking itout he found it was "leprous as snow. " Again he put it in his bosom, andwhen he plucked it out it was once more sound and well. "There, " saidthe Lord, "those signs will do in Egypt. When you evince them nobodywill doubt you. " Still hesitant, Moses objected that he was very slow ofspeech. So he frankly desired the Lord to send someone else. No wonderthe Lord grew angry at this persistent reluctance; nevertheless herestrained himself, and informed Moses that his brother Aaron, who wasa good speaker, should accompany him. The prudent prophet seems to havebeen at length satisfied. At any rate he made no further objection, but after a little further conversation with the Lord, who was verytalkative, he set forth on his journey to Egypt. 

Singular to relate, the Lord met Moses at an inn on the road, and, instead of wishing him good-speed, sought to kill him. What a strangeGod, to be sure! Why did he want to kill his own messenger? And why, ifhe wanted to kill him, did he not succeed in doing it? Truly the waysof God are past finding out. The only reason discoverable for this queerconduct is that Moses' boy was uncircumcised. Zipporah, his wife, took asharp stone and performed the rite of circumcision herself, casting theamputated morsel at the feet of the boy's father, with the remark thathe was "a bloody husband. " The Lord's anger was thereby appeased, andthe text naively says that he then let Moses go. 

Prompted by the Lord, Aaron went out into the wilderness to meet Moses, and they soon appeared together before "all the elders of the childrenof Israel, " who readily believed in their mission when they heardAaron's account of the Lord's conversation with Moses, and saw thewonderful signs. Afterwards the two brothers visited Pharaoh, but Godhad hardened his heart; so he denied all knowledge of the Lord, andrefused to let Israel go. On the contrary, he commanded the taskmaskersto be even more rigorous with them, and, instead of giving them straw tomake bricks, as theretofore, to make them gather straw for themselves. And when they complained, Pharaoh replied that they were an idle lot, and only wanted to go out and sacrifice to the Lord in order to avoidwork. Whereupon they remonstrated with Moses for his interference, and he, in turn, remonstrated with God in very plain and disrespectfullanguage. "Nonsense!" said the Lord, "now you shall see what I will doto Pharaoh. "

Again Pharaoh was visited by the two brothers, who this time commencedto work the miracle. Aaron cast down his rod, and it became a serpent. But the magicians of Egypt, who were present by invitation of the King, were in nowise astonished. "Oh, " said they, "is that all you can do?"Saying which, every man of them threw down his rod, and it also becamea serpent. That was indeed an age of miracles! The magicians of Egyptwrought this wonder without any help from the Lord, and solely "withtheir enchantments. " Here, then, was a pretty fix! So far, neitherside had any advantage. Presently, however, Aaron's serpent--which thusproved itself a truly Jewish one--created a diversion by swallowing allthe others up. We must suppose that it afterwards disgorged them, orelse that Aaron's, rod was exceedingly stout when he got it back. 

Pharaoh's heart remained obdurate, notwithstanding this sign, and hestill refused to let the people go. And then the plagues commenced. 

The first was a plague of blood. Aaron stretched forth his rod, and_all_ the waters of Egypt, the streams, the rivers, the ponds, and thepools became blood. Even the water in vessels of stone and wood wasensanguined. The fish all died, and the river stank; and "there wasblood throughout all the land of Egypt. " This was a good start, but themagicians of Egypt beat it hollow; for, after Aaron had turned _all_ thewater of Egypt into blood, they turned the _rest_ into blood. No wonderthat Pharaoh's heart remained hardened! He quietly walked into his houseand let the subject drop. 

Seven days later Moses went again to Pharaoh and said, "Thus saiththe Lord, let my people go. " And Pharaoh said, "I won't. " "Won't you?"answered Moses, "we shall see. " Forthwith Aaron stretched forth his rodover the streams, rivers, and ponds, and brought on the second plaguein the shape of frogs, which swarmed all over the land. They entered thehouses, penetrated to the bedrooms, mounted the beds, slipped into thekneading-troughs, and even got into the ovens, although one would expectfrogs to give such hot places a very wide berth. What a squelchingof frogs there must have been! The Egyptians could not have stoodabsolutely still, and the land was covered with them. Still unfoiled, the magicians, "with their enchantments, followed suit, and broughtup frogs too. " Yet, as the land was already covered with frogs, it isdifficult to see how the new comers found room, unless they got on thebacks of the others, and went hopping about in couples. Pharaoh nowrelented. He called for Moses, and said, "Intreat your Lord to take awaythese nasty frogs, and I will let the people go. " "That will I, " saidMoses, "and you shall know that there is none like unto the Lord ourGod. " The next day the frogs died out of the houses, villages, andfields, and were gathered into heaps, so that again "the land stank. "But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heartagain, "as the Lord had said. "

The third act of this tragi-comedy was decisive in one sense, for init the magicians of Egypt were obliged to retire from the competition. Aaron stretched forth his rod again and smote the dust of the earth, allof which instantly became _lice_, in man and in beast. Before this dirtymiracle the magicians of Egypt shrank dismayed. They made a feeble andaltogether unsuccessful attempt to imitate Aaron's performance, and thendrew back, declining to continue the contest. The lice settled them. "This, " said they, "is the finger of God. " But Pharaoh still refused toknuckle under. Even against the force of this supreme wonder his heartwas steeled. 

So the fourth plague came. A grievous swarm of flies descended on Egypt, so that "the land was corrupted by reason of them. But not a singlefly crossed over into the land of Goshe" where the Jews dwelt. ThereuponPharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, and told them he was willing tolet their people go and sacrifice to the Lord for three days, but notoutside Egypt. Moses reiterated his demand for a three days' journeyinto the wilderness. Whereto Pharaoh replied that they might go, but"not too far. " Moses then undertook to banish the flies. And he was asgood as his word; for there was made such a clean sweep of them that"not one remained. " This precious narrative always runs to extremes. Egypt without a fly in it would be in a very abnormal condition. Atordinary times the land is infested with flies; so much so, indeed, thatlarge numbers of the people suffer from diseased eyes, in consequenceof these insects incessantly fastening on the sores caused by theirritating sand which fills the air. It was absurd for this Hebrewstory-teller to scotch the last fly; he should have left sufficient tomaintain the character of the country. 

Again Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and when the flies were banishedhe refused to "let the people go. " So the fifth plague came. A "verygrievous murrain, " which spared the cattle of Israel, broke out on thecattle of Egypt, and with such virulence that they all died. Pharaohfound on inquiry that there was "not one of the cattle of the Israelitesdead, " yet for all that his heart was hardened, and he would not let thepeople go. 

So the sixth plague came. Aaron took "handfuls of ashes of the furnace, "which Moses sprinkled towards heaven, and "it became a boil breakingforth with blains upon man and _upon beast_. " Even the magicians wereafflicted. Now the readers will bear in mind that _all_ the cattle ofEgypt were killed by the fifth, plague. What beasts, then, were thesetortured with boils? Were they dead carcasses, or were they live cattlemiraculously created in the interim? Surely this is a thing which "nofellah can understand. " From the serpent of Eden to Jonah's whale, theanimals of the Bible are a queer lot. 

Pharaoh's heart remaining still hardened, God commanded Moses to makea special appeal to him, and to get up early in the morning for thatpurpose. So Moses stood before Pharaoh and said, "Thus saith the LordGod of the Hebrews, let my people go, that they may serve me. If yourefuse I shall plague you and your people worse than ever, and so teachyou that there is none like me in all the earth. Don't puff yourself upwith conceit, for you were made what you are only in order that throughyou my power might be manifested. You had better cave in at once. " ButPharaoh would not harken. He tacitly declared that the Lord God of theHebrews might go to Jericho. 

So the seventh plague came. A fierce hail, accompanied by fire that ranalong the ground, smote all that was in the field, both man and beast. It smote also _every_ herb of the field and brake _every_ tree of thefield. Only those were saved who "feared the Lord" and stayed in doorswith their servants and cattle. Fortunately the wheat and the rice werespared, as they were not grown up; or there would have been a famine inEgypt compared with which the seven years of scarcity in Joseph's timehad sunk into insignificance. Pharaoh now relented and repented. "I havesinned this time, " he said, "the Lord is righteous, and I and my peopleare wicked. " And Moses, seeing that the king had recognised Jehovahas the true cock of the theological walk, procured a cessation of thethunder and the hail. But lo! when Pharaoh perceived this, he hardenedhis heart again, and "sinned yet more. " The obduracy of this potentate, under the manipulation of God, is really becoming monotonous. So theeighth plague came. After a day and a night of east wind, a prodigiousswarm of locusts went up over the land of Egypt, covering the face ofthe whole earth, and darkening the ground. They "did eat every herb ofthe land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had spared. " Butwe were told that the hail smote _every_ herb, and brake _every_ tree. What then was left for the locusts to eat? The writer of this narrativehad a very short memory, or else a stupendous power of belief. 

Again Pharaoh confessed that he had sinned. The locusts were clearedaway, and so effectually that "not one remained. " But "the Lord hardenedPharaoh's heart" for the eighth time, and he refused to let the peoplego. Whereupon Moses brought darkness over the land of Egypt, a thickdarkness that might be felt. This thick darkness lasted in Egypt forthree days, during which time the people "saw not one another, neitherrose any from his place. " We presume, therefore, that they all starvedfor that time. Poor devils! What had they done to be treated thus? Allthe children of Israel, however, had light in their dwellings. Why thendid they not avail themselves of such a fine opportunity to escape? Itwas a splendid chance, yet they let it slip. Perhaps Moses did not givethe word, and they were like a flock of sheep without him. Perhapsthey wished to stay and see the rest of the fun. For more was coming, although it was anything but fun to the poor Egyptians. 

To them indeed it was an awful tragedy such as we lack words todescribe. Moses commanded the Jews to take a male lamb for eachhousehold, to kill it, and to daub its blood over the two side-posts andon the upper door-posts of their houses. The flesh they were to eatin the night, roasted, with bitter herbs and unleavened bread, as theinauguration of the Passover. The Lord meant to pass through the land inthe dark, and slay all the firstborn in Egypt; and lest he should makesome mistakes he required the Jews' houses to be marked with blood sothat he might distinguish them. We should expect God to dispense withsuch "aids to memory. " What followed must be told in the language ofScripture: "At midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the landof Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on the throne unto thefirstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstbornof cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there wasnot a house where there was not one dead. " The reader's imagination willpicture the horror of this scene. That "great cry in Egypt" arose froma people who were the first victims of God's hatred of all who stoodin the way of his chosen "set of leprous slaves. " And in this case thetragedy was the more awful, and the more inexcusably atrocious, becauseGod deliberately planned it. He could easily have softened Pharaoh'sheart, but he chose to harden it. He could have brought his peopleout of Egypt in peace, but he preferred that they should start amidstwailings of agony, and leave behind them a track of blood. 

Yet in the tragedy there is a touch of comedy. Those beasts that werefirst killed by the murrian and afterwards plagued by the boil, at lastlose their firstborn by the tenth plague. Besides, there is a touch ofthe ludicrous in the statement that _every_ house had one dead. All thefirstborn of such a large population could not have been present at thattime. Some might have left Egypt for purposes of trade, and others wouldcertainly have been cut off before by death. The story of the tenthplague, like the other nine, requires to be taken with a very largegrain of salt. 

Pharaoh and the Egyptians were now anxious to get rid of the Jews. SoGod's people departed in haste. They took good care, however, not togo empty-handed. They "borrowed" of the Egyptians, without the remotestintention of ever paying them back, jewels of silver, jewels of gold, and raiment. In fact they "spoiled the Egyptians. " In recent times themodern Egyptians have wiped off that old score by spoiling a few Jewishmoneylenders, and so returned tit for tat. 

God led his people past instead of through the land of the Philistines, lest they should be frightened by war, and wish to return to Egypt. Hedoes not seem to have known their character. Considering the delightwith which they subsequently warred against their enemies, and the joythey took in wholesale massacre, we are inclined to think that theywould have just liked to get their hands into the business of fightingby trying conclusions with the Philistines. Moses carried off the bonesof Joseph, which must have been rather stale by that time. And God wentbefore the huge host of six hundred thousand men on foot, besides womenand children, and a mixed multitude of followers; by day in a pillar ofcloud, to lead them the way, and by night in a pillar of fire, to givethem light, until at length they found themselves encamped before theRed Sea. 

In the meanwhile God had again hardened Pharaoh's heart, for theexpress purpose of killing some more Egyptians and getting more honor tohimself. The Israelites soon heard that Pharaoh was pursuing them withan army, and they remembered his dreadful war chariots. They foundthemselves literally between the devil and the deep sea. Whereupon theymurmured against Moses for bringing them out into the wilderness to die. But he, disregarding them, stretched forth his miraculous rod over thesea, and lo! the waters parted, forming a wall on either side of a safepassage, through which the Jews travelled with dry feet. Pharaoh andhis host, however, attempting the same feat, were overwhelmed bythe down-rushing sea-ramparts, and all drowned. There remained, says_Exodus_, not so much as one of them. 

We have heard a different account of this affair. A negro preacher onceexplained that the Red Sea, just at that time, was "a little bit frozenover, " and the Jews, carrying only what they had borrowed "frum theGyptians, " crossed the ice safely; but when Pharaoh came with histhundering war-chariots, the ice broke, and "dey all was drown'd. " But anigger in the audience objected that the Red Sea is "in de quator, " andis never frozen over. "War did you larn dat?" asked the preacher. "In dejografy, " was the reply. "Ah, " was the ready retort, "dat's war you madede mistake; dis was a very long time ago, and dere was no jografy and noquator den. " That nigger preacher's explanation seems quite as good asthe one given by "Moses. "

We leave the Jews with their Lord God on the safe side of the Red Sea, where Moses heads the men in singing a joyful song of praise, and Miriamthe prophetess heads the women with timbrel and with dance. Jehovah hasended his plaguing of the Egyptians, after more than decimating them. Hehas covered his name with terrible splendour, and proved "that there isnone like him" to a world which is very happy to be assured of the fact. Two such monsters would make earth a hell. Reader! did you ever meetwith a more extraordinary story than this of the Ten Plagues? and canyou regard the book which contains it as God's Word?

JONAH AND THE WHALE. 

BIBLE ROMANCES. --6. 

By G. W. FOOTE. 

We have often wondered whether Shakespeare had the story of Jonah inhis mind when he wrote that brief dialogue between Hamlet and Polonius, which immediately precedes the famous closet-scene in the Master'sgreatest play--

 Hamlet. --Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel? Polonius. --By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed. Hamlet. --Methinks it is like a weasel. Polonius. --It is backed like a weasel. Hamlet. --Or like a whale? Polonius. --Very like a whale. 

Having, however, no means whereby to decide this question, we mustcontent ourselves with broaching it, and leave the reader to form hisown conclusion. Yet we cannot refrain from expressing our opinion thatthe story of the strange adventures of the prophet Jonah is "very like awhale. "

In another of Shakespeare's plays, namely "The Tempest, " we find aphrase which exactly applies to the romance of Jonah. When Trinculodiscovers Caliban lying on the ground, he proceeds to investigate themonster. "What, " quoth he, "have we here? a man or a fish? dead oralive? A fish: he smells like a fish; a very ancient and fish-likesmell. " Now that is a most admirable description of the Book of Jonah. It has "a very ancient and fish-like smell. " In fact, it is about thefishiest of all the fishy stories ever told. 

Sailors' "yarns" have become proverbial for their audacious anddelicious disregard of truth, and the Book of Jonah is "briny" frombeginning to end. It contains only forty-eight verses, but its brevityis no defect. On the contrary, that is one of its greatest charms. Themind takes in the whole story at once, and enjoys it undiluted; asit were a goblet of the fine generous wine of romance. Varying theexpression, the Book of Jonah may be called the perfect cameo of Biblefiction. 

When the Book of Jonah was written no one precisely knows, nor is itdiscoverable who wrote it. According to Matthew Arnold some unknownman of genius gave to Christendom the fourth gospel, and with sublimeself-abnegation allowed his name to perish. A similar remark must bemade concerning the unknown author who gave to the world this racy storyof Jonah and the whale. We heartily wish his name had been preserved forremembrance and praise. 

Our marginal Bibles date the Book of Jonah b. C. Cir. 862. Otherauthorities give, the more recent date of b. C. 880 as that of the eventsrecorded in it. This chronology will suggest an important reflectionlater on. 

The wonderful story of Jonah and the whale begins in this wise:--"Nowthe word of the Lord came unto Jonah, the son of Amittai, saying, Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickednessis come up before me. "

Who Amittai was, and whether man or woman, is a problem still unsolved;but it is reasonable to suppose the name was that of Jonah's father, asthe ancient Jews paid no superfluous attentions to women, and generallytraced descent from the paternal stem alone. Amittai belonged to a placecalled Gathhepher, "the village of the Cow's tail, " or, as otherwiseinterpreted, "the Heifer's trough. " Jonah's tomb is said to have beenlong shown on a rocky hill near the town; but whether the old gentlemanwas ever buried there no man can say. According to Mr. Bradlaugh, theword Jonah means a dove, and is by some derived from an Arabic root, signifying to be weak or gentle. Another interpretation, by Gesenius, isa feeble, gentle bird. This refractory prophet was singularly ill-named. If his cognomen was bestowed on him by his parents, they must have beengreatly deceived as to his character. The proverb says that it is a wiseson that knows his own father; and with the history of Jonah before us, we may add that it is a wise father who rightly knows his own son. 

The solicitude of "the Lord God of the Hebrews" for the welfare of theNinevites is to the sceptical mind an extraordinary phenomenon. It isone of the very few cases in which he shows the slightest concern forany other people than the Jews. His ordinary practice was to slaughterthem wholesale by pestilence or the sword; and it is therefore veryrefreshing to meet with such an instance of his merciful care. For oncehe remembers that the rest of Adam's posterity are his children, andpossess a claim on his attention. 

Jonah, however, did not share this benign sentiment; and disrelishingthe missionary enterprise assigned him, he "rose up to flee untoTarshish from the presence of the Lord. " Jehovah does not seem to havebeen omnipresent then; that attribute attaches to him only since thebeginning of the Christian era, when he assumed universal sway. Longbefore the time of Jonah, another man, the first ever born in thisworld, namely Cain, also "went out from the presence of the Lord, anddwelt in the land of Nod;" probably so called because the Lord was notquite awake in that locality. No one knows were Nod was situated, nor can the most learned archaeologists denote the actual positionof Tarshish. These two places would be well worth study. A carefulexamination of them would to some extent reveal what went on in thoseparts of the world to which God's presence did not extend; and we shouldbe able to compare their geological and other records with those ofthe rest of the world. No doubt some striking differences would beperceptible. 

Jonah determined to voyage by the Joppa and Tarshish line. So he went tothe former port and embarked in one of the Company's ships, after payinghis fare like a man. 

Having a perfectly untroubled conscience, and no apprehension of hiscoming troubles, Jonah no doubt felt highly elated at having donethe Lord so neatly. Perhaps it was this elation of spirits whichsafe-guarded him from sea-sickness. At any rate he went "down into thesides of the ship, " and there slept the sleep of the just. So profoundwas his slumber, that it was "quite unbroken" by the horrible tempestthat ensued. The Lord had his eye on Jonah, for the prophet had not yetreached the safe refuge of Tarshish; and he "sent out a great wind intothe sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship waslikely to be broken. " The mariners "cast forth the wares that were inthe ship" to lighten her, and toiled hard to keep afloat; but theirefforts were apparently fruitless, and nothing lay before them but thecertain prospect of a watery grave. The reader will be able to imaginethe tumult of the scene; the dash of ravening waves, the fierce howlingof the wind, the creaking of masts and the straining of cordage, therolling and pitching of the good ship and the shifting of her cargo, the captain's hoarse shouts of command and the sailors' loud replies, alternated with frenzied appeals to their gods for help. Yet amidst allthe uproar Jonah still slept, as though the vessel were gaily skimmingthe waters before a pleasant breeze. 

Let us pause here to interpose a question. Did the "great wind sentout into the sea" by the Lord confine its attentions to the immediatevicinity of Jonah's ship, or did it cause a general tempest and perhapssend some other vessels to Davy Jones's locker? As no restrictions arementioned, we presume that the tempest was general, and that the Lord'swind, like the Lord's rain referred to by Jesus, fell alike upon thejust and the unjust. This circumstance very naturally heightens ourprevious conception of his righteousness. 

That the Lord, or some other supernatural power, caused the tempest, themariners of Jonah's ship and their captain never once doubted. Livingas they did, and as we do not, under a miraculous dispensation, theyattributed every unusual, and especially every unpleasant, occurrenceto the agency of a god. The idea of predicting storms, with which thecivilised world is now familiar, they would doubtless have regarded asblasphemous and absurd. It is, therefore, by no means wonderful thatevery man on board (except Jonah, who was fast asleep) "called untohis god. " Ignorant of what god was afflicting them, they appealedimpartially all round, in the hope of hitting the right one. But thecircle of their deities did not include the one which sent the wind; sothe tempest continued to prevail, despite their prayers. 

In this extremity a happy thought occurred to the "ship-master. " Itstruck him that the strange passenger down below might know somethingabout the tempest, and that his god might have caused it. Forthwiththere dawned within him a recollection of words which Jonah had utteredon embarking. Had he not told them "that he fled from the presence ofthe Lord?" "Dear me, " the captain probably said to himself, "what a foolI was not to think of this before. That chap down below is the occasionof all these troubles; I'll go and hunt him up, confound him!" Thereuponhe doubtless slapped his thigh, as is the wont of sailors when theysolve a difficulty or hit on a brilliant idea; after which he descended"into the sides of the ship, " whither Jonah had gone. There he found theprophet slumbering as peacefully as a weanling child, with a smileof satisfaction playing over his Hebrew features. We can imagine thecaptain's profound disgust in presence of this scene. He and his men hadbeen toiling and praying, and, alas! pitching the cargo overboard, in order to save their skins; and all the while the occasion of theirtrouble had been lying fast asleep! Preserving an outward decorum, however, he accosted Jonah in very mild terms. "What meanest thou, Osleeper?" said he, "Arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God willthink upon us, that we perish not. "

What exquisite simplicity! It reminds us of the childlike and blandSir Henry Drummond Wolff, when he opposed Mr. Brad-laugh's entry to theHouse of Commons. That honorable champion of Almighty God objected toMr. Bradlaugh on the ground that he acknowledged no God, and was thusvastly different from the other members of the House, all of whom"believed in some kind of deity or other. " You must have a god to be alegislator, it seems, even if that god is, as the Americans say, only alittle tin Jesus. So the captain of this tempest-tost ship desired Jonahto call upon his god. He made no inquiry into the character of the god, any more than did Sir Henry Drummond Wolff on a later occasion. It wasenough to know that Jonah had "some kind of deity or other. " Any godwould do. 

Now comes the most remarkable episode in this wonderful story. Thecaptain and the crew were aware that Jonah had "fled from the presenceof the Lord, " because he had told them; they had, therefore, everyreason to believe that Jonah's god had caused the tempest. Yet, curiously enough, instead of at once proceeding on this belief, theysaid, everyone to his fellow, "Come, and let us cast lots, that we mayknow for whose cause this evil is upon us. " This wholly superfluousprocedure may, perhaps, be attributed to their exceptional love ofjustice. They wished to make assurance doubly sure before they "wentfor" Jonah. And with sweet simplicity they had recourse to the castingof lots, in which their wills would be inoperative, and the wholeresponsibility of deciding be thrown on the gods, who alone possessedthe requisite information. 

The lot of course fell upon Jonah. Any other result would have spoiledthe story. "Then, " continues our narrative, "said they unto him, Tellus, we pray thee, for whose cause this evil is upon us? What is thineoccupation? and whence comest thou? what is thy country? and of whatpeople art thou? And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew, and I fear theLord, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land. Thenwere the men exceedingly afraid, and said unto him, Why hast thou donethis? For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the Lord, because he had told them. Then said they unto him, What shall we dounto thee, that the sea may be calm unto us? for the sea wrought and wastempestuous. And he said unto them, Take me up, and cast me forth intothe sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you: for I know that for my sakethis great tempest is upon you. "

We are almost dumb with astonishment before this act of self-sacrificeon the part of Jonah, for which his previous history left us quiteunprepared. Who would have thought him capable of such disinterestedconduct? His self-abnegation was assuredly heroic, and may even becalled sublime. No doubt the captain and crew of the ship were as muchastonished as we are, and their opinion of Jonah went up several hundredper cent. They resolved to make a last supreme effort before turning himinto a fish-bait. But all their gallant endeavors were discovered tobe futile and a mere waste of time. So the men, more in sorrow thanin anger, finally took Jonah up and threw him overboard. They had donetheir best for him, and now, finding that they could do no more exceptat too great a risk, they sadly left him to do the rest for himself. 

Immediately, we are told, "the sea ceased from her raging. " Jonahwas oil upon the troubled waters. What an invaluable recipe does thisfurnish us against the dangers of the deep sea! The surest method ofallaying a storm is to throw a prophet overboard. Every ship shouldcarry a missionary in case of need. It would, indeed, be well if the lawmade this compulsory. The cost of maintaining the missionary wouldbe more than covered by the saving effected in insurance. Here is asplendid field for Christian self-sacrifice! Hundreds of gentlemen whoare now engaged in very doubtful labor among the heathen, might engagein this new enterprise with the absolute certainty of a beneficentresult; for poor ungodly mariners would thus be spared a hasty dispatchfrom this world without time to repent and obtain forgiveness, and beallowed ample leisure to secure salvation. 

When the men saw that "the sea ceased from her raging" on Jonah's beingcast into her depths, "they feared the Lord exceedingly, and offered asacrifice unto the Lord, and made vows. " To the sceptical mind itwould seem that they had much more reason to "fear" the Lord during thecontinuance of the tempest than after it had subsided. It also seemsstrange that they should have the means wherewith to offer a sacrifice. Perhaps they had a billy-goat on board, and made him do duty, in defaultof anything better. Or failing even a billy-goat, as the Lord God of theHebrews could only be propitiated by the shedding of blood, they perhapscaught and immolated a stray rat. The nature of their "vows" is notrecorded, but it is not unreasonable to assume that they swore neveragain to take on board a passenger fleeing "from the presence of theLord. "

Meanwhile, what had become of poor Jonah? Most men would be effectuallysettled if thrown overboard in a storm. But there are some people whowere not born to be drowned, and Jonah was one of them. He was destinedto another fate. The Lord, it appears, "had prepared a great fishto swallow up Jonah, " and the feat was of course duly performed. Ournarrative does not describe the character of this "great fish, " butlight is cast on the subject by another passage of Scripture. Inthe twelfth chapter of St. Matthew, and the fortieth verse, Jesus isrepresented as saying, "For as Jonas was three days and three nightsin the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and threenights in the heart of the earth. " The great fish was then a whale. Jesus said so, and there can be no higher authority. Sharks and suchravenous fish have an unpleasant habit of "chawing" their victims prettyconsiderably before swallowing them; so, on the whole, we prefer tobelieve that it was a whale. Yet the Levant is a curious place for awhale to be lurking in. The creature must have been miraculously ledthere to go through its appointed performance. It must also have been"prepared, " to use the language of the Bible, in a very remarkable way, for the gullet of a whale is not large enough to allow of the passageof an object exceeding the size of an ordinary herring. SwallowingJonah must have been a tough job after the utmost preparation. With afrightfully distended throat, however, the whale did its best, and bydint of hard striving at last got Jonah down. 

Having properly taken Jonah in out of the wet, the poor whale doubtlesssurmised that its troubles had ended. But alas they had only just begun!Swallowing a prophet is one thing; digesting him is another. For threedays and three nights the whale struggled desperately to digestJonah, and for three days and nights Jonah obstinately refused to _be_digested. Never in the entire course of its life had it experienced sucha difficulty. During the whole of that period, too, Jonah carried on akind of prayer meeting, and the strange rumbling in its belly must havegreatly added to the poor animal's discomfort At last it grew heartilysick of Jonah, and vomited him up on dry land. We have no doubt thatit swam away into deep waters, a sadder but wiser whale; and that everafterwards, instead of bolting its food, it narrowly scrutinised everymorsel before swallowing it, to make sure it wasn't another prophet. According to its experience, prophets were decidedly the mostunprofitable articles of consumption. 

We are of course aware that the narrative states that "the Lord spakeunto the fish, and it vomited Jonah upon the dry land. " But this weconceive to be a mere pleasantry on the part of the unknown author. Theidea of the Lord whispering into a whale's ear is ineffably ludicrous:besides, the whale had a very natural inclination to rid itself ofJonah, and needed no divine prompting. 

Jonah's prayer "unto the Lord his God out of the fish's belly" is veryamusing. There is not a sentence in it which bears any reference tothe prophet's circumstances. It is a kind of Psalm, after the manner ofthose ascribed to David. Our belief is that the author found it floatingabout, and thinking it would do for Jonah, inserted it in his narrative, without even taking the trouble to furbish it into decent keeping withthe situation. 

The word of the Lord came unto Jonah a second time, and presuming nomore to disobey, he went to Nineveh. It is to be supposed, however, that he first well-lined his poor stomach, for both he and the whale hadfasted for three days and nights, and must have been sadly in want ofvictuals. 

Nineveh, according to our author, was a stupendous city of "three days'journey. " This means its diameter and not its circumference, for we aretold that Jonah "entered into the city a day's journey. " If we allowtwenty miles as a moderate days' walk, Nineveh was sixty miles throughfrom wall to wall, or about twenty times as large as London; and ifdensely populated like our metropolis, it must have contained morethan eighty million inhabitants. This is too great a stretch even for asailor's yarn. Our author did not take pains to clear his narrative ofdiscrepancy. In his last verse he informs us that the city contained"more than six score thousand persons that cannot discern between theirright hand and their left. " If this number is correct Nineveh was alarge place, but its dimensions were very much less than those stated inthe Book of Jonah. 

Jonah obeyed the Lord this time and began to preach. "Yet forty days, "cried he, "and Nineveh shall be overthrown. " How the prophet madehimself understood is an open question! Either the Lord taught him theirlanguage, or he miraculously enabled them to understand Hebrew. Further, they worshipped Baal, and Jonah preached to them in the name of hisforeign God. According to ancient, and to a large extent modern custom, we should expect them in such a case to kill the presumptuous prophet, or at least to shut him up as a madman. Yet they did nothing of thekind. On the contrary, "the people of Nineveh believed God. " Even theking was converted. He covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. He also decreed that neither man nor beast in the city should eator drink anything; but, said he, "let man and beast be covered withsackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one fromhis evil way. " What an enormous consumption of sackcloth there must havebeen! The merchants who sold it did a surprising business, and no doubtquotations went up immensely. We wonder, indeed, how they managedto supply such a sudden and universal demand. And what a sight waspresented by the whole population of the city! Men, women, and children, high and low, rich and poor, were all arrayed in the same dingygarments. Even the horses, cows, pigs and sheep, were similarly attired. What a queer figure they must have cut! And what an astonishing chorusof prayer ascended to heaven! According to the text, the beasts had to"cry mightily" as well as the men. Since the confusion of tongues atBabel, neither history nor tradition records such a frightful hubbub. 

Their supplications prevailed. God "saw their works, that they hadturned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he hadsaid that he would do unto them; and he did it not. " Immutable Godchanges his mind, infallible God repents!

God spared Nineveh, but only for a brief while, for it was destroyed afew years later by Arbaces, the Mede. The merciful respite was thus notof long continuance. Yet it "displeased Jonah exceedingly. " He had beensuspicious from the first, and he only fulfilled God's mission underconstraint. And now his worst suspicions were confirmed. After he hadtold the Ninevites that their city would be overthrown in forty days, God had relented, and utterly ruined Jonah's reputation as a prophet. So he made himself a booth outside the city, and sat in its shadow, towatch what would happen, with a deep feeling, which he plainly expressedto the Almighty, that now his reputation was gone he might as well die. The Lord considerately "prepared a gourd, " which grew up over Jonah'shead to protect him from the heat; at which the sulky prophet was"exceedingly glad, " although it would naturally be thought that thebooth would afford ample protection. He, however, soon found himselfsold; for the Lord prepared a worm to destroy the gourd, and when thesun arose he sent "a vehement east wind" which beat upon poor Jonah'shead, and made him so faint that he once more asked God to despatch himout of his misery. Whereupon the Lord said coaxingly, "Doest thou wellto be angry?" And Jonah pettishly answered, "Yes, I do. " Then the Lord, with a wonderful access of pathos, altogether foreign to his generalcharacter, twitted Jonah with having pity for the gourd and none for theinhabitants of "that great city. " With this the story concludes. Weare unable to say whether the poor prophet, so wretchedly sold, everrecovered from his spleen, or whether it shortened his days and broughthim to an untimely grave. 

The Book of Jonah is as true as Gospel, for Jesus endorsed it. TheBible contains the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So without expressing any sceptical sentiments, we will end by repeatingByron's words, "Truth is strange--stranger than fiction. "

THE WANDERING JEWS. 

BIBLE ROMANCES. -VII. 

By G. W. FOOTE. 

The Middle Ages had a legend of the Wandering Jew. This person wassupposed to have been doomed, for the crime of mocking Jesus at thecrucifixion, to wander over the earth until his second coming. Noone believes this now. The true Wandering Jews were those slaves whomJehovah rescued from Egyptian bondage, with a promise that he would leadthem to a land flowing with milk and honey, but whom he compelled toroam the deserts instead for forty years, until all of them except twohad perished. Of all the multitude who escaped from Egypt, only Joshuaand Caleb entered the promised land. Even Moses had to die in sight ofit. 

These poor Wandering Jews demand our pity. They were guilty of manycrimes against humanity, but they scarcely deserved such treatment asthey received. Their God was worse than they. He was quick-tempered, unreasonable, cruel, revengeful, and dishonest. Few of his promisesto them were performed. They worshipped a bankrupt deity. The land ofpromise was a Tantalus cup ever held to their lips, and ever mockingthem when they essayed to drink. God was their greatest enemy instead oftheir best friend. Their tortuous path across the wilderness was markedby a track of bleaching bones. All the evils which imagination canconceive fell on their devoted heads. Bitten by serpents, visited byplagues, cursed with famine and drought, swallowed by earthquake, slainby war, and robbed by priests, they found Jehovah a harder despot thanPharaoh. Death was to them a happy release, and only the grave a shelterfrom the savagery of God. 

Commentators explain that the Jews who left Egypt were unfit for thepromised land. If so, they were unfit to be the chosen people of God. Why were they not allowed to remain in Egypt until they grew better, orwhy was not some other nation selected to inherit Canaan?

At the end of our number on "The Ten Plagues" we left the Jews on thesafe side of the Red Sea. We must now ask a few questions which we hadno space for then. 

How, in a period of two hundred and fifteen years, did the seventy malesof Jacob's house multiply into a nation of over two millions? Experiencedoes not warrant belief in such a rapid increase. The Jewish chroniclerswere fond of drawing the long bow. In the book of Judges, forinstance, we are told that the Gileadites, under, Jephthah, slew 42, 000Ephriamites; and that the Benjamites slew 40, 000 Israelites, after whichthe Israelites killed 43, 000 Benjamites, all of these being "menof valor" that "drew the sword. " The book of Samuel says that thePhilistines had 30, 000 war chariots, and that they slew 30, 000 footmenof Israel. The second book of Chronicles says that Pekah, king ofIsrael, slew of Judah in one day 120, 000 "sons of valor, " and carriedaway 200, 000 captives; that Abijah's force consisted of 400, 000, andJeroboam's of 800, 000, 500, 000 of whom were killed! At the battle ofWaterloo the total number of men killed on our side was 4, 172. Thestatistics of slaughter in the Bible were clearly developed from theinner consciousness of the Jewish scribes; and no doubt the same holdsgood with respect to the statistics of the flight from Egypt. 

This view is corroborated by a singular statement in the third chapterof Numbers. We are there informed that when the census was taken "Allthe first-born males, from a month old and upwards of those that werenumbered, were twenty and two thousand two hundred and three score andthirteen. " Now as there were about 900, 000 males altogether, it followsthat every Jewish mother must have had on an average _forty-two sons_, to say nothing of daughters! Such extraordinary fecundity is unknown tothe rest of the world, except in the reign of romance. The Jews braggeda great deal about Jehovah, and they appear to have obtained somecompensation by bragging a great deal about themselves. 

How did the Jews manage to quit Egypt in one night? There were 600, 000men on foot, besides women and children, not to mention "the mixedmultitude that went up also with them. " The entire population must havenumbered more than two millions, and some commentators estimate it atnearly three. They had to come in from all parts of Goshen to Rameses, bringing with them the sick and infirm, the very old and the very young. Among such a large population there could not have been less than twohundred births a day. Many of the Jewish women, therefore, must havebeen just confined. How could they and their new-born children havestarted off in such a summary manner? Many more women must have been atthe point of confinement How could these have been hurried off at all?Yet we are told that not a single person was left behind. 

How were the flocks and herds driven out in such haste? There were abouttwo million sheep and two hundred thousand oxen. The sheep alone wouldhave required grazing-land as extensive as the whole county of Bedford, besides what would have been needed for the oxen. Is it credible thatall these animals were collected together from such a wide area, anddriven out of Egypt in one night? Yet we are told that not a single hoofwas left behind!

How did the huge multitude of people march? If they travelled fifty menabreast, as is supposed to have been the practice in the Hebrew armies, the able-bodied warriors alone would have filled up the road for about_seven miles_, and the whole multitude would have formed a dense column_twenty-two miles long_. The front rank would have been two days'journey in advance of the rear. 

How did the sheep and cattle march? How was it possible for them to keeppace with their human fellow-travellers? They would naturally not marchin a compact array, and the vast drove must therefore have spread widelyand lengthened out for miles. 

What did the drove live upon during the journey from Barneses toSuccoth, and from Succoth to Etham, and from Etham to the Red Sea? Suchgrass as there was, even if the sheep and cattle went before the men, women, and children, could not have been of much avail; for what was noteaten by the front ranks must have been trodden under foot at once, andrendered useless to those that followed. After they "encamped by the RedSea, " on the third day, there was no vegetation at all. The journeywas over a desert, the surface of which was composed of hard gravelintermixed with pebbles. After crossing the Red Sea, their road lay overa desert region, covered with sand, gravel, and stone, for about ninemiles; after which they entered a boundless desert plain, called _ElAti_ white and painfully glaring to the eye; and beyond this the groundwas broken by sand-hills. How were the two million sheep and two hundredthousand oxen provisioned during this journey?

What did the Jews themselves live on? The desert afforded them nosustenance until God miraculously sent manna. They must, therefore, havetaken a month's provisions for every man, woman, and child. How couldthey possibly have provided themselves with so much food on so shorta notice? And how could they have carried it, seeing that they werealready burdened with kneading-troughs and other necessaries fordomestic use, besides the treasures they "borrowed" of the Egyptians. 

How did they provide themselves with tents? Allowing ten persons foreach tent, they must have required two hundred thousand. Were thesecarefully got ready in expectation? In the land of Goshen they lived inhouses with "lintels" and "side-posts. " And how were the tents carried?The Jews themselves were already well loaded. Of course the oxen remain, but, as Colenso observes, they were not trained to carry t goods ontheir backs, and were sure to prove refractory under such a burden. 

Whence did the Jews obtain their arms? According to Exodus (xiii, 18)"the children of Israel went up _harnessed_ out of the land of Egypt. "The Hebrew word which is rendered "harnessed" appears to mean "armed" or"in battle array" in all the other passages where it occurs, and is sotranslated. Some commentators, scenting a difficulty in this rendering, urge that the true meaning is "by five in a rank. " But if 600, 000 menmarched out of Egypt "five in a rank, " they must have formed a columnsixty-eight miles long, and it would have taken several days to startthem all off, whereas they went out altogether "that self-same day. "Besides, the Jews had arms in the desert, and how could they havepossessed them there unless they obtained them in Egypt? If they wentout of Egypt "armed, " why did they cry out "sore afraid" when Pharaohpursued them?

According to Herodotus, the Egyptian army, which formed a distinctcaste, never exceeded 160, 000 men. Why were the Jews so appalled by lessthan a third of their own number? Must we suppose, with Kalisch, thattheir bondage in Egypt had crushed all valor and manhood out of theirbreasts? Josephus gives a different explanation. He says that theday after Pharaoh's host was drowned in the Red Sea, "Moses gatheredtogether the weapons of the Egyptians, which were brought to the campof the Hebrews by the current of the sea and the force of the windassisting it. And he conjectured that this also happened by DivineProvidence, that so they might not be destitute of weapons. " But, asColenso observes, though body-armor _might_ have been obtained in thisway, swords, spears and shields _could not_ in any number. The Bible, too, says nothing about such an occurrence. We must therefore assumethat 600, 000 well-armed Jews were such utter cowards that they could notstrike a blow for their wives and children and their own liberty againstthe smaller army of Pharaoh, but could only whimper and sigh after theirold bondage. Yet a month later they fought bravely with the Amalekites, and ever afterwards they were as eager for battle as any Irishman atDonnybrook: fair. How can this difference be accounted for? Could anation of hereditary cowards become stubborn warriors in the short spaceof a month?

Let us now follow the Wandering Jews through the Desert, which theyshould have crossed in a week or two, but which they travelled up anddown for forty years. People who want to make an expeditious journey hadbetter do without a divine guide. 

Coming to Marah, they found only bitter water to drink, at which theybegan to murmur. But the Lord showed Moses a certain tree, which whencast into the water made it sweet. It must have been a wonderful tree tosweeten water for two millions of people. Bitter water, also, quenchesthirst more readily than sweet, and it stimulates the appetite, whichwould be highly desirable under a fierce relaxing sun. 

A month after they left Egypt they came to the wilderness of Sin. There they began to murmur again. Finding themselves without food, theyremembered "the flesh pots" of Egypt, and reproached Moses with havingbrought them into the desert to die of hunger. Both Moses and the Lordseem to have thought it unreasonable on their part to ask for somethingto eat. Oliver Twist was stared at when he asked for more, but the Jewssurprised God by asking for something to begin with. Yet reflecting, perhaps, that they were after all unable to live without food, the Lordrained down manna from heaven. After the dew evaporated in the morning, they found this heavenly diet lying on the ground. It was "like acoriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made withhoney. " No doubt the angels subsist on it in paradise. Moses preserveda pot of it for the instruction of future generations. The pot has, however, not been discovered up to the present day. Some futureexplorers may light upon it "in the fulness of time, " and so-help toprove the historical character of the Pentateuch. 

The manna, as might be expected, had some peculiarities. No matter howmuch or how little he gathered, every man found on measuring that he hadexactly an omer of it. Although it fell regularly every week day, nonefell on Sunday. A double quantity had, therefore, to be gathered onSaturday. It melted in the sun, but could nevertheless be baked andseethed. Any of it left overnight stank in the morning and bred worms. 

For forty years "the children of Israel did eat manna. " But more thanonce their gorge rose against it. Manna for breakfast, manna for lunch, manna for dinner, manna for tea, and manna for supper, was a little morethan they could stand, The monotony of their diet became intolerable. Accordingly, we read in the twenty-first chapter of _Numbers_, thatthey complained of it and asked for a slight change in the bill of fare. "There is no bread, " said they, "neither is there any water; and oursoul loatheth this light food. " This small request so incensed the Lordthat he sent a lot of fiery serpents among them, which bit them sothat "much people of Israel died. " Like Oliver Twist, the Jews quicklyrepented their presumption. They humbled themselves before Moses, and heinterceded with God for them. The prophet then made a brass serpentand set it on a pole, and on looking at it all who had been bittenrecovered. 

On another occasion, as we read in the eleventh of _Numbers_, they wereguilty of a similar offence. This time it was the more surprising, asGod had just burnt a lot of them up with raging fire for 'complaining. 'They remembered "the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; thecucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and thegarlick. " "Now, " said they, "there is nothing at all, besides thismanna, before our eyes-Who shall give us flesh to eat?" The Egyptianbill of fare was certainly enough to make their mouths water, and itproves that if Pharaoh made them work hard he did not starve them, asJehovah very nearly succeeded in doing. They were so affected by theirrecollection of the luscious victuals they enjoyed in Egypt, that theyactually cried with sorrow at their loss. Moses heard them weeping, "every man in the door of his tent. " This put the Lord in a very badtemper; and Moses, who seems to have been much less irascible thanJehovah, "also was displeased. " God determined to give them a surfeit. "Ye shall, " said he, "not eat flesh one day, nor two days, nor fivedays, neither ten days nor twenty days; but even a whole month, untilit come out at your nostrils, and be loathsome unto you. " Thereuponthe Lord sent a wind which brought quails from the sea. They were soplentiful that they fell in heaps two cubits high for about twenty milesaround the camp. That worthy commentator, the Rev. Alexander Cruden, says that the miracle of this occurrence consisted, not in the greatnumber of quails, but in their being "brought so seasonably" to theJewish camp. The quantity did not trouble his credulous mind. "Someauthors, " says he, "affirm that in those eastern and southern countries, quails are innumerable, so that in one part of Italy within the compassof five miles, there were taken about an hundred thousand of them everyday for a month together; and that sometimes they fly so thick over thesea, that being weary they fall into ships, sometimes in such numbers, that they sink them with their weight. " The good man's easy relianceon 'some authors. ' and his ready acceptance of such fables, show whatcredulity is engendered by belief in the Bible. 

The Jews gathered quails for two days and a night, and joyfully carriedthem home. But "while the flesh was yet between their teeth, " the Lordsmote them with a very great plague, so that multitudes of them died. Poor devils! They were always in hot water. 

How the sheep and cattle were provisioned the Bible does not inform us. There was scarcely a nibble of grass to be had in the desert, and asthey could not very well have lived on sand and pebbles, they musthave been supported miraculously. Perhaps the authors of the Pentateuchforgot all about this. 

Not only were the Jews, like their flocks and herds, miraculouslysupported; they were also miraculously found in clothes. For forty yearstheir garments and shoes did not wear out. How was this miracle wrought?When matter rubs against matter, particles are lost by abrasion. Did theLord stop this process, or did he collect all the particles that wereworn off during the day and replace them by night, on the soles ofshoes, on the elbows of coats, and on the knees of pantaloons? Ifthe clothes never wore out, it is fair to suppose that they remainedabsolutely unchanged. Imagine a toddling urchin, two years old at theexodus from Egypt, wearing the same rig when he grew up to manhood!Justin, however, says that the clothes grew with their growth. SomeJewish rabbis hold that angels acted as tailors in the wilderness, andso the garments were all kept straight. But Augustine, Chrysostom, andother Fathers abide by the literal interpretation that, through theblessing of God, the clothes and shoes never wore out, so that thosewho grew to manhood were able to hand them over, as good as new, to therising generation. According to this theory, _everybody_ must have hada poor fit, unless there was a transference of garments every twelvemonths or so. 

The history of the Wandering Jews is full of miracles and wonders. Itsays that all the congregation of Israel, numbering over two millions, assembled at the door of the Tabernacle. As the whole width of theTabernacle was eighteen feet, only nine men could have stood in frontof it; and therefore the warriors of Israel alone, to say nothing of therest of the population, if we allow eighteen inches between each rank ofnine men, would have formed a column nearly _twenty miles_ long! Wefind also that Moses, and Joshua after him, addressed not only the wholecongregation of Israel, including men, women, and children, but the"mixed multitude" of strangers as well. Their voices were distinctlyheard by a crowded mass of people as large as the entire population ofLondon. They must have had stentorian lungs, or the people must have hada wonderful sense of hearing. 

When the Jews were encamped, according to Scott's estimate, they livedin a sort of "moveable city, _twelve miles square_, " nearly as large asLondon. The people had to go outside this vast camp every day to bringin a supply of water and fuel, after cutting the latter down where theycould find it! All their rubbish had to be carried out in like manner, for Jehovah used sometimes to take a walk among them, and he was highlydispleased at seeing dirt. Every man, woman, and child, including theold, the sick, and the infirm, had to go outside the camp to attendto the necessities of nature! All the refuse of their multitudinous. Sacrifices had to be lugged out of the camp by the three priests, Aaron, Eleazer, and Itharnar. Colenso reckons that the sacrifices alone, allowing less than three minutes for each, would have occupied themincessantly during the whole twenty-four hours of every day. The pigeonsbrought to them daily as sin offer-ings must have numbered about 264, and as these had to be consumed by the three priests, each of them hadto eat 88 pigeons a day, besides heaps of roast beef and other victuals!

Soon after the first fall of manna, the Jews murmured again because theyhad no water. Whereupon Moses smote a rock with his magical rod, andwater gushed from it. The precious fluid came just in time to refreshthem for their fight with the Amalekites. These people were veryobstinate foes, and it required a miracle to defeat them. Moses ascendeda hill and held up his hand. While he did so the Israelites prevailed, but when he let down his hand the Amalekites prevailed. To ensurevictory, Aaron and Hur stood on either side of him, and held up hishands until the sun set. By this means Joshua discomfited the Amalekiteswith great slaughter. Moses built an altar to celebrate the event, and God swore that he would "have war with Amelek from generation togeneration. " As Jehovah's vengeance was so lasting, it is no wonder thathis worshipers carried on their wars ever afterwards on the most hellishprinciples. 

In the thirty-first chapter of Numbers we read that 12, 000 Israeliteswarred against Midian. The brag of the chronicler is evident in thisnumber or in those which follow. This little army polished off all thekings of Midian, burnt all their cities and castles, slew 48, 000 men, and carried off 100, 000 captives, besides, 675, 000 sheep, 72, 000 oxen, and 61, 000 asses. What prodigious spoil there was in those days! Of thecaptives Moses ordered 48, 000 women and 20, 000 boys to be massacred incold blood; while the remaining 32, 000 "women that had not known manby lying with him" were reserved for another fate. The Lord's share ofthese was thirty-two! They were of course handed over to the priestsas his representatives. Parsons, who rail against the immorality ofscepticism, say that this is all true. 

These Midianites were a tough lot; for although they were _all killed_on this occasion, and their cities and castles burnt, we find them apowerful nation again in the sixth of _Judges_, and able to prevailagainst the Jews for seven years. 

Another people badly punished by the Jews were the inhabitants of Bashan. All their cities were destroyed to the number of sixty. Their king, Og, was a gigantic fellow, and slept on an iron bed twelve feet long. Thecities of Heshbon were destroyed in the same way. All the men, women, and children, were slaughtered. Not one was spared. 

We shall hereafter follow the Jews under Joshua. For the present we mustcontent ourselves with a last reference to their wanderings under Moses. While they were encamped round Mount Sinai, their leader received aninvitation to go up and visit God who had been staying there for sixdays. They had much to talk about, and the interview lasted forty daysand forty nights. At the end of it Moses descended, carrying with himthe Ten Commandments, written by the finger of God on two tables ofstone. In his absence the Wandering Jews had given him up as lost, andhad induced Aaron to make them a god, in the shape of a golden calf, togo before them. This image they were worshipping as Moses approached thecamp, and his anger waxed so not that he threw down the tables and brokeall the Ten Commandments at once. He then burnt the calf in fire andground it to powder, mixed it with water and made them drink it. He alsosent the Levites among them, who put three thousand men to the edge ofthe sword. God wanted to destroy them altogether, but Moses held himback. "Let me alone, " said the Lord. "No, no, " said Moses, "just thinkwhat the Egyptians will say; they'll laugh at you after all as a poorsort of a god; and remember, too, that you are bound by an oath tomultiply your people and to let them inherit the land of promise. " Sothe Lord cooled down, and wrote out the Decalogue again on two freshtables of stone. This Decalogue is supposed to be the foundation ofmorality. But long before the time of Moses moral laws were known andobserved in Egypt, in India, and among all the peoples that ever lived. Moral laws are the permanent conditions of social health, and thefundamental ones must be observed wherever any form of society exists. Their ground and guarantee are to be found in human nature, and do notdepend on a fabulous episode in the history of the Wandering Jews. 

THE TOWER OF BABEL. 

BIBLE ROMANCES. --VIII. 

By G. W. FOOTE. 

The Bible, it is frequently asserted, was never meant to teach usscience, but to instruct us in religion and morality; and thereforewe must not look to it for a faithful account of what happened inthe external world, but only for a record of the inner experiences ofmankind. Astronomy will inform us how the heavenly bodies came intoexistence, and by what laws their motions are governed; Geology willacquaint us with the way in which the earth's crust was formed, and withthe length of time occupied by the various stages of the process; andBiology will tell us all about the origin and development of livingthings. God has given us reason, by exercising which we may gatherknowledge and establish sciences, so as to explain the past, illustratethe present, and predict the future; and as reason is sufficient for allthis, there is no need of a divine revelation in such matters. Butas reason is insufficient to teach the will of God and the laws ofmorality, a divine revelation of these is necessary, and the Biblecontains it. 

This plausible contention cannot, however, be maintained. The Bibleis not silent with respect to astronomy, geology, or biology. It makesfrequent and precise statements concerning them, and in nearly everyinstance it contradicts scientific truth as we have amply proved inprevious numbers of this series. 

The eleventh chapter of Genesis gives an explanation of the diversityof languages on the earth. It does this in the truest spirit of romance. Philologists like Max Müller and Whitney must regard the story of theTower of Babel, and the confusion of tongues, as a capital joke. A greatmany parsons may still believe it, but they are not expected to knowmuch. 

One fact alone is enough to put the philology of Genesis out of court. The native languages of America are all closely related to each other, but they have no affinity with any language of the Old World. It istherefore clear that they could not have been imported into the NewWorld by emigrants from the plains of Central Asia. The Genesaic theoryis thus proved to be not of universal application, and consequentlyinvalid. 

Let us come to the Bible story. Some time after the Flood, and beforethe birth of Abraham, "the whole earth was of one language and onespeech;" or, as Colenso translates the original, "of one lip, and of onelanguage. " This primitive tongue must have been Hebrew. God spoke it inEden when he conversed with our first parents, and probably it is spokenin heaven to this day. For all we know it may be spoken in hell too. Itprobably is, for the Devil and his angels lived in heaven before theywere turned into hell, and we may conclude that they took their nativelanguage with them. It was spoken by Adam when he named his wife inParadise; by Eve, after the expulsion when she gave names to her sons, Cain and Seth; by Lamech, shortly before the Flood, when he explained thename of Noah; and indeed, as Colenso observes, "it is obvious that thenames of the whole series of Patriarchs from Adam to Noah, and from Noahonwards, are in almost every instance pure Hebrew names. " Delitzsch, however, thinks it comparatively more probable that the Syriac orNabataan tongue, preserved after the dispersion at Babylon, was the oneoriginally spoken. Yet he dismisses the possibility of demonstrating it. He supposes that the names of Adam and the other patriarchs have beenaltered, but not so as to lose any of their original meaning; in otherwords, that they have been, by God's grace, translated with perfectaccuracy from the primeval speech. But Colenso very justly remarks thatthe original documents do not allude to a process of translation, andthat we have no right to assume it. He also adds that "if the authorityof Scripture is sufficient to prove the fact of a primeval language, itmust also prove that this language was Hebrew. "

Yet the Bible is wrong, for Hebrew could not have been the primitivespeech. It is only a Semitic dialect, a branch of the Semitic stem. Sanscrit is another stem, equally ancient; and according to Max Müllerand Bunsen, both are modifications of an earlier and simpler language. Neither has the least affinity with Chinese, which again, like them, differs radically from the native dialects of America. As Hosea Biglowsings, "John P. Robinson, he Says they didn't know everything down in Judee. "

And most certainly they did not know the true origin and development ofthe various languages spoken by the nations of the earth. 

The people who dwelt on the earth after the Deluge, and all spoke onelanguage, journeyed from the east, found a plain in, the land of Shinar, and dwelt there. Shinar is another name for Babylon. After dwellingthere no one knows exactly how long, "they said one to another, Goto, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick forstone, and slime had they for morter. " The writer of this story was veryfond of short cuts. It took men a long time to learn the art of makingbricks; and the idea of their suddenly saying to each other "let us makebrick, " and at once proceeding to do so, is a wild absurdity. 

Having made a lot of bricks, they naturally wished to do something withthem. So "they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whosetop may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we bescattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. " How could makinga name, for the information of nobody but themselves, prevent theirdispersion? And how could they resolve to build a "city, " when they hadnever seen one, and had no knowledge of what it was like? Cities are notbuilt in this manner. "Rome wasn't built in a day" is a proverb whichapplies to all other places as well. London, Paris, and Rome, arethe growth of centuries, and the same must have been true of ancientcapitals. 

The reason assigned by Scripture for the work of these primitivebuilders is plainly inadequate. A more probable reason is that theymistrusted God's promise never again to destroy the earth with a flood, and therefore determined to build a high tower, so that, if anotherdeluge came, they might ascend above the waters, or, if need be stepclean into heaven itself. Their lack of faith is not surprising. We findthe same characteristic on the part of believers in our own day. Theybelieve in God's promises only so far as it suits their interest andconvenience. Scripture says, "Whoso giveth unto the poor lendeth untothe Lord. " Yet there are thousands of rich Christians who seem tomistrust the security. 

How high did these primitive builders think heaven was? According toColenso, they said, "Come, let us build for us a city, and a tower _withits head in heaven_. " Did they really think they would ever succeed inbuilding so high? Perhaps they did, for their Natural Philosophy wasextremely limited. They doubtless imagined the blue vault of heaven as asolid thing, in which were stuck the sun, moon, and stars, and no higherthan the sailing clouds. 

Their simple ignorance is intelligible, but how can we explain theignorance of God? Their project alarmed him. He actually "came down tosee the city and the tower which the children of men builded. " Heavenwas too distant for him to see from with accuracy, and telescopeswere not then invented. A close inspection led him to believe that hisambitious children would succeed in their enterprise. They thought theymight build into heaven, and he thought so too. What was to be done? Ifthey once got into heaven, it might be very difficult to turn themout again. It took several days' hard fighting to expel Satan and therebellious angels on a previous occasion, and these newcomers might bestill more obstinate. In this dangerous extremity, "the Lord said [untowhom is unknown], Behold, the people is one, and they have all onelanguage; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrainedfrom them which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand oneanother's speech. "

Why did the Lord resolve to take all this trouble? Had he forgotten thelaw of gravitation and the principles of architecture? Was he, who madethe heaven and the earth, ignorant of the distance between them? Hehad only to let the people go on building, and they would eventuallyconfound themselves; for, after reaching a certain height, the towerwould tumble about their ears. Gravitation would defeat the cohesionof morter Why did not God leave them alone? Why did he take so muchunnecessary trouble? The answer is that this "Lord" was only "Jehovah"of the Jews, a tribal god, who naturally knew no more about the factsand laws of science than his worshippers who made him. 

The Lord carried out his resolution. He "confounded their language, " sothat no man could understand his neighbors. Probably this judgment wasexecuted in the night; and when they awoke in the morning, instead ofusing the old familiar tongue, one man spoke Chinese, another Sanscrit, another Coptic, another American, another Dutch, another Double Dutch, and so on to the end of the chapter. 

According to the Bible, this is the true philology. No language onthe earth is more than four thousand years old, and every one wasmiraculously originated at Babel. Is there a single philologist livingwho believes this? We do not know one. 

The result of this confusion of tongues was that the people "left offto build the city, " and were "scattered, abroad on the face of all theearth. " But why did they disperse? Their common weakness should havekept them together. Society is founded upon our wants. Our necessity, and not our self-sufficience, causes association and mutual helpfulness. Had these people kept company for a short time, they would haveunderstood each other again. A few common words would have come intogeneral use, and the building of the tower might have been resumed. 

How was their language "confounded?" Did God destroy their verbalmemory? Did he paralyse a part of their brain, so that, although theyremembered the words, they could not speak them? Did he affect theorgans of articulation, so that the sounds of the primeval languagecould not be reproduced? Will some theologian kindly explain thismystery? Language is not a gift, but a growth. Different tribes andnations have had different experiences, different wants, and differentsurroundings, and the result is a difference in their languages, aswell as in their religious ideas, political organisations, and socialcustoms. 

Before we leave this portion of the subject, we beg to introduce Miltonagain. In the last Book of "Paradise Lost" he adds from his fertileimagination to the Bible story, and supplies a few deficiencies aboutwhich the mind is naturally curious. He makes the Archangel Michael tellpoor Adam and Eve, as part of his panoramic description of future times, that a mighty hunter shall arise, claiming dominion over his fellows, and gather under him a band of adherents. This is clearly Nimrod. Miltonseparates him and his subjects from the rest of mankind, and representsthem as the people who settled on "the plain in the land of Shinar. "

According to our great poet, therefore, the confusion of tongues appliedonly to them, and the other inhabitants of the earth retained theprimeval language in all its original purity. This detachment, saysMichael--

 Marching from Eden towards the west, shall find The plain, wherein a black bituminous gurge, Boils out from underground, the mouth of Hell: Of brick, and of that stuff they cast to build A city and a tower, whose top may reach to Heaven; And get themselves a name, lest, far dispersed In foreign lands, their memory be lost, Regardless whether good or evil fame. But God, who oft descends to visit men Unseen, and through their habitations walks To mark their doings, them beholding soon, Comes down to see their city, ere the tower Obstruct Heav'n-tow'rs, and in derision sets Upon their tongue a various spirit to rase Quite out their native language, and instead To sow a jangling noise of words unknown. Forthwith a hideous gabble rises loud Among the builders; each to other calls Not understood, till hoarse, and all in rage, As mock'd, they storm: great laughter was in Heaven, And looking down, to see the hubbub strange And hear the din; thus was the building left Ridiculous, and the work Confusion named. 

If the Tower of Babel was built over the mouth of Hell it would be wiseto explore its site and make proper excavations, so as to settle thegeography and physical character of the bottomless-pit. The Churchesare sadly in want of a little information about hell, and here is anopportunity for them to acquire it, We hope the explorers will all beselected for their extreme piety, so that they may be as fire-proof asShadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and happily escape cremation. 

Because the Lord "did there confound their language" the place was"called Babel. " The Hebrew root, _balal_ to confound, is not, however, that from which the word "Babel" is derived, It is a compound of "Bel, "and may mean the "House of Bel, " "Court of Bel, " or "Gate of Bel. "Some, including Professor Rawlinson, suppose it be a compound of "El" or"il, " in which case "Bab-El" means the "Gate of God. "

It is evident that the story of the Tower of Babal was borrowed by theJehovist author of this part of Genesis from the tradition of the famousunfinished Temple of Belus, one of the wonders of antiquity. "BirsNimroud" is thus described by Kalisch:--

"The huge heap, in which bricks, stone, marble, and basalt, areirregularly mixed, covers a surface of 49, 000 feet; while the chiefmound is nearly 300 feet high, and from 200 to 400 feet in width, commanding an extensive view over a country of utter desolation. TheTower consisted of seven distinct stages or square platforms, built ofkiln-burnt bricks, each about twenty feet high, gradually diminishingin diameter. The upper part of the brickwork has a vitrefied appearance;for it is supposed that the Babylonians, in order to render theiredifices more durable, submitted them to the heat of the furnace;and large fragments of such vitrefied and calcined materials are alsointermixed with the rubbish at the base. This circumstance may havegiven rise to, or at least countenanced, the legend of the destructionof the Tower by heavenly fire, still extensively adopted among theArabians. The terraces were devoted to the planets, and were differentlycolored in accordance with the notions of Sabæan astrology--the lowest, Saturn's, _black_; the second, Jupiter's, _orange_; the third, Mars, _red_; the fourth, the Sun's, _yellow_; the fifth, Venus's, _white_;the sixth, Mercury's, _blue_; the seventh, the Moon's, _green_. Merodach-adan-akhi is stated to have begun it B. C. 1100. It was finishedfive centuries afterwards by Nebuchadnezzar, who left a part of itshistory on two cylinders, which have lately been excavated on the spot, and thus deciphered by Rawlinson. 'The building, named the Planisphere, which was the wonder of Babylon, I have made and finished. With bricks, enriched with lapis lazuli, I have exalted its head. Behold now thebuilding, named "The Stages of the Seven Spheres, " which was the wonderof Borsippa, had been built by a former king. He had completed forty-twocubits of height: but he did not finish the head. From the lapse of timeit became ruined. They had not taken care of the exit of the waters; sothe rain and wet had penetrated into the brickwork. The casing of burntbrick lay scattered in heaps. Then Merodach, my great lord, inclinedmy heart to repair the building. I did not change its site, nor did Idestroy its foundation-platform. But, in a fortunate month, and upon anauspicious day, I undertook the building of the raw-brick terrace andthe burnt-brick casing of the Temple. I strengthened its foundation, andI placed a titular record on the part which I had rebuilt. I set myhand to build it up, and to exalt its summit. As it had been in ancienttimes, so I built up its structure. As it had been in former days, thusI exalted its head. '"

Professor Rawlinson assigns B. C. 2300 as the date of the building of theTemple. But as Colenso remarks, his reasoning is very loose. His date, however, is _antecedent_ to the supposed time of the building ofBabel, and according to his own chronology the latter _may_ have beena tradition of the former. Add to this that the ruins of _Birs Nimroud_are extant, while there is no vestige of the ruins of Babel. Accordingto Kalisch's chronology, _Birs Nimroud_ was built long after thesupposed time of Moses; and if _he_ wrote the Pentateuch our positioncannot be maintained. But he did not write the Pentateuch or any portionof it. The writer of the Jehovist portion of Genesis, which contains thestory of the Tower of Babel, certainly did not flourish before thetime of Solomon, about b. C. 1015--975. Here, then, is an interval ofa century. That is a short period for the growth of a legend. Yet, asColenso observes, "as the _tower_ was apparently an observatory, andthe fact of its being dedicated to the seven ancient planets showsthat astronomical observations had made considerable progress among theChaldeans at the time when it was built, the traditions connected withit may have embodied stories of a much earlier date, to which the newbuilding gave fresh currency. "

The Temple of Jupiter Belus with its tower was partially destroyedby Xerxes b. C. 490; upon which, says Kalisch, "the fraudulent priestsappropriated to themselves the lands and enormous revenues attached toit, and seem, from this reason, to have been averse to its restoration. "A part of the edifice still existed more than five centuries later, andwas mentioned by Pliny. But the other part was, in the time of Alexanderthe Great, a vast heap of ruins. He determined to rebuild it, butdesisted from the enterprise, when he found that ten thousand workmencould not remove the rubbish in two months. Benjamin of Tudela describedit in the twelfth century, after which, for more than six hundredyears, it remained unnoticed and unknown. The ruins were rediscoveredby Niebuhr in 1756; subsequent explorers more accurately describedthem; and they were thoroughly examined, and their monumental recordsdeciphered, about thirty years ago. 

The myth attaching to it is not unique. As Kalisch observes, "mostof the ancient nations possessed myths concerning impious giants, whoattempted to storm heaven, either to share it with the immortal gods, orto expel them from it. " And even the orthodox Delitzsch allows that"the Mexicans have a legend of a tower-building, as well as of a Flood. Xelhua, one of the seven giants rescued in the flood, built the greatpyramid of Cholula, in order to reach heaven, until the gods, angry athis audacity, threw fire upon the building, and broke it down, whereuponevery separate family received a language of its own. " To lessen theforce of this, Delitzsch says that the Mexican legend has been muchcolored by its narrators, chiefly Dominicans and Jesuits; but he isobliged to admit that there is great significance in the fact that theMexican terrace-pyramid closely resembles the construction of the Templeof Belus. No argument can vitiate the conclusion that as similar mythsto that of Genesis abounded in ancient times, it is highly illogical toattach particular importance to any one of them. If one is historic, allare historic. We are justified in holding that the Jewish story of theTower of Babel is only a modification of the older story of the Templeof Belus. 

We will conclude this Number by mentioning a few facts, notspeculations, which are exceedingly curious, and which present gravedifficulty to the orthodox believer. 

According to the Bible, in Abraham's time, not four centuries after theDeluge, the descendants of Noah's three sons had multiplied into thefour great kingdoms of _Shinar_ (Babylon), _Elam_, _Egypt_, and _Gerar_, besides a multitude of smaller nations. Does any instructed man believein the possibility of such multiplication? It is altogether incredible. 

Some of these nations had reached a high degree of civilisation. Indeed, the temples, tombs, pyramids, manners, customs, and arts of Egyptbetoken a _full-grown_ nation. The sculptures of the Fourth Dynasty, theearliest extant, and which must be assigned to the date of about 3500b. C. , are almost as perfect as those of her Augustan age, two thousandyears later. Professor Rawlinson seeks to obviate this difficulty byappealing to the version of the Seventy instead of to the Hebrew text, by which he obtains the remote antiquity of 8159 B. C. , instead of 2848, for the Deluge. But this chronology does not reach within four hundredyears of the civilisation denoted by the sculptures referred to! Andthere must have been milleniums of silent progress in Egypt before thatperiod. 

On the ancient monuments of Egypt the negro head, face, hair, form, and color, are the same as we observe in our own day. Consequently, theorthodox believer must hold that, in a few generations, the human familybranched out into strongly marked varieties. History discountenancesthis assumption, and Biology plainly disproves it. Archdeacon Prattsupposes that Shem, Ham, and Japheth "had in them elements differing aswidely as the Asiatic, the African, and the European, differ from eachother. " He forgets that they were brothers, sons of the same fatherand presumably of the same mother! Such extraordinary evolution throwsDarwinism into the shade. 

Noah lived fifty-eight years after the birth of Abraham. Shem lived ahundred and ten years after the birth of Isaac, and fifty years afterthe birth of Jacob. How was it that neither Abraham, Isaac, nor Jacobknew either of them. They were the most interesting and important menalive at the time. They had seen the world before the Flood. One ofthem had seen people who knew Adam. They had lived through the confusionof tongues at Babel, and were well acquainted with the whole history ofthe world. Yet they are never once mentioned in Scripture during allthe centuries they survived their exit from the ark. Why is this?Noah before his death was the most venerable man existing. He was fivehundred years older than any other man. He must have been an objectof universal regard. Yet we have no record of the second half of hiscareer; no account is given of his burial; no monument was erected tohis memory. Who will explain this astounding neglect? The Bible is astrange book, and they are strange people who believe it. 

BALAAM'S ASS. 

BIBLE ROMANCES. --IX. 

By G. W. FOOTE. 

The ass has figured extensively in romance. His long ears and peculiarbray are explained by a story which goes back to the Flood. On thatoccasion, it is said, the male donkey was inadvertently left outside theark, but being a good swimmer, he nevertheless managed to preserve hislife. After many desperate efforts he at last succeeded in calling outthe patriarch's name, as nearly as the vocal organs of a jackass wouldallow. "No-ah, No-ah, " cried the forlorn beast. Noah's attention was atlast aroused, and on looking out of window to see who was calling, heperceived the poor jackass almost spent and faintly battling with thewaves. Quickly opening the window, he caught Neddy by the two earsand hauled him in. This he did with such vigor that Neddy's auralappendages were considerably elongated; and ever since donkeys have hadlong ears, and brayed "No-ah, No-ah" at the approach of wet weather. Forthe sake of Christians who are not well acquainted with God's Word, weadd that this story is not in the Bible. 

Classical scholars and students of modern literature know how the asshas been treated by poets and romancers. The stolid animal has generallybeen made the subject of comedy. Drunken and impotent Silenus, in thePagan mythology, joins in the professions of Bacchus on a sober ass, andthe patient animal staggers beneath the heavy burden of a fat-paunchedtipsy god. Apulius and Lucian transform the hero of their commonstory into an ass, and in that shape he encounters the most surprisingexperiences. Voltaire makes an ass play a wonderful part in his"Pucelle. " And in all these cases it is worth noticing how the profanewits remember the ass's relation to Priapian mysteries, from his fabledinterruption of the garden-god's attempt on the nymph Lotis downwards, and assign to him marvellous amatory adventures. Erasmus, in his "Praiseof Folly, " does not forget the ass, with whom he compares the majorityof men for stupidity, obstinacy, and lubricity; nor is the nobleanimal forgotten by Rabelais, who cracks many a joke and points many awitticism at his expense. 

Our own genial humorist, Charles Lamb, confesses however to a deeptenderness for Neddy, and dwells with delight on the protection whichhis thick hide affords against the cruel usuage of man. He has, saysLamb, "a tegument impervious to ordinary stripes. The malice of a childor a weak hand can make feeble impressions on him. His back offers nomark to a puny foeman. To a common whip or switch his hide presents anabsolute-insensibility. You might as well pretend to scourge a schoolboywith a tough pair of leather breeches on. " Lamb also quotes thefollowing passage from a tract printed in 1595, entitled "The Noblenesseof the Asse; a Work Rare, Learned, and Excellent": "He refuseth noburden; he goes whither he is sent, without any contradiction. He liftsnot his foote against any one; he bytes not; he is no fugitive, normalicious affected. He doth all-things in good sort, and to his likingthat hath cause to employ him. If strokes be given him, he cares not forthem. " True, the ass is not much given to kicking or biting, but he hasan awkward knack of quietly lying down when he is indisposed to work, and of rolling over with equal quietude if a rider happens to be on hisback. But the old author is so enchanted with the "asse" that he doesnot stay to notice this scurvy trick. He even goes on to express hisliking for the ass's bray, calling Neddy "a rare musitian, " and sayingthat "to heare the musicke of five or six voices changed to so many ofasses is amongst them to heare a song of world without end. "

Sterne, in his "Sentimental Journey, " has a chapter entitled "TheDead Ass, " wherein the animal is lifted into the sphere of pathos. Andlastly, Coleridge has some very pious musings on an ass, wherein theanimal is lifted into the sphere of religion. 

Now, dear reader, you begin to see the drift of this long exordium, although my purpose was indeed twofold. First, I wished, after theexample of my betters in literature, to give you a slight glimpse of theimmense extent of my learning. Secondly, I wished to lead you throughthe various stages of literary treatment of the ass, from the comicto the pathetic, and finally to-the religious, in order that you mightapproach in a proper frame of mind the consideration of Balaam's ass, who is the most remarkable of all the four-legged asses mentioned in theBible. There were others. Asses were being sought by Saul, the sonof Kish, when he found a kingdom of subjects instead. Jesus rode intoJerusalem on an ass, and also apparently on a colt, having probablyone leg over each. With the jawbone of an ass Samson slew a thousandPhilistines; and if the rest of the animal accorded with that particularbone, he must have been a tough ass indeed. But all these are of littleinterest or importance beside the wonderful ass of the prophetBalaam, whose history is contained, with that of his master, in thetwenty-second, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth chapters of the Book ofNumbers. 

Soon after the Wandering Jews in the desert were plagued by "fieryserpents" for asking Moses to give them a slight change in theirmonotonous bill of fare, they warred against the Amorites and prettynearly exterminated them. Whereupon Balak the son of Zippor, king ofMoab, grew "sore afraid. " He called together the "elders of Midian" withthose of Moab, and said that in his opinion the Jews would lick them allup as the ox licked up the grass of the field. 

Against such a ferocious gang as the Jews, with a bloody God of Battlesto help them, human valor promised little success; so Balak resolved tosolicit supernatural aid. Accordingly he sent messengers unto Balaam theson of Beor, a renowned and potent soothsayer, desiring him to come andcurse the people of Israel. 

The King had implicit confidence in Balaam. "Whom thou blessest, " saidhe, "is blessed, and whom thou cursest is cursed. " This great prophetmust have wrought prodigious wonders in his time to gain so magnificenta reputation; and if the king's panegyric on him was true, he must havebeen a dangerous person to those who annoyed him and made him swear. 

The "elders of Moab and the elders of Midian, " who were Balak'smessengers, went to Pethor, where Balaam resided. As the reader mightexpect, they did not go empty-handed, but took with them "the rewardsof divination. " What these were we are not told. No doubt they were veryhandsome. The prophetical business requires large profits to compensatefor the absence of quick returns; and in any case it is not to besupposed that a man who can do what no one else can, will begin workwithout a heavy retaining fee. We conclude that Balaam, like nearlyevery prophet mentioned in history, had a good eye for the main chance, and did not trust very much in the bounty of the gods. He was neverhard up for bread and cheese while other people were hard up for divineassistance, and as that was an ignorant and credulous age, we presumethat his larder was well-stocked. He must, indeed, have had a finetime, for he was the biggest pot in his own line of business in all thatdistrict. 

Balaam knew his business well. It would never do for a prophet, asoothsayer, a wizard, or a diviner, to give prompt answers to hisapplicants, or even to make his answers plain when he does give them. That would render the profession cheap and rob it of mystery. So Balaam, therefore, said to the messengers, "Lodge here this night, and I willbring you word again, as the Lord shall speak unto me. "

Now this reference to _the Lord_ is very surprising. The Moabitesworshipped Baal, and no doubt they had the utmost contempt for Jehovah. Yet Balaam, who was a prophet of their religion, tells them that he willconsult the god of Israel on the subject of their visit! This is one ofthe self-contradictions with which the Bible abounds. 

The next incident of the story is no less remarkable. God, the infinitespirit of the universe, paid Balaam a visit; and although he knowseverything, past, present, and to come, he asked the prophet "Whatmen are these with thee?" Balaam gave a straightforward reply, for hedoubtless knew that prevarication and subterfuge were useless withGod. Said he, "Balak the son of Zippor, King of Moab, has sent unto me, saying, Behold there is a people come out of Egypt, which covereth theface of the earth: come now, curse me them; peradventure I shall be ableto overcome them and drive them out. " The precision of Balaam's languageis admirable, and so is its accuracy. He neither desired to keep theLord in suspense, nor to leave him in ignorance of necessary details. God's answer was equally brief and perspicuous: "Thou shalt not go withthem; thou shalt not curse the people: for they are blessed. "

This interview between God and Balaam, like the following ones, occurredin the night. The Lord seems to have been always afraid of daylight, orelse to have had a peculiar fondness for the dark. Perhaps he thoughtthat during the night there was less chance of the conversation beinginterrupted, and it is well known that the Lord loves privacy and doesnot like conversing with more than one at a time. He agrees with us that"two's company and three's none. "

In the morning Balaam got out of bed and told Balak's messengers toreturn and say that the Lord would not let him come; and they at onceset out for the capital. 

Balak, however, was not to be so easily put off. He seems to haveregarded the prophet's talk about the Lord's prohibition as "all myeye. " "Perhaps, " said he to himself, "my messengers were small fry inthe sight of Balaam, and he is therefore displeased. My presents alsomay have been too small I should have recollected that Balaam has avery exalted opinion of himself, and is renowned for his avarice. What astupid I was, to-be sure. However, I'll try again. This time I'll senda deputation of big guns, and promise him great wealth and high positionin the state. He can't refuse such a tempting offer. " Straight-way he"sent yet again princes, more and more honorable" than those who wentbefore, and commanded them to urge Balaam to let nothing hinder him fromcoming. 

Balaam slightly resented this treatment. He told the messengers-that ifBalak would give him his house full of silver and gold, he could notgo beyond the word of the Lord, to do more or less. Yet he apparentlydeemed it politic to make another trial. He was, of course, quite awarethat God is unchangeable, but somehow he thought the Lord might alterhis mind. So he bade the messengers to tarry there that night while heconsulted God afresh. 

Balaam's expectation was realised. The Lord did change his mind. He"came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to callthee, rise up and go with them; but yet the word which I shall sayunto thee, that shalt thou do. " So the prophet rose up in the morning, saddled and mounted his wonderful ass, and went off with the princes ofMoab. 

Poor Balaam, however, did not reflect that as the Lord had changed hismind once he might change it twice, and the omission very nearly costhim his life. He was unfortunately ignorant of what happened to Moses ona similar occasion. After the Lord had dispatched the Jewish prophetto Egypt to rescue his people from bondage, he met him at an inn, whereperhaps they both put up for the night, and sought to kill him. The samething happened now. No sooner had Balaam set out on his journey than"God's anger was kindled against him because he went. " This Jehovah isa queer God and dreadfully hard to please. If you don't obey his ordersyou run the risk of being damned, and if you do you stand a good chanceof being murdered. The only safe course is to get out of his way andhave nothing to do with him. 

The "angel of the Lord" stood in Balaam's path, with a drawn sword inhis hand, ready to kill the prophet whose only crime was having doneexactly what he was told. But neither Balaam nor his two servants sawhim. The ass, however, had better eyesight. Being only an ass, and not aman, he had a greater aptitude for seeing angels. Not liking the lookof this formidable stranger, Neddy bolted from the pathway into a field. Balaam, who saw no reason for such behavior except sheer perverseness, began to whack his ass and tried to turn him * into the right road. Neddy succumbed to this forcible argument and jogged on again. The angelof the Lord had apparently, in the meantime, made himself invisibleeven to a jackass. His intention was ultimately to kill Balaam, but hedelayed the fatal stroke in order to make the most of the comedywhich he foresaw. Going a little in front, he "stood in a path of thevineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that" Neddy caughtsight of the angel again, and being unable this time to bolt intothe field, he lurched against the wall, and gave Balaam's foot a goodscrunching. Still the prophet suspected nothing out of the common, forthat was an ordinary trick of refractory asses. Poor Neddy, therefore, got another thrashing. Then the angel of the Lord went on further, and"stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either tothe right hand or to the left. " Neddy estimated the certain penalty ofrefusing to proceed and the probable penalty of going forward. Aftercomparing them he decided to stop where he was, and then quietly laiddown. Balaam's anger was once more kindled by this stupid obstinacy, andhe whacked the ass again with his staff. 

 * Balaam's ass was a "she, " but the sex is immaterial, and as we commenced with the masculine gender we will continue with it. 

Then the Lord intervened, and brought about the most extraordinaryincident of this wonderful story. He "opened the mouth of the ass, " andlo! instead of braying Neddy spoke. Without a note of preparation hebegan to upbraid his master in good Moabitish. "What have I done, " saidhe, "that thou hast smitten me these three times. "

Singular to relate, Balaam was not in the least astonished at hearingan ass speak. He took it as quite an ordinary occurrence. One is almostinclined to think that the prophet and his donkey had held many aconversation before. In the Bible no one ever is astonished at anything, however wonderful. When the serpent accosted Eve in the garden of Eden, she was not at all surprised, but went on with the colloquy as thoughtalking serpents were common things. If a dumb animal were nowadaysto address a man with "How d'ye do?" he would certainly be very muchstartled; but when the same thing occurred in the old Bible days, theman at once replied "Very well, thank you, how are you?"

Balaam promptly answered the ass's question. "Because, " said he, "thouhast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would Ikill thee. " Then the ass rejoined, "Am not I thine ass, upon which thouhast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? Was I ever wont todo so unto thee?" This was a poser. Balaam scratched his head andreflected, but at last he was obliged to say "Nay. "

Neddy had so far the best of the argument. But Balaam had the practicalargument of the stick left, and no doubt he was about to convince thedonkey with it. All arguments, practical or otherwise, would howeverhave left the dispute exactly where it stood. Neddy saw the angel, andthat was enough for him. Balaam did not see the angel, but only Neddy'sobstinate stupidity. In short, they reasoned from different premises, and could not therefore arrive at the same conclusion. They might haveargued till doomsday had not the Lord again intervened. He "openedBalaam's eyes, " so that he also "saw the angel of the Lord standing inthe way, and his sword drawn in his hand. " Then Balaam "bowed his head, and fell flat on his face, " and there he and Neddy laid side by side, two asses together. 

Now, dear reader, you will observe that the ass, being indeed an ass, saw the angel first, and that Balaam, who was a wise man, did not seethe angel until his wits were disordered by the wonder of a talkingdonkey. Does this not bear out great Bacon's remark that "in allsuperstition, wise men follow fools"? And may we not say, that if assesdid not see angels first, wise men would never see them after?

The angel of the Lord said to Balaam, while he remained flat on hisface, "Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me:and the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she hadturned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive. "The moral of this is that asses stand the best chance of salvation, andthat wise men run a frightful risk of damnation until they lose theirwits. 

Balaam recognised the awful mess he was in, and being by this time aslimp as a wet rag, he made the most abject apology. "I have sinned, " hesaid, "for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me. " Thisstrange reasoning shows still more clearly how the poor prophet hadtaken leave of his senses. He had not sinned at all, for he wasstrictly obeying God's commands; nor was it his fault that the angelremained so long invisible. When the Lord "opened his eyes, " and madehis vision like unto the vision of an ass, he saw the angel plainlyenough; and how could he possibly have done so before?

"I'll go back, " added Balaam, thinking that if he sinned so greatly ingoing forward, he had better return home. But the angel of the Lord, who had intended to kill him for advancing, now told him to "go with themen. " And Balaam went with them, keeping his weather eye open during therest of the journey. 

Balak was heartily glad to see Balaam. The prophet had been a long timecoming, but better late than never. The next day they went "up into thehigh places of Baal, " from which they could see the utmost part ofthe people of Israel. "There they are, " said Balak, "confound them!leprous slaves out of Egypt, bent on stealing other people's lands, andsticking to all they can lay hands on; bloodthirsty vagabonds, who fightpeople with whom they have no quarrel, and kill men, women, and childrenwhen they are victorious. Now, Balaam, do your duty. Curse them, and layit on thick. "

Seven altars were built, and seven oxen and seven rams sacrificed onthem. But all this good meat was wasted, for when Balaam "went to anhigh place, " God met him, according to agreement, and told him what tosay. And lo! when the prophet returned to the king, he blessed the Jewsinstead of cursing them. 

"Hullo, Balaam, what's this?" cried the king. "I asked you to cursemy enemies and you've gone and blessed them. What d'ye mean?" "True, "answered Balaam, "but I told you that I could only speak what the Lordput into my mouth. "

Balak appears to have been just as sceptical as Pharaoh about the Godof the Jews. He attributed his disappointment to a freak of the prophet, and not being easily baffled he resolved to try again. So he took Balaamup another high place, and built seven fresh altars, and sacrificedon them seven more bullocks and rams; after which he repeated hisinvitation. Again Balaam went farther to consult the Lord, whom he foundwaiting for him, and received his instructions. And lo! when he returnedto Balak he again blessed the Jews instead of cursing them. 

Balak resolved to try again. He took Balaam to another high place, builtseven more altars, and sacrificed seven more bullocks and seven morerams. But again the prophet blessed Israel, and a third time the kingwas sold. Then he gave it up, and Balaam and his ass went home. 

What became of the ass is unknown. Perhaps he went into the propheticalbusiness himself, and eventually retired on a very handsome fortune. Perhaps he went about as a preacher of the gospel as it was thenunderstood; in which case, judging from the rule of success in laterages, we have no doubt that he attracted large audiences and delightedall who were fortunate enough to sit under him. And when he died all thetwo-legged asses in Moab probably wept and refused to be comforted. 

Balaam's end was tragic. The thirteenth chapter of _Joshua_ informs usthat he was eventually slain by the very people he had thrice blessed. After an account of one of the bloody wars of Jehovah's bandits we readthat "Balaam also the son of Beor, the sooth-sayer, did the childrenof Israel slay with the sword among them that were slain by them. " Theangel of the Lord spared him, but God's butchers cut his throat atlast. On the whole he might as well have cursed the Jews up and down toBalak's satisfaction, and taken the handsome rewards which were offeredhim on such easy terms. 

Here endeth the story of Balaam's Ass. I hope my reader still believesit, for if not, he will be reprobate while he lives and damned when hedies. 

GOD'S THIEVES IN CANAAN. 

BIBLE ROMANCES. --X. 

By G. W. FOOTE. 

Some years ago the righteous indignation of England was roused bythe daily record of atrocities perpetrated in Bulgaria by the Turkishbashi-bazouks. Men were wantonly massacred, pregnant women ripped up, and maidens outraged by brutal lust. Our greatest statesman uttered aclarion-cry which pealed through the whole nation, and the friends ofthe Turk in high places shrank abashed and dismayed before the sternresponse of the people. Many clergymen attended public meetings, anddenounced not only the Turks, but also their Mohammedanism. They allegedthat the Koran sanctioned, even if it did not command, the horrors whichhad been wrought in Eastern Europe, and they declared that there wasno hope for a country which derived its maxims of state from such anaccursed book. Those denunciations did honor to their hearts, but verylittle to their heads. For every brutal injunction in the Koran, twentymight be found in the Bible. Before the clergy cry out against theScriptures of Islam, they should purge their own of those horridfeatures which are an insult to man and a blasphemy against God. Mohammed gave savage counsels to his followers with respect to wagingwar, but these sink into insignificance beside the counsels given to theJews by Moses in the name of God. 

Bible Romances are generally comic, but this one is infinitely tragic. The whole range of history affords no worse instances of cold-bloodedcruelty than those which God's thieves, the Jews, perpetrated in Canaan, when they took forcible possession of cities they had not built andfields they had never ploughed. "How that red rain will make the harvestgrow!" exclaims Byron of the blood shed at Waterloo; and surely thefirst harvests reaped by the Jews in Canaan must have been luxuriantlyrich, for the ground had been drenched with the blood of the slain. 

Before Moses died, according to the Bible, he delivered an elaboratecode of laws to his people in the name of God. The portions referring towar are contained in the twentieth chapter of _Deuteronomy_. Here theystand in all their naked hideous-ness:--

"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaimpeace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, andopen unto thee, then it shall be that all the people that is foundtherein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. Andif it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, thenthou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it intothine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of thesword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and allthat is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take untothyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lordthy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities whichare very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of thesenations. But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy Goddoth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing thatbreatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them. "

Such were the fiendish commands of Jehovah, the bloody maxims ofinspired war. Let us see how the Jews carried them out. 

During the lifetime of Moses they made a good beginning; for in theirwar against Midian they slew 48, 000 men, 48, 000 women, and 20, 000 boys, and took as spoil 32, 000 virgins. But they did much better under Joshua. 

After God had dispatched Moses and secretly buried him, so that nobodyshould ever discover his sepulchre, Joshua was appointed leader in hisstead. He was "full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid hishands upon him. " Then, as now, religious superiors transmitted holinessto their inferiors through the skull. God accepted the nomination ofMoses and instructed Joshua in his duties. He told him to be above all"strong and very courageous, " and to fight the enemy according to thelaw of Moses. Joshua was not the man to neglect such advice. 

Joshua was soon ordered to cross the river Jordan and begin the holywar. But before doing so, he dispatched two spies to reconnoitreJericho, the first place to be attacked. They reached the city by night, and of course required lodgings. Instinct led them to the house ofRahab, the harlot. She proved a very good friend; for when messengerscame from the king in the morning to inquire about them, she said thatthey had gone, and advised the messengers to go after them, which theydid. Meanwhile she hid the spies under some flax on the roof of herhouse, and at night "let them down by a cord through the window, for shedwelt on the town wall. " Before they left, however, she made a covenantwith them. Like many other ladies of easy virtue, or no virtue atall, Rahab was piously inclined. She had conceived a great respectfor Jehovah, and was assured that his people would overcome all theirenemies. But she had also a great respect for her own skin; so she madethe two spies promise on behalf of the Jews that when they took Jerichothey would spare her and all her relatives; and they were to recogniseher house by the "line of scarlet thread in the window. " They got backsafe to Joshua and told him it was all right; the people were in adreadful funk, and all the land would soon be theirs. 

Joshua got up early the next morning and told the Jews that the Lord wasgoing to do wonders. They wanted to get "on the other side of Jordan. "and the Lord meant to ferry them across in his own style. Twelve menwere selected, one from each tribe, to follow the priests who bore theark in front, and all the Jewish host came after them. As it was harvesttime, the river had overflowed its banks. When the priests' feet "weredipped in the brim of the water, " the river parted in twain; on one sidethe waters "stood and rose up upon an heap, " while on the other sidethey "failed and were cut off. " As no miracle was worked further up theriver to stop the supplies, the "heap" must have been a pretty big onebefore the play ended. A clear passage having been made, the Jews allcrossed on dry ground. They seem to have done this in less than a day, but three millions of people could not march past one spot in less thana week. Perhaps the Lord gave them a shove behind. 

The twelve selected Jews, one from each tribe, took twelve big stonesout of the bed of the river, which were "pitched in Gilgal" as "amemorial unto the children of Israel for ever. " For ever is a long timeand is not yet ended. Those stones should be there now. Why don't theclergy try to discover them? If brought to London and set up on theThames embankment they would throw Cleopatra's needle into the shade. 

When God had ferried the Jews across, and picked out the twelvebig stones as aids to memory, the "heap" of water tumbled down andoverflowed the banks of the river. Joshua and his people then encampednear Jericho, in readiness for greater wonders to come. 

Three days afterwards the manna ceased. Jehovah's fighting cocks wanteda more invigorating diet. This time they did not ask for a change, butthe Lord vouchsafed it spontaneously. 

All the males, too, were circumcised by God's orders. This Jewish ritehad been neglected during the forty years' wandering in the wilderness, but it was now resumed. From the text it seems that Joshua circumcisedall the males himself. As they numbered about a million and a half itmust have been a long job. Allowing a minute for each amputation, itwould in the natural course of things have taken him about three yearsto do them all; but being divinely aided, he finished his task in asingle day. Samson's jaw-bone was nothing to Joshua's knife. 

Soon after Joshua, being near Jericho, like Balaam's ass saw an angelwith a drawn sword in his hand. When he had made obeisance, by fallingflat and taking off his shoes, he received from this heavenly messengerprecise instructions as to the capture of the doomed city. The Lord'sway of storming fortresses is unique in military literature. Said he toJoshua--"Ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go roundabout the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days. And seven priestsshall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams' horns: and the seventhday ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blowwith the trumpet? And it shall come to pass that when they make a longblast with the ram's horn, and when ye hear the sound of the trumpetall the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the cityshall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straightbefore him. "

Did ever another general receive such extraordinary instructions fromhis commander-in-chief? God's soldiers need no cannon, or batteringrams, or bombshells; all they require is a few rams' horns and goodlungs for shouting. 

God's orders were obeyed. Six days in succession did the Jews marchround the walls of Jericho, no doubt to the great bewilderment of itsinhabitants, who probably wondered why they didn't come on, and feltthat there was something uncanny in this roundabout siege. On theseventh day they went round the city seven times. How tired they musthave been! Jericho, being a capital city, could not have been less thanseveral miles in circumference. The priests blew with the trumpets, the people shouted with a great shout, and the walls of Jericho fellflat--as flat as the simpletons who believe it. 

A scene of horror ensued. The Jews "utterly destroyed all there was inthe city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. " Only Rahab and her relatives were spared. The silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, were putinto the Lord's treasury--that is, handed over to the priests; and thenthe city was burnt with fire. God commanded this, and his chosen peopleexecuted it Could Jericho have been treated worse if the Devil himselfhad planned the fight, and the vilest fiends from hell had conducted it?

Rahab the harlot, being saved with all her relatives, who were perhapsas bad as she, dwelt with the Jews ever afterwards. Whether shecontinued in her old profession we are unable to say. But it is certainthat the Jews soon after grew very corrupt, and the Lord's anger waskindled against them. The first result of God's displeasure was that theJews became demoralised as warriors. Three thousand of them, who went upagainst Ai, were routed, and thirty-six of them were slain. This seemsa very small number, but, as we have already observed, the Jewishchroniclers were much given to bragging. Their losses were always verysmall, and the enemy's very great. 

After this rebuff the Jews funked; their hearts "melted and became aswater. " Joshua rent his clothes, fell upon his face before the ark, andremained there until the evening. The elders of Israel did likewise, and they all put dust on their heads. To conclude the performance Joshuaexpostulated with God, asked him whether he had brought his people overJordan only to betray them to their enemies, and expressed a hearty wishthat they had never crossed the river at all. 

The Lord told Joshua to get up, as it was no use lying there. Israel hadsinned, and God had determined not to help them until they had purgedthemselves. Some one, in fact, had stolen a portion of the spoil ofJericho, all of which belonged to the Lord, that is to the priests, who evidently helped to concoct this pretty story. Joshua forthwithproceeded to hunt the sinner out. His method was very singular. Heresolved to go through the twelve tribes until the culprit was found. The tribe of Judah was examined first, and luckily in the very firstfamily "Achan was taken, " although we are not told how he was spotted. Achan confessed that he had appropriated of the spoil a "goodlyBabylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge ofgold of fifty shekels weight, " which he had hidden under his tent. Hisdoom was swift and terrible; he was stoned to death, and his body burntwith fire. We may think his punishment severe, but we cannot deny hisguilt. He, however, was not the only sufferer. Jehovah was not to besatisfied with a small quantity of blood. Achans's sons and daughterswere stoned with him, and their bodies were burnt like his. His veryoxen, asses, and sheep were served in the same manner. A great heap ofstones was raised over their cinders, and then "the Lord turned fromthe fierceness of his anger. " Jehovah acted just like the savage oldchieftain of a savage tribe. As irascible tempers do not improve withage, we presume that he is still as peppery as ever. Yet we are asked tolove, venerate, and worship this brutal being, as the ideal of all thatis merciful, just, and pure. 

Immediately after Joshua sent thirty thousand men against Ai, which theytook with great ease. All its inhabitants, from the oldest man to theyoungest babe, were massacred. The city itself was burnt into a desolateheap. The King of Ai was reserved to furnish the Jews with a littleextra sport, by way of dessert to the bloody feast. He was hanged on atree until eventide, when his carcass was taken down and "buried undera heap of stones. " Joshua "then built an altar unto the Lord God ofIsrael in mount Ebal, " who appears to have been mightily well pleasedwith the whole business. 

Joshua's next exploit was indeed miraculous. He gathered all the Jewstogether, men, women, children, and even the strangers, and read to themall the laws of Moses, without omitting a single word. It must have beena long job, and Joshua's throat must have been rather dry at the end. But the greatest wonder is how he made himself heard to three millionsof people at once. No other orator ever addressed so big an audience. Either their ears were very sharp, or his voice was terribly loud. Thepeople in the front rank must have been nearly stunned with the sound. Joshua could outroar Bottom the weaver by two or three miles. 

The people of Gibeon, by means of messengers who palmed themselves offon Joshua as strangers from a distant country, contrived to obtain aleague whereby their lives were spared. When their craft was detectedthey were sentenced to become hewers of wood and drawers of water to theJews; in other words, their slaves. 

Adoni-zedec, king of Jerusalem; Hoham, king of Hebron; Piram, kingof Jamuth; Japhia, king of Lachish; and Debir, king of Eglon; bandedthemselves together to punish Gibeon for making peace with the Jews. Joshua went with all his army to their relief. He fell upon the armiesof the five kings, discomfitted them with great slaughter, and chasedthem along the way to Beth-horon. As they fled the Lord joined in thehunt. He "cast down great stones from heaven upon them" and killed ahuge number, even "more than they whom the children of Israel slew withthe sword. "

When we read that Pan fought with the Greeks against the Persians atMarathon, we must regard it as a fable; but when we read that Jehovahfought with the Jews against the five kings at Gibeon, we must regard itas historical truth, and if we doubt it we shall be eternally damned. 

Not only did the Lord join in the war-hunt, but Joshua wrought thegreatest miracle on record by causing a stationary body to stand still. He stopped the sun from "going down" and lengthened out the day forabout twelve hours, in order that the Jews might see to pursue and killthe flying foe. "The sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until thepeople had avenged themselves upon their enemies. " What Joshua reallystopped, if he stopped anything, was the earth, for its revolution, and not the motion of the sun, causes the phenomena of day and night. Science tells us that the arrest of the earth's motion would generate afrightful quantity of heat, enough to cause a general conflagration. Yet nothing of the kind happened. How is it, too, that no other ancientpeople has preserved any record of this marvellous occurrence? TheEgyptians, for instance, carefully noted eclipses and such events, butthey jotted down no memorandum of Joshua's supreme miracle. Why is this?How can Christians explain it?

When Jupiter personated Amphytrion, and visited his bride Alcmena, theamorous god lengthened out the night in order to prolong his enjoyment. Why may we not believe this? Is it not as credible, and quite as moral, as the Bible story of Jehovah's lengthening out the day to prolong amassacre? Were the Greeks any bigger liars than the Jews?

It has been suggested that Joshua was so elated with the victory thathe drank more than was good for him, and got in such a state that in theevening he saw two moons instead of one. Nobody liked to contradict him, but the elders of Israel, to harmonise their leader's vision, declaredthat it comprised the sun and the moon, instead of two moons, whichwere clearly absurd. The court poet improved on this explanation, andcomposed the neat little poem which is partially preserved by the Jewishchronicler, who asks "Is not this written in the book of Jasher?" Thewaggish laureate Jasher is supposed by some profane speculators to havegot up the whole miracle himself. 

The five kings fled with their armies and "hid themselves in a cave atMakkedah. " Joshua ordered the mouth to be closed with big stones untilthe pursuit was ended. At last they were brought out and treated withgreat ignominy. Their necks were made footstools of by the captains ofIsrael, and they were afterwards hung on trees until the evening, whentheir carcasses were flung into the cave. After this highly civilisedtreatment of their captives, the Jews took all the capital cities ofthese five kings and slew all the inhabitants. Then they desolated thehills and vales. Joshua "left none remaining, but utterly destroyedall that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded. " Hazor and manyother places were also treated in the same way, "there was not any leftto breathe. "

Jehovah was not, however, able to execute his intentions completely. Thechildren of Judah could not drive the Jebusites out of Jerusalem; norcould the children of Manasseh entirely drive out the Canaanites fromtheir cities. After Joshua's death, as we read in the book of _Judges_, "the Lord was with Judah, and he drave out the inhabitants of themountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, becausethey had chariots of iron. " Iron chariots were too strong for theAlmighty! Yet he managed to take off the wheels of Pharaoh's chariotsat the Red Sea. Why could he not do the same on this occasion? Were thelinch-pins too tight or the wheels too heavy?

Joshua died at the ripe old age of a hundred and ten. Whatever else hemay have been, he was certainly one of the gamest fighting cocks thatever lived. Jehovah never found a better instrument for his bloodypurposes. They buried him at Timnath-serah. Joseph's old bones, whichMoses brought out of Egypt, were buried at Shechem. Had they been keptmuch longer some Hebrew "old-clo' man" might have carried them off andmade an honest penny by them. 

After Joshua's death, the tribe of Judah fought against Adoni-bezek. When they caught him they cut off his thumbs and his big toes. Heacknowledged the justice of his punishment, and admitted that God hadserved him just as he had himself served seventy kings, whose great toeshe had cut off, and made them eat under his table. Kings must have beenvery plentiful in those days. 

During Joshua's lifetime the Jews served God, and they kept prettystraight during the lifetime of the elders who had known him. Butdirectly these died they went astray; "they forsook the Lord andworshipped Baal and Ashtaroth. " God punished them by letting theirenemies oppress them. "Nevertheless, " says the story, "the Lord raisedup judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiledthem. And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they wenta whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them; and theyturned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying thecommandments of the Lord; but they did not so. . . . . And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned and corrupted themselvesmore than their fathers, in following other Gods to serve them, andto bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor fromtheir stubborn way. "

God's selection of the Jews as his favorite people does not seem toreflect much credit on his sagacity. All who came out of Egypt, excepttwo persons, turned out so badly that they were pronounced unfit toenter the promised land, and doomed to die in the wilderness. The newgeneration who entered Canaan, after being circumcised to make themholy; after seeing the miracles of Jordan and the valley of Ajalon;after having gained a home by God's assistance in a land flowing withmilk and honey; this very generation proved worse than their fathers. The original inhabitants of Canaan, whom they dispossessed, could hardlyhave surpassed them in sin against Jehovah; and therefore the ruthlessslaughter of their conquest was as unreasonable as it was inhuman. Somuch for "God's Thieves in Canaan. "

CAIN AND ABEL. 

BIBLE ROMANCES. --11. 

By G. W. FOOTE. 

God completed the immense labors described in the first chapter ofGenesis by creating man "in his own image, " after which he serenelycontemplated "everything that he had made, and; behold, it was verygood. " Yet the first woman deceived her husband, the first man wasduped, and their first son was a murderer. God could not have lookedvery far ahead when he pronounced everything "very good. " It is clearthat the original pair of human beings were very badly made. As the Lordwas obliged to take a rest on the seventh day, it is not unreasonable tosuppose that he was pretty tired on the sixth, and scamped the work. All the sin and suffering in this world is the consequence of man havingbeen the fag-end of creation. If the Lord had rested on the sixth dayand created man on the seventh, how different things might have been!The Devil would probably have done no business in this world, and thepopulation of hell would be no more now than it was six thousand yearsago. 

After leaving the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, having no fear ofMalthus in their hearts, began to "multiply and replenish the earth. "When their first child was born, Eve said, "I have gotten a man fromthe Lord, " poor Adam's share in the youngster's advent being quietlyignored. She christened him Cain, a name which comes from a Hebrew rootsignifying to _acquire_. Cain was regarded as an _acquisition_, and hismother was very proud of him. The time came when she wished he had neverbeen born. 

Some time after, but how long is unknown, Eve gave birth to a secondson, called Abel. Josephus explains this name as meaning _grief_, butHebrew scholars at present explain it as meaning _nothingness, vanity, frailty_. The etymology of Abel's name shows conclusively that the storyis a myth. Why should Eve give her second boy so sinister a name? Howcould she have so clearly anticipated his sad fate? Cain's name has, too, another significance besides that of "acquisition, " for, asKalisch points out, it also belongs to the Hebrew verb to _strike_, and"signifies either the man of violence and the sire of murderers, orthe ancestor of the inventors of iron instruments and of weapons ofdestruction. "

Cain and Abel had to get their own living. Being born after the Fall, they were of course debarred from the felicities of Eden, and werecompelled to earn their bread by the sweat of their brows, in accordancewith God's wide-reaching curse. Both, so to speak, were forced to dealin provisions. Abel went in for meat, and Cain for vegetables. This wasan admirable division of labor, and they ought to have got on very welltogether; one finding beef and mutton for dinner, and the other potatoesand greens. They might even have paid each other handsome complimentsacross the table. Abel might have said "My dear Cain, these vegetablesare first-rate, " and Cain might have replied, "My dear Abel, I nevertasted a better cut. "

Delitzsch, whose criticisms are huge jokes, frowns on this picture offraternal peace. He opines that Cain and Abel were vegetarians and neverenjoyed a beef-steak or a mutton-chop. Abel kept only small domesticcattle, such as sheep and goats, whose woolly skin might be used tocover "their sinful nakedness. " The utmost Delitzsch allows is that theyperhaps drank milk, which, although animal nutriment, is not obtainedthrough the destruction of animal life. But, as Colenso observes, animals were slain for sacrifices, and they may have been killed alsofor eating. Besides, even a vegetable diet involves infinite destructionof minute animal life. On the whole we prefer to disregard Delitzschin this matter, and to stand by our pleasant picture of the two firstbrothers at dinner. 

Their admirable arrangement, however, brought mischief in the end. Itwas right enough so far as they were concerned, but it worked badlyin relation to God. They liked a mixed diet, but the Lord was purelycarnivorous and liked all meat. He devoured Abel's provisions withgreat relish, but turned up his nose at Cain's vegetables. The mealiestpotatoes, the tenderest green peas, had no charm for him; and even theleeks, the garlic, the onions, and the cucumbers, which were afterwardsso beloved by his Jewish favorites, were quite unattractive. In thelanguage of Scripture, "Cain brought of the fruit of the ground anoffering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings ofhis flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel andto his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had no respect"Elsewhere in the Bible we read "God is no respecter of persons, "but Scripture is full of contradictions, and such things present nodifficulty to the spirit of faith, which, like hope, "believeth allthings. "

Why was Cain's offering slighted? The Bible does not tell us, but manyreasons have been advanced by commentators. The Talmud supposes thatCain did not offer his _best_ produce, but only the inferior kinds, thusgiving God what he did not require himself, and treating the holy riteof sacrifice as a means of working off his refuse vegetables. Kalischwaives this theory, and thinks it probable that Cain's sin was primarilynot against God, but against man. "The supposition, " he says, "isobvious that envy and jealousy had long filled the heart of Cain, whenhe contrasted his laborious and toilsome life with the pleasant and easyexistence of his brother Abel. With incessant exertion, tormented byanxiety, and helplessly dependent on the uncertainty of the skies, he forced a scanty subsistence out of the womb of the repugnant soil;whilst his brother enjoyed a life of security and abundance, in themidst of rich valleys, beautiful hills, and charming rural scenes. Andwhile he envied Abel's prosperity, he despised his idleness, which wasindebted for the necessaries of life to the liberality of nature, ratherthan to personal exertions. This hatred and jealousy took root in Cain'sheart. He beheld the happiness of his brother with the feelings-of anenemy. The joy at the success of his own labors was embittered by theaspect of his brother's greater affluence. How could God look withdelight upon an offering which the offerer himself did not regard withunalloyed satisfaction? How could he encourage by his applause a manwhose heart was poisoned by the mean and miserable passion of envy?"

But all this is gratuitous and far-fetched. Cain was not afflicted withso laborious an occupation. Adam supported himself and Eve, and all Cainhad to do was to provide himself, and perhaps Abel, with vegetables. Norcould Abel's occupation have been light, for flocks and herds requirea good deal of attendance, and in those early days they needed vigilantprotection against the ravages of wild beasts. Abel's task must havebeen quite as heavy as Cain's. Our opinion is that the Lord showed hisusual caprice, hating whom he would and loving whom he would. Jehovahacted like the savage hero of Mr. Browning's "Caliban on Setebos, " whosprawls on the shore watching a line of crabs make for the sea, andsquashes the twentieth for mere variety and sport. If Jehovah isrequested to explain his loves and hates, he answers with Shylock, "itis my whim. " It was his whim to love Jacob and hate Esau, and it was nodoubt his whim to accept Abel's offering and reject Cain's. 

Mythologically the acceptance of Abel's offering and the rejection ofCain's are easily intelligible. The principle of sacrifice was deeplyimbedded in Judaism. Without shedding of blood there could be noremission of sin. Under the Levitical law the duties of the priesthoodchiefly consisted in burning the sin offerings of the people. It is, therefore, not difficult to understand how the Jewish scribes who wroteor revised the Pentateuch after the Babylonish captivity should givethis coloring to the narrative of Genesis; nor is it hard to conceivethat for centuries before that date the popular tradition had already, under priestly direction, taken such a color, so as to give the oldestand deepest sanction to the doctrine of animal sacrifice. 

It must also be noticed that Abel, who found favor with God, was "akeeper of sheep, " while Cain, whose offering was contemned, was "atiller of the ground. " This accords with the strongest traditionalinstincts of the Jews. The Persian religion decidedly favorsagriculture, which it regards as a kind of divine service. Brahminismand Buddhism countenance it still more decidedly, and even go to thelength of absolutely prohibiting the slaughter of animals. The Jews, on the other hand, esteemed the pastoral life as the noblest, andthe Hebrew historian very naturally represented it as protected andconsecrated by the blessing of Jehovah, while agriculture was declaredto have been imposed on man as a _punishment_. The nomadic origin of theJews accounts for their antipathy to that pursuit, which survivedand manifested itself, long after they settled in Palestine, devotedthemselves to the cultivation of the soil, and enacted agrarian laws. They always esteemed agriculturalists as inferior to shepherds; men ofsuperior attainments in their histories and legends rose from pastorallife; and kings kept their flocks. David, the man after God's own heart, and the national hero of the Jews, was a shepherd, and the Lord cameto him while he was keeping his father's sheep. Moses was keeping hisfather-in-law's sheep when God appeared to him in the burning bush atMount Horeb; Jacob kept his uncle Laban's sheep when he fled from Esau;and Abraham, the father of the faithful, was rich in flocks and herds. 

To recur to our story. Abel probably enjoyed the conspicuous markof divine favors conferred on him. Cain, however, experienced verydifferent feelings. He "was very wroth, and his countenance fell. "Whereupon the Lord somewhat facetiously asked him what was the matter. "Why, " said he, "art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? Ifthou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. " This was all very well, but as a matter of factCain's offering had already been _rejected_, and according to the Biblehe had done nothing to deserve such harsh treatment. 

The Lord's final words on this occasion read thus in our English Bible:"And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. " Thesewords are construed as applying to Cain's mastery over Abel, as theelder brother; but they seem quite unmeaning in that connexion; forAbel left no offspring, and the prophecy, if such it were, was neverfulfilled. Kalisch throws light on this obscure passage. The Lord, he says, was referring not to Abel but to Cain's secret sin, and thepassage should read "And to thee is _its_ desire, but thou shalt ruleover it. "

Cain then "talked with Abel his brother. " Gesenius supposes that hecommunicated to him the words of God, and treats this as the first steptowards a reconciliation. However that may be, we hear nothing more ofit, for the very next words relate the murder of the younger brother bythe elder. "And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cainrose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. "

This abrupt narrative certainly requires explanation. Kalisch seems tothink that Cain went about his work, after the interview with God, in abetter frame of mind; but while he toiled hard "in the field" he becameincensed at the sight of Abel loafing under a fine umbrageous treeand calmly watching his flock. Forgetting the divine admonitions, and listening only to the voice of passion, he madly killed his onlybrother, and made himself the first murderer. The Talmud gives severallegends about the hatred between the two brothers. One imputes thedifference to Cain's avarice, another to his ambition, another to hisinnate sinfulness, and another to his envy and jealousy on accountof Abel's wife. The last of all seems the truest; namely, that theydiffered "in their views regarding Providence, the moral government ofthe world, and the efficacy of virtuous deeds for happiness. " This ideainforms Byron's tragedy on the subject. In "Cain" the younger, brother'soffering is burnt up with supernatural fire, while the elder's altarremains unkindled; whereupon Cain inveighs against God's partiality, anddenounces the bloody sacrifice which finds greater favor than his ownpeaceful tribute of fruit and flowers. He then advances to scatter therelics of Abel's offering from the altar, but is thwarted by his brotherwho resists the sacrilege. Abel is felled in the struggle, and Cain, whohad no intention of killing him, finds himself an actual murderer beforehis brother's corpse. 

We are bound to conclude that the first quarrel in the world, likenine-tenths of those that have occurred since, was about religion. Cainthought God should be worshiped in one way, Abel thought he should beworshiped in another; and they settled the question, after the manner ofreligious disputants in all ages, by the stronger knocking the weaker onthe head. In religion there is no certitude on this side of the grave;if we are ever destined to know the truth on that subject, we must dieto find it out. We may therefore argue fruitlessly until the day ofjudgment. The only effectual way of settling a religious problem is tosettle your opponents. 

After the murder the Lord paid Cain another visit, and asked him whereAbel was. Cain replied that he was not his brother's keeper and didn'tknow. He does not appear to have thought God a particularly wellinformed person. Then the Lord said that Abel's blood cried unto himfrom the ground. "And now, " he continued, "art thou cursed from theearth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood fromthy hand; when thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yieldunto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be on theearth. And Cain said unto the Lord, my punishment is greater than Ican bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of theearth; and from thy face shall I be hid, and I shall be a fugitive anda vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass that every onethat findeth me shall slay me. And the Lord said unto him, Thereforewhosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. Andthe Lord set a mark on Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. AndCain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land ofNod, on the east of Eden. "

Now let us examine this story. Why was Cain so solicitous about hissafety? Why did he fear that everybody would try to kill him? He hadslain his brother, and his father and mother were the only people inthe world besides himself and perhaps his sisters (? who knew). Kalischsuggests that he apprehended the future vengeance of mankind when theworld grew more populous. But how, in that case, could a distinctivemark be any protection? It would publish his identity to all beholders. Besides, one would suppose that Cain, the first man ever born into theworld, would always be well known without carrying about a brand like aspecial wine or a patent edible. And what was the mark? Kalisch thinksit was only a villainous expression. Others think it was the Mongoliantype impressed upon the features of Cain, who became the founder of thatgreat division of the human race. A negro preacher started a differenttheory. When the Lord called out in a loud voice "Cain, where is thybrother Abel, " Cain, who was a black man, like Adam, turned pale withfear, and never regained his original color. All his children were paletoo; and that, said the preacher, "accounts for de white trash you seeebery war in dese days. "

How did Cain manage to go "out from the presence of the Lord, " who iseverywhere? Satan does the same thing in the Book of Job, and Jonahtries to do it later on. Jehovah was clearly a local as well as avisible God, and not the infinite spirit of the universe. 

Where was the land of Nod situated? East of Eden, says the Bible. Butnobody knows where Eden was. As we pointed out in "The Creation Story, "scores of different positions have been assigned to it. The only pointof agreement among the commentators is that it was _somewhere_. All thatcan safely be affirmed, then, is that Nod was east of Somewhere. Thename itself is very appropriate. No doubt the Lord was not quite awakein that locality, and hence we may explain how Cain managed to go "outfrom his presence. "

In this strange land of Nod, Cain "knew his wife. " Who was she? Probablyhis own sister, but the Bible does not tell us anything about her. Theirfirst son was called Enoch. Cain then "builded a city, and calledthe name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. " But this isdirectly opposed to the curse "a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou bein the earth. "

Delitzsch notices this, and, as usual, seeks to explain it away. Cain, he says, "in this way set himself against the divine curse, in orderto feel it inwardly so much the more, as outwardly he seems to haveovercome it. " To which we reply--first, that there is no evidencethat Cain felt the curse "more inwardly" after he built the city; and, secondly, the idea of a man successfully setting himself against anomnipotent curse is a trifle too absurd for credence or criticism. 

Now Adam and Eve, when Cain fled after the murder of Abel, were leftchildless, or at least without a son. But it was necessary that theyshould have another, in order that God's chosen people, the Jews, mightbe derived from a purer stock than Cain's. Accordingly we read thatAdam, in his hundred and thirtieth year, "begat a son in his ownlikeness, after his image, and called his name Seth. " Why was not Cainbegotten in the same way? Had he been so, the cradle of the world mightnot have been defiled with the blood of fratricide. Seth being "theimage" of Adam, and Adam "the image" of God, Seth and the Almighty wereof course very much alike. He was pious, and from him were descended thepious patriarchs, including Noah, from whom was descended Abraham thefounder of the Jewish race. God's chosen people came of a good stock, although they turned out such a bad lot. 

From Seth to Noah there are ten Patriarchs before the Flood. This isclearly mythological. The Hindus believed in _ten_ great saints, theoffspring of Manu, and in _ten_ different personifications of Vishnu. The Egyptians had _ten_ mighty heroes, the Chaldeans _ten_ kings beforethe Flood, the Assyrians _ten_ kings from Ham to Ninyas, and as manyfrom Japhet to Aram; and Plato enumerates _ten_ sons of Neptune, as therulers of his imaginary Island of Atlantis, submerged by the Deluge. 

Cain's descendants were of course drowned by the Flood, but they did agreat deal more for the world than the descendants of pious Seth, whoseems to have done little else than trust in God. The Cainites laid thebasis of civilisation. One of them Jabal, founded _cattle-keeping_; hisbrother, Jubal, invented _musical instruments_; and their half-brotherTubal-cain first practised _smithery_. Seth's descendants had nothingbut piety. Even their morals were no better than those of the Cainites;for at the Flood only eight of them were found worthy of preservations, and they were a poor lot. Noah got beastly drunk after the waterssubsided, and one of his three sons brought a curse on all hisoffspring. What then must we think of the rest?

Tuch excellently explains the mythological significance of the storyof Cain and Abel and Seth. "There lies, " he says, "in this myth theperfectly correct reminiscence, that in the East _ancient_ nationslived, under whom in very early times culture and civilisation extended, but at the same time the assertion, that these could not prejudice therenown of the Western-Asiatics, since the prerogatives, which theirdescent from the first-born would secure to them, were done away throughGod's Curse, which lighted on their ancestor, Cain. Thus the East iscut off from the following history, and the thread fastened on, whichcarries us on in Genesis, right across through the nations, to the onlychosen people of Israel. " The entire history of the world before theFlood is dismissed in five chapters, and that from the Flood to Abrahamin two more. After that the mighty antique civilisations are nevernoticed except so far as they affect the history of the Jews. The agesof the Patriarchs also dwindle down from nine centuries in the beginningto almost the normal longevity in the semi-historical period. Couldanything more conclusively prove the mythical character of thenarrative?

One of the Patriarchs descended from Seth, namely Enoch, whichsingularly enough is also the name of Cain's eldest son, never died. Weread that "he was not, for God took him. " It is about time that theLord took the whole lot out of his Word, and gave us a little ancient_history_ instead. We want a _revised_ Bible in the fullest sense ofthe word. The old book needs to be completely rewritten. How thankfulwe should all be if the Lord inspired _another_ "Moses" to rectify theerrors and supplement the deficiencies of the first, and to give usscientific truth instead of fanciful myths about the early history ofour race! But the Lord never inspires anybody to do a useful piece ofwork, and our Darwins will therefore have to go on with their slow andlaborious task of making out a history of mankind from the multitudinousand scattered traces that still survive the decay of time. 

LOT'S WIFE. 

BIBLE ROMANCES. --12. 

By G. W. FOOTE. 

Lot and his family were a queer lot. Their history is one of thestrangest in the whole Bible. They dwelt amongst a people whosedebauchery has become a by-word, and in a city which has given a name tothe vilest of unnatural crimes. Lot, his wife, and their two unmarrieddaughters, were the only persons preserved from the terrible fate whichJehovah, in one of his periodic fits of anger, inflicted upon the famousCities of the Plain. They witnessed a signal instance of his ancientmethod of dealing with his disobedient children. In the New Testament, God promises the wicked and the unbelievers everlasting fire after theyare dead; in the Old Testament, he drowns them or burns them up in thisworld. Lot and his family saw the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by"brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven"; and they, four personsin all, just half the number that survived the Flood a few centuriesbefore, were the only ones that escaped. God specially spared them. YetLot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back as she fledfrom the doomed city, and the old man himself soon after got drunk andcommitted incest with his daughters. From this crime sprang Moab andAmmon, the founders of two nations who became for many centuries themost implacable enemies of God's chosen people. 

Why did the Lord spare these four persons? Why did he not profit by thelesson of the Flood? The eight persons rescued from drowning in thatgreat catastrophe were infected with original sin, and the consequencewas that the world peopled from their stock was a great deal worse thanthe ante-diluvian world. It would clearly have been better to destroyall and start absolutely afresh. The eight rescued persons wereapparently just as bad as those who were drowned. So with the fourpersons spared at the destruction of Sodom. The people of that citycould hardly have been much worse than Lot and his children. The Lordappears to have been as stupid in his mercy as he was brutal in hiswrath. 

Lot was Abraham's nephew, and evidently came of a bad stock. The uncle'sevil career will be sketched in our series of "Bible Heroes. " Forthe present we content ourselves with the remark that no good couldreasonably be expected from such a family. Lot's father was Haran, a sonof Terah, and brother to Abraham. 

He "died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur ofthe Chaldees. " A city was called by his name in the land of Canaan, andTerah and the family dwelt there after they left Ur, until the patriarchdied and Abraham was called out from his kindred to found a new house. The "father of the faithful" took his orphaned nephew with him. Lotaccompanied his uncle on the journey to Egypt, where Abraham passed hiswife off as his sister, and showed his natural bent by lying right andleft. 

Soon afterwards we learn that Abraham and Lot had grown very rich, theformer "in cattle, in silver, and in gold, " and the latter in "flocks, and herds, and tents. " Indeed "their substance was so great that theycould not dwell together, and there was strife between the herdmen ofAbram's cattle and the herd-men of Lot's cattle. " Whereupon Abraham said"Don't let us quarrel within the family, but let us part. You can gowhere you like. If you go to the right I'll go to the left, and if yougo to the left I'll go to the right" It was necessary to separate Lotfrom the fortunes of Abraham, in order that God's dealings with thelatter might be uninterrupted and his family kept distinct; and so theHebrew chronicler very naturally separates them here, in a manner whichreflects great credit on Abraham, and exhibits him in a most amiablelight. 

Cunning Lot took full advantage of the offer. He "lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, even as the garden of the Lord. " So they parted, and Lot "pitched histent towards Sodom, " whose inhabitants, says our naive story, "werewicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly. " Commentators explainthat Lot's approach to such a detestable sink of iniquity indicated thenative corruption of his heart, or at least a sad lack of horror at thesins which made the place stink in the nostrils of God. 

In the next chapter we find Lot living in Sodom, although we are nottold when he moved there. Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king ofEllasar, Chedorlaorner king of Elam, and Tidal "king of nations, " madewar with Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king ofAdmah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the "king of Bera, which is Zoar. "A great battle was fought in the vale of Siddim, which is alleged tobe now covered by the Dead Sea. The four kings were victorious overthe five. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and the victors spoiledtheir cities, taking with them many captives, among whom was "Lot, Abram's brother's son. " How Abraham went out with a handful of men, defeated the triumphant forces of the allied kings, and rescued hisnephew, is a pretty little story which we reserve for our life of thatpatriarch. All the other captives were rescued also, and Lot, returningwith his friends, continued to dwell in Sodom as before. 

We hear no more of him for a considerable time. During the intervalAbraham has a child by Hagar. Ishmael, with the rest of the patriarch'shousehold, is circumcised. And finally the Lord visits Abraham again totell him that, notwithstanding their advanced ages, he and Sarah shallyet have a son. What happened during the interview properly belongs tothe life of Abraham, but we shall here consider so much of it as relatesto the fortunes of Lot. 

The Lord complained that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "verygrievous, " and said that the great cry of it had reached him in heaven. Being much concerned about their "goings on, " he had resolved to dropdown and see for himself if they were realty as bad as he suspected. "If not, " said he, "I will know. " In the Old Testament, God, who knowseverything, is always seeking information. 

Abraham surmised that the Lord meant to play the devil with theSodomites, and he was anxious about Lot who dwelt with them. So hebegan a parley. "Now, my Lord, " said Abraham, "you surely don't mean todestroy indiscriminately; you, the judge of all the earth, must act onthe square. Suppose there are fifty righteous men in Sodom, won't you, just for their sake, spare the place?" Knowing that there were nothinglike fifty righteous men in Sodom, the Lord promptly acceded toAbraham's-request; so promptly indeed that Abraham smelt a rat, anddetermined to drive a closer bargain. So he asked the Lord to knock offfive. "Very well, " was the reply, "if I find forty-five righteous menI'll spare the city. " Abraham was still suspicious. He knew that Jehovahloved a bit of destruction, and was not easily moved when he had oncemade up his mind to indulge himself. So he returned to the charge. "Ibeg pardon, " said he, "for troubling you so, but do you mind knockingoff another ten, and making thirty of it?" "Not at all, " answered theLord, "we'll say thirty. " Abraham felt there-was something wrong. Thisamiable readiness to oblige thoroughly perplexed him. If the Lord hadhaggled over the thirty, he would have known that there was about thatnumber of righteous men in the place; but in the actual condition ofaffairs, he felt that he had considerably overshot the mark. The-gamewas very dangerous, but he decided to renew it. "My Lord, " he began, "I'm a dreadful bore, but I'm not quite satisfied with our contract andshould like to re-open it. I don't wish to be importunate, but will youknock off another ten?" "With all my heart, " replied the Lord, "we'llsay twenty. " Still dissatisfied, Abraham resolved on a final effort. "Mygood Lord, " said he, "this is really the last time of asking. I promiseto bother you no more. Will you knock off another ten?" "All right, " wasthe reply, "anything to oblige. Well say ten altogether. If there are somany righteous men in Sodom I'll spare it. Good afternoon, Abraham, good afternoon. " And the Lord was off. Abraham ruefully watched theretreating figure, perfectly assured that the Lord had got the best ofthe bargain, and that he himself had been duped, worsted, and befooled. 

God did not go to Sodom himself, but sent two angels to inspect it. Theyreached its gate in the evening, and found Lot sitting there. In easterntowns the places before the gate are the appointed localities formeetings; and in ancient times they were used for still more extensivepurposes. There the judge pronounced his decisions, and even kings heldthere occasionally their courts of justice; there buying and sellingwent on; the people assembled there to see each other and hear the news;and almost all public affairs were transacted there, from religiousworship to the smallest details of civil life. It is not surprising, therefore, that Lot should be sitting in the gate when the two strangersarrived at the city. Some commentators have even conjectured that hewent out to meet them; but others object that this is contradictory tothe narrative, which does not exhibit Lot as recognising the angels, andthat it implies "too ideal a notion of its virtue. " Some have supposedthat Lot had attained to the dignity of a judge, and that he was sittingto act in that capacity on this occasion; but later circumstances refutethis supposition; for, in the quarrel which ensued, the people of Sodomreproached him as "a stranger" who set himself up as a judge of theirconduct. 

Lot advanced to the strangers, greeted them with a profound bow, addressed them as "my lords, " and asked them to stay over night at hishouse, where he would wash their feet, give them something to eat, andfind them a bed. They declined his frank hospitality, and said theymeant to pass the night in the streets. Kalisch observes, as though heknew all about their motives, that "it was their intention to tryhis character, and to give him an opportunity of showing whether hisgenerosity was merely a momentary emotion, or had become a settledfeature in his character. " He also dismisses the idea that they wishedto remain in the streets in order to study "the moral state of theSodomites, " as they required no such knowledge, for "they were not onlythe angels of God, but God himself acted in them. " But Kalisch shouldbear in mind that God told Abraham he was going on purpose to "seewhether they have done altogether according to the cry of it"; and that, as the angels could not know more than God, it was after all necessarythat they should make inquiries. Lot, however, "pressed upon themgreatly, " and at last they entered his house. He then "made them a_feast_" which seems to have consisted of nothing but unleavened bread. Perhaps the angels, who had dined heavily with Abraham on veal, butter, and milk, were afraid of bad dreams, and only wanted a light supperbefore going to roost. 

They were not, however, destined to enjoy a good night's sleep. Beforethey "lay down, " the men of Sodom "compassed the house round, both oldand young, all the people from every quarter. " And they called untoLot, and said unto him, "Where are the men which came in unto thee thisnight? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. "

We are reluctant to criticise this dirty story, but duty compels us. God's Word is full of disgusting narratives, and if we scrupled toexamine them we should have to leave the book alone. We have no loveof filth, and if the Bible were not held up as a divine work we shouldnever condescend to notice its beastly tales of fornication, adultery, sodomy, and incest. 

Why did _all_ the men of Sodom, both old and young, flock to Lot'shouse? Is it likely that _every_ male in the city, past the age ofpuberty, should burn with unnatural lust at one and the same time? Didthey suppose that _all_ of them could abuse the two strangers? The storyis as silly as it is nasty. 

For a parallel to Lot's answer to the demand of his neighbors we mustgo to the nineteenth chapter of _Judges_, where the men of Gibeah clamorfor the Levite as the men of Sodom clamor for the two angels, and wherehis host offers them instead his own daughter as well as the Levite'sconcubine. A woman's honor was a very trivial thing to God's chosenpeople. In itself it counted as next to nothing. The man's right ofpossession gave it all its importance and worth. 

Lot went out and shut the door after him. Then he rebuked his neighborsfor desiring to do "so wickedly, " and immediately made them an offerwhich he seems to have thought perfectly fair and square. "Behold, now, "he said, "I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I prayyou, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes:only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadowof my roof. " The laws of hospitality are sacred, and Lot did well tomaintain them; but he had no right to sacrifice to them a still moresacred law. Instead of strenuously opposing the committal of one crime, he proposes another as heinous. 

The Sodomites scorned his offer. They had a _penchant_ for a differentpleasure. Ravishing virgins was not in their line. So they reviled Lotfor setting himself up as a judge amongst them, called him "fellow, "threatened to deal worse with him than with the strangers, and actuallypressed so sore upon him that they "came near to break the door. "

Then the strangers manifested their power. They "put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut too the door. And theysmote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, bothsmall and great; so that they wearied themselves to find the door. "However blind they were surely they might have found the door by feelingfor it. Kalisch makes this episode more reasonable by substituting"blind confusion" for "blindness. "

The angels continued to act promptly. They informed Lot that theyintended to destroy the place because of its sin, and told him togather all his family together and leave at once. Lot spoke to his"sons-in-law, which married his daughters, " but they appear to havethought him daft. Early in the morning "the angels hastened Lot" whostill lingered. They laid hold of his hand, his wife's, and his twounmarried daughters', led them outside the city, and said, "Escape nowfor thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain;escape to the mountains lest thou be consumed. " Lot did not relish thisprospect of a hard climb. He therefore asked the angels to let him fleeunto the city of Zoar, because it was near and "a little one. " Thatis what the servant girl said to her mistress when she produced anillegitimate child, "please 'm its only a very little one. " She thoughtthat a small illegitimate baby wasn't as bad as a big illegitimate baby, and Lot thought that a little wicked city wasn't as bad as a big wickedcity. 

Lot's request was granted, and he was told to look sharp. He made goodspeed, and reached Zoar when "the sun was risen. "

"Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and firefrom the Lord out of heaven; and he overthrew those cities, and all theplain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew uponthe ground. " It is a mistake to suppose that brimstone and fire arecharacteristic of hell, for the Lord evidently keeps a large stock ofthose commodities in heaven. Nor must it be supposed that Lot was sparedbecause he was righteous. He was spared because the Lord "was mercifulunto him. " His virtues, Kalisch remarks, were not sufficient for hissalvation, which he owed to "the piety of Abraham. " Abraham may havehad "piety" enough to save a Lot, but he had scarcely "virtue" enough tosave a mouse. 

Kalisch says that "about the situation of Zoar there remains littledoubt. " He identifies it with "the considerable ruins found in WadyKerek, on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. " But he has no suchassurance as to the situation of Sodom. He deprecates De Saulcy'sassumption, that Sodom is traceable in the heap of stones found near theSalt Mountain, Udsum; and adds--"We may hope rather than expect, thatauthentic ruins of the four destroyed towns will ever be discovered. Biblical historians and prophets already speak of them as localitiesutterly and tracelessly swept away; and the remark of Josephus, that'shadows' of them still existed in his time, is vague and doubtful. "

In the South of Palestine there is an extraordinary lake of mysteriousorigin. It is about thirty-nine miles long, and from eight to twelvemiles broad. It is fed by the river Jordan, and drained by theevaporation of a fierce and terrible sun. Its water is clear andinodorous, but nauseous like a solution of alum; it causes painfulitching and even ulceration on the lips and if brought near a wound, orany diseased part, produces a most excruciating sensation. It containsmuriatic and sulphuric acid, and one-fourth of its weight is salt. Nofishes live in it; and according to tradition, which however is nottrue, birds that happen to fly over its surface die. Near it is said togrow the Apple of Sodom, beautiful in appearance, but containing onlyashes. This lake is appropriately called the Dead Sea. 

The natives say that at low water they glimpse fragments of buildingsand pillars rising out of the bottom of the lake. But this is only afancy. Yet beneath the waters of the Dead Sea are thought to lie theCities of the Plain. The northern part of the lake is very deep, thesouthern part very shallow. The bottom consists of two separate plains, one elevated, the other depressed. The latter is by some held to be theoriginal bottom of the lake, and the former to have been caused by thedestruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. But this also is only a fancy. Thebitumen, which is found in such large quantities in and near the lake, is a symptom and remnant of the volcanic nature of the region. Severallines of earthquake are traced from it in a north-eastern direction;and it is conjectured that the three lakes, Merom, Tiberias, andAsphaltites, together with the river Jordan, are the remaining traces ofthe huge gulf once filled by the Dead Sea before the land was lifted bya geological catastrophe. Volcanic action has caused all the remarkablephenomena of the district, which were of immemorial antiquity thousandsof years ago; and the story of the Cities of the Plain is only one ofthe legends which ancient peoples associated with every striking aspectof nature. 

Let us recur to Lot. His sons, his married daughters, and theirhusbands, perished in the deluge of brimstone and fire. He and his twounmarried daughters fled to Zoar as fast as their legs could carrythem. But his wife was less fortunate. She ran behind Lot, and with thenatural curiosity of her sex she looked back on the doomed city. Forthis violation of the angels' orders she was turned into "a pillar ofsalt. " Some commentators try to blink this unpleasant fact by artfultranslations; such as "she fell into a salt-brook, " or "she was coveredwith a salt crust, " or she was "_like_ a pillar of salt. " Josephuspretended to have seen this old woman of salt, but others have been lesslucky, although many travellers and pilgrims have searched for it as fora sacred relic. But let us not despair. Lot's wife may yet be discoveredand exhibited in the British Museum. 

What became of Lot and his daughters? Fearing to dwell in Zoar, theyleft it and "dwelt in a cave. " The damsels, who had heard their fatheroffer them to the promiscuous embrace of a lustful crowd, could notbe expected to be very scrupulous in their conduct. They were alone, without husbands to make them mothers, and to be childless was acalamity and a reproach; so they put their heads together and deviseda nasty scheme. Two nights successively they made their father blinddrunk, and got him to commit incest with them. This is very beastly andvery absurd. Lot was _old_; he was so drunk that he knew nothing of whathappened; yet he got two virgins with child! The porter in "Macbeth"would have laughed at such a ridiculous story. 

These improper females were by no means ashamed of their action; on thecontrary, they boast of their bastards; and the historian does not uttera word in condemnation of their crime. 

Lot was the father of his own grandchildren; his daughters were themothers of their own brothers; and his other children were destroyed byheavenly brimstone and fire. Were they not, as we said at the outset, aqueer lot? But the queerest lot was Lot's wife. Whatever may be said ofthe rest of the family, no one can say that she was not worth her salt, for the Lord thought she was worth enough to make a pillar. Let us hopethat the old lady will some day be (un)covered, and that her pillar ofsalt may yet, to the confusion of sceptics, stand as a veritable pillarin the house of God, and there defy the attacks of all the infidelSamsons, world without end. Amen.