The Christian Creed; or, What it is Blasphemy to Deny Part 2

Soon after this a wonderful battle took place, in which Israel fought against Amalek, and "it came to pa.s.s when Moses held up his hand that Israel prevailed, and when he let down his hand Amalek prevailed" (Ex.

xvii., 11). The relation of cause and effect is not clear, but it is satisfactory to know that Moses' hands were held up by main force until evening stopped the slaughter.

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

Chapters xix. and xx. of Exodus can only be believed by those who have not risen above the most anthropomorphic conception of their G.o.d. G.o.d is everywhere, yet Moses went backwards and forwards between the people and G.o.d (xix., 3-9). G.o.d is everywhere, yet Moses "brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with G.o.d" (v., 17), and "the Lord descended upon" a particular mountain (v. 18), and "came down upon Mount Sinai, on the top of the mount" (v. 20). G.o.d is invisible, one "whom no man hath seen nor can see" (1 Tim. vi., 16), whom "no man hath seen at any time"

(John L, 18); yet he was afraid lest the people should "break through unto the Lord to gaze" (Ex. xix., 21), and up the mount went "Moses, and Aaron, and Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and they saw the G.o.d of Israel" (Ex. xxiv., 9, 10). G.o.d dwells "in the light which no man can approach unto" (1 Tim. vi., 16), and "G.o.d is light and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John i., 5); yet "Moses drew near onto the thick darkness where G.o.d was" (Ex. xx., 21). It is blasphemy to deny that all these contradictions are true.

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

20). "The first-born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen and with thy sheep" (vv. 29, 30). Is it credible that by the law of England it should be blasphemy to deny that these horrible commands are "of divine authority"?

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

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

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

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

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

It is blasphemy to deny that "the Lord spake unto Moses face to face"

(Ex. x.x.xiii., 11); also it is blasphemy to deny that G.o.d told Moses: "Thou canst not see my face, for there shall no man see me and live" (v.

20, compare with ch. xxiv., 10, 11). And while it is blasphemy to deny that G.o.d is "without parts" (Art 1), it is equally blasphemy to deny that he has "back parts" (Ex. x.x.xiii., 23). Either the Prayer Book or the Bible clearly needs revision; meanwhile it is blasphemy to deny either.

It is interesting to observe the fas.h.i.+on in which Christians pick and choose among the commandments given "by divine authority" while they imprison heretics for attacking those of which they, in their turn, disapprove. Thus we have (Ex. x.x.xv., 2, 3): "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord; whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day." The Sabbatarians quote verse 2 as a reason for shutting up all museums and art galleries on "the Lord's day," and they abuse as rebels against the law of G.o.d all the liberal-minded of their own creed. But they quietly ignore verse 3, because that would cause discomfort to themselves, and the very peers who, in the House of Lords, vote to shut working men out of art education go home to sit over their comfortable fires, and to wander through their own galleries wanned by a fire kindled against their G.o.d's direct command. Wonderful, indeed, are the ways of religious men!

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

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

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

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

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

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

But though the Christians punish other people for unbelief they are thorough infidels themselves in all practical matters. They would far rather trust Sir James Hannen than dirty holy water, when they suspect conjugal infidelity.

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

(v. 20). Yet it is blasphemy to say that G.o.d changes his purpose.

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

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

(Matt, xii., 2), when they gathered corn.

The poor Pharisees tried to obey the law as given by Jahveh; their reward was to be condemned by his son. Yet it is blasphemy to deny that "I and my Father are one" (John x., 30).

It is blasphemy to deny that Jahveh commanded the Israelites to "make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a riband of blue: and it shall be unto you for a fringe" (Numbers xv., 38, 39).

It is hard to believe, though it is blasphemy to deny, that the "Eternal Spirit" troubled himself about "a fringe."

It is blasphemy to deny that there is a "pit," within the earth, into which people may fall alive, when the earth opens her mouth and swallows them up; further, that Korah, Dathan and Abiram, their wives, their sons and their little children, were so swallowed up, and "went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them" (Numb, xvi., 27-33).

It is blasphemy to deny that a plague so fierce that it slew 14,700 people in a few hours could be stopped by a man with a censer full of incense who "stood between the dead and the living" (xvi., 46-49). One can only suppose that the plague advanced steadily across the camp, like a fog, killing every person it covered. Thus only could a man stand between the living and the dead. Yet no such advancing destruction is known to history.

It is blasphemy to deny that a dry old rod belonging to Aaron blossomed miraculously when eleven other dry old rods behaved in the normal fas.h.i.+on (xvii., 2-9). And not only did Aaron's rod bud and blossom, but it also yielded almonds, and this all in the course of one night. It is blasphemy to suggest that Moses, Aaron's brother, who took the rods and who hid them "before the Lord in the tabernacle of witness," quietly subst.i.tuted a blooming and fruiting branch in the place of his brother's rod, and yet this would be the explanation which would be at once suggested if a similar trick were played now-a-days. But in those easy-going and credulous times very little skill was needed to impose upon a crowd ready to be deceived.

It is interesting to note, in pa.s.sing, the admirable provision made by Jahveh-through the mouth of his servant, Moses -for Aaron and his family. "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. And whatsoever is first ripe in the land, which they shall bring unto the Lord, shall be thine" (Numb, xviii., 12, 13). This claim on the part of the priesthood has never been regarded as part of that ceremonial law which has been "done away in Christ."

The story of Balaam is one of the tests to which true faith must be submitted. We learn in this that when Balak sent to ask Balaam to go to him that he might curse Israel, G.o.d at first commanded him not to go (Numbers xxii., 12), but a little later commanded him to go (20). G.o.d, as we know, never changes. When Balaam obeyed G.o.d's command and went, "G.o.d's anger was kindled against him because he went" (22), that is because Balaam did what G.o.d told him to do, and "the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him." Balaam was riding on a donkey, and the donkey saw the angel, though no one else did, "and the a.s.s turned aside out of the way." Again the angel placed himself in front of the donkey, and the donkey squeezed past him, crus.h.i.+ng Balaam's foot against the wall. For the third time the angel confronted the donkey, and on this occasion in a narrow place, "where there was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left." Then the donkey tumbled down. Balaam was, not unnaturally, disturbed at his donkey's extraordinary behavior, and he had struck her each time that she had, as he thought, misbehaved. And now occurred a wonderful thing. "The Lord opened the mouth of the a.s.s, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the a.s.s, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in my hand, for now would I kill thee. And the a.s.s said unto Balaam, Am not I thine a.s.s, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay."

Sensible persons are expected to believe this absurd story of a conversation between a man and a donkey. Peter speaks of it without any expression of doubt, saying: "the dumb a.s.s, speaking with man's voice, forbad the madness of the prophet" (2 Peter ii., 16). It is blasphemy to deny it; it is madness to believe it. Balaam's a.s.s stands on a level with Mahomet's, and only the credulous and superst.i.tious can yield credence to the stories of either.

It is not worth while to delay over Balaam's rhapsodies, except to note their extreme inaccuracy. "G.o.d is not a man that he should lie" (Numbers xxiii,, 19); yet "I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet" (Ezech. xiv., 9). "Nor the son of man that he should repent" (Numbers xxiii., 19); yet "it repented the Lord that he had made man" (Gen. vi., 6). "He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel"

(Numbers xxiii., 21); yet, "I have seen this people, and behold it is a stiff-necked people;" "how long will this people provoke me?" (Exodus x.x.xii., 9, and Numbers xiv., 11). This declaration is the more startling when we find Moses- whose acquaintance with the people was more intimate than that of Balaam-saying: "Remember, and forget not, how thou provokedst the Lord thy G.o.d to wrath in the wilderness; from the day that thou didst depart out of the land of Egypt, until ye came unto this place, ye have been rebellious against the Lord.... Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you" (Deut. ix., 7 and 24). It is needless to acc.u.mulate these contradictory statements, all of which we are commanded to believe on peril of d.a.m.nation.

Immediately after Balaam's declaration of Israel's holiness, we read how the people reverted to idolatry, and how "the anger of the Lord was kindled against them" (Numbers xxv., 3). Some more murders were committed to pacify Jahveh, and he himself slew 24,000 by a plague.

In Numbers x.x.xi. we have one of the most horrible stories related even in the Bible, the story of the slaughter of the Midianites. Jahveh sent his tribes against this unhappy race, and, after their usual wicked fas.h.i.+on, they "slew all the males." Moved, however, by an unwonted touch of pity, they "took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones," and brought them alive back to their camp. Moses, Jahveh's friend, "was wroth with the officers of the host" for their unworthy humanity, and shrieked out in his rage: "Have ye saved all the women alive?" And then he commanded them to "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman" that had been married, "but all the women children that" were virgins "keep alive for yourselves." This bloodthirsty and loathsome command is of "divine authority." It is blasphemy to deny that it was G.o.d-given. Yet what of the blasphemy that ascribes an order so fiendish to "the G.o.d of the spirits of all flesh?"

These baby boys and prattling children, kill every one; these mothers and matrons of Midian, murder them one after another. Such is the command of Jahveh, who said: "Thou shalt not kill." And these fair and pure maidens, these helpless women-children, whose natural guardians ye have slain, keep these for the satisfactions of your pa.s.sions. Such is the command of Jahveh, who said: "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Some of these fair girls were claimed as "the Lord's tribute," 352 in all. These were handed over to the Levites, and small doubt can be felt as to their fate.

To add a touch of the comic to this tragic scene, we learn that after all the fighting and the slaughter, not one solitary Israelite was missing, while the Midianitish nation, of which not a male was left alive, turns up again later as merrily as though it had never been destroyed, and "prevailed against Israel, and because of the Midianites the children of Israel made them the dens which are in the mountains, and caves, and strongholds" (Judges vi., 2).

The book of Deuteronomy is awkward for the true believer, because it is a recital of the story related in the preceding book, and constantly contradicts the previous narrative. Thus Moses commands Israel to make no likeness or similitude of Jahveh on the ground that when he spake to them "out of the midst of the fire," "ye heard the voice of the words but saw no similitude" (Deut. iv., 12); yet turning back we read that seventy-four of them "saw the G.o.d of Israel, and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the n.o.bles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw G.o.d" (Ex. xxiv., 10,11). It can scarcely be pretended that when they saw a visible being with "feet"

and a "hand," they "saw no similitude."

In Deut. v., 15, the reason for keeping holy the sabbath day is different from the reason given in Ex. xx., 11. Both of these are given as the very words of Jahveh, spoken from "h.o.r.eb" or "Sinai." One of the versions must be inaccurate, yet it is blasphemy to deny either. In Deut. v., 22, Moses says that after the ten commandments "he added no more." In Exodus he added a large number of other commands (see xx.-xxiii.).

We learn in Deut. viii., 4, that during the forty years wasted in the wilderness "thy raiment waxed not old upon thee." This was very satisfactory for the adults, but what happened to the growing children?

The raiment of a week-old baby can scarcely have been suitable to the man of forty; did the clothes grow with the body, and as the numbers of the people increased very much during the forty years, were new clothes born as well as new babies? If such questions are regarded as blasphemous, I can only answer that they are suggested by Moses'

a.s.sertion of the remarkable durability of the raiment, and raiment that did not become old might surely also grow and reproduce itself. Once begin miracle-working on old clothes, and none can say how far it may go.

It is blasphemy to a.s.sert that it is wrong to swear, for the Bible commands: "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy G.o.d.... and swear by his name"

(Deut. x., 20). It is blasphemy to a.s.sert that it is right to swear, for the Bible commands: "Swear not at all" (Matt, v., 34).

Deuteronomy xiii., from the first verse to the last, is a disgrace to the book in which it is contained, and a scandal to the community which permits it to be circulated as of divine authority. Yet it is blasphemy to attack it and to show its horrible atrocity. If a prophet or dreamer arise and try to turn away the Hebrews from Jahveh, then they are told: "The Lord your G.o.d proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your G.o.d" (v. 3). Yet, although it is Jahveh's own doing, that unfortunate "prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death" (v. 5). The same fate is to befall "thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul" (v. 6), if such try to turn any away from Jahveh's wors.h.i.+p; with a refinement of cruelty, devilish in its wickedness, "thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death" (v. 9). The wife, pa.s.sionately loved, is to see her husband, in whose bosom she has lain, raise his hand against her, foremost of a howling mob, greedy for her blood. The daughter is to clasp her father's knees in vain; he must strike her down as she clings to him in her agony. The trusting and trusted friend is to be betrayed to the slaughterers, and the hand most closely grasped in love is to be the first to catch up the heavy stone and to beat out the faithful life. And it is blasphemy to cry out against this horror, but not blasphemy to ascribe its invention to the G.o.d "whose tender mercy is over all his works."

The murder commenced in the family circle is to be continued in the national policy. If a city of the Hebrews reject Jahveh, "thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword" (v. 15); nothing is to escape, a burning bloodstained ruin is to be left "for the Lord thy G.o.d" (v. 16), and then Jahveh will bless his brutal servants, who have done "that which is right in the eyes of the Lord thy G.o.d" (v. 18). This command is of divine authority, and has been largely obeyed in Christendom, but people have fortunately become too civilised to carry it out now.

In Deut. xiv., some of the natural history blunders of Lev. xi. are repeated. It is confusing, however, after reading in Lev. xi., 21-23, "these may ye eat, of every flying creeping thing," etc., to find in Deut. xiv., 19, "Every creeping thing that flieth is unclean unto you; they shall not be eaten." So that the Israelites are deprived of those remarkable four-legged locusts, beetles and gra.s.shoppers which "have legs above their feet." (Do other animals carry their feet above their legs?) It is delightful to find Moses speaking of a bat as a bird; clearly in those days the schoolmaster was not abroad, but it is hard that we should be compelled to choose between the blasphemy of speaking of the bat as a mammal, and the falsehood of treating it as a bird. A beautiful touch of generosity is to be found in v. 21: "Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself; thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien."

The general law of warfare laid down in Deut. xx., 10-15, is brutal in the extreme. If any foreign city ventures to defend itself against Hebrew aggression, and closes its gates against the invader, then it is to be besieged, and "when the Lord thy G.o.d hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt Smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword."

A yet worse fate is to be dealt out to the cities of Palestine, for in these "thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth" (v. 16). Of course such method of war has nothing surprising, when we consider the cruelty and barbarism of the Eastern nations of which the Hebrews were one, but it is surprising that in the nineteenth century the b.l.o.o.d.y customs of a savage tribe should be set forth as founded on "divine authority."

If possible, still viler is the treatment of captive women; when thou "seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her that thou wouldst have her to thy wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thine house.... and after that thou shalt.... be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be if thou have no delight in her," thy pa.s.sions being satisfied, "then thou shalt let her go whither she will"

(Deut. xxi., 11-14). No wonder that prost.i.tution is rife in every Christian city, when this command is placed before young men's eyes as "of divine authority." Similar low views are taken in Deut. xxiv., 1.