Let us now see, whether he taught the worship of other beings beside the Eternal, for if he did, the other test laid down in Deuteronomy will also decide against him. Now, did he not command the worship of himself in these words, All men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father? This, certainly, commands to render to Jesus the same homage which is rendered to God. I might prove that his disciples did worship him, by referring to many passages in the New Testament, especially in the Revelations, in the latter part of which, Jesus is represented as saying, I am the Alpha, and the Omega, the beginning, and the end, the first, and, the last, terms applied to the Eternal in Isaiah, where God says, (as if in express opposition to such doctrine) that there is no God with him: He knows not any; there was none before him, neither shall there be any after him. I could also adduce many passages relating to the Eternal of Hosts, quoted from the Old Testament, and applied in the New to Jesus. Witness the following:—John xii. 41, alludes to Isaiah vi. 5; Revelations i. 8,.11, 17, and ii. 8, to Isaiah xli. 4, xliii. 11, and xliv. 6; John xxi. 16, 17, and Revelations ii. 23, to 1st Kings viii. 39; John vii. 9, Jeremiah xi. 20, and xvii. 20, Revelations xx. 12,. to Isaiah xl. 10; and, to crown all, Jesus, in Revelations i. 13, 14,15, 16, 17, is described in almost the same words as is the Supreme God; the Ancient of Days in Daniel, 7th chapter; and were there not other proofs in abundance to this purpose, this resemblance alone would decide me.
I now leave it to the cool judgment of the reader, whether Jesus prophecied truly, or did, or did not, teach the duty of paying religious homage to other beings besides God? and, if so, it is consequent, according to the tests by Christians acknowledged to be given by God himself in Deuteronomy, that if Jesus was not sent by, or from, him; for if he was—Gods own words would be contradicted by Gods own deeds.
CHAPTER XVI.
EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE, EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL, IN FAVOR OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY.
In the preceding chapters, I have taken the New Testament as I found it, and have argued upon the supposition that Jesus and the apostles really said, and reasoned, as has been stated. I will now endeavour to show, by an examination of the authenticity of the four gospels, that it is not certain that they were really guilty of such mistakes as are related of them in those books.
*The life and doctrines of Jesus, and his followers, are contained in the pieces composing the volume called the New Testament. The genuineness of the books, i. e., whether they were written by those to whom they are ascribed, must be judged of, from the external testimony concerning them, and from internal marks in the books themselves; for the miraculous acts therein, and therein only, contained and related, cannot prove the truth and authenticity of the books, because the authority and credibility of the books themselves must be firmly established, before the miracles related in them can reasonably be admitted as real facts.
Now, the external evidence in favour of these books, is the testimony of those men called the fathers; and as the value of testimony depends upon the character of the witnesses, it would be proper, first, to state as much as, can be learned of these men. As time will not permit me to adduce all that might be said upon this subject, I shall here only take upon me to assert, that they were most credulous, superstitious, and weak men, and, what is worse, made no scruple of falsifying, to support and favour what they called the cause of truth; for they were writers of apocryphal books, attributing them to the apostles, and, moreover, great miracle-mongers, who vamped up stories of prodigies to delude their followers, and which they themselves knew to be false. I say, I take upon me to assert this; and to confirm and establish this accusation, I refer the reader to Dr. Middletons Free Enquiry, a learned Christian, who, therefore, had no interest to misrepresent this matter; and he will there find these accusations amply verified, and traits of character proved upon them. By no means favourable to the credibility of their testimony.
The first of these Fathers whose testimony is usually adduced to prove the authenticity of the Gospels, is Papias, a Disciple of John. The character given of him by Eusebius is, that he was a superstitious, and credulous man. And this is easily proved by recording some of the stories, concerning Jesus, and his followers, written by this Papias in a book extant in the time of Eusebius. One of these stories is mentioned by Irenoeus, who says, that Papias had it from John; who, according to Papias, said, that Jesus said, that— The days shall come, in which there shall be vines, which shall severally have ten thousand branches; and every one of these branches shall have ten thousand lesser branches; and every one of these branches shall have ten thousand twigs; and every one of these twigs shall have ten thousand clusters of grapes; and every one of these grapes being pressed shall yield two hundred and seventy-five gallons of wine. And when a man shall take hold of any of these sacred bunches, another bunch shall cry out I am a better bunch, take me, and bless the Lord by me! Theres a Munchausen for you, reader! Well! this Papias is the first witness who lived after Matthew, who has spoken of his Gospel. He lived about the year 116 after Jesus. And what does he say of it? Why this. Matthew composed a writing of the Oracles (meaning without doubt the Doctrines of the Gospel,) in the Hebrew Language, and every one interpreted them as he was able. So far as this Testimony goes it is positive evidence, that the only Gospel of Matthew extant in 116, was extant in Hebrew; and there was then no translation, of it, for every one interpreted as he was able. The present gospel called of Matthew was then not written by him, for it is in Greek. And that it has not at all the air of being a translation is asserted by most of the learned. As it stands then, it was not written by Matthew: and that it cannot be a translation of Matthews Hebrew, is not only plain from the circumstance of its style, and other marks understood by Biblical Critics, but can also be proved by another story related by this same Papias concerning the manner of the death of Judas. His body, and head (says Papias) became so swollen, that at length he could not get through a street in Jerusalem, where two chariots might pass abreast, and having fallen to the ground, he—burst asunder.
Now though this ridiculous story is undoubtedly false, yet it is not credible that Papias, who had so great a reverence for the Apostles as to collect and gather all their sayings, would so flatly by his story of the death of Judas contradict the story of Matthew, if the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew contained that part of the Greek Gospel of Matthew which relates the manner of Judas Death.
Justin Martyr lived after Papias, in the middle of the second century; and though he relates many circumstances agreeing in the main with those recorded in the Gospels, and appears to quote sayings of Jesus from some book or books; yet it is substantially acknowledged by Dr. Marsh, the learned annotator on Michaeliss Introduction, that these quotations are so unlike the words, and circumstances in the received Evangelists to which they appear to correspond, that one of two things must be true; either, that Justin, who lived 140 years after Jesus, had never seen any of the present Gospels; or else, that they were in his time in a very different state from what they now are.
The next Christian father who mentions the Gospel of Matthew is Irenoeus, who says also that Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew Language. The character of Irenoeus is discoverable from his work against the Heresies of his time, to that I refer the Reader, who will find him to have been a zealous, though a very credulous, and ignorant man; for he believed the story of Papias just quoted, and many others equally absurd. He however furnishes this important intelligence, that in the second century, the Christian world was overrun with heresy, and a swarm of apocryphal, and spurious Books were received by many as genuine.
The next witness in favour of the Gospel is Tertullian, who lived in the latter end of the second century. And the soundness of his Judgment, and his capability to distinguish the genuine Gospels from among a hundred apocryphal ones, and above all his regard for truth, may be judged of from these proofs given by himself. He asserts upon his own knowledge, I know it, says he—that the corpse of a dead Christian, at the first breath of the prayer made by the priest, on occasion of its own funeral, removed its hands from its sides, into the usual posture of a supplicant; and when the service was ended, restored them again to their former situation. (Tertul. de anima c. 51.) And he relates as a fact, which he, and all the orthodox of his time credited, that—the body of another Christian already interred moved itself to one side of the grave to make room for another corpse which was going to be laid by it. And it is on the testimony of such men as these, that the authenticity of the gospels entirely depends as to external evidence; for these are all the witnesses that can be produced as speaking of them, who lived within two hundred years after Jesus: Three men, (for Justin cannot be reckoned as a witness in favour of the gospels.) Three men, who are all of them evidently credulous, and two of whom are certainly *****.
To convince a thinking man that histories recording such very extraordinary, ill supported, improbable facts as are contained in the gospels are divine, or even really written by the men to whom they are ascribed, and are not either some of the many spurious productions with which (as we learn from Irenoeus) that early age abounded, calculated to astonish the credulous, and superstitious, or else writings of authors who were themselves infected with the grossest superstitious credulity; of what use can it be to adduce the testimony of the very few writers, of the same, or next succeeding age, when the very reading of their works shews him that they themselves were tainted with that same superstitious credulity, of which are accused the real authors of the New Testament?
It is an obvious rule in the admission of evidence in any cause whatsoever, that the more important the matter to be determined by it is, the more unsullied and unexceptionable ought the characters of the witnesses to be. And when no court of Justice, in determining a question of fraud to the amount of six pence, will admit the testimony of witnesses who are themselves notoriously convicted of the same offence of which the defendant is accused; how can it be expected, that any reasonable, unprejudiced person, should admit similar evidence to be of weight, in a case of the greatest importance possible, not to himself only; but to the whole human race?
But there is still a greater defect in the testimony of those early writers, than their superstitious credulity, I mean their disregard of honour, and veracity, in whatever concerned the cause of their particular system.
Though Luke asserts, that many (even before he wrote his histories for the use of Theophilus,) had written upon the same subject: (who of course must have been of the Jewish nation,) and many more must have been written afterwards, whose writings must have been particularly valuable yet so singularly industrious have the fathers, and succeeding sons of the orthodox church been, in destroying every writing upon the subject of Christianity, which they could not by some means, or other, apply to the support of their own unholy superstition, that no work of importance of any Christian writer, within the three first centuries, hath been permitted to come down to us, except those books which they have thought fit to adopt, and transmit to us as the canon of apostolic scripture; and the works of a few other writers, who were all of them, not only converts from Paganism, but men who had been educated and well instructed in the Philosophic Schools of the latter Platonists, and Pythagoreans.
The established maxim of these schools was, that it was not lawful only, but commendable to deceive, and assert falsehoods for the sake of promoting what they considered as the cause of truth and piety, and the effects of this maxim, which was fully acted upon by both orthodox Christians, and heretics, produced a multiplicity of false, and spurious writings wherewith the second century abounded.
Nay, they did not spare from the operation of this maxim, the scriptures themselves. For they stuffed their copies of the Septuagint with a number of interpolated pretended prophecies concerning Jesus, and his death upon the cross; forgeries as weak, and contemptible, and clumsy in themselves, as they were impious and wicked. Whoever desires to see a number of them; may find them in the dispute, or dialogue of Justin with Trypho the Jew; where he will see the simple Justin bringing them out passage after passage against the stubborn Israelite, who contents himself with coolly answering, that these marvellous prophecies were not to be found in his Hebrew bible!
There is also another well known, incontrovertible proof of the deceit and falsehood of the leading Christians of early times, of which every person in the least conversant with the ecclesiastical history of those times must be convinced—their pretended power of working miracles! On this subject I shall say nothing, but refer the reader to the work of Dr. Middleton already mentioned, for an ample account of their lying wonders, which they imposed as miraculous upon the simple people.
With regard to the internal evidence for the authenticity of the writings; composing the New Testament, it is still less satisfactory than the external evidence. And this may be well believed, when the reader is informed that the great Semler, after spending his life in the study of ecclesiastical history; and antiquities, which he is allowed to have understood better than any before him, affirmed to his astonished coreligionists, that, except the Gospel of John, and the Apocalypse, the whole New Testament was a collection of forgeries written by the partizans of the Jewish and Gentile parties in the Christian church, and entitled apostolic, in order the better to answer their purpose. This opinion has been in part adopted in England, by a learned and shrewd clergyman named Evanson, who has almost demonstrated, that the Greek Gospel of Matthew was written in the second century after the birth of Jesus by a Gentile. For he proves that it could not be written by a Jew, on account of geographical mistakes, and manifest ignorance of Jewish customs. He also gives good reasons for rejecting the authenticity of some of the epistles. In short, he has poured such a flood of light upon the eyes of his terrified brethren, as will, ere long, no doubt enable them to see a little clearer than heretofore.
He gives several instances of geographical blunders in Matthew. I shall mention only one. Matthew says, in the 2nd chapter, that when Joseph, the husband of Mary, returned from Egypt, hearing that Archelaus reigned in Judea, he was afraid to go thither, and therefore turned aside, into the parts of Galilee. Now this, as will appear from a map of Palestine, is just like saying, a man at Philadelphia, intending to go to the State of New York, on his route heard something which made him afraid to go thither, and therefore he turned aside—into Boston!
That the author of that Gospel was ignorant of Jewish customs will be evident from the following circumstances. He says Jesus told Peter, that before the cock crew he would deny him thrice; and that afterwards, when Peter was cursing and swearing, saying I know not the man! immediately the cock crew. Now it is unfortunate for the credit of this story, that it is well known, that in conformity with Jewish customs, at that time subsisting, no cocks were allowed to be in Jerusalem, where Jesus was apprehended. This is known, and acknowledged by learned Christians, who have extricated themselves from this difficulty, by proving that the crowing of the cock, here mentioned, does not mean, as it appears to mean, absolutely the crowing of a cock, but that it means—what dost thou think reader? why it means—-the sound of a trumpet!!*
According to Luke, as soon as Jesus was dead, Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate, and begged his body, and hasted to bury it, because the Sabbath (which began at sunset,) drew on; that his female disciples attended the burial; observed how the body was placed in the sepulchre, and returned and prepared spices and ointments to embalm it with, before the Sabbath commenced; and then rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.
The pretended Matthew, however, tells us, that when the even was come (i. e., when the Sabbath day was actually begun,) Joseph went to beg the body—took it down, wrapped it in linen, and buried it; and that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, were sitting over against the sepulchre. From the time that this writer has thought fit to allot for the burial of Jesus, it is evident, that he was not only no Jew, but so ignorant of the customs of the Jews, that he did not know that their day always began with the evening, or he would never have employed, Joseph in doing what no Jew would, nor dared to have done, after the commencement of the Sabbath. He takes no notice at all of the preparation made by the women, mentioned by Luke; for that would not have agreed with the sequel of his story. But to make up for that omission, he informs us of a circumstance not mentioned at all by the other Evangelists. For he tells us that on the next day which followeth the day of preparation, the Chief Priests, and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, &c. The next day which followeth the day of preparation!!—such is the periphrasis that he uses for the Sabbath day! It is well known that among the Jews it was, and is, customary to prepare, and set out, in the afternoon of the Friday, all the food and necessaries for every family during the Sabbath day. Because they were forbidden to light a fire, or do any servile work, on that day; and therefore Friday was very properly called the day of preparation. But it appears to me next to impossible, that any Jew would call the sabbath the day that followeth the day of the preparation. Yet this singular historian so denominates it, and moreover, goes on to inform us, that the chief priests, and Pharisees went to Pilate to ask for a guard to place round the sepulchre, till the third day, to prevent his disciples from stealing away his body, and then saying, that he was risen from the dead; and that after obtaining the governors permission, they, went, and secured the sepulchre by sealing the stone that was rolled against it; and setting a watch. Though there appears nothing very strange in this account to a Christian, yet, I assure my reader, that to the Jews, it ever did, and must appear utterly incredible. For it is wonderful! that the Jewish rulers, and the rigorous Pharisees should in so public a manner thus violate the precept for observing the Sabbath day; for the penalty of this action of theirs was no less than death! More wonderful still is it that they should have so much better attended to, and comprehended the meaning of the prediction of Jesus to his disciples, than his own disciples did; and most wonderful of all, that a Roman Proconsul should consent to let his troops keep watch round a tomb, for fear it should be thought that a dead man was come to life again.
But though our authors history of these extraordinary facts is neither consistent with reason, and probability, nor with the other histories of the same event; it proceeds in pretty strict conformity to the manner in which it sets out. For to convince us still more fully that the author was totally ignorant of the mode of computing time in use among the Jews, and habituated to that in use among the Greeks and Romans? He reckons the Sabbath to last till day light on Sunday morn, and says, (chapter xxviii.), that in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn, towards the first day of the week, the two Marys before mentioned, came, (not as in Luke, to embalm the body, for, with a guard round the sepulchre, that would have been impracticable, but) to see the sepulchre. Whilst they were there, the author tells us, there was another great earthquake, and an angel descended, rolled away the stone, and sat upon it, at whose sight, the soldiers trembled, and were frighted to death. But to prevent the like effect of his appearance upon the women, he said unto them, fear not ye, for I know that ye seek Jesus who was crucified. That the women as well as the soldiers were present at the descent of this angel, appears not only from there being nobody else, by whom these uncommon circumstances could have been related, but also by the pronoun personal ye, inserted in the original Greek, which in that language is never done, unless it be emphatically to mark such a distinction, or antithesis, as there was on this occasion, between them and the Roman guard. Here, however, the author is inadvertently inconsistent with himself, as well as with the other evangelists; and forgetting that the sole intent of rolling away the stone, was to open a passage, absolutely necessary to the body of Jesus to come forth out of the sepulchre; and that if he had risen and come forth after the angel had rolled it away, both the women and the soldiers must have seen him rise, he makes the angel bid them look into the sepulchre, to see—that he was not there! and tell them that he was already risen; and that he was gone before them into Galilee, where they should see him! In their way, the author adds, Jesus himself met the women, and said, be not afraid, go tell my brethren to go into Galilee, and there shall they see me. He says that the eleven apostles went into Galilee, to an appointed mountain, and saw him there; notwithstanding that some of them were so incredulous, as not to believe even the testimony of their own senses.
In the interim, whilst the women were going to the apostles, the author tells us, some of the watch; some strictly disciplined Roman soldiers left their station to bring an account of what had passed, not to the Governor their General, nor to any of their own officers—but to the chief priests of the Jews! that they assembled a council of the elders upon the occasion, and after deliberating what was to be done, induced the soldiers, by large bribes, to run the risk of being put to death themselves, upon the highly improbable chance of the Jewish rulers having influence sufficient with the Roman Proconsul to prevail on him to submit to the indelible infamy of neglecting the discipline of the army under his command, to such a degree, as to suffer an entire guard of soldiers avowedly to sleep upon their station, without any notice being taken of it! and to say his disciples came and stole him away whilst we slept. This incredible story is another instance how necessary it is, that those who do not adhere closely to the truth, should have extraordinary good memories to enable them to keep clear of absurdities, or palpable contradictions in their narrations. For, consider the circumstances. How were the tongues of these soldiers to be restrained among the inquisitive inhabitants of a large city, (at that time too, greatly crowded on account of the paschal feast,) not only in their way to the chief priests; but also during the whole time while the priests assembled the Sanhedrim, and were deliberating what was to be done? And if that part of the watch, who, the author says, came to inform the chief priests, were poltroons enough for the sake of a bribe to undergo so shameful a disgrace to themselves, as well as to hazard the resentment of their General, how could they undertake that all their comrades who remained at the sepulchre would do the same? and to what purpose could the Jewish council bribe some, without a possibility of some one knowing how the rest of the corps would act? And even supposing all these difficulties surmounted, and that the whole guard had agreed, and persisted in saying, his disciples stole him away while we slept, of what service could that be to the Jewish rulers? For if the guards were asleep, they could be no evidence to prove that the body was taken away; and it might be just as probable that he might rise to life again while the watch was asleep, as it was if no watch had been set.
In a word, it appears from the numbers of Latin words in Greek characters, which this book contains; from the numerous geographical blunders; and the authors evident ignorance of the customs of the Jews: from the form of Baptism enjoined at the conclusion, which was not in use in the first century, as appears from the form mentioned as then used in the Acts; from the Roman Centurions being made to call Jesus a Son of a God, which words in the mouth of a Pagan could only mean that he must be a Demigod, like Bacchus, Hercules, or Esculapius: it is clear that this Gospel is the patched work composition of some convert from the Pagan schools. At any rate, his gospel flatly contradicts the others in several important particulars in the history of the Resurrection. For he represents the apostles as being commanded by the Angel and by Jesus, to go to Galilee, in order to see him; and that they went there, and saw him on a mountain. Yet it is said by the other Evangelists, see Luke, ch. 24, and Acts 1, that he appeared on the saw day of the resurrection to Peter at Jerusalem; to two other disciples as they went to Emmaus; and on the succeeding night to this whole congregation of the Disciples, not in Galilee, but in Jerusalem, and that by his express command the apostles did not go into Galilee, but remained at Jerusalem till the feast of Pentecost.
But as this author differs from the other Evangelists, so they also differ among themselves. And the latter part of the last chapter of Mark is so irreconcilable to the other historians of the resurrection, that in many Manuscripts it is found omitted. And that gospel ends in them, at the eighth Terse of the last chapter. And Mr. West, in his attempted reconciliation of their accounts of the resurrection, is obliged to make a number of postulates, to take a number of things for granted, which might be denied: and after elaborately arranging the stage for the performance, he sets the women, and the disciples a driving backwards, and forwards, from the city to the sepulchre, and from the sepulchre to the city, and so agitated that they forgot to know each other when they cross in their journeys. Notwithstanding his great ingenuity in reconciling contradictions, in which he beats Surenhusius himself, he makes but a sorry piece of work of it after all. He had much letter have let it alone; for his work upon the resurrection which he calls the main fact of Christianity, displays these contradictions in so glaring a light, that the very laboured ingenuity of his methods of reconciliation, inevitably, suggests confirmation strong to the keen-eyed reader, of that irreconcilability which the author endeavors to refute. What rational man therefore can reasonably be required to believe the story of a resurrection pretended to have been seen and known, only by the party interested in making it believed! when in their testimony even, they do not agree but contradict each other?
There is really an immense number of discrepancies and contradiction in the New Testament which the acumen of learned Christians has of late discovered, and pointed out to the world. And Mr. Evanson, in his work on the Dissonance of the four Evangelists, has collected a mass enough, I should think, to terrify the most determined Reconciliator that ever lived. It is a little remarkable, that Mr. Evanson has asserted, and has proved, the spuriosness of the Gospel ascribed to John, which Semler spared, in the general wreck which he made of the authenticity of the other books of the New Testament. Mr. Evanson says, in his examination of it, what has been said before, that the speeches ascribed to Jesus in it, are most incoherent, contradictory, and falsified by well known facts. And indeed the author of the book itself, sterns to be sensible of this; for he very naturally represents the Jews repeatedly accusing Jesus of being mad. He hath a devil, and is mad, (say they to the multitude) why hear ye him? and so in other places. Mr. Evanson considers this work as the composition of a converted Platonist or of a Platonizing Jew; the latter we think to be the most correct opinion; since it is evident that the author of that gospel had the works of Philo at his fingers ends, which is more than can be supposed of John. As Semler excepted the Gospel of John only, so Mr. Evanson excepts the Gospel of Luke only from the charge of spuriousness: though he says that it is grossly corrupted, and interpolated. From these corruptions and interpolations, he endeavours to purify it; in which attempt wo think he has had very indifferent success. In short, his work has proved, (what he did not himself contemplate) that the providence of the God of truth has taken care, that so many absurdities and contradictions, should be contained in these books of the New Testament which were written to establish a mistake, as must I conceive, satisfy any man, who has them once pointed out to him, that the doctrine of those books is not, and cannot be from God.
But it may be still asked, how did this notion of the resurrection of Jesus become current? How can you account for the apostles believing such a thing? We answer sincerely—we cannot absolutely ascertain. The Jews of that age have left no documents upon this business. The origin of the Christian religion is so extremely obscure, that Josephus takes no notice of it at all, (for the passage relating to Christian affairs now found in Josephus are notorious interpolations.) And it is evident from the Chronological, and other mistakes about Jesus, in the Talmud, that the curiosity of the learned Jews had never been interested by Christianity, till so long after Jesus, that the memory of him, and his, was almost entirely lost among that nation. And it appears from the last chapter of the Acts, that when Paul was received by the Jews at Rome, he had not been considered by the Jews of Jerusalem as of sufficient importance, as to cause them to warn their brethren of the Dispersion concerning him; for these Jews tell Paul, on his enquiring, that they had not received any letters concerning him from Jerusalem. So that we can offer nothing but conjecture, to solve the difficulty.
It has been said by some, (and it is by no means an hypothesis destitute of plausibility) that Jesus was indeed crucified, but did not actually die on the cross. It is evident that Pilate was extremely desirous to save his life; and is it impossible that the Roman soldiers, who crucified him, had secret orders? Consider the ciscumstances. He was crucified at our nine in the morning, and was taken from the cross at about three in the afternoon. Now, crucifixion is not a death which kills men in six hours, and men have been known to have lived fastened to the cross for more than two days. Consider, besides, that when the soldiers gave the coup de grace to the two robbers, that they did not break the legs of Jews. This, the author of the Gospel according to John says, they did, in order to fulfill a prophecy; but I leave it to my reader, whether it is not more likely that they did so in order to fulfill secret orders? But to make up for that omission, the author adds, that they pierced Jesus with a spear. Now, besides that this is not mentioned by the other Evangelists, the very manner in which this circumstance is mentioned, and eagerly affirmed by him, looks as if the author was aware of the likelihood of a suspicion of the fact we are trying to prove probable, and that he wrote this in order to obviate it. And after all, the gospel according to John was certainly not written by him, and, therefore, what the author of it observes, may be true, or not. You will observe also, reader, that the body of Jesus was given by Pilate to his friends immediately; a favour never vouchsafed by the Romans in such a case, except speciali gratia. You will observe also, that the body was taken down by his friends, no doubt with great care; probably was washed from the blood, and rubbed perfectly dry; and was deposited in the cave or sepulchre, with a large quantity of spices, and aromatics. Now suppose that Jesus only swooned on the cross, and that his naked body, after being cleansed as aforesaid, was laid in the new sepulchre where the air was cool and fresh, wrapped in a considerable quantity of dry linen, together with many spices, and aromatics, what could be more opportune, or proper, to stimulate his drowsed senses, and recall the unfortunate sufferer to life? Suppose then, that on awaking from his trance, he disengaged himself, and took himself away as secretly as possible, might not all this have happened? Is it impossible? And does it not look plausible? It is not improbable that he might after this have shewed himself privately to his particular disciples; for you will recollect, reader, that the appearances of Jesus to his disciples after his crucifixion were to them, only, and for the most part in the night. And it is by no means impossible, that the twelve apostles, who were, I doubt not, well meaning men, though extremely simple and credulous; I say it is thus by no means impossible, that they might have believed sincerely, that their master had risen from the dead. This hypothesis must not be considered only as the brain work of an unbelieving sceptic; for it has been (in its main principle) advanced, and elaborately defended by Dr. Paulus the professor of divinity in the principal University in Bavaria.
It is true, that it may be said, that this is all hypothesis, and mere conjecture. We allow it; it is true; and we assert that the account given by the Evangelists is no better, nay, worse than conjecture, as it is a mere forgery of the second century! For no man, we think, who knows all that has been made known by biblical critics, in later years, will now seriously contend for the literal truth of that account. [See Appendix A.]
If all this will not satisfy the man that believeth all things, our last resource is to demy the act of this resurrection. And this we can do with perfect sang froid, as we know very well that it cannot be proved; for the only testimony in favour of it, are the four evangelists; four witnesses, the like of whose written testimony, with reference thereto, (being as contradic-tory as that is,) to say no more, certainly would not, we believe, be received in a modern court of justice, to settle the fact about a debt of five dollars. And if it be still urged, that such a story is unparalleled, and therefore respectable; we say that it is not unparalleled; as we have an account of a false Messiah, who applied the prophecies to himself, had a forerunner, and more than two hundred thousand followers, who publicly acknowledged him for the Messiah, raised contributions, and supported him magnificently. He too, quoted the prophets as speaking concerning him, and was said to have worked divers miracles, and was ultimately put to death by the order of the Grand Seignor at Constantinople; yet nevertheless was said to have been, seen again by certain of his followers, who wrote books in favour of that fact, and of his Messiahship. Many learned Rabbins enrolled themselves as his disciples, and wrote controversial works in his cause, as Paul did. And to conclude, his party was not entirely extinct within a very few years. Yet, notwithstanding all this, he was an impostor; and no man now believes the stories of his miracles, or his resurrection; notwithstanding that both are affirmed by more recent, more learned, and more respectable testimony than is, or can be, offered, in favour of the Messiahship of Jesus. The name of this famous impostor was Shabathai Tzevi, and his history is given by Basnage, in his history of the Jews, [and by other writers of Jewish history. See on this subject the Sepher Torath Hakenaoth, page 2. The learned Mr. Zedner has extracted the life of Shabetai Tsebi from tins book, and published it, with a German translation, in his Auswahl historischer Stucke aus Hebraischen Schriftstellern, Berlin, 1840.—D.]
I wish the Christian reader to peruse carefully, and cooly, that account; and if he then persists in believing the history given by the evangelists; with such faith as his, he certainly ought to be able to move mountains; and I have no doubt at all, that with such a good natured understanding as his, if he had found in his New Testament the story of Jonah misquoted, and and by a small transposition a la mode de Surenhusius, representing that Jonah swallowed the whale! this sturdy confidence in things not seen, would, I doubt not have enabled him without difficulty to swallow the prophet with the whale in his belly.
CHAPTER XVII.
OF THE PECULIAR MORALITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, AS IT AFFECTS INDIVIDUALS.
I have already expressed my respect for the character of Jesus. And I again declare, that I request it may be distinctly understood, that by nothing that I have said do I intend to impeach, or to deprecate his moral character. Whatever may have been his defects, or whatever were his foibles, they must have been the faults of his mind, not of his heart. For, though he may hare been a mistaken enthusiast; yet I do firmly believe, That, with such a character as he is represented to have possessed, he could not have been either a hypocrite, or a wilful impostor. And if it be replied, that I have, by some observations on his conduct, indirectly impeached the perfection of his moral character; I answer, that if so, it is certainly my misfortune, but it may not be his fault. To explain this observation, I request the reader to recall to mind, that Jesus wrote nothing himself! that the only accounts we have of him, are contained in books, probably apocryphal, certainly not generally known till after the middle of the second-century from his birth. The gospels now extant do not appear to have been known to Justin Martyr; and the earliest fathers, in their writings, generally quote traditions concernng Jesus, instead of histories. Since these things are so, who knows, but that the authors of the histories of him now extant, have attributed to him words and actions of which he was guiltless. We know how prone mankind are to invent falsehoods concerning eminent men; for instance, Mahomet expressly disclaimed the power of working miracles, and yet the writings of his early followers ascribe hundreds to him. Why may it not be possible then, since Jesus wrote nothing himself, that these books ascribe to him words and actions he neither spake nor performed? God grant that this may one day be proved! For I should rejoice to find the meek, gentle, and amiable man of Nazareth proved guiltless of the follies and impieties attributed to him in the New Testament as I find it, and to reason concerning the works and words of Jesus, as I find them there expressed, yet I would earnestly request the reader to consider me willing and desirous to exempt the author, or rather the cause of the Christian religion, from the reproach of the sentiments I am bound by my regard for one God, and his attributes, to express for the system itself. Yes! I can in my own mind separate Jesus from his religion and his followers. I read with admiration many of his beautiful parables. I shall ever contemplate his mildness, and benevolence with respect; and I peruse, with pity, the recital of his sufferings, and cruel death. All this I have done, and I believe I shall ever do; but I cannot! I cannot, in effect, deny the one living and true God, and renounce my reason, and common sense, by believing all the contradictory and strange doctrines contained in the New Testament.
Having unburthened my mind upon this subject, and frankly expressed my sentiments and feelings with regard to the character of Jesus; I hope I may now be allowed (without incurring the charge of maliciously exposing him, or the twelve apostles, to reproach) to state my opinions with regard to the merit of the moral maxims, ascribed to him and them, in the New Testament. And I again caution the reader, that he is not obliged to lay to his, or their, charge, the mischievous consequences that originated from acting upon these maxims and principles, since it is by no means impossible that they may have been falsely ascribed to him and to them.
Now then, let us attend to the subject of the chapter, viz., the moral maxims ascribed to Jesus. These moral maxims consist of 1st, Those which were adopted by him from the Old Testament. 2d, Those of which he himself is described as the author. With the consideration of those of the first class I shall not trouble the reader, but shall devote this chapter to the examination of those which are supposed to have originated from him. These are, 1st, Do to others what you would that others should do to you. 2d, Resist not the injurious person; but if a man smite thee on one cheek, turn to him the other also. 3d, If a man ask thy cloak, give him thy coat also. 4th, If thou wouldest be perfect, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor; and come follow me. 5th, Unless a man hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and possessions, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 6th, Take no thought for the morrow.
With regard to the first of these maxims, it does not belong to Jesus, as the author. It is found in the book of Tobit, chapter iv. 15, and it was a maxim well known to the Rabbins. It is found in the Talmud verbatim. What thou wouldest not have done to thee, do not thou to another. (Tal. Bab. Schabbat. fol. 31.) So also Hillel addressed a proselyte thus, What is hateful to thee, do not thou to thy neighbour. Several other expressions of Jesus were, it appears from the Talmud, proverbial expressions in use among the Jews. For instance, the original of that saying recorded Matthew vii. 2. With whatsoever measure ye mete, &c., is found in the Talmud of Babylon (Sanhedrim fol. 100, Sotah, chapter 4, 7, 8,9.) With whatsoever measure any one metes it shall be measured to him. So also the original of that expression of Cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brothers eye is to be found in the Talmud*.
What is called by Christians the Lords Prayer, is merely a few clauses taken from Jewish prayers, and put together. Very many instances of a similar nature to these might be produced; but, as I must be brief, the reader is referred for further satisfaction to the works of Lightfoot, where he will learn, by extracts from Jewish writings, the source, and meaning of many more of the sayings of Jesus.
I now proceed to the most disagreeable part of the subject, viz.: The consideration of the other maxims mentioned, which, it must be allowed, do belong to Jesus, or at least to the New Testament, since they are the peculiar moral principles of Christianity, and the honour of them can be challenged by, I believe, no other religion.
These precepts are so extremely hyperbolical, that they are not, and cannot be perfectly observed by any Christian, who does not detach himself completely from the business of society; and these maxims, (which, as I said before, are the only parts of the morality of the New Testament, which are not borrowed,) never have been obeyed by any but the primitive Christians; and by the Monks, and Anchorets; for even the Quakers and Shakers, eminent as they are in Christian morality, have never been able to come quite up to the self denial required by the New Testament.
Indeed, the moral maxims peculiar to Christianity are impracticable, except by one who confines his wealth to the possession of a suit of clothes, sad wooden platter, and who lives in a cave, or a monastery. They bear the stamp of enthusiasm upon their very front, and we have always seen, and ever shall see, that they are not fit for man: that they lift him out of the sphere in which God designed him to move; that they are useless to society, and frequently produce the most dangerous consequences to it. In a word, in these maxims we find commands, the fulfillment of which, is impossible by any man who is a husband, a father, or a citizen.
It is an outrage to human nature, and to common sense, to order a virtuous man, in order to reach perfection, to strip himself of his property; to offer the other cheek to receive a new outrage; not to resist the most unjust violence, injury, and insult; not to defend himself, or his property, when sued at the law; to quit his house and goods, and to hate his parents, and brethren, and wife, and children, for the sake of Jesus; to refuse and reject innocent pleasures; to deny himself lawful enjoyments, appointed by the Creator to make the existence of man a blessing to himself and others.
Who does not see in these commands the language of enthusiasm of hyperbole? These maxims! are they not directly fitted to discourage, and debase a man? to degrade him in his own eyes, and those of others? to plunge him into despair? And would not the literal fulfillment of them prove destructive to society? What shall we say of that morality which orders the heart to detach itself from objects, which God, and reason, and nature order it to love? To refuse to enjoy innocent and lawful happiness,—what is it but to despise the benefits of God? What real good can result for society from these melancholy virtues, which Christianity regards as perfections? Will a man become more useful to society when his mind is perpetually inquieted by imaginary terrors, by mournful thoughts, which prevent him from fulfilling the duties he owes to his family, his country and those with whom he is connected?
It may be safely said, that enthusiasm is the base of the morality of Christianity; I say, the morality of Christianity, meaning thereby, not the morality of those called Christians, but the morality expressed, and required in the New Testament. The virtues it recommends, are the virtues caricatured, and rendered extravagant; virtues which divide a man from his neighbour, and plunge him in melancholy, and render him useless, and unhappy In this world we want human virtues, not those which make a man a misanthrope. Society desires, and wants virtues that help to maintain it, which gives it energy and activity. It wants virtues which render families industrious, and united; and which incite, and enable every one to obtain lawful pleasures, and to augment the general felicity. But the peculiar virtues of the New Testament, either debase the mind by overwhelming fears, or intoxicate it with visionary hopes, both which, are equally fitted to turn away men from their proper duties.
In truth, what advantages can society derive from those virtues styled by Christians, Evangelical? which they prefer to the social virtues, the real and the useful, and without which, they assert, a man cannot please God, Let us examine these vaunted perfections, and let us see of what utility they can be to society, and whether they really merit the preference which is given them by their advocates.
The first of these Christian virtues, which serves as a base for all the others, is faith. It consists in believing the truth of dogmas, of absurd fables, which Christianity (according to the catechisms) orders its disciples to believe—dogmas, as absurd and impossible as a square circle, or a round triangle—from which we see, that this virtue exacts an entire renunciation of common sense; an assent to incredible facts, and a blind credulity in absurd dogmas, which, yet, every Christian is required to believe, under pain of damnation.
This virtue, too, though necessary to all men, is, nevertheless, the gift of heaven! the effect of special grace. It forbids doubt and examination; it forbids a man the right to exercise his reason; it deprives him of the liberty of thinking, and degrades him into a bearded baby.
This faith vanishes when a man reasons; this virtue cannot sustain a tranquil scrutiny. And this is the reason why all thorough going Christians are naturally, and, consequently, the enemies of science. This miraculous faith, which believeth all things, is not given to persons enlightened by science and reflection, and accustomed to think. It is not given but to those who are afraid to think, lest they should offend God.
The next Christian virtue which flows from the first, is hope, founded upon the promises which the New Testament makes to those who render themselves miserable in this life. It nourishes their enthusiasm, it makes them forget the things that are on earth, and reach forward unto the things which are in another world. It renders them useless here below, and makes them firmly believe that God will recompense in heaven, the pains they have taken to make themselves miserable on earth. How can a man, occupied with such expectations of heavenly happiness, concern himself at all with, or for, the actual and present happiness of those around him, while he is indifferent as to his own? And how can he help this, when he believes that friendship with the world is enmity with God?
The third virtue is charity. We have elsewhere said, that if universal love or charity means only general benevolence, and a desire to makes others happy, and to do them good, all this is commanded by reason and the ancient revelation; but if by this precept it is commanded to love those who hate, oppress or insult us, we do not at all scruple to assert, that the thing is impossible, and unnatural. For, though we can abstain from hurting our enemy; or even can do him good, we cannot really love him. Love is a movement of the heart, which is governed and directed by the laws of our nature, to those whom we think worthy of it, and to those only.
Charity, considered as general benevolence of disposition, is virtuous and necessary. It is nothing more than a feeling which interests us in favour of our fellow beings. But how is this feeling consistent with the peculiar doctrines of the gospel? According to its maxims, it is a crime to offer God a heart, whoso affections are shared by terrestrial objects. And besides, does not experience show, that devotees obliged by principle to hate themselves, are little disposed to give better treatment to others?
We should not be surprised that maxims, originating with enthusiasm, should aim at, and have the effect of, driving man out of himself. In the delirium of its enthusiasm, this religion forbids a man to love himself. It commands him to hate all pleasures but those of religion, and to cherish a long face. It attributes to him as meritorious, all the voluntary evils he inflicts upon himself. From thence originate those austerites, those penances, destructive to health; those cruel privations by which the inhabitants of the monastic cell kill themselves by inches, in order to merit the joys of heaven. Now, how can good sense admit that God delights in seeing his creatures torment themselves?
It may be said to all this, perhaps, that this is mere declamation, for Christians now a days do not torment themselves, but live as comfortable as others. To this I answer that Christianity is to be judged not by what Christians do, but by what it commands them to do. Now, I presume it will not be denied that the New Testament commands its professors to renounce the world, to be dead to the world, to crucify the flesh with its passions, and desires. Certainly these directions were literally complied with by the primitive Christians; and, in doing so, they acted consistently. In those times, the deserts, the mountains, the forests were peopled with perfect Christians; who withdrew from the world, deprived their families of support, and their country of citizens, in order to lead unmolested the divine life. It was the New Testament morality that spawned those legions of monks and cenobites, who thought to secure the favour of heaven, by burying their talents in the deserts, and devoting themselves to inaction and celibacy.
And at this very day we see these very same things in those Christian countries, which are truly faithful to the principles of their religion.
In fine, Christianity seems from the first, to have taken pains to set itself in point blanc opposition to nature, and reason. If it admits and includes some virtues ordered and appointed by God, good sense, and universal experience; it drives them beyond their bounds into extravagance. It preserves no just medium, which is the point of perfection. Voluptuousness, adultery and debauchery are forbidden by the laws of God and reason. But Christianity not content with commanding, and encouraging marriage, as did the Old Testament, must forsooth go beyond it, and therefore encourages celibacy, as the state of perfection God says, in Genesis, it is not good that man should be alone. I will make a companion for him. And he blessed all his creatures, saying, increase and multiply. But the gospel annuls this law, and represents a single life to be most pleasing, to the very being, whose very first command was, increase and multiply! It advises a man to die without posterity, to refuse citizens to the state, and to himself, a support for his old age.
It is to no purpose to deny that Christianity recommends all this; I say, it substantially does! and I boldly appeal,—not to a few Protestant Divines,—but to the New Testament; to the Homilies of the Fathers of the Church; to the History, and Practice of the Primitive Christians; to the innumerable Monasteries of Europe, and Asia; to the immense multitudes who have lived, and died hermits; and, finally, (because I know very well, the Protestant divines attribute these follies to the influence of Platonism, Pythagoranism, and several other isms upon pure Christianity) I appeal to living evidence now in the world, to the only thoroughgoing Christians in it, viz., to the Society of the Shakers, who I maintain, and can prove, to be true, genuine imitators of the Primitive Christians, and a perfect exemplification of their manners, and modes of thinking. I adduce them the more confidently, because, being simple, and unlearned, their character has been formed by the spirit of the New Testament, and perfectly represents the effects of its principles fully carried out, and acted upon. They never heard of Platonism, or of Pythagoras in their lives, and, consequently, the polemic tricks, and evasions, which have been, as hinted just now, resorted to by Protestant divines, to shift from the shoulders of Christianity to those of Plato or Pythagoras, the obnoxious principles we have been considering, are of no use in this case, as, whatever the characters of these Shakers may be, they were formed by the New Testament, and by nothing else; and I believe, that every scholar in ecclesiastical history, who reads Browns history of the Shakers, will be immediately and powerfully struck with the resemblance subsisting between them, and the Christians of the two first centuries.
As examples of the effects of those precepts of Christian morality, which command us to hate father, and mother, and sister, and brother, for the Bake of Jesus, take the following extracts from the history referred to.
According to their faith, natural affection must be eradicated; and they say they must love all equally alike, as brothers, and sisters in the gospel. It would exceed the limits of this work to give a particular account of the various schemes that have been contrived, to destroy all natural affection and social attachment between man and wife, parent and child, brothers and sisters; especially towards such as have left the society. Two instances that occurred about this time, as specimens of others, may suffice. A mother, who had renounced the faith, (i. e. left the society,) come to Niskeuna to see, her daughter. Eldress Hannah Matterson told the daughter to go into the room to her carnal mother, and say, What do you come here for? I dont want you to come and see me with your carnal affections! The mother being grieved, replied, I did not expect that a daughter of mine would ever address me in that manner.
The daughter, in obedience to what she was taught, replied again, You have come here with your carnal fleshly desires, and I don't want to see you, and left her mother.
Some time after, one Duncan Shapley, who had belonged to the society, called to see Abigail, his sister, at Niskeuna, whom he had not seen for six or seven years; but he was not admitted: he waited some time, being loath to go away without seeing her. At last she was ordered to go to the window and address him in the language of abuse and scurrility. The words she made use of, it would be indecent to mention. For this she was applauded, and that in the authors hearing, when he belonged to the society.
This man gives a very curious account how the elders treated their babes, in their spiritual nursery; but I shall notice only one or two examples, which illustrate what I have advanced concerning the natural hostility of the spirit of the New Testament towards science. I know of several, who, soon after they joined the Church, have been counselled by the Elders to dispose of their books; and have accordingly done it. Elder Ebenezer being at my house one day, on seeing a number of books, he said—Ah! Thomas must put away his books if he intends to become a good believer.
As an instance of its effects upon the human understanding, take the following:—A short time after, being at a believers house, at eleven oclock at night, they all having retired to rest, and I laying awake in a dry well finished room, in which was a stove and fire, there fell a large drop of water on my temples; on examination, I could not discover where the water came from. I told the believers of it in the morning.
One said, Ah! it is a warning to you respecting your unbelief.
I then assigned some inconclusive reason, how the drop might have become formed in the room, and its falling.
One replied, Ah! that is the way you render a natural reason for the cause of every thing, and so reason away your faith and yourself out of the gospel.
As another proof, that genuine Christianity discourages marriage, and considers celibacy as the only state of perfection, the Shakers allow of no marriages at all.
Thus you see that, among these people, to become a good believer, you must insult your parents, revile your brother, depise learning, and never render a natural reason for any thing, lest you should reason away your faith, and yourself out of the gospel.
CHAPTER XVIII.
ON THE PECULIAR MORALITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, AS IT AFFECTS NATIONS AND POLITICAL SOCIETIES.
After having seen the uselessness, and even the danger, to individuals, of the perfections, the virtues, and the duties, which Christianity peculiarly commands; let us now see whether it has a more happy influence upon politics; or whether it produces real happiness among the nations with whom this religion is established, and the spirit of it faithfully observed. Let us do so, and we shall find, that wherever Christianity is established and obeyed, it establishes a set of laws directly opposed to those of a well ordered national society; and it soon makes this disagreement and incompatibility distinctly to be felt.
Politics are intended to maintain union and concord among the citizens. Christianity, though it preaches universal love, and commands its followers to live in peace; yet, by a strange inconsistency, consequentially annihilates the effect of these excellent precepts, by the inevitable divisions it causes among its followers, who necessarily understand differently the Old and New Testaments, because the latter is not only irreconcilably contradictory to the former, but it is even inconsistent with itself. From the very commencement of Christianity, we perceive very violent disputes among its founders and teachers; and through every succeeding century, we find, in the history of the Church, nothing but schism and heresy. These are followed by persecutions and quarrels, exceedingly well adapted to destroy this vaunted spirit of concord, said by its defenders to be peculiar to Christianity; and the existence of which is, in fact, impossible in a religion which is one entire chaos of obscure doctrines and impracticable precepts. In every religious dispute, both parties thought that God was on their side, and, consequently, they were obstinate and irreconcilable. And how should it have been otherwise, since they confounded the cause of God with the miserable interests of their own vanity? Thus, being little disposed to give way on one part or the other, they cut one anothers throats; they tormented, they burnt each other: they tore one another to pieces; and having exterminated or put down the obnoxious sects, they sung Te Deum.
It is not my intention to pursue, in this place, the horrid detail of ecclesiastical history, as connected with that of the Roman empire. Mr. Gibbon has exhibited in such colours this dreadful record of follies, and of crimes, that it is difficult to see how the maxim of judging the tree by its fruit, will not fatally affect the cause of the Christian religion. I refer to Mr. Gibbons history as a cool and impartial narrative; for I am well satisfied that, so far from having reason to complain of him, the advocates of Christianity have very great reason, indeed, to thank him for his forbearance, since, with his eloquence, he might have drawn a picture that would have made humanity shudder. For, throughout the whole history, if a man had wished to know what was then the orthodox faith, the best method of ascertaining it, would have been, undoubtedly, to ask, What is the catechism of this public executioner.
The Christian religion was, it is evident from his history, the principal, though by no means the only cause of the decline and fall of the Roman empire. Because it degraded the spirit of the people, and because it produced monks and hermits in abundance, but yielded no soldiers. The heathen adversaries of Christianity were in the right when they said, that if it prevailed, Rome was no more! The Christians would not serve in the armies of the emperor, if they could possibly avoid it. They justly considered the profession of a soldier, and that of a Christian, as incompatible. Celsus accuses them of abandoning the empire, under whose laws they lived, to its enemies. And what is the answer of Origen to this accusation? Look: at his pitiful reply! He endeavours to palliate this undutiful refusal by representing that—the Christians had their peculiar camps, in which they incessantly combatted for the safety of the emperor and empire, by lifting up their right hands— IN PRAYER!! (See Origen contra Celsum, Lib. 8, p. 437.) This is a sneaking piece of business truly! But Origen could have given another answer, if he had dared to avow it, which is, that his co-religionists, in his time, had not ceased to expect their master momentarily to appear; and, of course, it little mattered what became of the emperor, or the empire. This notion was the principal engine for making proselytes; and it was by this expectation that many were frightened into baptism.
That Christianity was considered incompatible with the military profession, is evident from many passages of the fathers. And one of them, I believe, Tertullian, ventures to insinuate to the Christians in the legions, the expediency of deserting, to rid themselves of their carnal employment. Nay, to such a height did this spirit prevail, that it never stopped till it taught the Roman youth in Italy the expedient of cutting off the thumbs of their right hands in order to avoid the conscription, and that they might be allowed to count their beads at home in quiet.
If we examine, in detail, the precepts of this religion, as they affect nations, we shall see, that it interdicts every thing which can make a nation flourishing. We have seen already the notion of imperfection which Christianity attaches to marriage, and the esteem and preference it holds out to celibacy. These ideas certainly do not favour population, which is, without contradiction, the first source of power to every state.
Commerce is not less obnoxious to the principles of a religion whose founder is represented as denouncing an anathema against the rich, and as excluding them from the kingdom of heaven. All industry is equally interdicted to perfect Christians, who are to spend their lives as strangers, and pilgrims upon earth, and who are not to take care of the morrow.
Chrysostom says, that a merchant cannot please God, and that such a one ought to be chased out of the church.
No Christian, also, without being inconsistent, can serve in the army. For a man, who is never sure of being in a state of grace, is the most extravagant of men, if, by the hazard of battle, he exposes himself to eternal perdition. And a Christian who ought to love his enemies, is he not guilty of the greatest of crimes, when he inflicts death upon a hostile soldier, of whose disposition he knows nothing: and whom he may, at a single stroke, precipitate into hell? A Christian soldier is a monster! a non-descript! and Lactantius affirms, that a Christian cannot be either a soldier, or an accuser to a criminal cause. And, at this day, the Quakers, and Mennonites refuse to carry arms, and, in so doing, they are consistent Christians.
Christianity declares war against the sciences; they are regarded as an obstacle to salvation. Science puffeth up. says Paul. And the fathers of the church, St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine denounce vehemently astronomy, and geometry. And Jerome declares, that he was whipped by an angel only for reading that Pagan Cicero.
It has been often remarked, that the most enlightened men are commonly bad Christians. For independent of its effects on faith, which science is exceedingly apt to subvert, it diverts the Christian from the work of his salvation, which is the only thing needful. In a word, the peculiar principles of Christianity literally obeyed, would entirely subvert from its foundations every political society now existing. If this assertion is doubted, let the doubter read the works of the early Fathers, and he will see that their morality is totally incompatible with the preservation and prosperity of a state. He will see according to Lactantius, and others, that no Christian can lawfully be a soldier. That according to Justin, no Christian can be a magistrate. That according to Chrysostom, no Christian ought to be a merchant And that according to several, no Christian ought t study. In fine, joining these maxims together with those of the New Testament, it will follow, that a Christian, who as he is commanded, aims at perfection, is a useless member of the community, useless to his family, and to all around him. He is an idle dreamer, who thinks of nothing but futurity; who has nothing in common with the interests of the world, and according to Tertullian has no other business but to get out of it as quietly as possible.
Let us hearken to Esebius of Caesarea, and we shall abundantly discover the truth of what has been said.
The manner of life, (says he,) of the Christian church, surpasses our present nature, and the common life of men. It seeks neither marriage, nor children, nor riches. In fine, it is entirely a stranger to human modes of living. It is entirely absorbed in an insatiable love of heavenly things. Those who follow this course of life, have only their bodies upon earth, their whole souls are in heaven, and they already dwell among pure and celestial intelligences, and they despise the manner of life of other men Demonstrat. Evang. vol. ii. p.29.
Indeed a man firmly persuaded of the truth of; Christianity cannot attach himself to any thing here below. Every thing here is an occasion of stumbling, a rock of offence. Every thing here, diverts him from thinking of his salvation. If Christians in general, happily, for society, were not inconsistent, and did not neglect the peculiar precepts of their religion, no large society of them could exist; and the nations enlightened by the gospel would turn hermits, and nuns. All business, but fasting and prayer, would be at an end. There would be nothing but groaning in this vale of tears; and they would make themselves, and others, as miserable as possible, from the best of motives, viz; the desire to fulfill what they mistakenly conceived to be the will of God.
Is this a picture taken from the life, or is it a fanciful representation of something different from the peculiar morality of the New Testament? This serious question demands a serious answer. If it be such as it is represented above and such it really appears to me, and such I have unfortunately experienced its operation to be on my own mind—I would respectfully ask—can such a religion, whose peculiar principles tend to render men hateful, and hating one another: which has often rendered sovereigns, persecutors, and subjects, either rebels, or slaves: a religion, whose peculiar moral principles and maxims, teach the mind to grovel, and humble, and break down the energies of man; and which divert him from thinking of his true interests, and the true happiness of himself and his fellow men. Can such a religion, I would respectfully ask, be from God, since where fully obeyed, it would prove utterly destructive to society?
CHAPTER XIX.
A CONSIDERATION OF SOME SUPPOSED ADVANTAGES ATTRIBUTED TO THE NEW, OVER THE OLD, TESTAMENT; AND WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF A RESURRECTION, AND A LIFE TO COME, IS NOT TAUGHT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT; IN CONTRADICTION TO THE ASSERTION, THAT LIFE AND IMMORTALITY WERE BROUGHT TO LIGHT BY THE GOSPEL.
From the preceding chapters, you may judge, reader, of the justice and truth of the opinion, that the yoke of Christian morality is easy, and its burthen light; and also of the veracity and fairness of that constant assertion of divines, that Jesus came to remove the heavy yoke of the Mosaic Law, and to substitute in its room one of easier observance.—Whether this, their assertion, be not rash, and ill founded, I will cheerfully leave to be decided by any cool and thinking man, who knows human nature, and is acquainted with the human heart. I say, I would cheerfully leave it to such a man, whether the Mosaic Law, with all its numerous rites, and ceremonial observances, nay, with all the (ridiculous) traditions of the Elders, superadded, would not be much more bearable to human nature, and much easier to be observed and obeyed, than such precepts as these, Sell all thou hast, and give it to the poor. If a man ask thy cloak, give him thy coat also. Resist not the injurious person, but if a man smite thee on one cheek, turn to him the other also. Extirpate and destroy all carnal affection, and love nothing, but religion. Take no thought for to-morrow;—I am confident that the decision would be given in my favour; and have no doubt, that with thinking men, the contrary opinion would be instantly rejected with the contempt it merits.
Whether the Mosaic Code be the best possible, or really divine, is of no consequence in this inquiry, and is with me another question from that of its inferiority to that of the New Testament. I do by no means assert the former; but have no hesitation to give my opinion, after a pretty thorough examination of the subject, that the reflections of Paul, and those usually thrown out against the Mosaic Code by Theologians, when comparing it with that of the New Testament, in order to deprecate the former, appear to me extremely partial and unjust; and so far from true, that I think, that the ancient law has the advantage over the precepts of the New Testament, in being, at least, practicable and consistent.*
Another unfounded reproach which Theologians, in order to magnify the importance of the New Testament, cast upon the Old, is this: They say, that the Old Testament represents God only as the tutelary Deity of the Israelites, and as not so much concerned for the rest of mankind. To show that this is a very mistaken notion, and to manifest that the Eternal of the Old Testament is represented therein, not as the God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles, I refer to these words:—The Lord thy God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty and a terrible; who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward. He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless, and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye, therefore, the stranger. Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him, for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. One law shall be to him that is home born, and to the stranger that sojourneth among you. The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself. I am the Lord your God.
Indeed, so little truth is there in the notion, that the law and religion of the Old Testament were established with the intention of confining them to one people, exclusive of all others, that the Old Testament certainly represents them in such manner, as shows, that they were intended to be as unconfined as the Christian, or Mahometan; its religion, in fact, admitted every one who would receive it. And what is more, it can be proved that the Old Testament dispensation claims, as appears from itself, to have been given for the common advantage of all mankind. And it is asserted in it, (whether truly or not, is not the question; it is sufficient for my purpose, that it asserts it), that the religion contained in it, will one day be the religion of all mankind. For it declares that Jerusalem will be the centre of worship for all nations, and the temple there, be the house of prayer for all nations; that the Eternal will be the only God worshipped; and his laws the only laws obeyed. It represents Abraham and his posterity as merely the instruments of the Eternal to bring about these ends; it is repeatedly declared therein, that the reason of Gods dispensations towards them was, that all the earth might know that the Eternal is God, and that there is no other but Him. According to its history, when God threatened to destroy the Israelites for their perverseness in the wilderness, and offers Moses, interceding for them, to raise, up his seed to fulfil the purposes for which he designed the posterity of Abraham; he tells Moses that his purpose should not be frustrated through the perverseness of the chosen instruments; but, (saith He), as surely as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord, Numbers xiv. 21. Many passages of similar import are contained in the Psalms, and the Prophets. In fact, there is no truth at all in the statement of the Catechisms, that the Old Testament was merely preparatory, and intended merely to prepare the way for a better covenant, as Paul says; even for another religion, (the Christian) which was to convert all nations; for, (if the Old Testament be suffered to tell its own story,) we shall find, that it claims, and challenges the honour of beginning, and completing, this magnificent design solely to itself. I was going to overwhelm the patience of the reader with quotations from it, to this purpose; but being willing to spare him and myself, I will only produce one, which, as it is direct and peremptory to this effect, is as good as a hundred, to demonstrate that the Old Testament at least claims what I have said. Zech. viii. 20, Thus saith the Eternal of Hosts: It shall yet come to pass, that there shall come people, and the inhabitants of many cities; and the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying: Let us go speedily to pray before the Eternal, and to seek the Eternal of Hosts: I will go also. Yea, many people, and strong nations shall come to seek the Eternal of Hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Eternal. Thus saith the Eternal of Hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all the languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, we will go with you.