10 And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath;

11 And her husband heard _it_, and held his peace at her, _and_ disallowed her not; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hound her soul shall stand.

12 But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard _them_; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the Lord shall forgive her.

13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.

14 But if the husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them.

15 But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity.

16 These are the statutes, which the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, _being yet_ in her youth in her father's house.

Between man and his G.o.d they tell us there is no one but a Redeemer; but between woman and man's G.o.d there seems to be all her male relations, which, I should think, would prevent any very close intimacy. And by the time the divine commands to woman were filtered through the entire male population, from Moses to the last gentleman who, in the confusion natural to the occasion, misquotes "with all _thy_ worldly goods I _me_ endow," I should think it not impossible that some slight errors may have crept in, and the Church should not feel offended if I were to aid her in their detection.

Here we have two or three pa.s.sages that are said to be the words of Jesus. I hope that is not true. But I, believing him to have been a man, can understand how they might have been the words of even a very good man in that age and with his surroundings; but the words of a perfect being--never! Of course I know that we have no positive knowledge of any of the words of Jesus, since no one pretends that they were ever written down until long after his death; but I am dealing now with the theological creation upon the theologian's own grounds. My own idea of Jesus places him far above the myth that bears his name.

3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

4 Jesus saith unto her, _Woman, what have I to do with thee?_

--John ii, 3-4.

I hope that Christ did not say that--for his manhood I hope so. I would rather believe that this is the mistake of some "uninspired" writer than think that one who in much had so gentle and tender a nature, was unkind and brutal to his mother. No one would attempt, in this age, to apologize for such a reply to so simple a remark made by a mother to her son. But they say "he was divine." They also tell us he was a perfect example; but with this evidence before me, I am glad our men are human.

Still I cannot pretend to say that this is not divine--never having made any divine acquaintances. I can only say, humanity is better.

Then again he is reported to have said a most cruel thing to the broken-hearted mother of a dying child, and I would rather believe the Bible uninspired and keep my respect for Jesus, the man. It will be better for this world to believe in Jesus, the brave, earnest man, than in Jesus, the cruel G.o.d.

21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

22 And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word.

25 Then came she and worshiped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

--Matt. xv.

Do you think that was kind? Do you think it was G.o.dlike? What would you think of a physician, if a woman came to him distressed and said, "Doctor, come to my daughter; she is very ill. She has lost her reason, and she is all I have!" What would you think of the doctor who would not reply at all at first, and then, when she fell at his feet and worshiped him, answered that he did not spend his time doctoring dogs? Would you like him as a family physician? Do you think that, even if he were to cure the child then, he would have done a n.o.ble thing? Is it evidence of a perfect character to accompany a service with an insult? Do you think a man who could offer such an indignity to a sorrowing mother has a perfect character, is an ideal G.o.d? I do not. And I hope that Jesus never said it. I prefer to believe that that story is a libel.

It won't do. We have either to give up the "inspiration" theory of the Bible, and acknowledge that it is the work of men of a crude and brutal age, and like any other book of legend and myth of any other people; or else to give up the claim that G.o.d is any better than the rest of us.

You can take your choice.

Whenever a theologian undertakes to explain matters so as to keep the Bible and the divine character both intact, I am always reminded of the story of the Irishman who was given a bed in the second story of a lodging-house the first night he spent in New York. In the night the fire-engines ran past with their frightful noise. Aroused from a deep sleep and utterly terrified, Mike's first thought was to get out of the house. He hastily jerked on the most important part of his costume, unfortunately wrong side before, and jumped out of the window. His friend ran to the window and exclaimed, "Are ye kilt, Mike?" Picking himself up and looking himself over by the light of the street lamp, he replied, "No, not kilt, Pat, but I fear I am_ fatally twishted_."

Next we have G.o.d's opinion (on Bible authority) as to the use of wives.

They were to be forcibly changed around _as a punishment to their husbands_ and for offences committed by the latter.

11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thy own house, and I will take thy wives before thy eyes and give them unto thy neighbor.

--2 Sam. xii.

The latter part of the verse is omitted as being unfit to read. Don't understand that I think any of it is exactly choice literature; but that cover has been used to silence objection long enough. If it is fit to teach as the word and will of G.o.d for women, it ought to be fit to read in a theatre--but it is not.

What do you think of a religion that upholds such morals and such justice as that just quoted? What do you think of women supporting the Bible in the face of that as the will of G.o.d? Of all human beings a woman should spurn the Bible first. She, above all others, should try to destroy its influence; and I mean to do what little I can in that direction. The morals of the nineteenth century have outgrown the Bible.

Jehovah stands condemned before the bar of every n.o.ble soul. What Moses and David and Samuel taught as the word and will of G.o.d, we, who are fortunate enough to live in the same age with Charles Darwin, know to be the expression of a low social condition untempered by the light of science. Their "thus saith the Lord," read in the light of to-day, is "thus saith ignorance and fear"--no more, no less.

If you will read the 12th chapter of Leviticus, which is unfit to read here, you will see that the Bible esteems it twice as great a crime to be the mother of a girl as to be the mother of a boy; so highly esteemed was woman by the priesthood; so great a favorite was she of Jehovah.*

* See Appendix K.

And do you know there is a law in the Bible* which "the Lord spake unto Moses" that says if a man is jealous of his wife, "whether he have cause or not," he is to take her to a priest, and take a little barley meal (if you ever want to try it, remember it must be barley meal; I don't suppose the priest could tell whether she was guilty or not if you were to take corn meal or hominy grits) and put it in the wife's hands. And the priest is to take some "holy" water and sc.r.a.pe up the dirt off the floor of the Tabernacle, and put the dirt in the water and make the wife drink it. Now just imagine an infinite G.o.d getting up a scheme like that! Then the priest curses her and says if she is guilty she shall rot.... "and she shall say Amen." That is her defence! Then the priest takes the stuff she has in her hands--this barley-meal "jealousy offering"--and "waves it before the Lord." (I suppose you all know what that part is done for. If you don't, ask some theological student with a number six hat-band; he'll tell you.) And then he burns a pinch of it (that is probably for luck), and at this point it is time to make the woman drink some more of the filthy water (which he does with great alacrity), and "if she be guilty the water will turn bitter within her,"... "and she shall be accursed among her people." (You doubtless perceive that her defence has been most elaborate throughout.) Do you think that water would be bitter to the priest?

*See Numbers v. 11-31.

But if she does not complain that the water is bitter, and if her "Amen"

is perfectly satisfactory all round, and she be p.r.o.nounced innocent, what then? Is the husband in any way reproved for his brutality? Did the Lord "reveal" to Moses that he should drink the rest of that holy water and dirt? No! That wasn't in Moses' line. Neither he nor the husband drink the rest of that water--priest doesn't either; they don't even take a pinch of the barley. But after she is subjected to this, and the show is over, "if she be innocent, then shall she go free!" Oh, ye G.o.ds! what magnificent generosity! I should have thought they would have hanged her then for being innocent.

"And then shall the man be guiltless of iniquity, and the woman shall bear her iniquity."

_If she is innocent she shall bear her iniquity_. You all see how that is done I suppose. If you don't, ask your little number six theological student, and he will tell you all about it, and he will also prove to you, without being asked, that he and G.o.d are capable of regulating the entire universe without the aid of General Butler.

But I am told that I ought to respect and love the Bible; that all women ought to take an active part in teaching it to the heathen, to show them how good Jehovah is to his daughters. But if he is, he has been unusually unfortunate in his choice of executors.

Nor is it only in the Old Testament that such morals and such justice are taught. The clergy put that part off by saying--"Oh, that was a different dispensation, and G.o.d, the Unchangeable, has changed his mind." That is the sole excuse they give for all the "holy" men, who used to talk personally with G.o.d, practicing polygamy and all the other immoralities. They maintain that it was G.o.d's best man who upheld polygamy then, and that it is the Devil's best man who does it now.

Odd idea, isn't it? Simply a question of time and place; and as Col.

Ingersoll says, you have got to look on a map to see whether you are d.a.m.ned or not. But it does seem to me that a G.o.d that did not always know better than that, is not a safe chief magistrate. He might take to those views again, They say history is likely to repeat itself. Anyhow, I would rather be on the safe side and just fix the laws so that he couldn't. It would be just as well.

But now we have come to "St." Paul and his ideas on the woman question.

He worked the whole problem by simple proportion and found that man stands in the same relation to woman as G.o.d stands to man. That is, man is to woman as G.o.d is to man--and only a slight remainder. I'm not going to misrepresent this gifted saint. I shall let him speak for himself. He does it pretty well for a saint, and much more plainly than they usually do.

33 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, _as unto the Lord,_

33 For the husband is the head of the wife, _even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body._

--Ephesians v.

The husband is the saviour of the wife! Pretty slim hold on heaven for most women, isn't it? And then suppose she hasn't any husband? Her case is fatal.

34 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

--Ephesians v.

Paul was a modest person in his requirements.