CHAPTER XI. THE REVOLUTION

PREFACE TO NEW EDITION.

CHAPTER I

I wrote this little volume more than thirty years ago, since when I have

hardly opened it. Therefore I now read it almost as if it were written

by another man, and I find to my relief that, on the whole, I think

rather better of it than I did when I published it. Indeed, as a

criticism of what were then the accepted views of Massachusetts history,

as expounded by her most authoritative historians, I see nothing in it

to retract or even to modify. I do, however, somewhat regret the rather

acrimonious tone which I occasionally adopted when speaking of the more

conservative section of the clergy. Not that I think that the Mathers,

for example, and their like, did not deserve all, or, indeed, more than

all I ever said or thought of them, but because I conceive that equally

effective strictures might have been conveyed in urbaner language; and,

as I age, I shrink from anything akin to invective, even in what amounts

to controversy.

Therefore I have now nothing to alter in the _Emancipation of

Massachusetts_, viewed as history, though I might soften its asperities

somewhat, here and there; but when I come to consider it as philosophy,

I am startled to observe the gap which separates the present epoch from

my early middle life.

The last generation was strongly Darwinian in the sense that it

accepted, almost as a tenet of religious faith, the theory that human

civilization is a progressive evolution, moving on the whole steadily

toward perfection, from a lower to a higher intellectual plane, and, as

a necessary part of its progress, developing a higher degree of mental

vigor. I need hardly observe that all belief in democracy as a final

solution of social ills, all confidence in education as a means to

attaining to universal justice, and all hope of approximating to the

rule of moral right in the administration of law, was held to hinge on

this great fundamental dogma, which, it followed, it was almost impious

to deny, or even to doubt. Thus, on the first page of my book, I

observe, as if it were axiomatic, that, at a given moment, toward the

opening of the sixteenth century, “Europe burst from her mediæval torpor

into the splendor of the Renaissance,” and further on I assume, as an

equally self-evident axiom, that freedom of thought was the one great

permanent advance which western civilization made by all the agony and

bloodshed of the Reformation. Apart altogether from the fact that I

should doubt whether, in the year 1919, any intelligent and educated man

would be inclined to maintain that the twelfth and thirteenth centuries

were, as contrasted with the nineteenth, ages of intellectual torpor,

what startles me in these paragraphs is the self-satisfied assumption

of the finality of my conclusions. I posit, as a fact not to be

controverted, that our universe is an expression of an universal law,

which the nineteenth century had discovered and could formulate.

During the past thirty years I have given this subject my best

attention, and now I am so far from assenting to this proposition that

my mind tends in the opposite direction. Each day I live I am less

able to withstand the suspicion that the universe, far from being an

expression of law originating in a single primary cause, is a chaos

which admits of reaching no equilibrium, and with which man is doomed

eternally and hopelessly to contend. For human society, to deserve the

name of civilization, must be an embodiment of order, or must at least

tend toward a social equilibrium. I take, as an illustration of my

meaning, the development of the domestic relations of our race.

I assume it to be generally admitted, that possibly man’s first and

probably his greatest advance toward order--and, therefore, toward

civilization--was the creation of the family as the social nucleus. As

Napoleon said, when the lawyers were drafting his Civil Code, “Make

the family responsible to its head, and the head to me, and I will keep

order in France.” And yet although our dependence on the family system

has been recognized in every age and in every land, there has been no

restraint on personal liberty which has been more resented, by both men

and women alike, than has been this bond which, when perfect, constrains

one man and one woman to live a joint life until death shall them part,

for the propagation, care, and defence of their children.

The result is that no civilization has, as yet, ever succeeded, and none

promises in the immediate future to succeed, in enforcing this primary

obligation, and we are thus led to consider the cause, inherent in

our complex nature, which makes it impossible for us to establish an

equilibrium between mind and matter. A difficulty which never has

been even partially overcome, which wrecked the Roman Empire and the

Christian Church, which has wrecked all systems of law, and which has

never been more lucidly defined than by Saint Paul, in the Epistle to

the Romans, “For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal,

sold under sin. For that which I do, I allow not: for what I would, that

do I not; but what I hate, that do I.... Now then it is no more I that

do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.... For the good that I would, I do

not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.... For I delight in

the law of God after the inward man: ... But I see another law in

my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into

captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that

I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” [Footnote:

Romans vii, 14-24.]

And so it has been since a time transcending the limits of imagination.

Here in a half-a-dozen sentences Saint Paul exposes the ceaseless

conflict between mind and matter, whose union, though seemingly the

essence of life, creates a condition which we cannot comprehend and to

which we could not hope to conform, even if we could comprehend it. In

short, which indicates chaos as being the probable core of an universe

from which we must evolve order, if ever we are to cope with violence,

fraud, crime, war, and general brutality. Wheresoever we turn

the prospect is the same. If we gaze upon the heavens we discern

immeasurable spaces sprinkled with globules of matter, to which our

earth seems to be more or less akin, but all plunging, apparently, both

furiously and aimlessly, from out of an infinite past to an equally

immeasurable future.

Whence this material mass comes, or what its wild flight portends, we

neither know nor could we, probably, comprehend even were its secret

divulged to us by a superior intelligence, always conceding that

there be such an intelligence, or any secret to disclose. These latter

speculations lie, however, beyond the scope of my present purpose. It

suffices if science permits me to postulate (a concession by science

which I much doubt if it could make) that matter, as we know it, has the

semblance of being what we call a substance, charged with a something

which we define as energy, but which at all events simulates a vital

principle resembling heat, seeking to escape into space, where it cools.

Thus the stars, having blazed until their vital principle is absorbed in

space, sink into relative torpor, or, as the astronomers say, die. The

trees and plants diffuse their energy in the infinite, and, at length,

when nothing but a shell remains, rot. Lastly, our fleshly bodies, when

the union between mind and matter is dissolved, crumble into dust.

When the involuntary partnership between mind and matter ceases through

death, it is possible, or at least conceivable, that the impalpable

soul, admitting that such a thing exists, may survive in some medium

where it may be free from material shackles, but, while life endures,

the flesh has wants which must be gratified, and which, therefore, take

precedence of the yearnings of the soul, just as Saint Paul points

out was the case with himself; and herein lies the inexorable conflict

between the moral law and the law of competition which favors the

strong, and from whence comes all the abominations of selfishness, of

violence, of cruelty and crime.

Approached thus, perhaps no historical fragment is more suggestive than

the exodus of the Jews from Egypt under Moses, who was the first great

optimist, nor one which is seldomer read with an eye to the contrast

which it discloses between Moses the law-giver, the idealist, the

religious prophet, and the visionary; and Moses the political adventurer

and the keen and unscrupulous man of the world. And yet it is here

at the point at which mind and matter clashed, that Moses merits most

attention. For Moses and the Mosaic civilization broke down at this

point, which is, indeed, the chasm which has engulfed every progressive

civilization since the dawn of time. And the value of the story as an

illustration of scientific history is its familiarity, for no Christian

child lives who has not been brought up on it.

We have all forgotten when we first learned how the Jews came to migrate

to Egypt during the years of the famine, when Joseph had become the

minister of Pharaoh through his acuteness in reading dreams. Also how,

after their settlement in the land of Goshen,--which is the Egyptian

province lying at the end of the ancient caravan road, which Abraham

travelled, leading from Palestine to the banks of the Nile, and which

had been the trade route, or path of least resistance, between Asia and

Africa, probably for ages before the earliest of human traditions,--they

prospered exceedingly. But at length they fell into a species of bondage

which lasted several centuries, during which they multiplied so rapidly

that they finally raised in the Egyptian government a fear of their

domination. Nor, considering subsequent events, was this apprehension

unreasonable. At all events the Egyptian government is represented, as

a measure of self-protection, as proposing to kill male Jewish babies

in order to reduce the Jewish military strength; and it was precisely at

this juncture that Moses was born, Moses, indeed, escaped the fate which

menaced him, but only by a narrow chance, and he was nourished by his

mother in an atmosphere of hate which tinged his whole life, causing him

always to feel to the Egyptians as the slave feels to his master. After

birth the mother hid the child as long as possible, but when she could

conceal the infant no longer she platted a basket of reeds, smeared it

with pitch, and set it adrift in the Nile, where it was likely to be

found, leaving her eldest daughter, named Miriam, to watch over it.

Presently Pharaoh’s daughter came, as was her habit, to the river to

bathe, as Moses’s mother expected that she would, and there she noticed

the “ark” floating among the bulrushes. She had it brought her, and,

noticing Miriam, she caused the girl to engage her mother, whom Miriam

pointed out to her, as a nurse. Taking pity on the baby the kind-hearted

princess adopted it and brought it up as she would had it been her own,

and, as the child grew, she came to love the boy, and had him educated

with care, and this education must be kept in mind since the future of

Moses as a man turned upon it. For Moses was most peculiarly a creation

of his age and of his environment; if, indeed, he may not be considered

as an incarnation of Jewish thought gradually shaped during many

centuries of priestly development.

According to tradition, Moses from childhood was of great personal

beauty, so much so that passers by would turn to look at him, and this

early promise was fulfilled as he grew to be a man. Tall and dignified,

with long, shaggy hair and beard, of a reddish hue tinged with gray, he

is described as “wise as beautiful.” Educated by his foster-mother as

a priest at Heliopolis, he was taught the whole range of Chaldean and

Assyrian literature, as well as the Egyptian, and thus became acquainted

with all the traditions of oriental magic: which, just at that period,

was in its fullest development. Consequently, Moses must have been

familiar with the ancient doctrines of Zoroaster.

Men who stood thus, and had such an education, were called Wise Men,

Magi, or Magicians, and had great influence, not so much as priests of

a God, as enchanters who dealt with the supernatural as a profession.

Daniel, for example, belonged to this class. He was one of three captive

Jews whom Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, gave in charge to the master

of his eunuchs, to whom he should teach the learning and the tongue of

the Chaldeans. Daniel, very shortly, by his natural ability, brought

himself and his comrades into favor with the chief eunuch, who finally

presented them to Nebuchadnezzar, who conversed with them and found them

“ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in

all his realm.”

The end of it was, of course, that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed a dream

which he forgot when he awoke and he summoned “the magicians, and the

astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king

his dreams,” but they could not unless he told it them. This vexed the

king, who declared that unless they should tell him his dream with the

interpretation thereof, they should be cut in pieces. So the decree

went forth that all “the wise men” of Babylon should be slain, and they

sought Daniel and his fellows to slay them. Therefore, it appears that

together with its privileges and advantages the profession of magic

was dangerous in those ages. Daniel, on this occasion, according to the

tradition, succeeded in revealing and interpreting the dream; and, in

return, Nebuchadnezzar made Daniel a great man, chief governor of the

province of Babylon.

Precisely a similar tale is told of Joseph, who, having been sold by

his brethren to Midianitish merchantmen with camels, bearing spices and

balm, journeying along the ancient caravan road toward Egypt, was in

turn sold by them to Potiphar, the captain of Pharaoh’s guard.

And Joseph rose in Potiphar’s service, and after many alternations

of fortune was brought before Pharaoh, as Daniel had been before

Nebuchadnezzar, and because he interpreted Pharaoh’s dream acceptably,

he was made “ruler over all the land of Egypt” and so ultimately became

the ancestor whom Moses most venerated and whose bones he took with him

when he set out upon the exodus.

It is true also that Josephus has preserved an idle tale that Moses

was given command of an Egyptian army with which he made a successful

campaign against the Ethiopians, but it is unworthy of credit and may be

neglected. His bringing up was indeed the reverse of military. So much

so that probably far the most important part of his education lay in

acquiring those arts which conduce to the deception of others, such

deceptions as jugglers have always practised in snake-charming and the

like, or in gaining control of another’s senses by processes akin to

hypnotism;--processes which have been used by the priestly class and

their familiars from the dawn of time. In especial there was one miracle

performed by the Magi, on which not only they, but Moses himself, appear

to have set great store, and on which Moses seemed always inclined to

fall back, when hard pressed to assert his authority. They pretended

to make fire descend onto their altars by means of magical ceremonies.

[Footnote: Lenormant, _Chaldean Magic_, 226.] Nevertheless, amidst

all these ancient eastern civilizations, the strongest hold which the

priests or sorcerers held over, and the greatest influence which they

exercised upon, others, lay in their relations to disease, for there

they were supposed to be potent. For example, in Chaldea, diseases were

held to be the work of demons, to be feared in proportion as they

were powerful and malignant, and to be restrained by incantations and

exorcisms. Among these demons the one, perhaps most dreaded, was called

Namtar, the genius of the plague. Moses was, of course, thoroughly

familiar with all these branches of learning, for the relations of Egypt

were then and for many centuries had been, intimate with Mesopotamia.

Whatever aspect the philosophy may have, which Moses taught after middle

life touching the theory of the religion in which he believed, Moses

had from early childhood been nurtured in these Mesopotamian beliefs and

traditions, and to them--or, at least, toward them--he always tended to

revert in moments of stress. Without bearing this fundamental premise in

mind, Moses in active life can hardly be understood, for it was on this

foundation that his theories of cause and effect were based.

As M. Lenormant has justly and truly observed, go back as far as we will

in Egyptian religion, we find there, as a foundation, or first cause,

the idea of a divine unity,--a single God, who had no beginning and was

to have no end of days,--the primary cause of all. [Footnote: _Chaldean

Magic_, 79.] It is true that this idea of unity was early obscured

by confounding the energy with its manifestations. Consequently a

polytheism was engendered which embraced all nature. Gods and demons

struggled for control and in turn were struggled with. In Egypt, in

Media, in Chaldea, in Persia, there were wise men, sorcerers, and

magicians who sought to put this science into practice, and among this

fellowship Moses must always rank foremost. Before, however, entering

upon the consideration of Moses, as a necromancer, as a scientist, as a

statesman, as a priest, or as a commander, we should first glance at the

authorities which tell his history.

Scholars are now pretty well agreed that Moses and Aaron were men who

actually lived and worked probably about the time attributed to them

by tradition. That is to say, under the reign of Ramses II, of the

Nineteenth Egyptian dynasty who reigned, as it is computed, from 1348

to 1281 B.C., and under whom the exodus occurred. Nevertheless, no very

direct or conclusive evidence having as yet been discovered touching

these events among Egyptian documents, we are obliged, in the main, to

draw our information from the Hebrew record, which, for the most part,

is contained in the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Bible.

Possibly no historical documents have ever been subjected to a severer

or more minute criticism than have these books during the last two

centuries. It is safe to say that no important passage and perhaps no

paragraph has escaped the most searching and patient analysis by the

acutest and most highly trained of minds; but as yet, so far as the

science of history is concerned, the results have been disappointing.

The order in which events occurred may have been successfully questioned

and the sequence of the story rearranged hypothetically; but, in

general, it has to be admitted that the weight of all the evidence

obtained from the monuments of contemporary peoples has been to confirm

the reliability of the Biblical narrative. For example, no one longer

doubts that Joseph was actually a Hebrew, who rose, through merit,

to the highest offices of state under an Egyptian monarch, and who

conceived and successfully carried into execution a comprehensive

agrarian policy which had the effect of transferring the landed estates

of the great feudal aristocracy to the crown, and of completely changing

Egyptian tenures. Nor does any one question, at this day, the reality

of the power which the Biblical writers ascribed to the Empire of the

Hittites. Under such conditions the course of the commentator is clear.

He should treat the Jewish record as reliable, except where it frankly

accepts the miracle as a demonstrated fact, and even then regard the

miracle as an important and most suggestive part of the great Jewish

epic, which always has had, and always must have, a capital influence on

human thought.

The Pentateuch has, indeed, been demonstrated to be a compilation of

several chronicles arranged by different writers at different times, and

blended into a unity under different degrees of pressure, but now, as

the book stands, it is as authentic a record as could be wished of the

workings of the Mosaic mind and of the minds of those of his followers

who supported him in his pilgrimage, and who made so much of his task

possible, as he in fact accomplished.

Moses, himself, but for the irascibility of his temper, might have

lived and died, contented and unknown, within the shadow of the Egyptian

court. The princess who befriended him as a baby would probably have

been true to him to the end, in which case he would have lived wealthy,

contented, and happy and would have died overfed and unknown. Destiny,

however, had planned it otherwise.

The Hebrews were harshly treated after the death of Joseph, and fell

into a quasi-bondage in which they were forced to labor, and this

species of tyranny irritated Moses, who seems to have been brought up

under his mother’s influence. At all events, one day Moses chanced to

see an Egyptian beating a Jew, which must have been a common enough

sight, but a sight which revolted him. Whereupon Moses, thinking himself

alone, slew the Egyptian and hid his body in the sand. Moses, however,

was not alone. A day or so later he again happened to see two men

fighting, whereupon he again interfered, enjoining the one who was in

the wrong to desist. Whereupon the man whom he checked turned fiercely

on him and said, “Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? Intendest

thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian?”

When Moses perceived by this act of treachery on the part of a

countryman, whom he had befriended, that nothing remained to him but

flight, he started in the direction of southern Arabia, toward what was

called the Land of Midian, and which, at the moment, seems to have lain

beyond the limits of the Egyptian administrative system, although it

had once been one of its most prized metallurgical regions. Just at that

time it was occupied by a race called the Kenites, who were more or less

closely related to the Amalekites, who were Bedouins and who relied for

their living upon their flocks, as the Israelites had done in the time

of Abraham. Although Arabia Patrea was then, in the main, a stony waste,

as it is now, it was not quite a desert. It was crossed by trade routes

in many directions along which merchants travelled to Egypt, as is

described in the story of Joseph, whose brethren seized him in Dothan,

and as they sat by the side of the pit in which they had thrown him,

they saw a company of Ishmaelites who came from Gilead and who journeyed

straight down from Damascus to Gilead and from thence to Hebron, along

the old caravan road, toward Egypt, with camels bearing spices and

myrrh, as had been their custom since long beyond human tradition, and

which had been the road along which Abraham had travelled before them,

and which was still watered by his wells. This was the famous track from

Beersheba to Hebron, where Hagar was abandoned with her baby Ishmael,

and if the experiences of Hagar do not prove that the wilderness of Shur

was altogether impracticable for women and children it does at least

show that for a mixed multitude without trustworthy guides or reliable

sources of supply, the country was not one to be lightly attempted.

It was into a region similar to this, only somewhat further to the

south, that Moses penetrated after his homicide, travelling alone and as

an unknown adventurer, dressed like an Egyptian, and having nothing of

the nomad about him in his looks. As Moses approached Sinai, the country

grew wilder and more lonely, and Moses one day sat himself down, by

the side of a well whither shepherds were wont to drive their flocks to

water. For shepherds came there, and also shepherdesses; among others

were the seven daughters of Jethro, the priest of Midian, who came to

water their father’s flocks. But the shepherds drove them away and took

the water for themselves. Whereupon Moses defended the girls and drew

water for them and watered their flocks. This naturally pleased the

young women, and they took Moses home with them to their father’s tent,

as Bedouins still would do. And when they came to their father, he asked

how it chanced that they came home so early that day. “And they said,

an Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew

water enough for us, and watered the flock.” And Jethro said, “Where

is he? Why is it that ye have left the man? Call him that he may eat

bread.”

“And Moses was content to dwell with” Jethro, who made him his chief

shepherd and gave him Zipporah, his daughter. And she bore him a son.

Seemingly, time passed rapidly and happily in this peaceful, pastoral

life, which, according to the tradition preserved by Saint Stephen,

lasted forty years, but be the time long or short, it is clear that

Moses loved and respected Jethro and was in return valued by him. Nor

could anything have been more natural, for Moses was a man who made a

deep impression at first sight--an impression which time strengthened.

Intellectually he must have been at least as notable as in personal

appearance, for his education at Heliopolis set him apart from men whom

Jethro would have been apt to meet in his nomad life. But if Moses had

strong attractions for Jethro, Jethro drew Moses toward himself at least

as strongly in the position in which Moses then stood. Jethro, though a

child of the desert, was the chief of a tribe or at least of a family, a

man used to command, and to administer the nomad law; for Jethro was

the head of the Kenites, who were akin to the Amalekites, with whom the

Israelites were destined to wage mortal war. And for Moses this was a

most important connection, for Moses after his exile never permitted his

relations with his own people in Egypt to lapse. The possibility of

a Jewish revolt, of which his own banishment was a precursor, was

constantly in his mind. To Moses a Jewish exodus from Egypt was always

imminent. For centuries it had been a dream of the Jews. Indeed it was

an article of faith with them. Joseph, as he sank in death, had called

his descendants about him and made them solemnly swear to “carry his

bones hence.” And to that end Joseph had caused his body to be embalmed

and put in a coffin that all might be ready when the day came. Moses

knew the tradition and felt himself bound by the oath and waited in

Midian with confidence until the moment of performance should come.

Presently it did come. Very probably before he either expected or could

have wished it, and actually, as almost his first act of leadership,

Moses did carry the bones of Joseph with him when he crossed the Red

Sea. Moses held the tradition to be a certainty. He never conceived it

to be a matter of possible doubt, nor probably was it so. There was

in no one’s mind a question touching Joseph’s promise nor about his

expectation of its fulfilment. What Moses did is related in Exodus XIII,

19: “And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him; for he had straitly

sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye

shall carry up my bones away hence with you.”

In fine, Moses, in the solitude of the Arabian wilderness, in his

wanderings as the shepherd of Jethro, came to believe that his destiny

was linked with that of his countrymen in a revolution which was certain

to occur before they could accomplish the promise of Joseph and

escape from Egypt under the guidance of the god who had befriended and

protected him. Moreover, Moses was by no means exclusively a religious

enthusiast. He was also a scientific man, after the ideas of that

age. Moses had a high degree of education and he was familiar with the

Egyptian and Chaldean theory of a great and omnipotent prime motor, who

had had no beginning and should have no end. He was also aware that this

theory was obscured by the intrusion into men’s minds of a multitude of

lesser causes, in the shape of gods and demons, who mixed themselves in

earthly affairs and on whose sympathy or malevolence the weal or woe

of human life hinged. Pondering deeply on these things as he roamed,

he persuaded himself that he had solved the riddle of the universe, by

identifying the great first cause of all with the deity who had been

known to his ancestors, whose normal home was in the promised land of

Canaan, and who, beside being all-powerful, was also a moral being

whose service must tend toward the welfare of mankind. For Moses was by

temperament a moralist in whom such abominations as those practised in

the worship of Moloch created horror. He knew that the god of Abraham

would tolerate no such wickedness as this, because of the fate of Sodom

on much less provocation, and he believed that were he to lead the

Israelites, as he might lead them, he could propitiate such a deity,

could he but by an initial success induce his congregation to obey the

commands of a god strong enough to reward them for leading a life

which should be acceptable to him. All depended, therefore, should the

opportunity of leadership come to him, on his being able, in the first

place, to satisfy himself that the god who presented himself to him was

verily the god of Abraham, who burned Sodom, and not some demon, whose

object was to vex mankind: and, in the second place, assuming that

he himself were convinced of the identity of the god, that he could

convince his countrymen of the fact, and also of the absolute necessity

of obedience to the moral law which he should declare, since without

absolute obedience, they would certainly merit, and probably suffer,

such a fate as befell the inhabitants of Sodom, under the very eyes of

Abraham, and in spite of his prayers for mercy.

There was one other apprehension which may have troubled, and probably

did trouble, Moses. The god of the primitive man, and certainly of the

Bedouin, is usually a local deity whose power and whose activity is

limited to some particular region, as, for instance, a mountain or a

plain. Thus the god of Abraham might have inhabited and absolutely ruled

the plain of Mamre and been impotent elsewhere. But this, had Moses

for a moment harbored such a notion, would have been dispelled when he

thought of Joseph. Joseph, when his brethren threw him into the pit,

must have been under the guardianship of the god of his fathers,

and when he was drawn out, and sold in the ordinary course of the

slave-trade, he was bought by Potiphar, the captain of the guard. “And

the Lord was with Joseph and he was a prosperous man.” Thenceforward,

Joseph had a wonderful career. He received in a dream a revelation of

what the weather was to be for seven years to come. And by this dream he

was able to formulate a policy for establishing public graineries

like those which were maintained in Babylon, and by means of these

graineries, ably administered, the crown was enabled to acquire the

estates of the great feudatories, and thus the whole social system of

Egypt was changed. And Joseph, from being a poor waif, cast away by his

brethren in the wilderness, became the foremost man in Egypt and the

means of settling his compatriots in the province of Gotham, where they

still lived when Moses fled from Egypt. Such facts had made a profound

impression upon the mind of Moses, who very reasonably looked upon

Joseph as one of the most wonderful men who had ever lived, and one

who could not have succeeded as he succeeded, without the divine

interposition. But if the god who did these things could work such

miracles in Egypt, his power was not confined by local boundaries, and

his power could be trusted in the desert as safely as it could be on the

plain of Mamre or elsewhere. The burning of Sodom was a miracle equally

in point to prove the stern morality of the god. And that also, was a

fact, as incontestable, to the mind of Moses, as was the rising of the

sun upon the morning of each day. He knew, as we know of the battle of

Great Meadows, that one day his ancestor Abraham, when sitting in the

door of his tent toward noon, “in the plain of Mamre,” at a spot not

far from Hebron and perfectly familiar to every traveller along the old

caravan road hither, on looking up observed three men standing before

him, one of whom he recognized as the “Lord.” Then it dawned on Abraham

that the “Lord” had not come without a purpose, but had dropped in for

dinner, and Abraham ran to meet them, “and bowed himself toward the

ground.” And he said, “Let a little water be fetched, and wash your

feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: And I will fetch a morsel of

bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that you shall pass on.” “And

Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave

it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it. And he took butter, and

milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and

he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.” Meanwhile, Abraham

asked no questions, but waited until the object of the visit should be

disclosed. In due time he succeeded in his purpose. “And they said unto

him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent. And he

[the Lord] said, ... Sarah thy wife shall have a son.... Now Abraham

and Sarah were old, and well stricken in age.” At this time Abraham was

about one hundred years old, according to the tradition, and Sarah was

proportionately amused, and “laughed within herself.” This mirth vexed

“the Lord,” who did not treat his words as a joke, but asked, “Is

anything too hard for the Lord?” Then Sarah took refuge in a lie, and

denied that she had laughed. But the lie helped her not at all, for the

Lord insisted, “Nay, but thou didst laugh.” And this incident broke up

the party. The men rose and “looked toward Sodom”: and Abraham strolled

with them, to show them the way. And then the “Lord” debated with

himself whether to make a confidant of Abraham touching his resolution

to destroy Sodom utterly. And finally he decided that he would, “because

the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great and because their sin is very

grievous.” Whereupon Abraham intervened, and an argument ensued, and at

length God admitted that he had been too hasty and promised to think

the matter over. And finally, when “the Lord” had reduced the number of

righteous for whom the city should be saved to ten, Abraham allowed him

to go “his way ... and Abraham returned to his place.”

In the evening of the same day two angels came to Sodom, who met Lot at

the gate, and Lot took them to his house and made them a feast and

they did eat. Then it happened that the mob surrounded Lot’s house and

demanded that the strangers should be delivered up to them. But Lot

successfully defended them. And in the morning the angels warned Lot to

escape, but Lot hesitated, though finally he did escape to Zoar.

“Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire

from the Lord out of heaven.”

“And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood

before the Lord:

“And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of

the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the

smoke of a furnace.”

We must always remember, in trying to reconstruct the past, that these

traditions were not matters of possible doubt to Moses, or indeed to any

Israelite. They were as well established facts to them as would be the

record of volcanic eruptions now. Therefore it would not have astonished

Moses more that the Lord should meet him on the slope of Horeb, than

that the Lord should have met his ancestor Abraham on the plain of

Mamre. Moses’ doubts and perplexities lay in another direction. Moses

did not question, as did his great ancestress, that his god could do

all he promised, if he had the will. His anxiety lay in his doubt as to

God’s steadiness of purpose supposing he promised; and this doubt was

increased by his lack of confidence in his own countrymen. The god

of Abraham was a requiring deity with a high moral standard, and the

Hebrews were at least in part somewhat akin to a horde of semi-barbarous

nomads, much more likely to fall into offences resembling those of Sodom

than to render obedience to a code which would strictly conform to

the requirements which alone would ensure Moses support, supposing he

accepted a task which, after all, without divine aid, might prove to be

impossible to perform.

When the proposition which Moses seems, more or less confidently, to

have expected to be made to him by the Lord, came, it came very

suddenly and very emphatically. “Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro

his father-in-law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the

backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.

“And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of

the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with

fire, and the bush was not consumed.”

And Moses, not, apparently, very much excited, said, “I will now turn

aside, and see this great sight.” But God called unto him out of the

midst of the bush, and said, “Moses, Moses.” And he said, “Here am I.”

Then the voice commanded him to put off his shoes from off his feet, for

the place he stood on was holy ground.

“Moreover,” said the voice, “I am the God of thy father, the God of

Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his

face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

And the Lord said, “I have surely seen the affliction of my people ...

and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know

their sorrows.

“And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians,

and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto

a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites,

and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites....

“Come now, therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou

mayest bring forth my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt.”

And Moses said unto God, “Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and

that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?...”

And Moses said unto God, “Behold, when I am come unto the children of

Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me

unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say

unto them?”

And God said unto Moses, “_I am That I Am_;” and he said, “Thus shalt

thou say unto the children of Israel, _I Am_ hath sent me unto you.”

“And God said, moreover, unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the

children of Israel, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham,

the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is

my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.”

Then the denizen of the bush renewed his instructions and his promises,

assuring Moses that he would bring him and his following out of the

land of affliction of Egypt and into the land of the Canaanites, and the

Hittites, and the Amorites, and others, unto a land flowing with milk

and honey. In a word to Palestine. And he insisted to Moses that he

should gain an entrance to Pharaoh, and that he should tell him that

“the Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we

beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may

sacrifice to the Lord our God.”

Also God did not pretend to Moses that the King of Egypt would forthwith

let them go; whereupon he would work his wonders in Egypt and after that

Pharaoh would let them go.

Moreover, he promised, as an inducement to their avarice, that they

should not go empty away, for that the Lord God would give the Hebrews

favor in the sight of the Egyptians, “so that every woman should borrow

of her neighbor, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of

silver, jewels of gold, and raiment,” and that they should spoil the

Egyptians. But all this time God did not disclose his name; so Moses

tried another way about. If he would not tell his name he might at least

enable Moses to work some wonder which should bring conviction to those

who saw it, even if the god remained nameless. For Moses appreciated the

difficulty of the mission suggested to him. How was he, a stranger in

Egypt, to gain the confidence of that mixed and helpless multitude,

whom he was trying to persuade to trust to his guidance in so apparently

desperate an enterprise as crossing a broad and waterless waste, in the

face of a well-armed and vigorous foe. Moses apprehended that there was

but one way in which he could by possibility succeed. He might prevail

by convincing the Israelites that he was commissioned by the one deity

whom they knew, who was likely to have both the will and the power to

aid them, and that was the god who had visited Abraham on the plain

of Mamre, who had destroyed Sodom for its iniquity, and who had helped

Joseph to become the ruler of Egypt. Joseph above all was the man who

had made to his descendants that solemn promise on whose faith Moses

was, at that very moment, basing his hopes of deliverance; for Joseph

had assured the Israelites in the most solemn manner that the god who

had aided him would surely visit them, and that they should carry his

bones away with them to the land he promised. That land was the land

to which Moses wished to guide them. Now Moses was fully determined to

attempt no such project as this unless the being who spoke from the bush

would first prove to him, Moses, that he was the god he purported to be,

and should beside give Moses credentials which should be convincing,

by which Moses could prove to the Jews in Egypt that he was no impostor

himself, nor had he been deceived by a demon. Therefore Moses went on

objecting as strongly as at first:

“And Moses answered and said, But behold they will not believe me, nor

hearken to my voice; for they will say, the Lord hath not appeared unto

thee.”

Then the being in the bush proceeded to submit his method of proof,

which was of a truth feeble, and which Moses rejected as feeble. A form

of proof which never fully convinced him, and which, in his judgment

could not be expected to convince others, especially men so educated and

intelligent as the Egyptians. For the Lord had nothing better to suggest

than the ancient trick of the snake-charmer, and even the possessor of

the voice seems implicitly to have admitted that this could hardly be

advanced as a convincing miracle. So the Lord proposed two other tests:

the first was that Moses should have his hand smitten with leprous sores

and restored immediately by hiding it from sight in “his bosom.” And in

the event that this test left his audience still sceptical, he was to

dip Nile water out of the river, and turn it into blood on land.

Moses at all these three proposals remained cold as before. And with

good reason, for Moses had been educated as a priest in Egypt, and he

knew that Egyptian “wise men” could do as well, and even better, if it

came to a magical competition before Pharaoh. And Moses had evidently

no relish for a contest in the presence of his countrymen as to the

relative quality of his magic. Therefore, he objected once more on

another ground: “I am not eloquent, neither heretofore nor since thou

hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow

tongue.” This continued hesitancy put the Lord out of patience; who

retorted sharply, “Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or

deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?

“Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what

thou shalt say.”

Then Moses made his last effort. “0 my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the

hand of him whom thou wilt send.” Which was another way of saying, Send

whom you please, but leave me to tend Jethro’s flock in Midian.

“And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses; and he said, Is

not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And

also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee; and when he seeth thee, he

will be glad in his heart.

“And he shall be, ... to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to

him instead of God.”

Then Moses, not seeming to care very much what Aaron might think about

the matter, went to Jethro, and related what had happened to him on the

mountain, and asked for leave to go home to Egypt, and see how matters

stood there. And Jethro listened, and seems to have thought the

experiment worth trying, for he answered, “Go in peace.”

“And the Lord said unto Moses,”--but where is not stated, probably in

Midian,--“Go, return into Egypt,” which you may do safely, for all the

men are dead which sought thy life.

“And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and

he returned to the land of Egypt. And Moses took the rod of God in his

hand.”

It was after this, apparently, that Aaron travelled to meet Moses in

Midian, and Moses told Aaron what had occurred, and performed his tests,

and, seemingly, convinced him; for then Moses and Aaron went together

into Egypt and called the elders of the children of Israel together,

“and did the signs in the sight of the people. And the people believed:

and ... bowed their heads and worshipped.” Meanwhile God had not,

as yet, revealed his name. But as presently matters came to a crisis

between Moses and Pharaoh, he did so. He said to Moses, “I am the Lord:

“I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God

Almighty; but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them....

“Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord.... And I will

bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give

it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an

heritage: I am the Lord.

“And Moses spake so unto the children of Israel: but they hearkened not

unto Moses, for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage....

“And Moses spake before the Lord, saying, Behold the children of Israel

have not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear me?” And from

this form of complaint against his countrymen until his death Moses

never ceased.

Certain modern critics have persuaded themselves to reject this whole

Biblical narrative as the product of a later age and of a maturer

civilization, contending that it would be childish to attribute the

reasoning of the Pentateuch to primitive Bedouins like the patriarchs or

like the Jews who followed Moses into the desert. Setting aside at once

the philological discussion as to whether the language of the Pentateuch

could have been used by Moses, and admitting for the sake of argument

that Moses did not either himself write, or dictate to another, any part

of the documents in question, it would seem that the application of a

little common sense would show pretty conclusively that Moses throughout

his whole administrative life acted upon a single scientific theory of

the application of a supreme energy to the affairs of life, and upon the

belief that he had discovered what that energy was and understood how to

control it.

His syllogism amounted to this:

Facts, which are admitted by all Hebrews, prove that the single dominant

power in the world is the being who revealed himself to our ancestors,

and who, in particular, guided Joseph into Egypt, protected him there,

and raised him to an eminence never before or since reached by a Jew.

It can also be proved, by incontrovertible facts, that this being is

a moral being, who can be placated by obedience and by attaining to

a certain moral standard in life, and by no other means. That this

standard has been disclosed to me, I can prove to you by sundry

miraculous signs. Therefore, be obedient and obey the law which I shall

promulgate “that ye may prosper in all that ye do.”

Indeed, the philosophy of Moses was of the sternly practical kind,

resembling that of Benjamin Franklin. He did not promise his people,

as did the Egyptians, felicity in a future life. He confined himself to

prosperity in this world. And to succeed in his end he set an attainable

standard. A standard no higher, certainly than that accepted by the

Egyptians, as it is set forth in the 125th chapter of the Book of the

Dead, a standard to which the soul of any dead man had to attain before

he could be admitted into Paradise. Nor did Moses, as Dr. Budde among

others assumes, have to deal with a tribe of fierce and barbarous

Bedouins, like the Amalekites, to whom indeed the Hebrews were

antagonistic and with whom they waged incessant war.

The Jews, for the most part, differed widely from such barbarians. They

had become sedentary at the time of the exodus, whatever they may have

been when Abraham migrated from Babylon. They were accustomed in Egypt

to living in houses, they cultivated and cooked the cereals, and they

fed on vegetables and bread. They did not live on flesh and milk as do

the Bedouins; and, indeed, the chief difficulty Moses encountered in the

exodus was the ignorance of his followers of the habits of desert life,

and their dislike of desert fare. They were forever pining for the

delights of civilization. “Would to God we had died by the hand of the

Lord in the land of Egypt, when we eat by the flesh-pots, and when

we did eat bread to the full! for ye have brought us forth into this

wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” [Footnote: Ex.

XVI, 3.]

“We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers,

and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick.” These

were the wants of sedentary and of civilized folk, not of barbarous

nomads who are content with goat’s flesh and milk. And so it was with

their morality and their conceptions of law. Moses was, indeed, a highly

civilized and highly educated man. No one would probably pretend that

Moses represented the average Jew of the exodus, but Moses understood

his audience reasonably well, and would not have risked the success

of his whole experiment by preaching to them a doctrine which was

altogether beyond their understanding. If he told them that the favor of

God could only be gained by obeying the laws he taught, it was because

he thought such an appeal would be effective with a majority of them.

Dr. Budde, who is a good example of the modern hypercritical school,

takes very nearly the opposite ground. His theory is that Moses was in

search of a war god, and that he discovered such a god, in the god of

the Bedouin tribe of the Kenites whose acquaintance he first made when

dwelling with his father-in-law Jethro at Sinai. The morality of such a

god he insists coincided with the morality which Moses may have at

times countenanced, but which was quite foreign to the spirit of the

decalogue.

Doubtless this is, in a degree, true. The religion of the pure Bedouin

was very often crude and shocking, not to say disgusting. But to argue

thus is to ignore the fact that all Bedouins did not, in the age of

Moses, stand on the same intellectual or moral level, and it is also to

ignore the gap that separated Moses and his congregation intellectually

and morally from such Bedouins as the Amalekites.

Dr. Budde, in his _Religion of Israel to the Exile_, insists that the

Kenite god, Jehovah, demanded “The sacred ban by which conquered cities

with all their living beings were devoted to destruction, the slaughter

of human beings at sacred spots, animal sacrifices at which the entire

animal, wholly or half raw, was devoured, without leaving a remnant,

between sunset and sunrise,--these phenomena and many others of the same

kind harmonise but ill with an aspiring ethical religion.”

He also goes on to say: “We are further referred to the legislation of

Moses, ... comprising civil and criminal, ceremonial and ecclesiastical,

moral and social law in varying compass. This legislation, however,

cannot have come from Moses.... Such legislation can only have arisen

after Israel had lived a long time in the new home.”

To take these arguments in order,--for they must be so dealt with

to develop any reasonable theory of the Mosaic philosophy,--Moses,

doubtless, was a ruthless conqueror, as his dealings with Sihon and Og

sufficiently prove. “So the Lord our God delivered into our hands Og

also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until

none was left to him remaining....

“And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon, king of Heshbon,

utterly destroying the men, women, and children of every city.”

[Footnote: Deut. III, 3-6.]

There is nothing extraordinary, or essentially barbarous, in this

attitude of Moses. The same theory of duty or convenience has been

held in every age and in every land, by men of the ecclesiastical

temperament, at the very moment at which the extremest doctrines of

charity, mercy, and love were practised by their contemporaries, or even

preached by themselves. For example:

At the beginning of the thirteenth century the two great convents of

Cluny and Citeau, together, formed the heart of monasticism, and Cluny

and Citeau were two of the richest and most powerful corporations in the

world, while the south of France had become, by reason of the eastern

trade, the wealthiest and most intelligent district in Europe. It

suffices to say here that, just about this time, the people of Languedoc

had made up their minds, because of the failure of the Crusades, the

cost of such magnificent establishments was not justified by their

results, and accordingly Count Raymond of Toulouse, in sympathy with

his subjects, did seriously contemplate secularization. To the abbots of

these great convents, it was clear that if this movement spread across

the Rhone into Burgundy, the Church would face losses which they could

not contemplate with equanimity. At this period one Arnold was Abbot of

Citeau, universally recognized as perhaps the ablest and certainly one

of the most unscrupulous men in Europe. Hence the crusade against the

Albigenses which Simon de Montfort commanded and Arnold conducted.

Arnold’s first exploit was the sack of the undefended town of Béziers,

where he slaughtered twenty thousand men, women, and children, without

distinction of religious belief. When asked whether the orthodox might

not at least be spared, he replied, “Kill them all; God knows his own.”

This sack of Béziers occurred in 1209. Exactly contemporaneously Saint

Francis of Assisi was organizing his order whose purpose was to realize

Christ’s kingdom upon earth, by the renunciation of worldly wealth and

by the practice of poverty, humility, and obedience. Soon after, Arnold

was created Archbishop of Narbonne and became probably the greatest and

richest prelate in France, or in the world. This was in 1225. In 1226

the first friars settled in England. They multiplied rapidly because of

their rigorous discipline. Soon there were to be found among them some

of the most eminent men in England. Their chief house stood in London

in a spot called Stinking Lane, near the Shambles in Newgate, and there,

amidst poverty, hunger, cold, and filth, these men passed their lives in

nursing horrible lepers, so loathsome that they were rejected by all but

themselves, while Arnold lived in magnificence in his palace, upon the

spoil of those whom he had immolated to his greed.

In the case of Moses the contrast between precept and practice in the

race for wealth and fortune was not nearly so violent. Moses, it is

true, according to Leviticus, declared it to be the will of the

Lord that the Israelites should love their neighbors as themselves,

[Footnote: Lev. XIX, 18.] while on the other hand in Deuteronomy he

insisted that obedience was the chief end of life, and that if the

Israelites were to thoroughly obey the Lord’s behests, they were to

“consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine

eye shall have no pity upon them: neither” should thou serve their gods,

“for the Lord thy God is a jealous God.” [Footnote: Deut. VII, 16.] And

the penalty for slackness was “lest the anger of the Lord thy God be

kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.”

[Footnote: Deut. VI, 15.] There is, nevertheless, this much to be

said in favor of the morality of Moses as contrasted with that of

thirteenth-century orthodox Christians like Arnold; Moses led a crusade

against a foreign and hostile people, while Arnold slaughtered the

Albigenses, who were his own flock, sheep to whom he was the shepherd,

communicants in his own church, and worshippers of the God whom he

served. What concerns us, however, is that the same stimulant animated

Moses and Arnold alike. The stimulant, pure and simple, of greed. On

these points Moses was as outspokenly, one may say as brutally, frank as

was Arnold. In the desert Moses commanded his followers to exterminate

the inhabitants of the kingdom of Bashan in order that they might

appropriate their possessions, which he enumerated, and Moses had no

other argument to urge but the profitableness of it by which to secure

obedience to his moral law.

Arnold stood on precisely the same platform. He did not accuse Count

Raymond of heresy or any other crime, nor did Pope Innocent III

consider Raymond as morally guilty of a criminal offence, or worthy of

punishment. Indeed, the pope would have protected the Count had it been

possible, and summoned him before the Fourth Lateran Council for that

purpose. But Arnold told his audience that were Raymond allowed to

escape there would be an end of the Catholic faith in France. Or, in

other words, monastic property would be secularized. Perhaps he was

right. At all events, this argument prevailed, and Raymond and his

family and people were sacrificed.

Moses promised his congregation that, if they would spare nothing they

should enjoy abundance of good things, without working for them. He was

much more pitiless than such a man as King David thought it necessary to

be, but Moses was not a soldier like David. He could not promise to win

victories himself, he could but promise what he had in hand, and that

was the spoil of those they massacred. Moses never had but one appeal

to make for obedience, one incentive to offer to obey. In this he was

perfectly honest and perfectly logical. His congregation and he, finding

Egypt untenable, were engaged in a common land speculation to improve

their condition; a speculation in which Moses believed, but which could

only be brought to a successful end by obtaining control of the dominant

energy of the world. This energy, he held, could be handled by no

one but himself, and then only in case those who acted with him were

absolutely obedient to his commands, which, taken together, were

equivalent to a magical exorcism or spell. Then only could they hope

that the Lord of Abraham and Isaac would give them “great and goodly

cities, which thou buildedst not, And houses full of all good things,

which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not,

vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not.” [Footnote: Deut.

VI, 10, 11.]

Very obviously, if the theory which Moses propounded were sound the

assets which he offered as an inducement for docility could be obtained,

at so cheap a rate, in no other way. All Moses’ moral teaching amounted,

therefore, to this--“It pays to be obedient and good.” No argument could

have been better adapted to Babylonish society, and it seems to have

answered nearly as well with the Israelites, which proves that they

stood on nearly the same intellectual plane. The chief difficulty with

which Moses had to contend was that his countrymen did not thoroughly

believe in him, nor in the efficacy of his motor. They always were

tempted to try experiments with other motors which were operated by

other prophets and by other peoples who were, apparently, as prosperous

as they, or even more so. His trouble was not that his followers were

nomads unprepared for a sedentary life or a moral law like his, or

unable to appreciate the value of the property of a people further

advanced in civilization than they were. The Amalekites would have

responded to no such system of bribery as Moses offered the Israelites,

who did respond with intelligence, if not always with enthusiasm.

The same is true of the Mosaic legislation which Dr. Budde curtly

dismisses as impossible to have come from Moses, [Footnote: _Religion

of Israel to the Exile_, 31.] as presupposing a knowledge of a settled

agricultural life, which “Israel did not reach until after Moses’

death.”

All this is an assumption of fact unsupported by evidence; but quite

the contrary, as we can see by an examination of the law in question.

Whatever may have been the date of the establishment of the cities of

refuge, I suppose that it will not be seriously denied that the law of

the covenant as laid down in Exodus XX, 1, Numbers XXXV, 6, is at least

as old as the age of Moses, in principle, if not in words; and this

legal principle is quite inconsistent with, if not directly antagonistic

to, all the prejudices and regulations, moral, religious, or civil, of a

pure nomadic society, since it presupposes a social condition which, if

adopted, would be fatal to a nomad society.

The true nomad knows no criminal law save the law of the blood feud,

which is the law of revenge, and which prevailed among the Hebrews

much earlier. In the early Saxon law it was expressed by the apothegm

“_Factum reputabitur pro volunte_.” The act implies the intent. That

is to say, the tribe is an enlarged family who, since they have no

collective system of sovereignty which gives them common protection by

an organized police, and courts with power to enforce process, have no

option but to protect each other. Therefore, it is incumbent on each

member of the tribe or family to avenge an injury to any other member,

whether the injury be accidental or otherwise; and to be himself the

judge of what amounts to an injury. Such a condition prevailed among the

Hebrews at a very early period; “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and

said unto them: ... at the hand of every man’s brother will I require

the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood

be shed.” [Footnote: Gen. IX, 1, 5, 6.] These customs and the type of

thought which sustain them are very tenacious and change slowly. Moses

could not have altered the nomadic customs of thought and of blood

revenge, had he tried, more than could Canute. It would have been

impossible. The advent of a civilized conception of the law is the work

of centuries as the history of England proves.

We know not how long ago it was that the law of the blood feud was fully

recognized in England, but it had already been shaken at the conquest,

and its death-blow was given it by the Church, which had begun to tire

of the responsibility entailed by the trial by ordeal or miracle, and

the obloquy which it involved, at a relatively early date. For the

purposes of the Church and the uses of confession it was more convenient

to regard crime or tort, as did the Romans; as a mental condition,

dependent altogether upon the state of the mind or “animus.” Malice

in the eye of the Church was the virus which poisoned the otherwise

innocent act, and made the thought alone punishable. Indeed, this

conception is one which has not yet been completely established even in

the modern law. The first signs of such a revolution in jurisprudence

only began to appear in England some seven centuries ago. As Mr.

Maitland has observed in his _History of English Law_, [Footnote: Vol.

II, 476.] “We receive a shock of surprise when we meet with a maxim

which has troubled our modern lawyers, namely, _Reum nonfacit nisi mens

rea_, in the middle of the _Leges Henrici_.” That is to say somewhere

about the year 1118 A.D. This maxim was taken bodily out of a sermon of

Saint Augustine, which accounts for it, but at that time the Church

had another process to suggest by which she asserted her authority. She

threw the responsibility for detecting guilt, in cases of doubt, upon

God. By the ordeal, if a homicide, for example, were committed, and the

accused denied his guilt, he was summoned to appear, and then, after a

solemn reference to God by the ecclesiastics in charge, he was caused

either to carry a red-hot iron bar a certain distance or to plunge his

arms in boiling water. If he were found, after a certain length of time,

during which his arms were bandaged, to have been injured, he was

held to have been guilty. If he had escaped unhurt he was innocent.

Gradually, however, the ordeal began to fall into ridicule. William

Rufus gibed at it, for of fifty men sent to the ordeal of iron, under

the sacred charge of the clerks, all escaped, which certainly, as Mr.

Maitland intimates, looks as if the officiating ecclesiastics had an

interest in the result. [Footnote: _History of English Law_, II, 599,

note 2.] At length, by the Lateran Council of 1215, the Church put an

end to the institution, but long afterward it found its upholders. For

example, the _Mirror_, written in the reign of Edward I (circa 1285)

complained, “It is an abuse that proofs and compurgations be not by the

miracle of God where other proof faileth.” Nor was the principle that

“attempts” to commit indictable offences are crimes, established as law,

until at least the time of the Star Chamber, before its abolition in the

seventeenth century. Though doubtless it is the law to-day. [Footnote:

Stephen, _Digest of the Criminal Law_, 192.] And this, although the

means used may have been impossible. Moreover, the doctrine is still in

process of enlargement.

Very convincing conclusions may be drawn from these facts. The subject

is obscure and difficult, but if the inception of the process

of breaking down the right of enforcing the blood feud be fixed

provisionally toward the middle of the tenth century,--and this date is

early enough,--the movement of thought cannot be said to have attained

anything like ultimate results before at least the year 1321 when a case

is cited wherein a man was held guilty because he had attempted to kill

his master, and the “_volunias in isto casu reputabitur pro facto_.”

Measuring by this standard five hundred years is a short enough period

to estimate the time necessary for a community to pass from the stage

when the blood feud is recognized as unquestioned law, to the status

involved in the administration of the cities of refuge, for in these

cities not only the mental condition is provided for as a legitimate

defence, but the defence of negligence is made admissible in a secular

court.

“These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel,

and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them; that every one

that killeth any person unawares may flee thither....

“If he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait that he

die;

“Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him

shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of

blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him.

“But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him

anything without laying of wait,

“Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it

upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm:

“Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger

of blood according to these judgments:

“And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the

revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city

of his refuge, whither he was fled.”... [Footnote: Numbers XXXV, 15,

20-25.]

Here we have a defendant in a case of homicide setting up the defence

that the killing happened through an accident, but an accident not

caused by criminal negligence, and this defence is to be tried by the

congregation, which is tantamount to trial by jury. It is not left to

God, under the oversight of the Church; and this is precisely our own

system at the present day. We now come to the inferences to be drawn

from these facts. Supposing that the Israelites when they migrated to

Egypt, in the time of Joseph, were in the condition of pure nomads among

whom the blood feud was fully recognized as law, an interval of four or

five hundred years, such as they are supposed to have passed in Goshen

would bring them to the exodus. Now, assuming that the Israelites during

those four centuries, when they lived among civilized neighbors and

under civilized law, made an intellectual movement corresponding in

velocity to the movement the English made after the conquest, they would

have been, about the time when the cities of refuge were created, in the

position described in Numbers, which is what we should expect assuming

the Biblical tradition to be true.

To us the important question is not whether a certain piece of the

supposed Mosaic legislation actually went into effect during the life

of Moses, for that is relatively immaterial, but whether the Biblical

narrative is, on the whole, worthy of credence, and this correlation of

dates gives the strongest possible evidence in its favor. Very possibly,

perhaps it may even be said certainly, the order in which events

occurred may have been transposed, but, taken as a whole, it is

impossible to resist the inference that the Bible story is excellent

history and that, due allowance being made for the prejudice of the

various scribes who wrote the Pentateuch in favor of the miraculous,

where Moses was concerned, the Biblical record is good and trustworthy

history, and frank at that;--much superior to quantities of modern

documents which we accept without question.

Of all the achievements of Moses’ life none equals the exodus itself,

either in brilliancy or success. How it was possible for Moses, with the

assistance he had at command, to marshal and move a column of a million

or a million and a half of men, women, and children, without discipline

or cohesion, and encumbered with their baggage, beside their cattle, is

an insoluble mystery. “And the children of Israel did according to the

word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and

jewels of gold, and raiment: ... And they spoiled the Egyptians. And the

children of Israel journeyed from Ramses to Succoth, about six hundred

thousand on foot that were men, beside children. And a mixed multitude

went up also with them; and flocks and herds, even very much cattle.”

They started from Ramses and Succoth.

The position of Ramses has been identified; that of Succoth is more

questionable. Ramses and Pithom were fortified places, built by the

Israelites for Ramses II, of the Nineteenth Dynasty, but apparently

Succoth was the last halting-place before coming to the difficult ground

which was overflowed by the sea.

The crossing was made at night, but it is hard to understand how, even

under the most favorable conditions of weather, such a vast and confused

multitude of women and children could have made the march in darkness

with an active enemy pursuing, without loss of life or material. Indeed,

even at that day the movement seemed to the actors so unparalleled that

it always passed for a miracle, and its perfect success gave Moses more

reputation with the Israelites and more practical influence over them

than anything else he ever did, or indeed than all his other works

together. “And Israel saw that great work which the Lord did upon the

Egyptians: and the people feared the Lord and believed the Lord and his

servant Moses.”

“And Miriam, the prophetess, the sister of Aaron; and all the women went

after her with timbrels and with dances.” Now Miriam was in general none

too loyal a follower of her younger brother, but that day, or rather

night, she did proclaim Moses as a conqueror; which was a great

concession from her, and meant much. And Moses exulted openly, as he

had good cause to do, and gave vent to his exultation in a song which

tradition has ever since attributed to him, and has asserted to have

been sung by him and his congregation as they stood by the shore of the

sea and watched the corpses of the Egyptians lying in the sand. And, if

ever man had, Moses then had, cause for exultation, for he had seemingly

proved by the test of war, which is the ultimate test to which a man can

subject such a theory as his, that he had indeed discovered the motor

which he sought, and, more important still, that he knew how to handle

it. Therefore, he was master of supreme energy and held his right to

command by the title of conquest. This was the culminating moment of his

life; he never again reached such exaltation. From this moment his slow

and gradual decline began.

And, indeed, great as had been the momentary success of Moses, his

position was one of extreme difficulty, and probably he so understood

it, otherwise there would be no way to account for his choosing the

long, difficult, and perilous journey by Sinai, instead of approaching

the “Promised Land” directly by way of Kadesh-Barnea, which was, in any

event, to be his ultimate objective. It may well have been because Moses

felt himself unable alone to cope with the difficulties confronting him

that he decided at any cost to seek Jethro in Midian, who seems to have

been the only able, honest, and experienced man within reach. Joshua,

indeed, might be held to be an exception to this generalization,

but Joshua, though a good soldier, was a man of somewhat narrow

understanding, and quite unfit to grapple with questions involving

jurisprudence and financial topography.

And at this juncture Moses must have felt his own deficiencies keenly.

As a captain he made no pretence to efficiency. The Amalekites were,

as he well knew, at this moment lying in wait for him, and forthwith he

recognized that he had no alternative but to retire into the background

himself and surrender the active command of the army to Joshua, a fatal

concession had Joshua been ambitious or unscrupulous. And this was but

the beginning. Before he could occupy Palestine he had to encounter and

overcome numbers of equally formidable foes, a defeat by any one of whom

might well be fatal. A man like Jethro, therefore, would be invaluable

in guiding the caravan to spots favorable for action, from whence

retreat to a place of safety would be open in case of a check. A reverse

which happened on a later occasion gave Moses a shock he never forgot.

Furthermore, though Moses lived many years with Jethro, as his chief

servant, he never seems to have travelled extensively in Arabia, and to

have been ignorant of the chief trade routes along which wells were dug,

and of the oases where pasture was to be found; so that Moses was nearly

worthless as a guide, and this was a species of knowledge in which

Jethro, according to Moses’ own statement, excelled. Meanwhile, the

lives of all his followers depended on such knowledge. And Moses, when

he reached Sinai, left no stone unturned to overcome Jethro’s reluctance

to join him and to instruct him on the march north.

More important and pressing than all, Moses was ignorant of how,

practically, to administer the law which he taught. His only idea was to

do all in person, but this, with so large a following, was impossible.

And here also his hope lay in Jethro. For when he got to Sinai, and

Jethro remonstrated with him upon his methods, pointing out that they

were impracticable, all Moses had to say in reply was that he sat all

day to hear disputes and “I judge between one and another; and I do make

them know the statutes of God, and his laws.” Further than this he had

nothing to propose. It was Jethro who explained to him a constructive

policy.

On the whole, upon this analysis, it appears that in all those executive

departments in which Moses, by stress of the responsibilities which he

had assumed, was called upon, imperatively, to act, there was but one,

that of the magician or wise man, in which, by temperament and training,

he was fitted to excel, and the functions of this profession drove him

into to intolerably irksome and distressing position, yet a position

from which throughout his life he found it impossible to escape. No

one who attentively weighs the evidence can, I apprehend, escape

the conviction that Moses was at bottom an honest man who would have

conformed to the moral law he laid down in the name of the Lord had it

been possible for him to do so. Among these precepts none ranked higher

than a regard for truth and honesty. “Ye shall not steal, neither deal

falsely, neither lie one to another.” [Footnote: Leviticus XIX, 11.] And

this text is but one example of a general drift of thought.

Whether these particular words of Leviticus, or any similar phrases,

were ever used by Moses is immaterial. No one can doubt that, in

substance, they contained the gist of his moral doctrine and that he

enforced the moral duty which they convey to the best of his power.

And here the burden lay, which crushed this man, from which he never

thenceforward could, even for an instant, free himself, and which Saint

Paul avers to be the heaviest burden man can bear. Moses, to fulfil

what he conceived to be his destiny and which at least certainly was his

ambition, was condemned to lead a life of deceit and to utter no

word during his long subsequent march which was not positively or

inferentially a lie. And the bitterest of his trials must have been the

agony of anxiety in which he must have lived lest some error in judgment

on his part, some slackness in measuring the exact credulity of his

audience, should cause his exposure and lead to his being cast out of

the camp as an impostor and hunted to death as a false prophet: a fate

which more than once nearly overtook him. Indeed, as he aged and his

nerves lost their elasticity under the tension, he became obsessed with

the fixed idea that God had renounced him and that some horror would

overtake him should he attempt to cross the Jordan and enter the

“Promised Land.” Defeated at Hormah, he dared not face another such

check and, therefore, dawdled away his time in the wilderness until

further dawdling became impossible. Then followed his mental collapse

which is told in Deuteronomy, together with his suicide on Mount Nebo.

And thus he died because he could not gratify at once his lust for power

and his instinct to live an honest man.

CHAPTER II.

The interval during which Moses led the exodus falls, naturally, into

three parts of unequal length. The first consists of the months which

elapsed between the departure from Ramses and the arrival at Sinai. The

second comprises the halt at Sinai, while the third contains the story

of the rest of his life, ending with Mount Nebo.

His trials began forthwith. The march was hardly a week old before

the column was in quasi-revolt because he had known so little of the

country, that he had led the caravan three days through a waterless

wilderness where they feared to perish from thirst. And matters grew

steadily worse. At Rephidim, “And the people murmured against Moses, and

said, Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to

kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?” Not impossibly

Moses may still, at this stage of his experiences, have believed in

himself, in the God he pretended to serve, and in his mission. At least

he made a feint of so doing. Indeed, he had to. Not to have done so

would have caused his instant downfall. He always had to do so, in every

emergency of his life. A few days later he was at his wits’ end. He

cried unto the Lord, “What shall I do unto this people? They be almost

ready to stone me.” In short, long before the congregation reached

Sinai, and indeed before Moses had fought his first battle with Amalek,

the people had come to disbelieve in Moses and also to question whether

there was such a god as he pretended.

“And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the

chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the Lord,

saying, Is the Lord among us, or not?”

“Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.” [Footnote:

Exodus xvii, 7, 8.]

Under such conditions it was vital to Moses to show resolution and

courage; but it was here that Moses, on the contrary, flinched; as he

usually did flinch when it came to war, for Moses was no soldier.

“And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men and go out, fight with

Amalek: to-morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of

God in mine hand.”

And Moses actually had the assurance to do as he proposed, nor did he

even have the endurance to stand. He made Aaron and Hur fetch a stone on

which he should sit and then hold up his hands for him, pretending the

while that when Moses held up his hands the Hebrews prevailed and when

he lowered them Amalek prevailed. Notwithstanding, Joshua won a victory.

But it may readily be believed that this performance of his functions

as a captain, did little to strengthen the credit of Moses among the

fighting men. Nor evidently was Moses satisfied with the figure that

he cut, nor was he confident that Joshua approved of him, for the Lord

directed Moses to make excuses, promising to do better the next time, by

assuring Joshua that “I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek

from under heaven.” This was the best apology Moses could make for his

weakness. However, the time had now come when Moses was to realize his

plan of meeting Jethro.

“And Jethro ... came with his sons and his wife unto Moses into the

wilderness, where he encamped at the mount of God: ... And Moses went

out to meet his father-in-law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and

they asked each other of their welfare; and they came into the tent.

“And Moses told his father-in-law all that the Lord had done unto

Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake, and all the travail that

had come upon them by the way, and how the Lord had delivered them....

“And Jethro said, Blessed be the Lord, who hath delivered you out of the

hand of the Egyptians.... Now I know that the Lord is greater than all

gods.... And Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with

Moses’ father-in-law before God.”

It is from all this very plain that Jethro had a controlling influence

over Moses, and was the proximate cause of much that followed. For the

next morning Moses, as was his custom, “sat to judge the people: and

the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.” And

when Jethro saw how Moses proceeded he remonstrated, “Why sittest thou

thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?”

And Moses replied: “Because the people come unto me to enquire of God.”

And Jethro protested, saying “The thing thou doest is not good. Thou

wilt surely wear away, both thou and this people that is with thee:

for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it

thyself alone.

“Hearken, ... I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee; Be

thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto

God.”

Then it was that Moses perceived that he must have a divinely

promulgated code. Accordingly, Moses made his preparations for a great

dramatic effect, and it is hard to see how he could have made them

better. For, whatever failings he may have had in his other capacities

as a leader, he understood his part as a magician.

He told the people to be ready on the third day, for on the third day

the Lord would come down in the sight of all upon Mount Sinai. But,

“Take heed to yourselves that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the

border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:

“There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned or shot

through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet

soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.”

It must be admitted that Moses either had wonderful luck, or that he had

wonderful judgment in weather, for, as it happened in the passage of the

Red Sea, so it happened here. At the Red Sea he was aided by a gale of

wind which coincided with a low tide and made the passage practicable,

and at Sinai he had a thunder-storm.

“And it came to pass on the third day, in the morning, that there were

thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice

of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the

camp trembled.” Moses had undoubtedly sent some thoroughly trustworthy

person, probably Joshua, up the mountain to blow a ram’s horn and to

light a bonfire, and the effect seems to have been excellent.

“And Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended

upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a

furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.

“And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and

louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice.

“And the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai, on the top of the mount; and

the Lord called Moses up to the top of the mount; and Moses went up.”

And the first thing that Moses did on behalf of the Lord was to “charge

the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of

them perish.”

And Moses replied to God’s enquiry, “The people cannot come up to Mount

Sinai: for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount.

“And the Lord said unto him, Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come

up, thou, and Aaron with thee: but let not the priests and the people

break through to come up unto the Lord, lest he break forth upon them.

“So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them.”

Whether the decalogue, as we know it, was a code of law actually

delivered upon Sinai, which German critics very much dispute as being

inconsistent with the stage of civilization at which the Israelites

had arrived, but which is altogether kindred to the Babylonish law with

which Moses was familiar, is immaterial for the present purpose. What

is essential is that beside the decalogue itself there is a considerable

body of law chiefly concerned with the position of servants or slaves,

the difference between assaults or torts committed with or without

malice, theft, trespass, and the regulation of the _lex talionis_. There

are beside a variety of other matters touched upon all of which may be

found in the 21st, 22d, and 23d chapters of Exodus.

Up to this point in his show Moses had behaved with discretion and

had obtained a complete success. The next day he went on to demand an

acceptance of his code, which he prepared to submit in form. But as a

preliminary he made ready to take Aaron and his two sons, together with

seventy elders of the congregation up the mountain, to be especially

impressed with a sacrifice and a feast which he had it in his mind to

organize. In the first place, “Moses ... rose up early in the morning,

and builded an altar, ... and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto

the Lord....

“And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the

people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be

obedient.”

Had Moses been content to end his ceremony here and to return to the

camp with his book of the covenant duly accepted as law, all might have

been well. But success seems to have intoxicated him, and he conceived

an undue contempt for the intelligence of his audience, being,

apparently, convinced that there were no limits to their credulity, and

that he could do with them as he pleased.

It was not enough for him that he should have them accept an ordinary

book admittedly written by himself. There was nothing overpoweringly

impressive in that. What he wanted was a stone tablet on which his

code should be engraved, as was the famous code of Hammurabi, which he

probably knew well, and this engraving must putatively be done by God

himself, to give it the proper solemnity.

To have such a code as this engraved either by himself or by any workman

he could take into the mountain with him, would be a work of time and

would entail his absence from the camp, and this was a very serious

risk. But he was over-confident and determined to run it, rather than be

baulked of his purpose,

“And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua; and Moses went up into the

mount of God.

“And he said unto the elders, Tarry you here for us, until we come again

unto you: and, behold, Aaron and Hur are with you: and if any man have

matters to do, let him come unto them. And Moses went into the midst

of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount

forty days and forty nights.”

But Moses had made the capital mistake of undervaluing the intelligence

of his audience. They had, doubtless, been impressed when Moses, as

a showman, had presented his spectacle, for Moses had a commanding

presence and he had chosen a wonderful locality for his performance.

But once he was gone the effect of what he had done evaporated and they

began to value the exhibition for what it really was. As men of common

sense, said they to one another, why should we linger here, if Moses has

played this trick upon us? Why not go back to Egypt, where at least we

can get something to eat? So they decided to bribe Aaron, who was venal

and would do anything for money.

“And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the

mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto

him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses,

the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is

become of him.”

When Aaron heard this proposition he showed no objection to accept,

provided the people made it worth his while to risk the wrath of Moses;

so he answered forthwith, “Break off the golden earrings, which are in

the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring

them unto me.”

These were the ornaments of which the departing Israelites had spoiled

the Egyptians and they must have been of very considerable value. At all

events, Aaron took them and melted them and made them into the image of

a calf, such as he had been used to see in Egypt. The calf was probably

made of wood and laminated with gold. Sir G. Wilkinson thinks that the

calf was made to represent Mnevis, with whose worship the Israelites had

been familiar in Egypt. Then Aaron proclaimed a feast for the next day

in honor of this calf and said, “To-morrow is a feast to the Lord,” and

they said, “These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of

the land of Egypt.”

“And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and

brought peace offerings: and the people sat down to eat and to drink,

and rose up to play.”

It was not very long before Moses became suspicious that all was not

right in the camp, and he prepared to go down, taking the two tables of

testimony in his hands. These stone tablets were covered with writing

on both sides, which must have taken a long time to engrave considering

that Moses was on a bare mountainside with probably nobody to help but

Joshua. Of course all that made this weary expedition worth the doing

was that, as the Bible says, “the tables were” to pass for “the work

of God, and the writing was the writing of God.” Accordingly, it is

not surprising that as Moses “came nigh unto the camp,” and he “saw

the calf, and the dancing”: that his “anger waxed hot, and he cast the

tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

“And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire,

and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the

children of Israel drink of it.

“And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that thou

hast brought so great a sin upon them?

“And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the

people, that they are set on mischief.

“For they said unto me, Make us gods, which shall go before us: for as

for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we

wot not what is become of him.

“And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off.

So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out

this calf.

“And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them

naked unto their shame among their enemies:)” that is to say, the

people had come to the feast unarmed, and without the slightest fear

or suspicion of a possible attack; then Moses saw his opportunity and

placed himself in a gate of the camp, and said: “Who is on the Lord’s

side? Let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves

together unto him.

“And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man

his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout

the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion,

and every man his neighbour.

“And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there

fell of the people that day about three thousand men.”

There are few acts in all recorded history, including the awful

massacres of the Albigenses by Simon de Montfort and the Abbot Arnold,

more indefensible than this wholesale murder by Moses of several

thousand people who had trusted him, and whom he had entrusted to the

care of his own brother, who participated in their crime, supposing

that they had committed any crime saving the crime of tiring of his

dictatorship.

The effect of this massacre was to put Moses, for the rest of his life,

in the hands of the Levites with Aaron at their head, for only by having

a body of men stained with his own crimes and devoted to his fortunes

could Moses thenceforward hope to carry his adventure to a good end.

Otherwise he faced certain and ignominious failure. His preliminary

task, therefore, was to devise for the Levites a reward which would

content them. His first step in this direction was to go back to the

mountain and seek a new inspiration and a revelation more suited to the

existing conditions than the revelation conveyed before the golden calf

incident.

Up to this time there is nothing in Jewish history to show that the

priesthood was developing into a privileged and hereditary caste. With

the consecration of Aaron as high priest the process began. Moses spent

another six weeks in seclusion on the mount. And as soon as he returned

to the camp he proclaimed how the people should build and furnish a

sanctuary in which the priesthood should perform its functions. These

directions were very elaborate and detailed, and part of the furnishings

of the sanctuary consisted in the splendid and costly garments for Aaron

and his sons “for glory and for beauty.”

“And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and

sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office. And

thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats: And thou shalt

anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister

unto me in the priest’s office: for their anointing shall surely be an

everlasting priesthood, throughout their generations.

“Thus did Moses: according to all that the Lord commanded him, so did

he.”

It followed automatically that, with the creation of a great vested

interest centred in an hereditary caste of priests, the pecuniary burden

on the people was correspondingly increased and that thenceforward

Moses became nothing but the representative of that vested interest: as

reactionary and selfish as all such representatives must be. How selfish

and how reactionary may readily be estimated by glancing at Numbers

XVIII, where God’s directions are given to Aaron touching what he was to

claim for himself, and what the Levites were to take as their wages for

service. It was indeed liberal compensation. A good deal more than much

of the congregation thought such services worth.

In the first place, Aaron and the Levites with him for their service

“of the tabernacle” were to have “all the tenth in Israel for an

inheritance.” But this was a small part of their compensation. There

were beside perquisites, especially those connected with the sacrifices

which the people were constrained to make on the most trifling

occasions; as, for example, whenever they became _unclean_, through some

accident, as by touching a dead body:

“This shall be thine of the most holy things, reserved from the fire:

every oblation of their’s, every meat offering of their’s, and every sin

offering of their’s, and every trespass offering of their’s, which they

shall render unto me, shall be most holy for thee and thy sons.

“In the most holy place shalt thou eat it; every male shall eat it; it

shall be holy unto thee.

“And this is thine.... All the best of the oil, and all the best of the

wine, and of the wheat, the first fruits of them which they shall offer

unto the Lord, them have I given thee; ... every one that is clean in

thine house shall eat of it.

“Everything devoted in Israel shall be thine....

“All the heave offerings of the holy things, which the children of

Israel offer unto the Lord, have I given thee, and thy sons and thy

daughters with thee, by a statute forever: it is a covenant of salt

forever before the Lord unto thee and to thy seed with thee.”

Also, on the taking of a census, such as occurred at Sinai, Aaron

received a most formidable perquisite.

The Levites were not to be numbered; but there was to be a complicated

system of redemption at the rate of “five shekels by the poll, after the

shekel of the sanctuary.”

“And Moses took the redemption money of them that were over and above

them that were redeemed by the Levites: Of the first-born of the

children of Israel took he the money; a thousand three hundred and three

score and five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary; And Moses

gave the money of them that were redeemed unto Aaron and to his sons.”

Assuming the shekel of those days to have weighed two hundred and

twenty-four grains of silver, its value in our currency would have been

about fifty-five cents, but its purchasing power, twelve hundred years

before Christ, would have been, at the very most moderate estimate, at

least ten for one, which would have amounted to between six and

seven thousand dollars in hard cash for no service whatever, which,

considering that the Israelites were a wandering nomadic horde in the

wilderness, was, it must be admitted, a pretty heavy charge for the

pleasure of observing the performances of Aaron and his sons, in their

gorgeous garments.

Also, under any sedentary administration it followed that the high

priest must become the most considerable personage in the community,

as well as one of the richest. And thus as payment for the loyalty to

himself of the Levites during the massacre of the golden calf, Moses

created a theocratic aristocracy headed by Aaron and his sons, and

comprising the whole tribe of Levi, whose advancement in fortune could

not fail to create discontent. It did so: a discontent which culminated

very shortly after in the rebellion of Korah, which brought on a

condition of things at Kadesh which contributed to make the position of

Moses intolerable.

Moses was one of those administrators who were particularly reprobated

by Saint Paul; Men who “do evil,” as in the slaughter of the feasters

who set up the golden calf, “that good may come,” and “whose damnation,”

therefore, “is just.” [Footnote: Romans III, 8.]

And Moses wrought thus through ambition, because, though personally

disinterested, he could not endure having his will thwarted. Aaron had

nearly the converse of such a temperament. Aaron appears to have had

few or no convictions; it mattered little to him whether he worshipped

Jehovah on Sinai or the golden calf at the foot of Sinai, provided he

were paid at his own price. And he took care to exact a liberal price.

Also the inference to be drawn from the way in which Moses behaved to

him is that Moses understood what manner of man he was.

Jethro stood higher in the estimation of Moses, and Moses did his best

to keep Jethro with him, but, apparently, Jethro had watched Moses

closely and was not satisfied with his conduct of the exodus. On the

eve of departure from Sinai, just as the Israelites were breaking camp,

Moses sought out Jethro and said to him; “We are journeying unto the

place of which the Lord said, I will give it you; come thou with us, and

we will do thee good; for the Lord has spoken good concerning Israel.

“And he said unto him, I will not go; but I will depart to mine own

land, and to my kindred.”

Not discouraged, Moses kept on urging: “Leave us not, I pray thee;

forasmuch as thou knowest how we are to encamp in the wilderness, and

thou mayest be to us instead of eyes.

“And it shall be, if thou go with us, yea, it shall be, that what

goodness the Lord shall do unto us, the same will we do unto thee.” It

has been inferred from a passage in Judges, [Footnote: Judges I, 16.]

that Moses induced Jethro to reconsider his refusal and that he did

accompany the congregation in its march to Kadesh, but, on the whole,

the text of the Bible fails to bear out such inference, for there is no

subsequent mention of Jethro in the books which treat directly of the

trials of the journey, although there would seem to have been abundant

occasion for Moses to have called upon Jethro for aid had Jethro been

present. In his apparent absence the march began, under the leadership

of the Lord and Moses, very much missing Jethro.

They departed from the mount: “And the cloud of the Lord was upon

them by day,” when they left the camp “to search out a resting-place.”

Certainly, on this occasion, the Lord selected a poor spot for the

purpose, quite different from such an one as Jethro would have

been expected to have pointed out; for the children of Israel began

complaining mightily, so much so that it displeased the Lord who sent

fire into the uttermost parts of the camp, where it consumed them.

“And the people cried unto Moses, and when Moses prayed unto the Lord,

the fire was quenched.”

This suggestion of a divine fire under the control of Moses opens an

interesting speculation.

The Magi, who were the priests of the Median religion, greatly developed

the practices of incantation and sorcery. Among these rites they

“pretended to have the power of making fire descend on to their altars

by means of magical ceremonies.” [Footnote: Lenormant, _Chaldean Magic_,

226, 238.] Moses appears to have been very fond of this particular

miracle. It is mentioned as having been effective here at Taberah, and

it was the supposed weapon employed to suppress Korah’s rebellion. Moses

was indeed a powerful enchanter. His relations with all the priestcraft

of central Asia were intimate, and if the Magi had secrets which were

likely to be of use to him in maintaining his position among the Jews,

the inference is that he would certainly have used them to the utmost;

as he did the brazen serpent, the ram’s horns at Sinai, and the like.

But in spite of all his miracles Moses found his task too heavy, and he

frankly confessed that he wished himself dead.

“Then Moses heard the people weep throughout their families... and the

anger of the Lord was kindled greatly; Moses also was displeased.

“And Moses said unto the Lord, Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy

servant? ... that thou layest the burden of all this people upon me?

“Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou

shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father

beareth the sucking child, unto the land which thou swarest unto their

fathers?

“Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? for they weep

unto me saying, Give us flesh that we may eat.

“I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy

for me.

“And if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if I

have found favour in thy sight; and let me not see my wretchedness.”

Leaving aside for the moment all our childish preventions, and

considering this evidence in the cold light of history, it becomes

tolerably evident that Moses had now reached the turning-point in his

career, the point whither he had inexorably tended since the day on

which he bid good-bye to Jethro to visit Egypt and attempt to gain

control of the exodus, and the point to which all optimists must

come who resolve to base a religious or a political movement on the

manipulation of the supernatural. However pure and disinterested the

motives of such persons may be at the outset, and however thoroughly

they may believe in themselves and in their mission, sooner or later,

to compass their purpose, they must resort to deception and thus become

impostors who flourish on the credulity of their dupes.

Moses, from the nature of the case, had to make such demands on the

credulity of his followers that even those who were bound to him by the

strongest ties of affection and self-interest were alienated, and those

without such commanding motives to submit to his claim to exact from

them absolute obedience, revolted, and demanded that he should be

deposed. The first serious trouble with which Moses had to contend

came to a head at Hazeroth, the second station after leaving Sinai. The

supposed spot is still used as a watering-place. There Miriam and Aaron

attacked Moses because they were jealous of his wife, whom they decried

as an “Ethiopian.” And they said, “Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by

Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?” Instantly, it became evident to

Moses that if this denial of his superior intimacy with God were to be

permitted, his supremacy must end. Accordingly the Lord came down “in

the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle,

and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth.” And the Lord

explained that he had no objection to a prophet; if any one among the

congregation had an ambition to be a prophet he would communicate with

him in a dream; but there must always be a wide difference between such

a man or woman and Moses with whom he would “speak mouth to mouth, even

apparently, and not in dark speeches.” And then God demanded irritably,

“Wherefore, then, were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”

“Afterward the cloud,” according to the Bible, departed and God with it.

Ever since the dawn of time the infliction of or the cure of disease has

been the stronghold of the necromancer, the wise man, the magician, the

saint, the prophet and the priest, and Moses was no exception to the

rule, only hitherto he had had no occasion to display his powers of this

kind. Nevertheless, among the Hebrews of the exodus, the field for this

form of miracle was large. Leprosy was very prevalent, so much so that

in Egypt the Jews were called a nation of lepers. And in the camp the

regulations touching them were strict and numerous. But the Jews were

always a dirty race.

In chapter XIII of Leviticus, elaborate directions are given as to how

the patient shall be brought before Aaron himself, or at least some

other of the priests, who was to examine the sore and, if it proved to

be a probable case of leprosy, the patient was to be excluded from the

camp for a week. At the end of that time the disease, if malignant, was

supposed to show signs of spreading, in which case there was no cure

and the patient was condemned to civil death. On the contrary, if no

virulent symptoms developed during the week, the patient was pronounced

clean and returned to ordinary life.

The miracle in the case of Miriam was this: When the cloud departed from

off the tabernacle, Miriam was found to be “leprous, white as snow,”

just as Moses’ hand was found to be white with leprosy after his

conversation with the Lord at the burning bush. Upon this Aaron, who had

been as guilty as Miriam, and was proportionately nervous, made a prayer

to Moses: “Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us,

wherein we have done foolishly.... Let her not be as one dead.

“And Moses cried unto the Lord, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech

thee.”

But the Lord replied: “If her father had but spit in her face, should

she not be ashamed seven days? Let her be shut out from the camp seven

days, and after that let her be received in again.”

This was the Mosaic system of discipline. And it was serious for all

parties concerned. Evidently it was very serious for Miriam, who had to

leave her tent and be exiled to some spot in the desert, where she had

to shift for herself. We all know the almost intolerable situation

of those unfortunates who, in the East, are excluded from social

intercourse, and sit without the gate, and are permitted to approach no

one. But it was also a serious infliction for the congregation, since

Miriam was a personage of consequence, and had to be waited for. That is

to say, a million or two of people had to delay their pilgrimage

until Moses had determined how much punishment Miriam deserved for her

insubordination, and this was a question which lay altogether within the

discretion of Moses. In that age there were at least seven varieties

of eruptions which could hardly, if at all, be distinguished, in their

early stages, from leprosy, and it was left to Moses to say whether or

not Miriam had been attacked by true leprosy or not. There was no one,

apparently, to question his judgment, for, since Jethro had left the

camp, there was no one to controvert the Mosaic opinion on matters such

as these. Doubtless Moses was content to give Aaron and Miriam a fright;

but also Moses intended to make them understand that they lay absolutely

at his mercy.

After this outbreak of discontent had been thus summarily suppressed and

Miriam had been again received as “clean,” the caravan resumed its march

and entered into the wilderness of Paran, which adjoined Palestine, and

from whence an invasion of Canaan, if one were to be attempted, would

be organized. Accordingly Moses appointed a reconnaissance, who in the

language of the Bible are called “spies,” to examine the country, report

its condition, and decide whether an attack were feasible.

On this occasion Moses seems to have remembered the lesson he learned

at Sinai. He did not undertake to leave the camp himself for a long

interval. He sent the men whom he supposed he could best trust, among

whom were Joshua and Caleb. These men, who corresponded to what, in

a modern army, would be called the general-staff, were not sent to

manufacture a report which they might have reason to suppose would

be pleasing to Moses, but to state precisely what they saw and heard

together with their conclusions thereon, that they might aid their

commander in an arduous campaign; and this duty they seem, honestly

enough, to have performed. But this was very far from satisfying Moses,

who wanted to make a strenuous offensive, and yet sought some one else

to take the responsibility therefor.

The spies were absent six weeks and when they returned were divided in

opinion. They all agreed that Canaan was a good land, and, in verity,

flowing with milk and honey. But the people, most of them thought, were

too strong to be successfully attacked. “The cities were walled and very

great,” and moreover “we saw the children of Anak there.”

“The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south; and the Hittites,

and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains; and the

Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.

“And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at

once, ... for we are well able to overcome it.

“But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against

the people; for they are stronger than we.