In dealing with the laws of the Jews, I feel compelled to avoid very
many texts on account of their disgusting nature; but generally I
may remark that it is evident the Jews must have been an ignorant,
viciously-inclined, unintellectual, and thoroughly-depraved people, or
such laws would never have been required. If God chose the best people
on the earth, the state of the whole of the human family must have been
very bad indeed. My reason for avoiding the above-mentioned class of
texts is twofold; first, although I think them fair matter for comment,
I have no wish to offend or insult any reader who, from his or her
mode of education, has been taught to regard such subjects as unfit
for discussion; second, I am not quite certain that the 'Society for
Suppression of Vice,' or some kindred society, may not be induced to
again attack works of this class, in which case I have no wish to afford
the counsel for the prosecution an opportunity of declaiming against my
obscene style, but wish, if possible, to compel my most severe critics
to admit that I have been more choice in my phraseology than the writers
of the Book they defend.
*Chapter, v. 3. The Douay reads--'If his offering be a holocaust, and
of the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish at the door of the
testimony _to make the Lord favourable to him_.' It will be perceived
that the words italicised are not contained in, our version at all.
The holocaust, or whole burnt offering, is so called because the whole
victim was consumed with fire, and ascended, as we are told in verse 9,
'with a sweet savour to the Lord.' What elevated conceptions {66} of the
Deity are here conveyed; an infinite God, whose favour is granted to the
man who burns the most sheep or oxen; a just and immutable God, to whom
the sweet savour of roast mutton is an acceptable expiatory equivalent
on behalf of a murderer, a robber, or other criminal.
*Chapter ii., vv. 3 and 10. The priests are not neglected in this
revelation.
Verse 13. Without salt the sacrifice would be incomplete. Query. Was
not the salt rather required by the priests than by God? It is easy to
understand why a man wishes for salt to season his meat, but it is not
so easy to comprehend the same requisition on the part of a God.
*Chapter vi., v. 13. This fire must have been out several times,
especially since the last conquest of Jerusalem. Where is it burning at
the present time? By reference to chap, ix., v. 24, and chap, x., vv. 1
and 2, it would seem that this fire came from God himself.
*Chapter vii., vv. 23 to 27. Those are cruel and useless laws. The
punishment of death is strangely disproportioned to the offence; and
unless the law has become obsolete, we must wonder that God allows the
manufacturers and consumers of articles of food, made from the blood and
fat of animals, to escape unpunished in the present day.
*Chapter xi. It is difficult to conceive the reason why, in the list of
articles fit for food, eels should be forbidden as having no scales, and
classed as unclean with hares and swans, while locusts, grasshoppers,
and beetles are permitted. The Douay gives entirely different names to
some of the prohibited animals, mentioning, amongst others, the griffin,
an animal whose existence is much doubted. No naturalist has ever yet
described it to us, it is only mentioned in a few old fables.
*Chapter xvi., vv. 21 and 22. 'And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon
the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of
the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins,
putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away, by the
hand of a fit man, into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him
all their iniquities into a land not inherited, and he shall let go the
goat into the wilderness.' Is not this supremely ridiculous? and the
absurdity is only heightened by the inutility, for I do not find that
the Israelites were ever let off from any punishment by reason of the
scapegoat. The doctrine of the scapegoat has gained considerably of
late; and it is the custom when an outcry is raised against the actors
in any public grievance, to offer up some person (who generally is
innocent of all participation in the offence) as a scapegoat.
'The Egyptians had a similar custom, as we learn from Herodotus, Book 2,
chap. 39, who relates it in these words:--
'"After they have killed the goat, they cut off its head, but they flay
the animal's body, after which, having pronounced many imprecations on
the head, those who have a market and Grecian merchants dwelling among
them, carry it thither and sell it to them; but those who have
no Grecian residents to sell it to, throw the head into the fire,
pronouncing over it the following imprecations:--'If any evil is about
to befall either those that now sacrifice, or Egypt in general, may it
be averted on this head!'" {67} 'The two customs, though not perfectly
the same, are so far similar that the one appears to have been derived
from the other. The import of both is certainly the same; for in both
the goat is made use of as a substitute to draw away calamity from the
party sacrificing; in the one case being sent into the wilderness, and
in the other consumed by fire.'
*Chapter xvii., vv. 3 and 4. The absurdity of this command will be
apparent upon the slightest examination. If the Jews were as numerous as
is represented when in Egypt, and continued to increase and multiply
in the same ratio, they would have filled a very large portion of the
earth's surface; but even allowing for biblical exaggeration, it would
have been impossible for a people, amounting to several hundreds of
thousands, to have all slaughtered their cattle at one spot (the door
of the Tabernacle); and if they had done so, judging from the appearance
and odour of modern slaughterhouses, I can scarcely think that the
'holiest of holies' would have been at the same time 'the sweetest of
sweets.' It would have been still more impossible for each individual
to have brought (perhaps from a distance of several miles) each an ox,
lamb, or goat killed. It is not at all probable, in a nation so ignorant
as the Jews, that the people possessed carts and waggons for the purpose
of transporting the dead cattle to and fro, and if they had, the waste
of labour would have been enormous. The severe penalty of death is all
that is required to make this essentially one of 'God's laws.' What
would be said if all the slaughtered cattle in England were, by Act of
Parliament, compelled, under penalty of death, to be brought to the door
of St. Paul's Cathedral to have the fat and blood taken from them?
Verse 7, chap, xix., w. 26 and 31, chap, xx., vv. 6 and 27. What are
devils? If God is the Creator of all things, did he create devils? If
so, it is scarcely just to punish us for falling victims to devils, whom
God must have made sufficiently powerful to tempt us to the commission
of crime. If otherwise, are devils independent existences, because in
that case the Deity is not omnipotent. They are neither; devils, angels,
gods, familiar spirits and demons, all stand in the same mythological
position. They belong to the past, not to the present. They belong to
the age of ignorance, not of inquiry. We find in such verses as these
the clue to the superstitious fear with which the inhabitants of some
little villages still regard certain old men and women; we find in them
also the clue to the persecutions for witchcraft in the reign of King
James, etc. Strong objections have been urged against the doctrine of
devils, demons, and familiar spirits. It is said by Theists that it is
contrary to all natural conceptions of the benevolence and mercy of the
Deity; that he should have created, and should sustain in existence,
beings of the highest intellectual order to be the subjects of eternal
misery, not only to themselves, but to all humanity. It is further urged
that the doctrine detracts from the power of God by holding forth an
almost omnipotent chief of a legion of powerful and mischievous
devils, all bent on the destruction of mankind. It is further, and very
reasonably, urged that the Jews, {68} especially alter their connection
with the Chaldean and Persian nations, had imbibed very extended, and,
at the same time, very puerile ideas with regard to the operations of
both good and bad spirits. The properties of plants, of mineral waters,
of minerals, of certain climatic conditions, the existence of any
remarkable phenomena, the insanity of men, or animals, were all
attributed to the presence and influence of good and bad spirits. Sound
science has exploded these errors; and why should not the whole mass
of demonology be rejected as exploded also (_vide_ Farmer on the
'Demoniacs,' and Pye Smith's 'Christian Theology')?
*Chapter xxvi. It is worthy of notice that in this chapter, which
professes
to describe the reward for obedience to God's laws, and the punishment
for disobedience, no reference whatever is made to a future state.
The rewards are temporal--viz., good harvests, and easy victory over
enemies, etc. The punishments are also temporal--viz., painful defeat
in battle, sterile land, captivity, starvation, etc Not a word about the
soul, or about heaven, or hell; yet a chapter like this seems a place in
which, if such a doctrine had been held by the writer, we should expect
to find some traces of it; temporal punishment of a very severe kind
is threatened, but nothing occurs wnich can in any way lead us to a
spiritual punishment; death seems to be the highest penalty, and
the author of the Pentateuch did not contemplate the possibility
of tormenting men after they were dead--this was reserved for more
enlightened ages.
*Chapter xxvii., vv. 28 and 29, has been noticed on page 54.
Verses 30 to 33. The clergy are very zealous in conserving their claims
under these verses (which of course apply to the whole world). They act
as the Lord's representatives, and take the Lord's share to themselves.
The Book of Leviticus only claims our attention under two phases--first,
as a revelation from God: and second, as a code of laws. It cannot be
a revelation from an immutable God, because it alleges that God is
influenced in his conduct by particular kinds of sacrifice: it cannot be
a revelation from an all-wise and just God, because it contains trifling
and absurd commands enforced by severe penalties; it cannot be a
revelation from an all-powerful and infinitely good Creator, because it
treats of devils and bad spirits, either having independent or permitted
power to commit evil. As a code of laws, it is utterly inapplicable to
the present state of society; and, in fact, seems mainly intended to
support and benefit the priests (placing the government in their hands),
but is utterly without utility as regards the people, the punishments
are mostly very disproportionate, and for breaches of the ceremonial law
unnecessarily severe. {69}