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 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!'" '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, 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.
