Imagini ale paginilor

women as discussed by Mr. Ingersoll and the Father, it matters little, both being bad enough.

Some rays of light we see amidst thick darkness in the history of all nations—some glimmering stars of the olden time which have become suns in the intellectual and moral firmament of the present. All else how dark! Like the Father, when he says with regard to woman's position in heathen countries, “I refer you to these authors, as it would not be proper to quote their descriptions of life, manners and worship in those countries in a book like this," so I, with kindred delicacy, would rather refer than quote, when I write of the treatment to which women were subject under Jewish rule and law; for instance as delineated in the twenty-first and twenty-second chapters of Deuteronomy.

We are referred in the “ Notes " to the incestuous marriages, as permitted in Egypt, Chaldea, Persia, Greece, etc.

But whom did Cain marry if not his sister ? Whom did Abraham marry ?

“And yet indeed she [Sarah] is my sister; she is the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife" (Genesis xx. 12). And by God's express command cousins married cousins (Numbers xxxvi. 10, 11). Again if a man refused to marry his brother's widow, she was commanded to spit in his face in the presence of the elders !

This is Jewish history written by Jewish historians under claim of inspiration ! With Renan, I regard Paul as the greatest of the apos

I tles: not perfect nor free from the prejudices of his times; yet, always brave and fervently eloquent in the advocacy of truth as he believed it, he did more to break down the narrow partition wall of race which Judaism had erected than all the other apostles combined

The right of woman is to fulfil the highest destiny which she is mentally, morally and physically qualified to reach. Law has made harsh discriminations against her, but her condition is being vastly improved. In England to-day she has a higher legal status than here. But this is not the place to discuss specific measures of reform.



Adam, Eve, and the Serpent—The Comparative Merits of Jews and Heathens

Carrion Flesh for Strangers and Aliens—The God of the Jews Established Slavery—“Exterminate" defined—William Penn and the Indians.

[ocr errors]

The allegation that Eve was the cause of human sin, sorrow, and death, is denied by the Father, who terms her not the cause but the occasion of evil. A pretty decided “occasion” was she who took the first bite and, with her nature defiled, passed the apple to her husband that he might eat of it and, like the gods, be wise and know good from evil.

As represented in Scripture, the snake was the first cause of transgression, woman the second cause, and Adam the third. It required a succession of causes to bring “sin into the world with all our woe,” some six thousand years ago, in the face of science, which declares, modestly speaking, that man has inhabited this earth for tens of thousands of years, and that death reigned over the animal kingdom decades of thousands before man's advent. Yet stick to it:

" In Adam's fall
We sinned all.”

For theology requires a denial of the gospel of the rocks, as well as a sacrifice of human sympathy, to maintain her structural symmetry. Churches, as constituted, could not be maintained without it. Regarding the comparative demerits of the Jews and of the “godless heathen," I remark, if ever there was a more heartless, sensual, idolatrous race than the Jews, as Scripture depicts them, God pity that people. We have the authority of Fenelon, Catholic Archbishop of Tours, that the Jews were not “one jot less corrupted” than the heathen, whom the Father, in chapter viii., assures us were worthy of extermination because so wicked! Many things which Scripture records of the Jews would shock the ears of decency: we dare not quote, scarcely refer. But as an example of ụnalloyed unselfishness, of justice clarified, of sanctity that passeth understanding, refer to Deuteronomy xiv. 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: for thou art an holy people unto the Lord.” Why complain of the Jew to-day if he sell you shoddy clothing, when the Lord gave him license to dispose of carrion flesh to the stranger and the alien ? I animadvert not the race. It is in many respects noble, and always glorious in its persistence, even against persecution and proscription, which no other nation-for though scattered, it is a nation still-ever endured. The Jew of to-day would not feel himself justified in vending discased carcasses to the Gentiles, refusing to eat the same himself, because he is of a people "holy unto the Lord.” The car of human progress is

“ moving and the Jew is in the front seat. Even when cast out he clings to its sides and endeavors to keep apace.

keep apace. Let us not forget, in the pride of our boasted civilization, that our British ancestors but a few hundred years ago dressed in skins, lived in caves, and, under the auspices of a Druidical priesthood, sacrificed human beings in wicker-baskets.

The past degeneracy of our race is inconceivable; the possibilities of its future incalculable. Men stand aghast with horror at the idea of being the descendants of monkeys. Yet who would not rather be a monkey than a cannibal, or a theological monster, which has imbued its hands" until thicker than themselves with brother's blood,” because that brother, in the independence of honest thought, could not offer up conscience on the altar of creed !

It gives us no pleasure to dwell upon the abominations of past time. We must read of them, for they are a part of history; yet ignorance mitigates crime, and we should not expect to find the same high standard of morality among barbarous as among civilized peoples. But when asked to endorse revolting crime, and to justify it with a “ Thus saith the Lord,” every humane soul, not bound by chains forged in the smithery of superstition, protests.

The Father objects to the statement that God, as represented in the Old Testament, established slavery. We are told there is a distinction between “permit” and “establish.” True, but was not Jehovah, when he issued his mandates regarding slavery, the ruler of the Jewish people? Suppose the Czar of Russia should issue a ukase, saying to his people, “ You shall not enslave your brethren proper, but of the Cossacks and Polanders you may buy both bondmen and bondmaids-hold them for life, and leave them an inheritance for your children.” Would


not say the Czar had established slavery in his dominions ? A decree of permission which culminates in practical adoption by the people to whom it is addressed is an establishment.

The aggressive wars of the Jews, we are told, were not wars of annihilation but of extermination, and that “exterminate, from ex and terminus, means to drive from the borders, to expel, to drive out," and that “this the Jews did to the Canaanites just as we are exterminating the Indians from this continent."

In confidence, Father (I will not whisper it to the illiterate; will not open the eyes of your blind, nor the ears of your

« ÎnapoiContinuați »