the higher
powers, whatever they may be.

(M138) But while morality ranges itself on the side of the prophet, it may
be questioned whether history and precedent were not on the side of his
adversaries. If the firstborn of men and cattle were alike sacred to God,
and the firstborn of cattle were regularly sacrificed, while the firstborn
of men were ransomed by a money payment, has not this last provision the
appearance of being a later mitigation of an older and harsher custom
which doomed firstborn children, like firstling lambs and calves and
goats, to the altar or the fire? The suspicion is greatly strengthened by
the remarkable tradition told to account for the sanctity of the
firstborn. When Israel was in bondage in Egypt, so runs the tradition, God
resolved to deliver them from captivity, and to lead them to the Promised
Land. But the Egyptians were loth to part with their bondmen and thwarted
the divine purpose by refusing to let the Israelites go. Accordingly God
afflicted these cruel taskmasters with one plague after another, but all
in vain, until at last he made up his mind to resort to a strong measure,
which would surely have the desired effect. At dead of night he would pass
through the land killing all the firstborn of the Egyptians, both man and
beast; not one of them would be left alive in the morning. But the
Israelites were warned of what was about to happen and told to keep
indoors that night, and to put a mark on their houses, so that when he
passed down the street on his errand of slaughter, God might know them at
sight from the houses of the Egyptians and not turn in and massacre the
wrong children and animals. The mark was to be the blood of a lamb smeared
on the lintel and side posts of the door. In every house the lamb, whose
red blood was to be the badge of Israel that night, as the white scarves
were the badge of the Catholics on the night of St. Bartholomew, was to be
killed at evening and eaten by the household, with very peculiar rites,
during the hours of darkness while the butchery