It would be wearisome to recite all the extraordinary commands given by god 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 grasshopper 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 fashion. It is blasphemy to deny that god 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 gods 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 damnation 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.