C. r.
LIBRARY
OF Tiir.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Received September^--- i88.o.
Accessions No. ^-/^/"^^ Shelf No.
CONCISE VIEW
OF THE
EVIDENCES VND CORRUPTIONS
CHRISTIANITY.
BY
P. M. CAREY.
u
LONDON:
SMALLFIELD AND SON, 69, NEWGATE STREET.
1888.
c
V >
O. SMAM.FIELn, PRINTEH, 69, NKWGATR STREKT.
PREFACE.
HAVING in the early part of my life openly pro-
fessed myself an unbeliever in Christianity, and
endeavoured on all occasions to justify my dissent
by argument, I conceive it to be a duty which I
owe to myself, as well as to those whom I may have
misled, to state publicly the reasons which have in-
duced me to change my sentiments, and adopt that
religion to which I formerly refused my assent.
From what I have experienced in myself and
observed in others, I entertain no doubt that the
strongest objections of unbelievers are applicable ra-
ther to the abuses and corruptions which have been
introduced into Christianity by the misguided zeal or
interested views of its professors, than to the genuine
doctrines of Revelation : and if I were obliged to
adopt the tenets which are considered by several
church establishments as essential parts of their faith,
my objections would be as strong as ever.
The Gospel is acknowledged by all Christians to be
the standard of their faith and the rule of their con-
IV PREFACE.
duct : but the Bible cannot be swallowed at one gulp ;
and it is a truth which cannot be denied, that the
great majority of Christians derive the first im-
pressions of their religion, not from the Bible itself,
but from the doctrines of the particular church under
which they happen to be born. In Roman Catholic
countries the first doctrines they are taught are Tran-
substantiation and the Adoration of the Host. Those
who are born under the auspices of the Church of
England are taught to believe in the Trinity and the
Divinity of Christ, long before they are sufficiently
acquainted with Scripture to deduce those tenets
from that source ; while the doctrine of Predestina-
tion is the favourite dogma of the Calvinists. Thus
they become Roman Catholics, Church of England
men, and Predestinarians, before they can be said to
be really Christians. That they adopt the creed of
their particular church rather than the doctrines of
the Gospel, is manifest from this consideration, that
ninety-nine in a hundred follow the doctrines of the
sect in which they received the first impressions of
their religion, which can proceed only from the influ-
ence of early instructions, by which they are led to
confound the particular tenets of their church with
those of Christianity itself; for as the minds of the
Catholic and the Protestant do not materially differ
PREFACE.
in other respects, I can no otherwise account for the
general and almost universal adherence of each to
that mode of faith in which he has been brought up,
than to the influence of the first impressions which
they have imbibed in the first lessons they have re-
ceived from their original instructors. The conse-
quence is, that when, amidst the corruptions to which
Christianity has at different times been exposed, any
particular tenet appears so absurd and irreconcila-
ble to common sense, that no rational man can
admit it as an article of faith ; yet, if it constitutes a
doctrine of the sect in which the man who repudiates
it has been brought up, he is very apt to abjure the
religion which he imagines sanctions such absurdity,
instead of examining whether it is really a doctrine
of that religion, or a corruption of its purity adopted
by that sect in which he has been brought up.
This is, perhaps, the most frequent cause of infi-
delity: few people have the leisure or inclination,
and all have not the capacity to enter into such disqui-
sitions ; and, being taught to consider the tenets of
their sect to be the genuine doctrines of Christianity,
they make no distinction between them, and reject
them both without any further consideration. This
I am satisfied was my case, till, on further investiga-
tion, I found that those tenets which I could not
yi PREFACE.
admit were not the genuine doctrines of Christianity
as contained in the Gospels, but the corruptions of
the churches which, through ignorance or other
motives, had imposed them on the world as articles
of faith : and I found that I could dissent from the
church without in the least impairing my faith in the
real doctrines of Revelation.
Nearly the whole of the following observations,
which I submit with much diffidence to the public,
were written almost twenty years ago, and, as they
were not intended for publication, I expressed my
thoughts in very strong language. Some of the ex-
pressions have been softened, though, perhaps,
there may still remain some which may appear
harsh, and which, perhaps, might have been cast in
a softer mould, had they been originally written for
the press: at the same time I conceive, when an
author combats what he believes to be gross abuses
and corruptions in matters of the highest concern,
it is no part of his duty to state them in soft lan-
guage and honeyed phrases, but to place them in
the strongest light, and expose them in their true
colours.
CONTENTS.
Page
Introduction 1
On Natural Religion 7
On the Belief in a Future State 42
On the Fundamental Truths of Christianity 68
On the Trinity 75
On the Atonement 109
On the Eternity of Punishment 121
On Grace 158
On the Historical Evidence of Christianity 163
On the Internal Evidence of Christianity 1 99
On the Prophecies 211
On the Objections to Christianity 217
On the Adoption of Christianity 237
On Christian Rites and Observances 249
Conclusion 262
APPENDIX.
On Matter and Spirit 273
On the Genuineness and Authenticity of the Scriptures 275
On the Resurrection 277
On Faith .. .284
INTRODUCTION.
INFIDELITY is generally represented by theologians
as having its exclusive source in the passions, vices,
and immorality of its professors. This has been
justly condemned as an arrogant and uncharitable
conclusion. That many, hurried by the violence of
their passions and a course of vice and profligacy,
are tempted to renounce Christianity as a trouble-
some restraint on their criminal conduct, and have
recourse to infidelity as a relief from the remorse
and apprehensions with which a belief in the Gospel
would disturb their vicious enjoyments, is a fact, I
am afraid, too obvious to be denied. Others, from
motives of vanity and a puerile affectation of shew-
ing their superiority to the rest of mankind, are too
apt to range themselves under the banner of infidel-
ity, rather from an ambition of shewing their wit
and displaying their talents for disputation, than
from a thorough conviction ; till, by their industry in
search of arguments to establish their own doctrine
and refute the reasoning of their opponents, they
gradually confirm themselves in unbelief. But
having granted this, it must be allowed, on the other
2 INTRODUCTION.
hand, that many conscientious and well-meaning
men have rejected Revelation, because, after what
they conceived to be a fair and honest examination,
they did not think the evidence on which it is
founded sufficient to command their assent. Among
these many undoubtedly are honest, worthy, and
moral men, and, if their incredulity be a fault, it is a
fault of the head, and not of the heart.
There is, however, reason to apprehend, that even
where infidelity is not the offspring, it is in general
the parent of immorality ; for while men are actuated
by motives, he who believes Christianity will, in the
natural course of things, be a better man than he
who rejects it ; and for this plain reason, that the
Christian has stronger motives to impel him to a
virtuous and moral conduct than the unbeliever.
The corruption of genuine Christianity, in the se-
veral religious establishments of the Christian world,
is, perhaps, one of the principal causes of infidelity.
Few have either leisure, inclination, or ability, to
study their religion at the fountain head, in the re-
cords of the New Testament itself: they, there-
fore, adopt the doctrines of the church in which
they are born, as true and genuine Christianity; and
as there are few, perhaps no, churches, in which
some errors and corruptions have not found their
way, it happens not unfrequently that the objections
of the infidel are levelled, not against the doctrines
of Christianity, but only against the abuses of the
establishment under which he lives. As these cor-
ruptions afford the fairest scope to the declaimer
INTRODUCTION. 3
against religion, they are the objects against which
he points his wit and arguments. The candid in-
quirer after truth, convinced of the absurdity of such
opinions, cannot believe that a religion which esta-
blishes them as articles of faith can be true ; and,
taking it for granted that the articles of faith which
are adopted by his church are the real doctrines of
Christianity, and finding them inconsistent with rea-
son and common sense, he rejects Christianity itself.
This, I believe, is a very common way of proceed-
ing; but infidelity, in this case, arises from having
too much faith in the authority of men ; for if, in-
stead of believing implicitly that the doctrine of his
church is the genuine doctrine of the Gospel,
the man who doubts the truth of any particular
tenet were to try it by the only proper test, the
authority of Scripture, he would often find that what
revolts his judgment as an absurd Christian doc-
trine, is only the absurdity of mistaken or interested
men.
That a man derives his religious opinions rather
from the church of which he is a member than from
the Gospel itself, will appear evident to any man
who is possessed of common observation, or has the
least knowledge of history. Hence in Popish coun-
tries the whole nation is divided into the votaries of
superstition and the converts to infidelity. It will
naturally follow, that the more absurd the doctrines
of any establishment are, the greater will be the
number of infidels ; especially where there are no
other religious communities to which the dissenters
B2
4 INTRODUCTION.
from the Established Church may resort, as in that
case they have no refuge but infidelity; for, as I
have already observed, there are few men qualified
to distinguish the tenets of the church from the
real doctrines of Christianity. And I think this is a
strong argument to prove the utility of having dif-
ferent sects, that those who dissent from the opi-
nions of one church may resort to another whose
doctrines are more congenial with their sentiments,
instead of being driven into infidelity, by confounding
the corruptions of any particular church with the
genuine doctrines of Christianity. It is my firm
opinion, that an erroneous doctrine established into
an article of faith creates more infidels than the
arguments of all the unbelievers who have written
against Revelation.
I was born and bred among very religious per-
sons, and in a part of the country where dissenters
from the Established Church, or unbelievers, were
almost unknown ; so that my education was not
only religious, but orthodox. Having lost my
parents early in life, I became too soon my own
master; and it was not long before I began to
doubt, and afterwards absolutely to disbelieve, the
truth of Revelation.
I wsfs not led into scepticism by the perusal of
books written avowedly against Revelation, though
my doubts may have been confirmed by them.
Neither, if I know my own heart, was I seduced
into unbelief by the hopes of impunity to my crimes,
or that I might indulge in a vicious course without
INTRODUCTION. 5
fear of future retribution. On the contrary, there is
nothing I ever dreaded so much as annihilation.
But though my scepticism was not the offspring of
immorality, I will candidly confess, that, if I had
been a believer, I should have led a more virtuous
life than I have done. I have certainly allowed my-
self a latitude which I would not have ventured to
take, had I been a Christian.
My original doubts proceeded partly from the real
difficulties which every candid man, who has con-
sidered it deliberately, must confess to belong to the
subject ; but these were greatly aggravated by the
theological books which fell into my hands, and
which, by their absurd and incomprehensible expo-
sitions, multiplied the objections and enhanced the
difficulties inherent in the subject itself. The au-
thors I allude to are chiefly the divines of the latter
end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the
eighteenth century. The doctrines I found in those
and other books, relating to the Trinity, the divinity
of Christ, grace, faith, predestination, and other
mysterious doctrines, and the various and contra-
dictory manner in which these subjects were treated
by different writers, revolted my understanding, and
I rejected the whole system as irreconcileable to
reason and common sense.
Though I was sincere in my opinions, and found
myself unable to reconcile to my reason the tenets
I was required to believe, yet, upon an impartial re-
view of my conduct, I feel myself obliged in fairness
to acknowledge, that I was not a little influenced by
6 INTRODUCTION.
a culpable vanity in the promulgation, at least, of
these opinions.
Publicly to avow and maintain a disbelief of a re-
ligion universally believed and reverenced, was rather
a new thing in the circle in which I moved, and
carried with it an appearance of boldness and singu-
larity. The large field it opened for controversy
gratified a propensity I indulged for argumentation,
from a well or ill-grounded opinion I entertained
that I possessed some talents for disputation. I
might, perhaps, plead my natural infirmities in miti-
gation of my fault ; for I am fully convinced that my
love of controversy was owing, in a great measure,
to a considerable degree of deafness under which I
have laboured through life, and which almost ex-
cluded me from general conversation, except when I
could draw some one or other into an argument.
A perusal of the following sheets will account for the
change which has taken place in my sentiments, and
will shew the grounds on which I have been induced
to admit the truth of Revelation, and to believe in
Christianity as contained in the Gospel, not as it is
disfigured and corrupted by the inventions of men.
CHAPTER I.
ON NATURAL RELIGION.
IT is often contended that the morality of unbe-
lievers is mainly to be ascribed to the prejudices of a
Christian education, which continue to operate after
men have seceded from the religion in which they
were brought up ; and that even their notions of the
Deity, or what they call Natural Religion, are lights
which have been borrowed from Revelation, and
which, without that help, would never have been
discovered by mere unassisted reason.
There is, undoubtedly, a great deal of truth in
this view of the subject. It cannot, however, be
denied, that morality may exist independent of Re-
velation ; for it is an historical fact that many moral
and virtuous characters have existed among men
who never heard of Christianity, and who lived and
died long before it was promulgated to the world.
But though among infidels are to be found many
virtuous and moral characters, yet, I believe, there
are few among them that may be called religious
men. While they reject what they call the myste-
rious doctrines of Christianity, they affect to extol
NATURAL RELIGION.
the simplicity, clearness, and universality of Natural
Religion. Natural Religion is, indeed, a fine-sound-
ing expression ; but when we approach it, it vanishes
into air ; it is a shadow which eludes the grasp, and
which, however fair and imposing it may appear at a
distance, will not bear the handling.
The sense of morality which prevails among man-
kind, and the power of conscience, have been alleged
as arguments to prove that there exists a moral law
universally implanted in the hearts of men. These
two arguments I consider to be one and the same ;
because remorse of conscience is nothing more than
sorrow arising from the consciousness of having done
what we ought not to have done, or omitted to do
what we ought to have done, and thereby incurring
or deserving disgrace or punishment. We cannot
feel remorse for doing what we think right ; our con-
science is therefore, in all cases, regulated by our
moral feelings. If our ideas of morality are erroneous,
our conscience must be so too ; for it is nothing else
but a consciousness of having observed or trans-
gressed the dictates of morality, or, in other words, of
having done what we thought right or wrong. Con-
science, therefore, is necessarily governed by our ideas
of morality, however these may be acquired, and
however erroneous they may be.
If our moral feelings were derived from an uni-
versal law of nature implanted in the heart of man,
they would, like that law, be universal and uniform :
NATURAL RELIGION. _ _ __
but we find that, though there is no society of rrfefe^
without some ideas of morality, because without
them no society could subsist, yet there is a great va-
riety and diversity in the several moral systems that
have been established in different nations. Man is a
sociable being, and has never been found on any region
of the globe isolated and solitary. No society what-
ever can exist without some rules to be observed by its
several members ; it would otherwise be a scene of
anarchy and confusion. The observance or infringe-
ment of these rules is the foundation of morality, which
has its rise not from an imaginary natural law, but from
the nature of man and his relation to his fellow-men.
A strict obedience to those regulations on which
the welfare and the very existence of the community
depend, must be an object of esteem and approbation
to all the members whose advantage is promoted by
it ; and therefore entitles the man who yields that
obedience to their respect and esteem, and his con-
duct is pronounced to be good ; whereas he who, by
a violation of those rules, disturbs the happiness of
society, commits an action which, being prejudicial
to the welfare of its members, is justly condemned,
and exposes the perpetrator to the censure of his
companions, and the punishment of the laws. And
the consciousness of having by his misconduct justly
incurred disgrace and punishment,, is surely a sufficient
ground for sorrow and regret, or what is called
remorse of conscience.
But there are some virtues, it is said, so universally
admired, and some vices so universally abhorred,
10 NATURAL RELIGION.
that this uniform approbation and condemnation can
only proceed from a general and universal law of
nature. The fact may be granted without admitting
the inference. That some qualities are universally
approved may be granted, because there are qualities
which are always beneficial, others that are necessary,
in every society or combination of men ; while there are
vices that are always hurtful, and others destructive
of all society. Benevolence or generosity is always
beneficial and agreeable; and without justice no
society can subsist. These qualities will therefore
always be admired, respected, and esteemed in all
governments, and by every community of mankind.
There is, however, a material difference between
them ; for as the general good depends much more
on the justice than the generosity of individuals, a
violation of the former will incur both censure and
punishment, while want of generosity and bene-
volence will at most only excite disapprobation.
A striking act of generosity, indeed, excites at first
sight more admiration than a bare act of justice,
because the generous man gives us more than we
had a right to exact ; whereas no man can deny us
what we may justly demand of him, without laying
himself open to the censure of the world, and the
penalties attending the violation of so fundamental
a rule of society. This predilection in favour of the
generous man arises from a natural presumption,
that he has added the praise of liberality to the more
indispensable obligations of justice; for when the two
qualities of justice and generosity come in competi-
NATURAL RELIGION. 11
tion, there can be no doubt which ought to have the
preference ; if, for instance, a man were to commit
an act of injustice to enable him to display his gene-
rosity, such conduct would be universally and justly
reprobated.
Though justice in some shape or other is neces-
sary to the existence of society, its modifications
vary infinitely according to the wants and relations of
each society; which is a strong proof that the
morality of that, as well as other qualities, is founded
on the value it derives from its utility or necessity to
the well-being of the community. In a rude state
of society, the rules of justice are few, simple, and
obvious ; but as society grows more extensive and
civilized, as the relations of men are multiplied, its
provisions become more complicated; it is then
necessary to define it by laws and precise regula-
tions. Systems of ethics are formed, both as prin-
ciples of legislation and as elements of education, to
inculcate in the minds of the rising generation the
obligations of equity and justice. These are the
foundations on which moral systems have always
been erected.
In all associated bodies the laws of justice are
adapted to the political constitution of the state, its
various relations, its real or fancied interests, or its
prejudices : no association can subsist without some
regulations of that nature. Even combinations
of men who are the least subject to the restraints
of justice or morality, a gang of thieves or band of
robbers, observe among themselves some rules of
12 NATURAL RELIGION.
equity and justice, and practise a sort of morality of
their own. Of much the same nature is that species
of morality that exists between independent states,
whence arises the necessity of a supposed balance of
power to prevent the more powerful state from op-
pressing the weaker. But, unfortunately, instead of
keeping the scales steady, there is a perpetual
struggle to decide who shall hold the balance.
Wherever men are associated there must be some
morality among them, because there must be du-
ties owing to themselves and others, the observ-
ance or breach of which is distinguished by that
name. Conscience is the judge which decides, and
from her sentence we derive complacency and satis-
faction in one case, and regret and remorse in the
other. But these notions of morality, which arise
from the relations of men to each other in their
social state, are so far from being the dictates of
natural religion, that they would exist in communi-
ties where no such thing as religion had ever been
heard of, and even in a society of atheists. In one
sense, indeed, morality may be said to be the law of
nature ; because, as it proceeds from the nature of
man as a social being, it is in that sense the law of
his nature, and therefore, so far, a natural law : but it
exists independent of religion, or submission to the
Divine will; though it cannot be denied that reli-
gion, both natural and revealed, affords an additional
sanction to that law of nature.
It would be endless to trace the various ideas of
morality, of right and wrong, which have prevailed
NATURAL RELIGION. 13
among different nations, and to shew that this
variety had its origin in their respective situations,
manners, laws, and prejudices. In all countries
where the chastity of women is held in any estima-
tion, (for of that of the other sex no great account
has ever been made, under any political or religious
institution whatever,) we invariably find, that the
female who has had the misfortune of losing her
honour, feels regret and remorse at having made a
sacrifice which degrades her in the eyes of the
world, and blasts all her prospects in life. A man
feels no such compunction, because the same trans-
gression neither lowers his character, nor impedes the
success of his pursuits. This is a strong proof that
our judgment of the morality of an action is founded
on its utility or mischievous tendency to ourselves or
others.
If there could exist a general law of nature or
natural religion uniformly impressed on the hearts
of all mankind, so as to secure conscience from an
erroneous judgment, one would suppose it would
have been manifested in an universal abhorrence of
homicide, or depriving a fellow-creature of his life ;
yet in so plain a case various have been the judg-
ments of mankind, and numerous the erroneous
deductions of conscience. In some countries
parents were put to death without remorse by
their children when they grew old and infirm;
in others, children were with equal indifference
exposed to perish by their remorseless parents.
Human sacrifices were not only permitted, but en-
14 NATURAL RELIGION.
joined as a duty among several nations ; while some
made it a duty for wives to sacrifice themselves on the
funeral piles of their husbands, and others ordered
slaves to be butchered and interred with their masters.
It is evident that in these cases, as well as many others
that might be mentioned, the conscience of those
people not only permitted but enjoined actions from
which our conscience would recoil with horror and
abhorrence.
But even among ourselves, where the law of nature
is improved by the light of revelation, though we
shudder at the thought of murder, as the greatest
and most horrid of all crimes, yet there are instances
in which our prejudices overcome this salutary
horror, and even reconcile it to our consciences.
In cases of religious persecution, bigotry has thought it
a meritorious act to sacrifice without remorse, as the
enemies of God, all who were branded with the
name of heretics ; as if the Almighty stood in need
of the feeble arm of man to vindicate his rights and
subdue his enemies.
But religious zeal is not the only shrine at which
hecatombs of men have been sacrificed without
compunction. Though, in the case of ordinary
murder, remorse generally follows the atrocious
deed, which is so abhorrent to the feelings of
mankind that a particular Providence has often
been supposed to manifest itself in a peculiar
manner to bring the delinquent sooner or later to
his merited punishment, even in this world, yet
instances daily occur in which thousands of men
fall by the hands of their fellow-men, without ex-
NATURAL RELIGION. 15
citing remorse in the perpetrators or horror in the
rest of mankind.
I allude to the case of war, the greatest, without
question, of all the calamities incident to humanity ;
an evil brought upon himself by misguided man, and
infinitely greater than any to which he is exposed
by the laws of nature or the inevitable dispensations
of Providence.
If a man becomes a just object of detestation and
abhorrence for taking away the life of another, when
provoked by passion or goaded by misery and want,
where shall we find words strong enough to stigma-
tize the wretch, who, neither stimulated by want nor
actuated by resentment, coolly devotes to death
thousands of his fellow-creatures, merely to acquire
a name, or at least to extend his sway and enlarge
his dominions ? Yet, the murders committed by this
man are the subject rather of applause than of censure :
neither he nor those who assist him in his bloody
designs incur the reproach of their own consciences
nor the indignation of others. They return in
triumph, covered with glory, and challenging rewards
and honours. To fall in battle, is as honourable
among soldiers as to die hard on a gibbet is among
thieves. Strange inconsistency ! to pursue with unre-
mitted vengeance the poor wretch who, in a moment
of irritation or distress, deprives a fellow-creature of
his life ; while the wanton destroyer of thousands,
the desolator of cities and depopulator of provinces,
is honoured as an hero, and almost worshipped as a
deity !
16 NATURAL RELIGION.
One to destroy is murder by the law,
And gibbets keep the lifted hand in awe :
To murder thousands takes a special name,
War's glorious art, and gives immortal fame.
YOUNG.
But it is a duty to defend one's country ? True,
self-defence is legitimate in all cases ; but can this,
the only justifiable cause of hostility, be pleaded in
defence of the excesses of ambition, the rapacity
of avarice, or the exorbitancies of pride and arro-
gance ? A slight disrespect to a prince or ambassa-
dor, the omission of some trifling ceremony, the
least dispute respecting the right to an insignificant
tract of land or a paltry island, some speculative
increase of trade or commerce, a favourable oppor-
tunity of crushing an adversary or weakening a
rival; often the personal whim or caprice of the
sovereign, more frequently the selfish and interested
policy of his ministers ; are among the most ordinary
causes of war. Justice and necessity, without
which, I will be bold to say, war cannot be justifi-
able, are seldom among its real causes, though they
are usually pleaded to give a plausible colour to
injustice and violence.
Perhaps the following reasons of the King of
Prussia for engaging in the war against the Queen
of Hungary, which were originally inserted by that
prince in his History of Brandenburgh, and which
Voltaire persuaded him to expunge, will present us
with a tolerable specimen of the motives upon which
wars are usually undertaken :
NATURAL RELIGION. 17
" ' Que Ton joigne a ces considerations, des troupes
toujours pretes d'agir, mon pargne bien remplie,
et la vivacite* de mon caractere, c'etaient les raisons
que j'avais de faire la guerre a Marie Th^rese, reine
de Boheme et de Hongrie.' Et quelques lignes ensuite
il y avait ces propres mots ; ' interet le desir de faire
parler de moi 1'emporterent, et la guerre fut r^solue/ "*
Will any of these motives justify him in the eyes
of the divine, the moralist, or even of the politi-
cian? Yet, where is there a greater hero, a more
celebrated monarch, than Frederick the Great ?
Indeed, he was not only a great king and a famous
warrior, but a philosopher also. Alas, poor philo-
sophy ! But notwithstanding all his sounding titles,
had he possessed one grain of humanity or common
honesty, he would never have sacrificed the lives of
thousands on such unworthy motives. Neither would
he have boasted of the diabolical principles on which
he acted, had he not been lost to all sense of shame
and decency as well as virtue.
Archdeacon Coxe, in his History of Austria,f
gives a similar account of the motives of this
monarch. " He was anxious to distinguish the
commencement of his reign, and to remove the ob-
* " ' Add to these considerations, troops always ready to act
my treasury well filled and the vivacity of my character ;
these were the reasons I had for going to war with Maria Theresa,
Queen of Bohemia.' And a few lines further were these very
words : < Interest, and the desire to make myself talked of, carried
the day, and war was resolved on.'"
f Vol. II. p. 230
C
18 NATURAL RELIGION.
loquy which had been cast on the Prussian name
in consequence of the pacific conduct of his father,
who with so powerful a force remained in what was
deemed a state of pusillanimous inaction." This is
a strong instance of the mischief arising from large
standing armies, as well as of the prejudices that
prevail among mankind in favour of military depre-
dations, when they accuse a man of pusillanimity,
because, being in possession of a strong military force,
he does not invade and massacre his neighbours.
In his Memoirs of Lord Walpole, the same his-
torian, talking of the Prince of Orange, says, " He
was eager to involve the states in a war with France,
that he might be appointed Generalissimo of the
Dutch forces, a promotion which might lead to the
revival of the Stadtholdership in his favour." This
is related with amazing simplicity as a very natural
and ordinary occurrence, and unfortunately it is
so; but if custom had not familiarized us to such
diabolical policy, should we not be struck with
horror at the idea that nations should be involved
in all the miseries of war, that thousands, nay,
millions of lives should be sacrificed to gratify
the ambition of a pragmatical young fellow, and
enable him to establish his authority on the ruin of
the liberties of his country ?
It seems to be a general opinion, that the name of
war sanctifies every act of outrage, murder, spoliation,
and cruelty. To me it appears only an aggrava-
tion, as the atrocities committed in a state of warfare
are not extenuated by those motives which in general
NATURAL RELIGION. 19
stimulate men to individual acts of violence. The
man who from motives of ambition, glory, or fame,
involves nations in war, is, in my opinion, infinitely
more culpable than the greatest criminal who expiates
his crimes on the gallows; while the former is
celebrated as a hero.
Bourrienne, in his Memoirs of Buonaparte, says,
ix. 2 : " Combien de fois ne m'avait il pas dit que la
guerre e*toit son element, qu'il fallait la guerre a
I'^tablissement de sa puissance !"* Here, not even
a public or national motive is so much as pretended,
nothing is consulted but the gratification of one
individual ; and to gratify that individual, millions of
lives were sacrificed, and the peace of every part of
Europe destroyed, without the slightest hesitation.
Pradt gives this account of Buonaparte in peace :
" Je m'ennuie ici, jusqu'a perir. II faut que je fasse
la guerre. Je la ferai a la Prusse."f Now, is it
not a most shocking thing that so many thousand
lives should be wantonly sacrificed for the amuse-
ment of one man, because he happens to be of a
restless disposition ? Yet this excites no astonish-
ment ; it does not rouse our indignation against the
wholesale murderer, who cannot amuse himself in
any other way than by the slaughter of his fellow-
creatures. And why ? Because, unfortunately, it is
the common course of things, to which we are
* " How often has he not told me, that war was his element ;
that he must have war for the establishment of his power !"
f " I get tired here, tired to death. I must go to war. I will
go to war with Prussia."
c2
20 NATURAL RELIGION.
so accustomed, that we can view it without the
horror which otherwise we should feel at the very
thought of such atrocities. Yet, so much are we
the creatures of habit, that the same man will hear,
without concern or indignation, of the slaughter of
fifty thousand men, slain in the prosecution of such a
war, whose feelings are shocked at the account of one
man slain in a duel by another, whom he had wan-
tonly and grossly insulted. Surely, it would have
been much better if Buonaparte and the King of
Prussia had relieved their lassitude by fighting a
duel, than by bringing one hundred thousand men
on to cut each others' throats for their amusement.
We are apt to consider Robespierre as a much more
detestable character than Buonaparte ; yet, if we
were to compute the amount of destruction caused
by those two tyrants, I believe it would be found,
that, where one man fell a victim to the ferocity and
brutality of Robespierre, a thousand were sacrificed
to gratify the ambition or amuse the leisure hours
of the Corsican despot.
We are, unfortunately, taught from our earliest
youth to admire the Alexanders, the Pompeys, and
Caesars, and other wholesale destroyers of mankind ;
and it is too much the custom of the historians of
all countries, to hold out those whom they are
pleased to designate as heroes to the admiration of
the world, instead of painting them in their true
colours, as the disturbers of the happiness and
tranquillity of mankind.
What, for instance, could be more unwise, unjust,
NATURAL RELIGION. 21
and impolitic, than the invasion of France by
Edward III. and Henry V.? Yet has not the
character of those two princes been immortalized, in
consequence of those military achievements, which
the philosopher, the moralist, and even the judicious
politician, ought to have branded with the strongest
mark of reprobation ? It has even been considered
as a justifiable act for a tyrant who has raised a
military force, which he cannot easily manage,
to employ it in warlike exploits against other coun-
tries, in order to maintain tranquillity at home. As
well might a dissipated man, who keeps a number
of dissolute servants, be justifiable in sending them
to pilfer and defraud his neighbours, by way of keep-
ing them from doing mischief in his own household.
It is astonishing that the feelings of men, which
are so much alive to the horrors of one individual
murder, can be so easily reconciled to the long
succession of the most extensive and systematic
butchery, without which no war can be carried on.
Were our imagination to form an image of the infer-
nal regions, I know not where it could be so forcibly
portrayed, as in the horrors of a town taken by
storm. There the various personages would be
represented to the life. The sufferings of the
miserable inhabitants would give us an idea of the
torments of the damned ; while the infuriated soldiery
would be no inadequate representatives of the ma-
lignant and infernal demons, who are said to be the
ministers of divine vengeance in that place of tor-
ment.
22 NATURAL RELIGION.
Though humanity shudders at the enormity of
that man's guilt who wantonly involves whole na-
tions in the calamities of war, yet we seldom find
that the author of all these miseries is either the
object of his own remorse or of popular indignation.
We never heard that the captive of St. Helena
betrayed any symptoms of compunction for all the
lives that were sacrificed at the shrine of his in-
ordinate ambition ; neither have we ever heard that
our own heaven-born minister ever manifested any
remorse for all the blood that was shed in consequence
of his pertinacious adherence to his fatal and san-
guinary policy ; though he is said to have lamented
its ill success in his last moments. It must, however,
be admitted, that one of them at least was wrong,
and therefore responsible to God and man for such
a waste of life and prodigality of blood. Yet we
find that the illusions of self-love were so powerful,
that they had neither of them any misgivings of
conscience ; and, what is more extraordinary, so
weak is the moral sense, when opposed by passion or
prejudice, that both have still their partizans, who,
instead of consigning them to everlasting infamy,
look up to them with an admiration little short of
adoration. If men were half as much shocked at
the numerous systematic and widely-extended mur-
ders which are the inevitable consequence of wars
wantonly entered into and pertinaciously persisted in,
as they are at the comparatively rare instances of
violence perpetrated by individuals in the heat of
passion or pressure of want and poverty, the world
NATURAL RELIGION. 23
would not have been deluged with blood as it has
been in all ages, neither would it have produced
such scourges of mankind as a Buonaparte or a
Suwarrow.
It is not, however, so surprising that the hero
should be insensible of the criminality of his con-
duct, as that the victims of his ambition should be
the foremost to applaud his triumphs, and raise
trophies to his glory. Yet so much have custom
and a false way of thinking prejudiced our minds in
favour of this greatest outrage against the laws of
humanity, as well as the precepts of religion, that
the false glare attending the conqueror has perverted
our judgment, even in our coolest moments. His-
tory, poetry, and fable, unite in decorating the brows
of the destroyers of mankind with laurel, and in
transmitting their names to posterity, not only with-
out the reproach they merit, but with honour and
approbation.
Thus we find all our historians universally ap-
plauding what they are pleased to call the reforma-
tion of Henry V., when he left off rioting about the
streets and highways, to carry murder and devasta-
tion through the fairest provinces of France. They
do not seem to perceive, that the very same turn of
mind, the same unbridled violence of character,
which induced him to turn highwayman in his youth,
made him a hero and a conqueror in his riper
age.
Instead of boasting of his reformation, his cha-
24 NATURAL RELIGION.
racter would have been more justly delineated in
these words : " Henry was endowed with many
accomplishments, and possessed several good and
amiable qualities; but he was no less distinguished
by a restless impetuosity of character and want of
principle, which, cherished and fostered by the in-
dulgence usually attendant on a princely education,
broke out in the most unjustifiable excesses.
During his father's lifetime his irregularities were
confined within a narrow circle, and manifested
themselves only in a life of licentiousness, and a
course of unbounded profligacy, in which the rules
of decorum, the maxims of decency, and the laws
of justice, were equally trampled on. But, on his
accession to the throne, his contempt of justice and
disregard of humanity were displayed on a wider
theatre, and attended with far more extensive mis-
chief. The lives both of his subjects and his
opponents were equally the victims of his unjust
aggression ; both were sacrificed with equal wan-
tonness and inhumanity, in pursuit of his groundless
and flagitious pretensions to the crown of France,
pretensions, which, if they had been realized, would
have been as pernicious to his own subjects, as to
those he attempted to subdue. His youthful frolics
interrupted, in some degree, the peace and quiet of
his neighbourhood ; his heroic achievements dis-
turbed the tranquillity of nations, sacrificed the lives
of thousands, and destroyed the happiness of mil-
lions."
NATURAL RELIGION.
At the battle of Crecy, when Edward III. was in-
formed that the Prince of Wales was hard pressed
by the enemy, and solicited to send him a reinforce-
ment, he refused it, saying, that his son should have
the whole glory of the day.
This unfeeling and barbarous reply has been
quoted by some as an act of magnanimity ; and this
king had the magnanimity to withhold a seasonable
reinforcement, which would have decided at once the
bloody contest, and saved the lives of those who fell
in the doubtful and protracted conflict, merely to
weave a garland for the head of his son. If humanity
sighs over the waste of human life so prodigally
lavished by such barbarous magnanimity, what must
be the indignant feeling of every honest and unso-
phisticated heart, when historians are found base
enough to transmit such unfeeling and inhuman acts
to posterity, not only without detestation, but with
approbation and applause !
Here I will close this digression, which, perhaps,
has been too long; it is, however, an interesting
subject, neither is it foreign to our purpose, as it
affords a very strong proof that conscience is not
always an infallible guide in questions of morality.
And if, in the most enlightened age, in a country
which boasts of superior progress in philosophy, and
under all the advantages it derives from divine reve-
lation, so great and flagrant are the aberrations of
conscience, what could be expected from its dictates
in more ignorant ages, and in countries neither blessed
26 NATURAL RELIGION.
with the lights derived from philosophy nor the as-
sistance afforded by revelation ?
Man, as has been already observed, is formed for
society, and it is impossible that any association
should subsist unless the members of which it is
composed submit either expressly or tacitly to some
rules necessary to the general welfare. The ob-
servance of these rules is attended with esteem, re-
ward, and honour, while the infraction of them
incurs disgrace and punishment ; and actions are re-
puted morally good or bad, in proportion as they are
consistent with or repugnant to those duties which
the laws, institutions, or manners of that society,
have, by tacit consent or public authority, established
for the general welfare. The regret which a man
feels at having been guilty of actions by which he
forfeits the esteem and good-will of his companions,
and incurs their hatred and contempt, and, perhaps,
exposes himself to punishment, is what is called re-
morse of conscience, and may exist independent of
all religious considerations ; though it will undoubt-
edly operate with additional force and energy when
the dictates of morality are enforced by religious
obligation, and when to the apprehensions arising
from the temporal consequences of delinquency are
added the more appalling horrors of future retribu-
tion. How far this idea of a future state may be
supposed to influence the moral conduct of unbe-
lievers will be the subject of future discussion.
NATURAL RELIGION. 2?
If it were possible that men, while they rejected
the authority of Revelation, should adopt its doctrines
with respect to the attributes of God and a future
state, and observe scrupulously all the moral precepts
of the Gospel, they would be, in every rational re-
spect, good Christians ; but this would be to expect
an effect without a cause. For if we do not admit
the divine origin of Revelation, it stands only on the
individual authority of the writers of the Scriptures,
who certainly could derive no claim to our confidence
from an attempt to impose their own opinions
upon us on the pretense of their being a revelation
from heaven.
If such be all the authority of these writers, the
doctrine of a future state, which, unless founded on
positive revelation, must ever remain an object of
doubt and controversy, would again be weighed in
the scales of probability ; for, if the writers of the
New Testament were not taught from above, they
were no more competent to decide the question
than we are. On this, and on every other point, to
reason alone we must have recourse, for if we do
not believe in the divinity of the Gospel, it can have
no weight as a rule of action ; and hence the ne-
cessity of faith so much insisted on ; not, indeed, in
its popular meaning, but on the principle, that, un-
less we believe the promises of the Gospel, we can-
not be expected to be influenced by them.
Among all the nations that have existed since the
beginning of time, there has 'never been formed a
society of men professing natural religion ; a wore],
28 NATURAL RELIGION.
indeed, which has never been defined, but is a
vague denomination, applicable to all who reject
revelation without being Atheists.
In order to judge what sort of religion is likely to
be established by Deism, under the name of natural
religion, the best way is to inquire what has been
its effect hitherto, and what sort of religion has been
instituted, either by the ancients, who had no other
light to guide them, or by the moderns, who reject
the additional light which has been afforded them.
Have the seceders from Christianity ever esta-
blished any such religion among themselves ? There
may, indeed, be a few who, from the early impres-
sions of their education, have still continued, after
disavowing the divine authority of Scripture, to ob-
serve its moral precepts, and to believe in a future
state of retribution, from what they imagine to be
the deductions of reason. These appear to me to
avail themselves of the light bestowed by revelation,
while they deny its authority, and are, in fact, Christ-
ians without knowing it. These, however, are not very
numerous ; for, supposing the pretensions of revela-
tion to a divine origin to be false, its moral precepts
lose their sanction, and the doctrine of a future state
all its authority; accordingly we do not find any
system of religion or divine worship established on
the principles of deism or natural religion. l On the
contrary, among those who cry up natural religion
in opposition to Christianity, there are almost as many
opinions as individuals, every one having a religion,
or, more properly, a way of thinking of his own, ac-
NATURAL RELIGION. 29
cording to his speculative notions, his prejudices, or
his passions.
What mere unassisted human reason can do in
this case must, therefore, be learned from what it
has done heretofore, when men had no better light
to guide them ; and it had surely full time and op-
portunity to exert itself during several ages, in va-
rious civilized nations, when men of the greatest
abilities have flourished, who, in point of genius
and capacity, were not inferior to the most cele-
brated names in modern times. Yet, in what
part of the ancient world do we find the least
traces of any religious system built on the founda-
tions of what we call natural religion? A very
tolerable moral code might have been extracted from
the writings of the philosophers ; but it would have
been impossible to form any consistent system of re-
ligion from their metaphysical disquisitions. Some
of the ablest among them indulged themselves in in-
quiries into the being and attributes of God and the
nature of man ; a few of them arrived at some
shrewd conjectures and rational conclusions, mixed,
however, with many false and absurd notions.
These, however, were only objects of speculation ; a
considerable degree of doubt and uncertainty clouded
their investigations ; what one asserted was contra-
dicted by another, and frequently by himself.
These disquisitions were confined to the philoso-
phers, and were too abstruse and refined for the
vulgar; and were so far from being intended for
30 NATURAL RELIGION.
general use, that,, however ridiculous and absurd the
popular superstition might appear to the philosopher,
he thought it his duty, as well as that of the nation
at large, to comply with it, because it was the esta-
blished religion of the country : a striking proof that
their disquisitions were merely speculative, without
the least view of improving the religion of their
country, or substituting a better in its stead. And
what, indeed, could they substitute ? Some denied
the being of a God, and taught that the world
was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms.
Others, admitting the existence of a First Cause,
did not believe in a providence : another set
allowed a general providence, but denied a par-
ticular one; some believed, others doubted, while
a third set disbelieved a future state. What sort of
religion could be established in such discordant
opinions, or which of them was to prevail ? What
religion could exist among those who believed
in neither a providence, a future state, nor the moral
accountability of mankind ? The consequence
was, what might reasonably be expected, that no
such thing as a system of natural religion was
ever proposed to be established; but all the an-
cient world was either without any religion at all,
which was the case with the philosophers and men
of cultivated minds, or they submitted, with the
vulgar, to the grossest and most absurd superstitions.
But let us endeavour to investigate what unas-
NATURAL RELIGION. 31
sisted human reason might be supposed to teach
with respect to God and religion.
When a man considers the artificial contexture of
his body and the faculties of his mind, the first con-
clusion he draws is, that he did not make himself;
he finds that he derives his being, with all his cor-
poreal and intellectual faculties, from his parents,
who likewise were indebted to their progenitors for the
same endowments ; and that this system of succes-
sion has taken place for many ages, and as far back
as the annals of mankind can be traced. Further
observation will teach him, not only that all other
men, but the whole of the animal and vegetable crea-
tion, have been propagated, through a long series of
ages, by the same system of generation. The only
inferences he can draw from such an investigation are,
either that this successive generation has existed from
all eternity, or that it was the work of an intelligent
being, whom we call God, who has created this
universe, and established the laws by which it is
governed and maintained. I can find no other
alternative.
Some, indeed, have imagined, that this world was
formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms ; but this
only loads the discussion with absurdities, without
removing any of the difficulties inherent in the sub-
ject. For, setting aside the evident absurdity of a
confused heap of atoms, the chaos of the ancients,
resolving themselves by chance into the present
regular system, we may reasonably ask, what are
these atoms out of which the universe has been so
NATURAL RELIGION.
fortuitously composed ? who made them ? or have
they existed from all eternity ? If these atoms were
produced by any other being, we must search for
that original cause : if they were eternal, we gain
nothing by ascribing eternity and self-existence to
an undefined assemblage of something, we know not
what, instead of at once ascribing this eternity and
self-existence either to the universe, or to some
superior being, whose wisdom will account for the
contrivance and intelligence which his works display,
much more satisfactorily than blind chance or ac-
cident.
Dismissing, therefore, these atoms as totally un-
worthy of consideration, we are reduced either to
admit the eternity of the world and the eternal suc-
cession of the beings that inhabit it, or we must have
recourse to an intelligent being, the Creator of the
universe.
When we consider the order, the immensity, the
variety, and the regular arrangement so manifest in
the universe the wisdom with which the various
parts of this stupendous work are so admirably con-
trived to answer the ends proposed when we reflect
on the wonderful structure of the bodies, and still
more on the intellectual faculties of man, it is im-
possible not to admit a superior intelligence as the
cause of such wonderful effects. We know no cause
in the world adequate to their production. An in-
telligent being cannot proceed from any but an intel-
ligent cause ; and where is such a cause to be found
without admitting the existence of a being existent
NATURAL RELIGION. 33
from all eternity, and endowed with a superior de-
gree of wisdom and intelligence ? For, though it
may be argued that the Creator of man might not
be that self-existent being, yet in that case he must
have been the production of another superior being
who must either mediately or immediately owe his
existence to a being eternal and self-existent.
In such contemplations the mind is astounded
with the idea of eternity and self-existence, which
our faculties cannot comprehend. But this is not
a difficulty that exclusively attaches to the being of
a God ; we must encounter it on every hypothesis ;
and if we maintain that the world has always ex-
isted, we are under the necessity of ascribing that
eternity and self-existence to the universe which we
deny to God. Reason how we will, we must admit
something to be uncaused and self-existent, therefore
eternal.
The only question is, whether we are to attribute
eternity to the world or to a superior being, the
Creator and Governor of the world. Our own rea-
son must convince us how improbable it is that this
world should have existed from all eternity, when
we can trace its history only a few thousand years
back. It is equally unaccountable that it should
have remained, for an endless succession of ages, in
a savage uncivilized state ; or, if it had been civilized,
that we should have no record of its transactions.
But, setting aside this argument, how is it con-
ceivable that a machine so complicated, yet so re-
gular in all its movements, itself without intelligence,
34 NATURAL RELIGION.
yet containing intelligent beings, should exist inde-
pendent of an intelligent cause ?
Since we must unavoidably admit something to
have been eternal and self-existent, is it not more
rational to ascribe these qualities to an intelligent
creator, which will at once account for the wisdom
and design apparent in the structure of the universe,
as well as for the existence of the intelligent beings
with which it is peopled ? On this supposition all
the phenomena of nature, which are otherwise in-
explicable, will admit of a satisfactory solution.
It is usual for atheists, when hard pressed upon
this point, to call nature to their aid, and ascribe
every thing to its power and energy. Nature,
chance, fate, and other similar expressions, are ad-
mirable expedients for carrying on an everlasting
controversy, independent of any clear and deter-
minate ideas, and shew the necessity of Locke's
caution always to define the meaning of the words
that are used in argument.
If by this energy of nature, to which such wonder-
ful effects are ascribed, we are to understand the
effects produced by the operation of the system of
the universe, they cannot be its original cause, and
are therefore totally out of the question.
If by the energy of nature is to be understood an
independent power, co-existent with or anterior to
the universe, which composed and combined its several
parts, and continues to govern and regulate its course,
and formed the intellectual beings it contains, in
that case we are all agreed ; for what they call na-
NATURAL RELIGION. 35
ture is the very same God whom we acknowledge,
and the difference between us is merely verbal. But
this power, under whatever denomination, must be
endowed with intelligence ; for none but an intelli-
gent author can produce an intellectual being; and
I would as soon believe that a telescope was not the
result of contrivance, as that the eye should proceed
from a blind unintelligent cause.
If God is the creator of the universe, he may pro-
perly be called Almighty and Omniscient, for we can
conceive nothing which such a being has not wisdom
to contrive and power to execute.
The light of nature, therefore, independent of Re-
velation, may lead us to the knowledge of an eternal
uncaused Being possessed of great power and wis-
dom ; and accordingly we find, that in all religions,
however diversified in other respects, invisible beings
of dignity, power, and wisdom superior to mankind
have universally been the objects of public worship.
Whatever difference of opinion there might be with
respect to the nature, office, and influence of these
deities, it was the general opinion of all sects that
the world was governed by them, and that the hap-
piness of mankind, as well as the rise and fall of
empires, depended on their will and pleasure.
As to what are called the moral attributes of the
Deity, they are not so easily deduced by reason from
the consideration of the works of nature. There is
so much pleasure and pain, so much virtue and
vice, so much happiness and misery, apparent in the
D2
36 NATURAL RELIGION.
present system, that we are sometimes at a loss to
determine whether such a mixture of good and evil
proceeds from a benevolent or a malevolent cause.
And we find that the Pagans, deceived, in all proba-
bility, by these appearances, had divinities of all com-
plexions and dispositions, and that the being whom
they worshipped as the supreme god was often him.
self of a very mixed character.
In other countries they worshipped a malevolent
deity, either co-ordinate with, or, in some degree, in-
ferior to the supreme god ; being unable to account for
the evil which cannot be denied to exist in the world,
and which they could not believe to proceed from
a good and beneficent being. It has, indeed, always
puzzled philosophers to reconcile the existence of so
much evil and misery, with the idea of a being of in-
finite power and goodness.
There are, however, many considerations that lead
us to a persuasion of the divine goodness. The
principles of benevolence which we experience in
ourselves or observe in others, the love and esteem
we feel for it wherever it appears, can only be de-
rived from a similar disposition in the great cause of
our being. Our deviation from it proceeds from our
imperfect and limited powers, and our inability to
gratify our passions without transgressing its rules.
No man would rob or defraud another if he could
obtain the same end by more innocent means. But
a being of infinite power, being possessed of all the
means of gratification in himself, can have no tempt-
ation to commit injustice; he has no enemies to
NATURAL RELIGION. 37
dread no rivals to envy no competitors to cir-
cumvent no adversaries whose spoils could enrich
him : we cannot, therefore, imagine that such a be-
ing can be otherwise than benevolent : were he
otherwise, he must be the most malignant of beings ;
and in that case he would have created a world to-
tally different from the present.
When we behold the beauties of the universe
teeming through its immense expanse with animal
life when we consider how admirably the various
parts of creation are adapted to the comforts of the
innumerable beings that swarm over its surface
when we contemplate the apparent happy state of
the brute creation in general and when we reflect
on the various blessings which man enjoys in this
world, the pleasure which attends the gratification
of his animal appetites, the enjoyment resulting
from his social attachments and domestic ties, and
the happiness arising from the exercise of his intel-
lectual faculties, it is impossible not to recognize in
all these the gracious effects of a beneficent cause.
It cannot, on the other hand, be denied, that all
these blessings are not pure and unmixed ; that all
living creatures are liable to experience pain and to
languish in misery, and that death uniformly termi-
nates their career. One species of animals preys
upon and lives by the destruction of another. Man
extends his tyranny over the greatest part of the
brute creation; some he sacrifices to his appetite
and gluttony; others he enslaves and renders sub-
servient to his use or amusement. Not satisfied with
38 NATURAL RELIGION.
displaying his cruelty and tyranny over the inferior
animals, he endeavours to subjugate and domineer
over his own species ; and the peace and tranquillity
of the world are disturbed by almost incessant wars
and successive scenes of carnage and desolation.
Yet, notwithstanding these evils and the constant
peevish complaints of the miseries to which we are
born, that happiness preponderates upon the whole,
evidently appears from the universal love of life;
even those who are the loudest in their murmurs
take as much care for its preservation as other men,
and would shudder at the idea of exchanging it for
annihilation. Indeed, the very complaint, which is
so general, of the shortness and uncertainty of life,
proves, more forcibly than any reasoning, that it is
considered as a blessing-: the mere consciousness
of existence, except, perhaps, in extreme bodily
pain, or when the mind is labouring under some
strong affliction, is in itself a pleasure, a calm and
tranquil enjoyment. This enjoyment, however,
like most of our blessings, appears to be imperfect,
and, in some measure, balanced by its uncertainty,
and by the consideration that, while we are congra-
tulating ourselves on the happiness of existence, it
may at that very moment be ravished from us, and
and that, at any rate, we can enjoy it only for a few
years. But yet the uncertain duration of life, which
we so often complain of, is, upon the whole, con-
ducive to our happiness. If we knew the moment of
our death, the last period of our life would be just
as miserable as the state of the criminal, who, under
NATURAL RELIGION. 39
sentence of death, waits in gloomy despondency the
moment of his execution. It appears to me to be
clear that, upon the whole, we experience more
happiness than misery ; and, if this is the case, we
have no cause to complain : for we must bear in
mind that life is a gratuitous gift, and unless its
pains exceed it pleasures, we have reason to be
thankful for it.
Still it must be acknowledged, that there is nothing
suggested to us by reason, or the light of nature,
that can entirely reconcile the physical evil existing
in the world with the infinite goodness, power, and
wisdom of God; and his providence in the moral
government of it is liable to the same objections.
We often see the wicked prosper, and the virtuous
miserable ; nay, in many cases, the unprincipled has
many advantages over the scrupulous and conscien-
tious man.
It cannot be denied that many vices bring their
punishment with them; but then it must be al-
lowed, likewise, that many virtues expose the pos-
sessor to danger and difficulties. If intemperance
and debauchery produce disease, break the constitu-
tion, and occasion premature death, it is equally true
that the brave man, who ventures his life in the de-
fense of his fellow-creatures, often loses it in the
conflict ; that the generous man, whose purse is al-
ways open to the wants of the necessitous, often in-
volves himself in difficulties, and ruins himself by
his benevolence. A cold, unfeeling, selfish, calcu-
lating prudence is the most likely to preserve a man
40 NATURAL RELIGION.
from danger and embarrassment; and the cautious
man, who neither ventures his life or fortune in the
service of his friends, nor his health in the gratification
of his passions, bids fairest to steer clear of the rocks
and quicksands that beset us in our passage through
life ; and yet this is neither an amiable nor an esti-
mable character.
That a greater degree of esteem and respect, in
most cases, attends the virtuous is, perhaps, true in
general, but not universally. We have often seen
the most unjust conqueror enjoying power, riches,
fame, glory, and reputation ; while the virtuous and
inflexible patriot has incurred shame and disgrace
for his meritorious but unsuccessful opposition to the
encroachments of despotism.
If, by a moral dispensation, vice invariably met
with punishment and virtue with reward, the moral
condition of mankind would, no doubt, be far different
from what we find it.
It is idle to say, that the delay of punishment is
an instance of mercy ; for an immediate infliction of
punishment attending every infringement of moral
duty would render punishment unnecessary, or, at
least, extremely rare. If every act of injustice were
to be followed by instant death, a man would no
more be guilty of an unjust act, than he would
commit a capital offense in the presence of a dozen
witnesses. The delay of punishment, Priestley says,
is no objection to a present moral government, be-
cause the guilty may be punished hereafter ; but in
this case we know there is a delay of punishment,
NATURAL RELIGION. 41
but we are not equally sure that it is only delayed,
and will take place hereafter.
The unequal distribution of justice, and the im-
punity of the wicked in this world, have always been
urged as among the strongest arguments in favor of
a future state ; and in this light they will come under
our consideration in the course of the following
chapter.
4&1TO^
CHAPTER II.
ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE.
A FUTURE state is the most material considera-
tion in all our speculations concerning natural reli-
gion ; for if there is no future state, though we should
be able to acquire the most certain knowledge of the
nature and attributes of God, as well as the most
correct notions of moral obligation, that knowledge
would be of little consequence ; for to what end or
purpose should we trouble ourselves about them ?
To induce a man to discharge his duty, he must not
only know in what it consists, but he must have
sufficient motives to impel him to the observance of
it : if he has nothing to expect beyond this life r why
should he sacrifice a present advantage to an abstract
sense of duty from which he will derive no manner
of benefit ? or to what end should he speculate on
the nature and attributes of the deity, which can be
of no concern to him when removed from this world
and mouldering in the silent oblivion of the grave ?
All that a man could be expected to do in such a
case would be, to adopt such a line of conduct as
would be most likely to secure him as happy an ex-
ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE. 43
istence, during this life, as the situation in which he
was placed could procure him, without troubling his
head with any metaphysical researches concerning
the deity, or with moral duties, except in so far as
they would conduce to his well-being in this world.
This, in my opinion, would exclude all notions of
religion ; because religion would hold forth no mo-
tives if there were no hopes beyond the grave.
There might, indeed, be some sort of worship, as
there was among the heathens, to procure worldly
prosperity and temporal advantages, but it would go
no further. It is, therefore, of the greatest moment
to enquire what hopes of a future state we can de-
rive from the light of nature.
One argument in favour of a future state is found-
ed on the immateriality and spiritual nature of the
soul. Much ink has been very unprofitably wasted
in controversy about matter and spirit, which,
after all that has been said, is little better than a
verbal dispute. We know nothing of the substance,
and are not acquainted with all the properties of
matter ; of spirit, we know nothing at all ; it is an
imaginary being, to which we ascribe whatever we
judge incompatible with matter. The idea we have
of it is merely negative. When we say the soul is
spiritual, we only mean that it is different from
matter ; which explains nothing. If we should say,
as we ought, that the soul being endowed with
properties not to be found in other substances, must
differ from them either in essence or modification,
the question would be properly stated.
44 ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE.
It might, to be sure, be argued, ad infinitum,
whether the difference lay in the essence or the
modification, which is the only point in dispute, and
is a mere philosophical question. For, let the soul
be material or spiritual, let it be a mode or a sub-
stance, it owes its existence to the Supreme Being,
who may continue or extinguish it as he sees fit:
nothing can exist independent of him, and there is
nothing whose existence he cannot uphold.
But the immaterialists contend that the soul, being
spiritual, must consequently be immortal, while the
materialists assert that, as it depends on the organi-
zation of the body, it must dissolve and perish with
it. Both these inferences are presumptuous and
inconclusive. Will the advocates for the immor-
tality of the soul contend that God cannot put an
end to a being which he has created ? and, whether
we choose to call it spiritual or by any other name
which conveys no determinate idea, that it must
necessarily exist through all ages, whether he will or
no ? Besides, the metaphysical arguments which are
urged in support of that system, if they prove any
thing, prove a great deal too much, as they are equally
applicable to the souls of the brute creation as to
those of men, and extend, in a great degree, even to
vegetable life.
On the other hand, it would be the height of pre-
sumption in the materialist to contend that, though
the soul consisted of matter organized and modified
in a particular manner, God could not, on the disso-
lution of the body, transfer this particle of organized
ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE. 45
matter into another receptacle, and preserve its con-
sciousness and identity in a future state of existence.
Such a transfer and continuation are certainly no
more inconceivable than its original creation.
It is, therefore, of little consequence whether the
soul is a spiritual substance, different from the body
and mysteriously united to it, or whether it is matter
peculiarly organized. In either case it derives its
origin or its organization from the Divine Being, who,
to endue man with life and thought, could unite
another substance to the body, or so organize its
material parts as to enable him to move and to
think. In either case it is the immediate act of the
deity, and whether we call it matter or spirit, the
properties of the soul remain the same, and must
always continue subject to the will of him who cre-
ated it. Immortality, therefore, is not the necessary
consequence of the spirituality of the soul, neither
will its dissolution unavoidably follow from its being
material. The power of the Almighty extends to
spirit, however we may define it, as well as to
matter : both are the work of his hands, and subject
to his will.
Setting aside, therefore, this verbal distinction, we
must consider the frame and nature of man, and,
from natural appearances, and the qualities and fa-
culties of his body and mind, endeavour to form
some conjecture with regard to his future destina-
tion.
The soul, whether material or spiritual, is so inti-
46 ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE.
mately connected with the body, that it is difficult
to determine where the functions of the one end and
those of the other begin. The ideas and sensations
of the soul are communicated through the organs of
the body. As those organs are developed and ar-
rive at maturity, the soul expands, and keeps an
equal progress with them, grows with their growth
and strengthens with their strength ; it sympathises
with the body in health and sickness ; and, as the fa-
culty of thinking ripens, so it decays with the body,
and, to all appearance, ceases at the time of death ;
and there is no more reason to believe that the soul
continues to exist after the dissolution of the body,
than that it existed previous to its birth. All ap-
pearances, therefore, are against the idea of the soul
or any part of man continuing to subsist after death.
Another argument against the natural immortality
of the soul may be adduced from the brute creation.
The mechanism of their bodies, though different
in some respects, bears the strongest analogy to that
of man ; the manner in which they come into the
world, their mode of subsistence while they live, and
the causes and effects of their dissolution, appear to
be exactly similar. Nor does their similarity to the
human race end here: their faculties, though inferior
in degree, are much the same in their nature. They
have perception, feeling, the power of spontaneous
motion, memory, and some degree of reflection.
And, perhaps, in their intellectual powers, if I may so
call them, brutes differ from one another as much as
the most sagacious of them differs from the rudest
ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE. 47
of the human species. That they are not destitute
of ideas is evident from the strong proofs of intelli-
gence they manifest, and their capacity of being
trained and instructed, as dogs and various animals
are : and there is no doubt that the wild part of them
acquire sagacity by experience. In their birth,
their life, and death, they resemble man ; their
bodies undergo exactly the same change and appear-
ance when they are deprived of life : and where the
phenomena are so exactly similar, it can hardly be
concluded that the one is mortal and the other im-
mortal.
But, notwithstanding these appearances, it may
be urged, that a being so excellent as man, so supe-
rior in his intellectual and moral qualifications, can-
not be the creature of a day, and that he would not
have been endowed with such eminent qualities if
his existence had been confined to this short and
transitory life. That there is some weight in this
argument I will not deny : but, on the other hand,
may it not be suspected that, in this respect, we are
not, perhaps, impartial witnesses, but that we behold
our supposed perfections and imaginary importance
through the magnifying medium of self-love ?
If we but reflect that the Being who made us
can, out of these stones raise up children unto Abra-
ham, that he formed us with as little expense or
difficulty as the meanest worm that crawls upon the
earth, from which, perhaps, we do not so much differ
in his sight as our vanity leads us to imagine, it will
diminish the exaggerated ideas we are apt to enter-
48 ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE.
tain of our own consequence. Nor, perhaps, will it
be found, after an impartial examination, that our
faculties or perfections are more than adequate to
the part we are intended to act in this world, and
that the extinction of them by death is not such an
irreparable loss as we are inclined to suppose.
Our knowledge is very limited ; and an argument
is drawn, but I think very inconclusively, that be-
cause we cannot exceed the narrow bounds within
which it is confined in this life, we have a right to
expect that they will be enlarged in a future one.
Not only is our knowledge limited, but we form
false notions, indulge vain conceits, give way to per-
verse humours and irregular passions, are actuated
by ill-grounded fears and presumptuous hopes, and
whirled about in a perpetual circle of folly, vanity
and vice. The pursuits of the generality of mankind
are trifling, selfish, and insignificant, and, in the
lower and most numerous rank of life, entirely con-
fined to the endeavour (frequently fruitless) of ac-
quiring the means of continuing their insipid and
laborious existence by procuring daily food by daily
labour : and is it from the insignificance of our
pursuits, and the idleness of our conduct, that we
advance a claim to immortality ?
There is an old story of a seaman, who, being
asked what he would do with his money if he should
make a very rich prize, replied he would buy a great
deal of brandy. Well, but after that ? Then, says
he, I would buy a great deal of tobacco. And after
you had bought a sufficient quantity of brandy and
ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE. 49
tobacco, what would you do with the rest of your
money ? Then I would buy more brandy and to-
bacco. The man who smiles with conscious supe-
riority at the simple ideas of this poor sailor, governs
his own conduct exactly on the same principle. Is
any man raised from penury to moderate compe-
tency ? he gets a house decently furnished, a com-
fortable table, a carriage with a pair of horses : when
raised from competency to affluence, he buys a
larger house, which he furnishes more luxuriously,
has more dishes at his table, more horses and more
carriages. The great motive of action is, by the ac-
quisition of riches, to multiply enjoyments, and,
when no new enjoyments can be devised, to dis-
tinguish opulence by a superior degree of splendour
and magnificence. But still these things, which cer-
tainly chiefly take up the attention of mankind in this
world, can have no possible relation or influence on a
future state.
Still it is contended, that the idea, the wish, and
even the belief of a future state, which have been
generally entertained, are strong presumptions in fa-
vour of its existence. The wish of continuing in a
state of being which we find on the whole plea-
sant and comfortable, and the dread of losing it for
ever, is so natural, and so immediately resulting from
the situation in which a man is placed, that it necessa-
rily gives birth to such an idea : but we are not to
conclude that a thing must be, because it is our wish
or interest that it should be so. Whether there is
to be such a state or not, I do not conceive how it is
E
50 ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE.
possible that such a wish should fail to arise in the
heart of man.
The general consent of mankind deserves more
consideration. Two inferences are drawn from it,
either that it proceeded originally from revelation,
or that it was a notion inseparable from the mind of
man, impressed upon it by the hand that formed it,
and, therefore, not to be called in question. Might
not a third inference be drawn from the wishes we
cannot but form, and the propensity we have to be-
lieve what we fervently desire ?
If the belief of a future state has prevailed gene-
rally, (for it has not been universal,) it must be
allowed that the ideas entertained of it have been
very obscure, various, uncertain, and contradictory,
and that very little stress was laid on this doctrine
in any of the various systems of religion or morality
that were formed in the ancient world. One of
the best and most ancient representations we have
of it is in the descent of Ulysses to the infernal
regions, in Homer's Odyssey, which may be supposed
to represent, at least, the popular notions of the
times. In this poetical scene we find, indeed, the
wicked undergoing a greater degree of misery than
the rest ; but we find none in the enjoyment of hap-
piness. Anticlea, the mother of Ulysses, whose
character is drawn in the most favourable light, is
not represented as in a state of felicity ; she rather
repines at her fate in
' The dolesome realms of darkness and of death."
Achilles prefers a state of the greatest misery and
ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE. 51
most abject slavery upon earth to a sovereignty over
the dead, and represents the ghosts
" All wailing with unutterable woe."
Virgil, who wrote after the Platonic philosophy
had become fashionable, has an Elysium in which
the ghosts enjoyed, at least, a comparative degree of
happiness ; and his narrative comes much nearer
what we call a final state of retribution.
Still, it is to be remarked, that in all their pro-
cessions, their sacrifices, their prayers, and every
act of their worship, the heathens never had any
views beyond the grave. Victory in war, deliver-
ance from national calamity, some temporal good
to be attained, some temporal evil to be averted
such were the sole objects of all their religious
observances. A similar observation may be applied
to the doctrines of their philosophers. In none
of their theories of moral conduct do we find the
slightest reference to a future state of retribution.
Whereas, when life and immortality were brought
to light by the Gospel, the belief in a future state
produced far different results ; the prayers and
worship of Christians were principally and almost
exclusively devoted to spiritual objects ; the for-
giveness of sins and the resurrection of the dead
were the foundation both of their religion and their
morality.
Even if we admit that the belief of a future state
has been generally entertained, still I think it is diffi-
cult to believe that it proceeded from an original reve-
E2
52 ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE.
lation, because under the Jewish dispensation, where
we should naturally expect to find such a revelation,
it is at best very darkly intimated. It has been said
that, being a thing universally admitted, a particular
revelation was unnecessary ; but, surely, if it was a
truth well known, it was not a barren truth, infe-
rences might be expected to be drawn from it by
their prophets and legislators, who are not sparing
of such inferences in other cases. The Jews are
frequently exhorted to obedience to the God who
brought them out of the land of Egypt : why should
not, likewise, that obedience be enforced from the
necessity of submitting to that God who will here-
after punish or reward them eternally, according as
they fulfil or neglect the duties he has enjoined ?
Among Christians there is no tenet so universally
admitted as that of a future state ; and though it would
be absurd to represent it to them as any thing new, or
which is not already perfectly known, yet it is im-
possible to read any religious or moral treatise among
any denomination of Christians, in which the exist-
ence of such a belief may not be discovered ; still
less would it be possible to attend any of their modes
of worship without being convinced that a future
state was one of the most important truths on which
their religion was founded. But though we possess
full and particular accounts of the history and reli-
gion of the Jews, there is nothing in them that can
lead us to believe that they had any expectation of
a life after this. There are no traces of such a be-
lief in their early history, laws, usages, or religious
ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE. 53
ceremonies ; we find no appearance of it in the
enactments of their legislators, the exhortations of
their prophets, nor in the various religious institu-
tions and ceremonies which formed the ritual used
by that singular people in their religious worship.
The sanctions both of their law and religion were
merely temporal. Even in the Ten Commandments,
which Moses is represented to have received from
the hands of the Almighty himself, the promises and
threatenings are all of a temporal nature. Length
of days and the worldly happiness of their posterity
are the inducements held out to a virtuous life ; and
the wicked, on the other hand, are threatened with
the punishments of their evil deeds on their remotest
posterity ; but not a word of any rewards or punish-
ments in a future state of existence.
It is to little purpose to refer to a few obscure
texts which may be interpreted in such a manner as
to favour that doctrine, and which, from our pre-
conceived opinions, we are disposed to understand in
that sense whenever it can be tortured into any such
meaning. But a doctrine of such importance is no
secondary object; it cannot lurk in a corner; it is
the basis and foundation of religion and morality, or
it is nothing at all.
Tillotson, who supposed the Jews to believe in a
future state, ascribes that belief to the light of na-
ture, not to their law; and, consequently, not to
any previous revelation.
" The Jews under the law had such apprehen-
sions of their own immortality, and of a future state
54 ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE.
of happiness and misery after this life, as natural
light suggested to them ; but the law did rather sup-
pose it, than give any new force and life to it."
This belief, it is said again, originates in the com-
mon sense and feelings of mankind, from the prin-
ciples of reason and the constitution of nature. But
it is very difficult to know this ; nor has this com-
mon consent been, I believe, so universal as it is
pretended. Its pre valency, however, may be ac-
counted for from the natural tendency of our nature
to wish for a continuation of our existence, from our
propensity to expect what we ardently desire, and
our ingenuity in persuading ourselves that what we
expect will come to pass. Thus, such an opinion
may easily be formed, and, when once established, it
is too flattering to our hopes not to be adopted and
embraced.
Conscience has likewise been brought as a proof
of a future judgment ; but, as I have before observed,
societies cannot exist without morality; the moral
duties necessary to their existence or well-being are
formed into a system, which is inculcated on the
minds of children in their earliest education, and by
that means become the law of their conduct; and
conscience is no more than the judgment of the
mind how far they have acted conformably to their
moral ideas of right and wrong.
Upon the whole, when we coolly consider the
animal frame as well as intellectual faculties of man,
there does not appear to me any reason to be per-
suaded that he was destined for eternity.
ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE. 55
One argument, however, remains, which is chiefly
insisted upon, and that is, the unequal distribution of
good and evil in this world, which, it is contended, is
inconsistent with the goodness and justice of God,
unless we admit a future state of retribution. But
we should always remember, that all we know of the
First Cause from the light of nature is derived from
his works ; and as we perceive evident marks of good-
ness in this world, we believe in the benevolence of
its maker ; but as the good is not unmixed with evil,
we are led to conclude that we enjoy as much hap-
piness as is consistent with the designs of God in the
formation of the world. What these designs were
we do not pretend to know ; but our ignorance should
produce doubt and diffidence, not presumption and
dogmatism.
When we give the reins to our imagination, and
picture to ourselves a being whose ultimate views are
all centered in the fate of man as the only object of
his providence, it is impossible to guess to what con-
clusions we may be driven. Dissatisfied with our
portion of happiness in this world, we are willing to
give him another trial hereafter, because we conceive
that our lot on earth is not consistent with the idea
we entertain of infinite benevolence.
But what is infinite benevolence ? If taken in its
strict sense, infinite benevolence ought to bestow the
greatest degree of happiness a created being is capable
of enjoying, not only on man, but on every creature
that has been called into existence. And as infinite
benevolence is always active, it ought not to be kept
56 ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE.
in reserve for a future world only, but should be im-
mediate and constant ; nay, perhaps, ought to have
been bestowed from all eternity, and been lavished
on as many beings as Omnipotence could create.
This appears to me the meaning of infinite good-
ness in its fullest sense ; but if it is admitted that
it may be understood in a more confined sense, and
that it is not necessary for infinite goodness to be-
stow on every creature the greatest conceivable de-
gree of happiness or perfection, where are the bounds
to be fixed, but in the discretion of the Supreme Being,
to make his gifts to his several creatures subservient
to the general plan he has formed for promoting the
ends he has in view in his government of the uni-
verse ? and, on this principle, how do we know but
man may enjoy his due and proportionate share ?
Our great error is in supposing that man must
necessarily be the only end and object of God's pro-
vidential government of the world. Possessed with
this notion, we can calmly look on the sufferings of
the brute creation without thinking them entitled to
compensation in a future state of existence, because
we consider them as inferior creatures, merely formed
for the use and convenience of man. We are not,
therefore, in the least moved at any appearances of
injustice of which we reap the advantage, though we
revolt at it as soon as it falls upon ourselves. But
it should always be remembered, that if there is any
want of justice or benevolence in the Divine Being
permitting us to suffer pain and misery which we
have not deserved, it is not because we are men,
ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE.
but because we conceive it inconsistent with the
idea of a benevolent Creator to call any beings into
existence in order to make them unhappy ; and it is
evident this reasoning will apply to a worm as well
as to man. And if we can reconcile to ourselves the
sufferings of the brute creation, because they are
conducive to the comforts and convenience of man,
on the very same principle the sufferings of men
might be justified on the supposition, that they were
subservient to the accommodation or improvement
of beings as superior to us as we are to the meanest
reptile, which is by no means either impossible or
improbable.
If, instead of imagining ourselves to be the pri-
mary object of the divine dispensations, we admit
the existence of superior intelligences, we may easily
conceive that we may form only a part, and a very
subordinate part, in the scheme of Providence, and
that we may be essentially contributing to the good
of the whole, though all the while as unconscious of
the fact, as the brute creation can possibly be of their
subserviency to the wants of man. And if we should
be placed in this world with a view of promoting the
general good of the system for which God brought
us into being, we have certainly no cause to com-
plain of our existence here, provided it is upon the
whole preferable to non-existence ; and if the evil
exceeds the good in the present life, I do not know
upon what principle we can demonstrate the divine
goodness.
It appears, likewise, to me, absolutely illogical to
58 ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE.
argue, that because the Divine Being permits injus-
tice to prevail in some degree in this world, therefore
he will rectify that error in the next. We ought,
on the contrary, to suppose that he is always guided
by wisdom and justice, that the system he adopts is
the best calculated to promote the end he has in
view, of which men may be the instruments and not
the final end.
It is said that brutes, not being moral agents, are
not accountable hereafter; but that will by no
means satisfy us why they should be liable to suffer
in this world, by the injustice and tyranny of other
beings, without a future compensation, except upon
the general idea, that whatever sufferings they may
undergo, they, upon the whole, derive more happi-
ness than misery from their existence ; and if this is
a justification of Providence in the case of one kind
of beings, it will equally hold good in another ; for
as to men being punished for their cruelty to the
brute creation, it is plain that, however just and pro-
per such a punishment may be, it can be no sort of
compensation to the sufferers.
And whatever opinions we may form of the utility
of punishment while man is in a course of discipline
and trial, as the means of amendment to himself and
example to others, it is not easy to understand the
expediency of final punishments, when they cannot
answer the end either of encouraging us to virtue or
deterring us from vice : nor is a state of final punish-
ment, which cannot amend the sufferer, what reason
would suggest as the best means to illustrate the in-
ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE. 59
finite benevolence of our Creator. Neither, perhaps,
is the moral accountability of mankind so easily to
be deduced from the mere suggestions of reason as
those who are brought up in the doctrines of Christ-
ianity, and therefore consider this as a certain and
undeniable truth, may be apt to imagine. That in
a state of society man is legally accountable for his
actions to the community of which he forms a part,
will not admit of a doubt. But the restraint which
human laws impose upon a member of society refers
to the good of the whole, and penalties are inflicted,
in consequence of his misconduct, on the same prin-
ciple as that upon which we break a horse or dress a
vine, because it is conducive to general utility, and
rewards and punishments are the only human means
of influencing the actions of men. Rewards and
punishments are used as means to obtain a desirable
end. But in the case of religious accountability, re-
wards and punishments are represented, not as the
means, but as the final termination of the moral dis-
pensations of Providence.
God having so constituted man and placed him in
such a state that the strongest motives must neces-
sarily determine his conduct, is it just to make him
accountable for actions which are the necessary re-
sult of the motives which irresistibly determine his
conduct, when those motives are independent of his
controul ?
Publius is born of virtuous and honourable parents,
receives the most careful education, and by a happy
combination of circumstances which direct his mind
60 ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE.
to virtuous pursuits, becomes a model of every thing
that is noble and excellent. Caius happens to be
the offspring of depraved and indigent parents, who
obtain a miserable subsistence from pilfering and
other dishonest practices: his first instructions are
how to pick a pocket, and all he is taught are the
different modes of cheating and stealing. He pro-
ceeds from one act of villany to another, till, after a
short course of robbery and murder, he finishes his
career on the gallows.
Priestley says,* " If the laws of nature be such as
that, in given circumstances, I constantly make a
definite choice, my conduct through life is deter-
mined by the Being who made me, and placed me
in the circumstances in which I first found myself.
For the consequence of the first given circumstances
was a definite voluntary determination, which bring-
ing me into other circumstances, was followed by
another definite determination, and so on from the
beginning of life to the end of it." Now, if a man is,
independently of any act or will of his own, placed
in a situation in which by a combination of cause and
effect he is unavoidably and irresistibly necessitated
to any definite conduct, how can he be accountable
for actions which were the necessary result of the
situation in which he was placed without any choice
or will of his own ?
But it may be said, that the necessitarian hypothe-
sis, upon which my argument is founded, is false and
* Illustrations of Philosophical Necessity, Sect. 2.
ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE. 61
erroneous, and has led me into this error. Be it so.
Yet I do not see upon what hypothesis the moral
accountability of mankind can be rendered evident.
Suppose Publius and Caius to have been changed at
nurse, either Publius, brought up in habits of pro-
fligacy by the parents of Caius, would have run
the career of vice and infamy I suppose Caius to
have done ; or, being possessed of more virtuous pro-
pensities, he would have resisted the contagions of
evil example and a pernicious education, and pre-
served his character unblemished. In the former
case he would be an example to shew that man is
the creature of habit, the slave of events, under any
hypothesis. If he resisted the contagion of evil ex-
ample, and, in spite of a profligate education, came
to be an honest man, he must have been born with
more virtuous principles or a greater tendency to
virtue than Caius ; and surely a man has no greater
right to claim any merit for being born more virtu-
ous than for being born handsomer than another.
A man's virtue must be innate or acquired. In
the first case he can claim no merit from the chance
of birth; and if all men are born with the same
tendency to virtue, the difference of their moral
conduct must be accidental, and proceed from the
different situations in which they are placed, such
as education and the fortuitous events of life. It is
idle to say one man is honest because he has virtue
enough to resist the temptations which overpower
another man. How came he by this virtue ? If it
was originally given to one and withheld from the
62 ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE.
other, it should be no matter of praise or blame to
either. If they were originally equal in that re-
spect, the difference must have arisen from fortuitous
causes over which they had no influence.
I know it is said, that, though born with an equal
portion of virtue, one man, by taking pains to culti-
vate it, improves and increases his share, while an-
other, by neglect, loses what he originally possessed.
But this is evading, not answering the difficulty.
The same question will always recur, whence origi-
nated this difference in their disposition ? If, under
similar external and internal circumstances, one man
is disposed to improve and another to neglect his
virtuous propensities, the former is already more
virtuous than the latter; and you must trace that
difference till you resolve it either into a different
natural disposition, or to some accidental cause
which excited the virtuous propensities of the one
or counteracted those of the other.
These considerations appear to me of sufficient
weight to induce a man who considers the subject,
independently of the light thrown upon it by reve-
lation, to doubt, at least, of the accountability and
future state of mankind. Yet there is something
within us which seems to make us feel that we are
accountable for our actions. It may, perhaps, pro-
ceed in part from the early impression made on our
minds by the doctrines of Christianity, of which mo-
ral accountability is the very basis and foundation.
It cannot, however, be entirely ascribed to that
cause, for in countries where Christianity has been
ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE. 63
unknown, we do not find that men have justified
their crimes from the moral impossibility of acting
otherwise,, or from having been born with a disposi-
tion which unavoidably led them to commit the
crimes imputed to them.
Upon the whole, I entirely concur in opinion with
the late Bishop Watson, that all rational expecta-
tion of a future state must be grounded on revela-
tion. Many able and judicious divines have been of
a contrary opinion, and thought that a future state
of retribution might be proved from the lights
afforded by natural religion. But it appears to me,
that, in consequence of their Christian education,
they are apt to consider as the evidence of common
sense, what is, in fact, the fruit of the early seeds
sown in their infant minds.
The conclusion I draw from all this is ; if reason
gives us no expectation of a future state of retribu-
tion, it affords us no motives to natural religion ; if
our existence is to cease when our bodies are laid in
the ground, the being and attributes of God, even if
they could be discovered with the utmost certainty,
are questions of mere curiosity speculations to
amuse our leisure hours, and no more.
If their views are confined to this world, the con-
duct of the deist and the atheist will be much the
same; the one will distinguish the laws by which
the world is governed by the name of nature ; the
other will contend that they proceed from a supe-
rior cause ; but, setting aside the belief in a future
64 ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE.
state, I see very little practical difference between
the two. The being of a god is of very little con-
sequence to us if our existence terminates with this
life. What was the existence of God to us a
hundred years ago ? Exactly what it will be a
hundred years hence, if we do not survive the grave.
The deist may, indeed, cherish hopes of a future
life, but can attain to no certain conclusion by the
light of nature. But, on the other hand, the atheist
cannot be certain that there will be no such state ;
for, let a man be ever so determined an atheist, he
must admit that he is brought into life by some
cause or other ; and, whatever may be the nature of
that cause, it is certainly not impossible that it may
continue or renew that existence which it has ori-
ginally produced.
Morality, as has been before observed, has its
foundation in the basis of civil society, and must,
therefore, flourish, in some degree, in all communi-
ties ; and for the like reason we find, that it is tole-
rably uniform in its principal branches, though with
great variations in its minuter ramifications ; for the
fundamental principles of all societies are much the
same, though there is considerable difference in the
subordinate institutions.
But though morality may exist independently of
religion, it certainly derives great support from the
sentiments which it inspires. The man who has no
expectations beyond the grave will be influenced
only by those considerations which may affect his
welfare upon earth ; whereas the man who believes
ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE. 65
in a life to come, has, in addition to all these motives,
the hopes of reward and the fear of punishment in a
future, perhaps an everlasting, state.
There exists, therefore, a strong tie to bind the be-
liever in futurity, which cannot affect the man whose
views are confined to this life. Yet experience
teaches us that men, though influenced, in some
degree, by their acknowledged principle of action,
are not influenced by it in proportion to its import-
ance. The difference in moral character between
a Christian and an infidel is by no means what might
be expected: and when we are obliged to place
great confidence in any one, we are apt to ask,
whether he is an honest man or a man of honour,
rather than to inquire into his speculative opinions,
or his religious tenets. From whence I draw one
or other of these conclusions ; either that man is
so much engrossed by worldly views, and the imme-
diate objects of sense, that the most momentous con-
siderations of future contingencies cannot draw his
attention from the pleasures and attachments of the
present life ; or that the belief of a future state,
which is so generally professed, proceeds more from
habit than from real conviction. We received it
without consideration, and we entertain it without
reflection: it may sometimes restrain us from the
commission of great crimes, but is not strong enough
to wean us from our predilection for temporal enjoy-
ments, or to induce us to sacrifice them to the hopes
of recompense hereafter.
But let the influence of this belief be what it may,
F
66 ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE.
it is certain that beyond the pale of Christianity it has
produced no result upon the moral conduct of man-
kind ; for, admitting that in most ages and countries
there might be a vague and confused idea of a future
life, it can hardly be said to have amounted to an
expectation, and was never the foundation of any
system either of religion, morals, or legislation.
Among those who have been educated as Christians
it may indeed frequently happen, as I have before had
occasion to observe, that some who in after-life re-
nounce their religion, still maintain their belief in a
future state.
It might have been expected, that when Christi-
anity was rejected, this doctrine would have shared
its fate ; for its truth is nowhere demonstrated in the
scriptures, nor is it attempted to be proved by argu-
ment : it rests on the same authority as the religion
itself, that of a revelation from God. If the claim
to a divine origin is unfounded, with respect to the
Gospel, the belief of a future state can derive no
weight from having been included among its doc-
trines. Yet such is the force of early impressions on
the mind, that, having imbibed the belief in their in-
fancy, and been accustomed to regard it as the principle
of their conduct and the foundation of their dearest
hopes, though they have rejected the authority by
which it is revealed, they still endeavour to find argu-
ments in its favour from the deductions of reason,
and often succeed in persuading themselves that
they have been taught it by natural religion alone.
How far mere human reason and the light of nature
ON THE BELIEF IN A FUTURE STATE. 67
can carry us in establishing this doctrine, it has been
my object in the present chapter to inquire ; and my
conclusion, upon the whole, is this, Although a future
state may have been a matter of doubtful expectation
and uncertain hope to those who have not been blessed
with the light of revelation ; and although some who
have seceded from Christianity may have persisted in
the belief of it, as one of those truths for which they
are indebted to natural religion ; yet I think I am
warranted in concluding, that mankind have no certain
grounds from the light of reason, independently of
revelation, to expect a future state of retribution in
another world ; much less a state of eternal felicity.
My own reason, at least, does not suggest to me any
such assurance ; I must, therefore, either take shelter
under the promises contained in the Gospel, or leave
the world, I will not say with a certain prospect of
annihilation, but without any well-grounded assurance
of another life.
F2
CHAPTER III.
ON THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY.
REVELATION being, as I think I have shewn, the
only sure foundation of our hopes, it becomes an in-
quiry of the highest importance, to ascertain whether
the points against which the most substantial objec-
tions of unbelievers are directed, are, in fact, the real
and genuine doctrines of Christianity.
The great question that occurs at the very threshold,
is, What is Christianity ? and Where are we to find
it?
The Gospel is, undoubtedly, the only authority by
which every controversy must ultimately be decided :
and it is often supposed that any other book is useless
in the inquiry, and would serve only to prejudice
the judgment, and perplex the understanding; but
this appears to me to be a mistaken view.
If, indeed, the mind were previously uninfluenced
by any partiality on the subject, it would, perhaps, be
the wisest and shortest way to have recourse at once
to the fountain head. But such a state of indiffer-
ence is hardly possible. Those who are born in
THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. 69
Christian countries insensibly imbibe the doctrines
in which they have been educated ; and those who
are converted to Christianity must receive their in-
structions from a teacher, who will infuse into the
mind of his proselytes the particular tenets of his own
church, at the same time that he inculcates the
more general truths of Christianity.
Whoever proceeds to the study of the scriptures
with his mind thus prepossessed with the views of
any particular sect, without any further information
as to the points in controversy, will probably find there
only a confirmation of his own opinions. A be-
liever in Transubstantiation, for instance, on reading
" Take, eat, this is my body," will, no doubt, at first
consider that text as an express sanction for the
doctrine in question. Whereas, if he had previously
studied the merits of the controversy, he would have
known that the point in dispute was not, whether
such a text existed, but whether it was to be under-
stood literally or figuratively.
For these reasons, I think it may often be of use
to have some general knowledge of the different
systems that have been raised, and then to refer to
the Bible itself, and inquire diligently and impartially,
which of them comes nearest to the doctrines which
are found there ; for undoubtedly, after the conflicting
arguments have been weighed, the New Testament
is the only authority that can decide, the only rule
of our faith, the only guide of our actions and judg-
ments.
70 ON THE FUNDAMENTAL
That Revelation is attended with various and con-
siderable difficulties, it would be idle to deny ; but
on an impartial investigation, I have no doubt it
will appear that many, and the most insuperable
of these difficulties, are not inherent in the religion
itself, but in the corruptions with which it has been
disguised and darkened by the errors, the passions,
and interested views of misguided and superstitious
men. The absurd and contradictory tenets which
have been added to its genuine doctrines have justly
revolted the minds of many, who, mistaking these in-
ventions of fallible or interested men for the oracles
of God, and finding them inconsistent with reason,
have rejected the whole of a system of which they
were represented as forming the most essential part.
When the trinity, the atonement, eternal punish-
ments for temporary offenses, the mysteries of grace,
predestination, and other such doctrines were re-
presented as necessary articles of faith, and faith itself
in these incomprehensible articles the only means
of salvation, and the more meritorious in proportion
as the articles themselves were repugnant to reason
and common sense when the simplicity of the Gospel
was thus disfigured, it is not wonderful that infidelity
should make so much progress ; for there are few
men who have the resolution and perseverance, and
all have not the ability, to distinguish the true and
genuine doctrines of Christianity from the corruptions
which it has undergone.
The first question, then, is What is genuine Chris-
TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. 71
tianity, and what is a man bound to believe in orde r
to be a Christian ? Every candid inquirer after truth
is under the greatest obligation to Mr. Locke for
having disencumbered the subject from the multitude
of articles of faith with which it had been overloaded.
His argument tends to prove, that the only thing
Jesus Christ called upon his hearers to believe was,
that he was the Messiah, which, according to the
Jewish phraseology, was the same as being the Son
of God.
This, certainly, he appears to have proved ; but it
must be observed, at the same time, that Christ
always addressed himself to the Jews only, who ex-
pected the coming of the Messiah, as a deliverer to
be sent from God ; and when he exhorted them to
believe that he was the Messiah, it was asserting/ in
other words, that he came from God, that the doctrine
he preached was the word of God, who had sent him
to promulgate it to the world. This was, undoubt-
edly, conclusive with respect to the Jews, whose hopes
of deliverance centered in the Messiah ; but when the
Gospel was preached to the Gentiles, if the truth of
it had depended on the single proposition that Jesus
was the Messiah, this would to them have been to-
tally unintelligible ; as they had never heard of a Mes-
siah, and were totally ignorant of the Jewish dispen-
sation. The apostles, therefore, when they preached
to the Heathens, proved the divine mission of Christ,
not from his being the Messiah, but principally from
his miracles, from his crucifixion and resurrection.
When Jesus himself rested the proof of his divine
72 ON THE FUNDAMENTAL
mission on his being the Messiah, and when the apos-
tles attempted to found the authority of his doc-
trines on his miracles and resurrection, they meant to
prove the same thing, viz. that he was sent from God,
and that he was authorized by Him to publish the
doctrines he delivered. It appears, therefore, sufficient
for a Christian to believe that Christ was sent by God
to publish his will to mankind ; the doctrine is to be
received because it comes from God, without any
reference to the nature of the person whom he chose
to employ in delivering it, whether a God, an angel,
or a man.
That Christ was sent into the world by the
Almighty to reveal his will to mankind, appears, then,
to me to be the great article of a Christian's faith.
In this there is nothing mysterious it is merely an
assent to a plain, simple, and intelligible fact : nor do
I consider it so much a duty in itself, as the means
necessary to the performance of all other duties ; for
we cannot be influenced by commands and promises,
unless we are persuaded that they proceed from a
being of sufficient authority to impose the one, and
make good the other. " He that comes to God must
believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them
that diligently seek him." This text shews at once
the nature and the necessity of faith, in order to
practice, as a means to an end, not as a virtue in itself.
As it is impossible to come to God without believing
that he is, so it is equally impossible that we should
sacrifice our temporal interests to attain everlasting
happiness, unless we believe that such a state of feli-
TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. 73
city is prepared, as is promised in the Gospel as a
reward for those who diligently seek him.
Faith, therefore, or a belief that the Gospel is a
revelation from God, though not meritorious in itself,
is the necessary foundation of all Christian virtues.
A certain degree of faith is necessary in the most ordi-
nary concerns of life. No man would sow if he did not
believe that the seeds he puts into the ground would
produce a future harvest ; and though there is nothing
meritorious in that faith, yet without it we should be
deprived of the necessaries of life ; so that it is as
essential to the temporal subsistence of mankind as
religious faith is to the future hopes of a Christian.
When a man who has refused to follow good
advice feels by experience the folly of his conduct,
he says, " If I had believed my friend, I should have
avoided the misfortune that has befallen me." It is
unnecessary to explain to the most superficial reasoner
that his believing his friend would, have been of no
avail, unless he had acted conformably to that belief;
he can only mean, that it would have been happy
for him, if he had followed the course his friend ad-
vised ; and certainly if he had followed the same
course from any other motive, still the consequences
would have been the same. May not a man who,
having rejected the authority or neglected the pre-
cepts of the Gospel, has fallen into a vicious course
of life, which has brought him in danger of present or
future punishment, say, that if he had believed the
Gospel he would have avoided the miserable state to
which he finds himself reduced ? It cannot in this,
74 THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY.
any more than in the former case, be supposed to be
his meaning, that the mere act of believing the Gospel
would have had that effect, but that such a belief
would have suggested motives sufficiently strong to
induce him to adopt a different line of conduct.
The necessity of faith consists, then, in its being a
motive to action. If we do not believe that the gospel is
a revelation from God, we must necessarily treat it as
an imposture; for it pretends to reveal what God
alone can know, and makes promises which God
alone is able to fulfil. If we reject the divine origin
of Christianity, what credit can we attach to the
promises it holds forth, which nothing short of divine
authority can entitle to our belief? And if we disbe-
lieve the promises of the Gospel, what inducement
can we have to observe its precepts ?
On this principle the necessity of faith will be
apparent, not from any mysterious merit in mere
belief, but because, as we cannot obey a law which
we do not know, so we cannot be deterred by threat-
enings, nor trust in promises, which we do not believe ;
and as many thinking persons revolt at the incom-
prehensible notions of the merits and efficacy of faith,
as generally understood, I trust the rational explana-
tion I have endeavoured to give of its nature and
necessity will remove the objections which have arisen
from the metaphysical subtilty and theological re-
finement, by which a subject in itself sufficiently
plain and intelligible has so long been darkened and
obscured.
CHAPTER IV.
ON THE TRINITY
I HAVE endeavoured to shew, in the preceding
chapter, that the divine mission of Christ and the
truth of the Gospel are the peculiar and fundamental
doctrines of Christianity. The belief of those great
truths seems to me to be the criterion which distin-
guishes the Christian from the infidel : such a belief
is undoubtedly necessary, and, in my opinion, it is
sufficient, to constitute a Christian.
It will, however, be said, that, admitting all this,
yet every man who believes the Gospel to be a reve-
lation from God, must, therefore, adopt every
doctrine and admit of every mystery which it con-
tains. I grant the consequence. But, on the other
hand, it must be allowed, that every individual must
form his own judgment of those doctrines and mys-
teries, independently of the dogmas of any church
or the prejudices of any sect.
To all, therefore, who are convinced, or who
find reason to believe, that the Gospel is a re-
velation from God, it is certainly of infinite conse-
quence to proceed with an impartial and unprejudiced
76 ON THE TRINITY.
mind to the examination of the doctrines and mys-
teries it is supposed to contain.
It has been too much the practice of all churches,
partly through interest, partly through superstition,
prejudice, and ignorance, to multiply mysteries and
sanction doctrines, for which no foundation can be
found in scripture, when fairly and impartially exa-
mined. These abuses have their origin in ages of
ignorance or corruption ; they derive from time and
antiquity an authority which they could not obtain
from reason ; and at length receive, from prescrip-
tion, no less weight as articles of faith, than if they
were clearly and incontestably established by plain
and direct texts of scripture. The absurdity of
some of these doctrines has often occasioned a pre-
judice against the religion of which they were repre-
sented as an essential part. Before I inquire,
therefore, into the immediate proofs of the truth of
revelation, it may not, perhaps, be an useless task
to remove some of the principal objections against
it, arising from the superstitious opinions and erro-
neous notions entertained among different commu-
nities ; for there are some things which the strongest
evidence cannot prove, and which no revelation can
establish. It is impossible any miracle can make
two and two to be five, a part to be greater than
the whole, or that any thing should exist and not
exist at the same time.
Doctrines which are contradictory, or inconsistent
with reason and common sense, cannot be believed :
either such doctrines are not to be found in the
ON THE TRINITY. 77
Gospel, or the Gospel itself must be rejected ; for
nothing contradictory or absurd can be a revelation
from God.
Our most orthodox divines are ready enough to
avail themselves of this mode of reasoning when
they are contending against the absurdities of the
Roman Catholics. Bishop Pearce says,* " Their
articles of faith, some of them at least, are of such
a nature, that a man disposed to do the will of God,
when made known to him, would be at a loss to re-
concile such a Christianity to the claim which it
makes of coming from God. If he were to deter-
mine any thing in the case, it would rather be
against the divine authority of the Christian doc-
trine, when blended together and proposed at the
same time with articles, some of them contrary to
reason, others to natural and revealed religion, and
others contrary even to the evidences of our senses."
" It is both new and strange " (he ought rather
to have said, it is neither new nor strange,) " that
errors of an enormous size, such as carry their ab-
surdity and even their refutation on their counte-
nance, such as are a contradiction to the reason and
senses of mankind, should not only be taught, but
should be seriously defended."f
" The disputes about Transubstantiation, particu-
larly, are not upon the footing of other controver-
sies : they are not so much a debate between texts
and texts of scripture, between reason and reason,
* Pearce's Sermons, Vol. IV. p. 355. f Ib. p. 91.
78 ON THE TRINITY.
as an opposition of direct falsehood to plain truth,
a struggle of nonsense against reason, of prejudice
and opinion against the evidence of sense. It would
be almost impossible for men to be so much in the
wrong in any case but that of religion."*
Archbishop Seeker argues in the same manner :
" Here, then, we fix our foot : if these things be to
every man living evidently absurd and impossible,
then let nobody ever regard the most specious pre-
tenses of proving such doctrines on the authority of
a church that maintains them. It is no hard matter
for an artful man, a little practised in disputing, so
to confound a plain man upon almost any subject,
that he shall not well know how to answer, though
he sees himself to be right and the other wrong.
This is an art which the priests are well versed in.
But always observe this rule : stick to common sense
against the world, and whenever a man would per-
suade you of any thing evidently contrary to that,
never be moved by any tricks or fetches of sophistry,
let him use ever so many."f
The Archbishop proceeds to apply this mode of
reasoning to the doctrine of Transubstantiation in
the following manner :
" But they have scriptures to plead for it ! Now,
if this were a doctrine of scripture, it would sooner
prove scripture to be false, than scripture could
prove it to be true, and, therefore, by making such
* Pearce's Sermons, Vol. IV. p. 116.
f Seeker's Sermons, Vol. VI. p. 166.
ON THE TRINITY. 79
a monstrous absurdity an article of faith, they have
loaded religion with a weight which, did it belong to
Christianity, were able to sink it."
Eheu!
Quam temere in nosmet leg-em sancimus iniquam.
The Archbishop is, indeed, aware that his argu-
ment may be retorted upon the Trinitarians, and
accordingly he endeavours to draw a distinction be-
tween the two cases : for the tricks and fetches of
priests are not confined to the advocates of Tran-
substantiation.
There have not been wanting divines, even in the
Church of England, who have rested on a broad
and comprehensive basis the reasonableness of the
doctrines of Christianity.
" Plainness and simplicity," says Dr. Jortin,* " are
the characters of the Gospel, if we consider it in it-
self, and set aside the unintelligible or unreasonable
doctrines and arbitrary decisions with which the
Christian Scribes and Pharisees have adulterated it."
To the same purpose Dr. Samuel Clark,f who
observes, " Vain men, while they have affected to
clog religion with absurdities which could not be
understood, have made its doctrines (as far as in
them lay) not venerable, but ridiculous."
And in the dedication prefixed by PaleyJ to his
Moral Philosophy, is the following admirable pas-
* Sermons, Vol. V. p. 428. f Sermons, Vol. I. p. 30.
J Pp. vii. vii.
80 ON THE TRINITY.
sage, in which he not only deplores the evil, but
points out the remedy :
" He who, by a diligent and faithful examination
of the original records, dismisses from the system
one article which contradicts the apprehension, the
experience, or the reasoning of mankind, does more
towards recommending the belief, and, with the be-
lief, the influence of Christianity, to the understand-
ings and consciences of serious inquirers, and
through them to universal reception and authority,
than can be effected by a thousand contenders for
creeds and ordinances of human establishment."
Great care and caution, however, must be taken
not to confound what our limited faculties cannot
comprehend with what is impossible or contradic-
tory in itself. There are a thousand things in the
natural world which we cannot understand, the
creation of the world, the system of the universe, all
the phenomena of nature, are beyond our compre-
hension ; there are also several things which our
imagination cannot even conceive, but our reason is
nevertheless compelled to admit.
However incomprehensible, for instance, may be
the idea of the infinity of space, it is still more in-
conceivable that there should be bounds by which it
can be limited. So likewise, though our faculties
are lost in the contemplation of eternity, yet the
mind is still compelled to acknowledge it from the
impossibility of accounting for a beginning. We
are not, therefore, to reject a doctrine merely be-
cause we cannot comprehend its reason, or fitness,
ON THE TRINITY. 81
or manner of operation : we may believe many
things which we cannot fully understand, but not
what shocks our reason or is contradicted by known
and acknowledged facts.
Transubstantiation and the Trinity are two great
stumbling-blocks in the way of the unbeliever; of
the former I shall take no notice, as it is universally
abandoned by Protestants ; though I am at a loss to
find a reason why those who can swallow the Trinity
should strain at Transubstantiation : it is a doctrine
not more inconsistent with reason than the Tri-
nity, and undoubtedly it can be much more plausibly
supported from scripture : indeed, there are some
texts which, if understood in their literal sense, would
establish it beyond the possibility of dispute. That
they are not to be so understood, I am ready to
admit ; but those who protest against such a literal
interpretation in this instance are apt to found other
doctrines equally absurd on the letter of passages
evidently requiring the same liberal construction
which they contend for in the case of Transubstan-
tiation.
The supporters of a Trinity in Unity are apt to en-
trench themselves behind a battery of ambiguous
terms, such as hypostasis, substance, and person, and
thus carry on a kind of defensive war by the use of
words void of any determinate meaning ; but if they
leave their entrenchments, and, advancing into the fair
field of controversy, come to an explanation of their
terms, it will be found that they must take refuge
G
82 ON THE TRINITY.
either in Tritheism or in Sabellianism. They have,
however, this consolation, that, let them deviate on
which side they will, the farther they recede from
the idea of Trinity in Unity, the nearer they approach
the borders of common sense.
I know no book in which the absurdities of the
Trinitarian hypothesis are so thoroughly developed
as in the first of Ben Mordecai's Letters, by the
Rev. Henry Taylor.
It is, to say the least of it, a very singular and
paradoxical position to maintain, that God is the Fa-
ther of Jesus Christ, and that the Holy Spirit pro-
ceeds from one or both of them, (for that point, I
believe, is not yet finally decided,) and that, at the
same time, they are all three eternal and co-existent.
Nothing, surely, to ordinary apprehensions is more
evident than that a son derives his existence from his
father, and that a being proceeding from another
cannot be self-existent.
At all events, when we are required to give our
assent to such a doctrine, we are naturally led to
suppose that it is explicitly laid down in the Gospel.
What, then, must be the astonishment of the in-
quirer, when, after having searched scripture with
the utmost diligence, he finds that, so far from any
clear and certain revelation on the subject, there are
only a few obscure texts which can give it the slightest
support ? Upon these texts I shall only remark, at
present, that one of them that of the three wit-
nesses is allowed by all candid commentators to be
an interpolation ; and, even if genuine, it would by
ON THE TRINITY. 83
no means warrant the conclusion attempted to be
drawn from it. Another text, directing Christians
to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, by no means establishes the doctrine of
a Trinity, still less of a Trinity in Unity. If the be-
lief of three gods in one was a necessary article of
faith, surely so strange and extraordinary a doctrine
would have been revealed in the most positive terms,
and not left to be inferred by the ingenuity of di-
vines from the doubtful interpretation of obscure and
uncertain texts.
Not only the word Trinity never occurs in scrip-
ture, but it is not even to be met with for some
ages after the promulgation of Christianity. Error
is progressive. The first step towards the establish-
ment of a Trinity in Unity was the belief in the
Divinity of Christ. When this had become a funda-
mental article of faith, and the Holy Spirit was after-
wards deified and personified, the Church found it-
self embarrassed with three gods, though scripture
declared, in the most positive terms, that there was
only one. It was, therefore, necessary to invent
some system by which the three gods might be
amalgamated into one. This was the necessity that
produced the incomprehensible doctrine of a Trinity
in Unity, which has exercised all the talents of the
most orthodox divines (and some of them have pos-
sessed very eminent talents) to very little purpose,
in endeavouring to render it consistent with reason
and common sense, with scripture, or even with
itself.
84 ON THE TRINITY.
As the divinity of Christ was the first step to this
doctrine, it is entitled to particular consideration.
Whoever considers the tendency of the human mind
to exaggerate the objects of its affection and admi- .
ration, as well as of its hatred and abhorrence, will
not think it wonderful that veneration should be
raised to adoration, and that what men have long
admired as more than human, they should, in pro-
gress of time, be led to consider as something ap-
proaching to divine, and should at last raise it to an
absolute equality with God.
On looking through the history of mankind,
it will be found that this propensity of the hu-
man mind to magnify the objects of its admi-
ration, is the foundation of all the superstitions
which have existed in the world. Nor is it wonder-
ful that the same blind zeal which has adored the
Virgin Mary, worshiped the Saints, ascribed miracu-
lous powers to their relics, and deified the very
bread they ate, should have concluded that Christ,
who certainly far surpassed all the rest of mankind,
could be nothing less than a God ; whether inferior
or equal, was long a matter of dispute, and the cause
of much bloodshed, and of many murders and civil
commotions ; but as in these cases, where the minds
of men are inflamed, and passion usurps the seat of
reason, the most exaggerated opinions always pre-
vail, it was finally decided, not only that he was
equal to God, but that he was the Eternal God
himself.
It must be owned that there are figurative pas-
ON THE TRINITY. 85
sages in the Gospel, which, primd facie, might in
some degree countenance the idea of the divinity of
Christ, if they were not opposed by a much greater
number of plain and precise texts, too clear to be
mistaken, as well as by the whole tendency of the
Gospel, the writings of the Apostles, and the reason
of the thing.
It is by no means my intention to enter into an
examination of the various texts alleged on both
sides of the question; this would far exceed the
limits of this treatise, even if I were qualified for the
task, which I undoubtedly am not ; but, as my ob-
ject is to state the grounds on which I have formed
my opinion, I shall make a few observations on the
most prominent of them, as well as on the general
tendency of what we are taught by Scripture on
that subject.
The introduction to St. John's Gospel is by far
the most conspicuous among the texts produced in
support of the divinity of Christ ; but so obscure is
its meaning, so figurative its language, that it is al-
leged, with equal confidence, by the Arians and
Trinitarians in support of their respective systems :
and its original obscurity is rendered still darker by
an inadequate translation the original expression,
Ao'yor, being very different from word, into which it
has been rendered. The Arians understand it to
refer to Christ, not as the Supreme God, but as a
great and powerful being, by whom God created the
world and manifested his will to mankind. But it
86 ON THE TRINITY.
must appear very strange, if the Apostle meant to
designate Jesus Christ under the expression Logos,
that, after having introduced him under that name,
he should never apply that appellation to him in the
whole course of his narrative ; for neither in this
nor in any other of the Gospels is Christ mentioned
under the appellation of the Logos. St. John con-
cludes his Gospel by saying, that he has written it to
prove that Jesus was the Son of God, that is, the
Messiah, as has been sufficiently proved by Locke :
he does not attempt to prove that he was the
Supreme God of the Trinitarians, or the Logos or
angel of the Arians, but only that he was the Mes-
siah promised to and expected by the Jews ; and
this Messiah was to be a man, not an angel or a
God.
Whoever considers the beginning of this Gospel
with any degree of attention, must be struck with
the difference between its extreme obscurity and the
plainness and simplicity of the rest of the narrative.
Therefore, if genuine, as it is universally admitted to
be, it is reasonable to believe that it refers to some
doctrines prevalent at that time, which are not ex-
plained, but to which it is meant as an answer ; and
the word logos, which does not, on any other sup-
position, seem to be very appropriate, being used on
this occasion, and in no other part of the Gospel,
gives us reason to believe that it alludes to the
Platonic philosophy, then very prevalent in the
East, which, besides the Supreme God, admitted an
inferior deity under the name of Logos, whom they
ON THE TRINITY. 87
supposed to be the active power, the efficient agent
of the Supreme Being, in the creation and govern-
ment of the world ; and that he meant to oppose
the philosophy of those eastern Christians who con-
founded the Logos with Jesus Christ, some of whom
believed that Christ was not in reality a man, but
the Logos under the semblance of a human form.
This opinion is very much strengthened by the cer-
tainty that the same Apostle, in his epistles, combats
the heresy of those who denied the humanity of
Christ. His argument, then, would be, that the
Logos of the Platonists was nothing but the wisdom
of God; not a different being, but the immediate
agency of the divine wisdom, which wisdom was
now made flesh, or communicated to the man Christ
Jesus. It must, at least, be acknowledged, that a
text so obscure in itself, and which will admit of so
many various and contradictory explanations, is but
a very unstable foundation for a doctrine so mo-
mentous, and, on every principle of reason, so inde-
fensible.
Where a text will admit of such latitude of inter-
pretation, that explanation must be the best which
is most consistent with the more direct and clear
texts of scripture, and which can best be reconciled
to its general tendency. It must be observed, that
all the texts alleged in support of the Trinity are
doubtful, obscure, and figurative ; while those that
confirm the Unitarian doctrine are clear, direct,
obvious, and explicit. The question, therefore, is,
whether the obscure and doubtful passages are to
88 ON THE TRINITY.
be interpreted by those that are clear and positive,
or whether the plain and obvious texts are to be
wrested to support a theory built on those that are
obscure and doubtful.
John x. 30 : " I and my Father are one."
This appears, at first sight, to be a very plausible
text in favour of the Trinitarian hypothesis; but
its meaning is rendered obvious and indisputable by
John xvii. 20, " Neither pray I for these alone, but
for them also who shall believe on me through their
word ; that they all may be one ; as thou, Father,
art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one
in us." This not only is an explanation of the
former text, but teaches us in what manner such figu-
rative expressions are to be understood in general.
Besides which, it is impossible even for the Trini-
tarians to understand these words in a sense strictly
literal ; for if Christ and the Father are individually
one and the same, then it must follow that, if Christ
suffered and died, the Father must have suffered and
died likewise ; in that case Christ was at the same
time mortal and immortal, finite and infinite, suffer-
ing and impassible ; and, certainly,, those who take
these words in a strictly literal sense are Patripas-
sians, which our orthodox believers stoutly and posi-
tively disclaim. They are, therefore, under the neces-
sity of deviating from the literal meaning of the words
as well as their opponents, and understand them as
signifying an unity of substance, as they call it, not
an unity of person. By this interpretation they in-
dulge themselves in as much latitude as the Unita-
ON THE TRINITY.
rians themselves ; for it is not more remote fro
literal expression to understand by it an unity of
doctrine and design, than a metaphysical unity of
substance, which conveys no distinct idea to the
mind. The explanation of the Unitarians, is, in my
opinion, infinitely preferable to the other; 1st, be-
cause it is clear and intelligible ; 2d, because it is
consistent with the whole tenor and tendency of
revelation; 3d, and chiefly because the words fol-
lowing that text prove, beyond the possibility of
doubt, that Jesus Christ used the words in that sense.
In several passages we find the concordance of the
views, designs, and objects of the Father and Son
declared and asserted; but nowhere does Christ
pretend to explain or discuss the metaphysical nature,
essence, or substance either of the Father or of him-
self: and, indeed, what idea is conveyed by unity of
substance, if the individuality of the being is not the
same ?
Bishop Kurd goes very near to assert that God
himself died for us, when he says that it was thought
fit " That the word of God the Son of God, nay
God himself, should take this momentous office upon
him: that heaven should stoop to earth, and that
the divine nature should be made man, should dwell
among us, and die for us." Sermons, Vol. II. 333.
John iii. 13 : " No man hath ascended up to heaven
but he that came down from heaven, even the Son
of man, who is in heaven."
Nothing shews more strongly the power which an
adherence to system exercises even on the best and
90 ON THE TRINITY.
wisest, than that so eminent a person as Dr. Clarke
should have understood ascended to heaven in a
figurative, while he took the words came down from
heaven in a literal sense ; and all this because that
distinction was necessary to support his hypothesis.
This is as contrary to every rule of criticism as it is
repugnant to reason. If the ascent to heaven is
figurative, as it undoubtedly is, the whole of the text
must be so too. And the meaning will be, no one
is acquainted with the secret designs of God but he
that was sent by God, the Son of man, who is ho-
noured with the confidence of the Father. This may
perhaps, at first sight, appear too bold an explana-
tion; but let it be considered, that the whole of
the conversation with Nicodemus is as highly figu-
rative as this passage.
Philippians ii. 6 : " Who being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God : 7,
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon
him the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men : 8, And being found in fashion as a
man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto
death, even the death of the cross. 9, Wherefore
God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a
name which is above every name : 10, That at the
name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things
in heaven, and things in earth, and things under
the earth ; 11, And that every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
Father."
The supporters of the divinity of Christ have
ON THE TRINITY. 91
endeavoured to shelter themselves under the first
part of the passage, which is obscure in itself, and ren-
dered more so by a faulty translation. There are,
however, several particulars in it absolutely incon-
sistent with the divinity of Christ : the obvious infe-
rence from the whole text is, that, in consequence
of his obedience, he was exalted to a height
which he had not before attained. This is further
expressed in Heb. xii. 2, where the apostle says, that
"Jesus, for the joy that was set before him, endured
the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the
right hand of God." I am not surprised that the
Arians should build much upon this text, which is
certainly very consistent with their system ; but it is
totally irreconcilable with the Trinitarian hypothesis.
Sherlock, however, (without any comparison the
ablest and acutest of all the defenders of the orthodox
system,) makes a curious distinction respecting the
exaltation of Christ. He says, that there are distinct
states of glory belonging to Christ, "The glory which
he had with the Father before the worlds, and the
glory which he received from the Father at the
redemption, one the glory of nature, the other the
glory of office ; one the glory of the Logos, the other
the glory of the Son of man." We should be
tempted to smile at the subtilty of this distinction,
if we were not shocked at the blasphemy of the
conceit. To talk of the official dignity and character
of the Almighty as if he was talking of a secretary of
state ! On the idea that Christ was a man, or even
an angel, he was certainly capable of being exalted ;
92 ON THE TRINITY.
but any exaltation whether it be in the glory of
nature, or in the glory of office is utterly incon-
sistent with the idea of the Supreme God. Sup-
posing it possible for the Almighty so far to humble
himself as to assume our nature, can it be conceived
that from such an humiliation he could derive any
accession of glory ? Can additional powers be be-
stowed upon Omnipotence ? By whom are they to be
conferred ? " What interest/' (says Dr. Balguy, an
orthodox minister,,) " what benefit, what addition of
good, can possibly accrue to him whose felicity is
absolutely perfect, and from whom all happiness
proceeds ?"
If before his exaltation Christ was the Supreme
God, equal and consubstantial with the Father, he
must by his exaltation be raised higher than he was
before, and consequently higher than the Father
himself, to whom he was previously equal. Nor can
the difficulty in this instance be avoided by saying
that he was only exalted in his human capacity;
for we are told that it was the being who was with
God and was equal to God who was thus rewarded
for his humility. To suppose that his resurrection,
however it might exalt his human, could be any ex-
altation of his divine nature, is the greatest of all
absurdities. And, indeed, even after his exaltation,
so far from being raised to an equality or superiority
to God, he is only seated at his right hand. Had
the Apostle intended to hold him out as a divine
being, he would have said that he sat at the right
hand of the Father, not at the right hand of God.
ON THE TRINITY. 93
If we could admit for a moment the idea, that
Christ before his incarnation was a divine being,
and that he emptied himself of his divinity, in that
case he was no longer God when he came among us,
for he could not retain the character of which he had
emptied himself. But what a degrading idea it gives
us of the Divine nature, to represent it as a thing
which may be put on or laid aside like a garment !
Although these and some other texts are not
without difficulty, and, when taken separately, afford
some plausibility for many of the conclusions that
have been drawn from them, especially by the
Arians ; yet, when compared with the superior clear-
ness and authority of other texts, as well as with
the general tenor and tendency of the Gospel, it
appears to me to be impossible to prefer the obscure,
indirect, and unsatisfactory intimations from which
the divinity of Christ is deduced, to the positive,
clear, and rational accounts in which he is repre-
sented as nothing more than a man. I shall point
out a few of those texts which, in my opinion, place
the inferiority of Christ to God Almighty beyond
the least shadow of doubt.
John xiv. 28 : "My Father is greater than I."
Now, if the Father and Christ were the same,
one could not be greater than the other, and he
would be made to say, I am greater than myself.
He says repeatedly, that he is sent from God;
that he is come, not to do his own will, but the will
of him that sent him. If Christ and the being that
sent him are the same, then he is come to do his
94 ON THE TRINITY.
own will, and, at the same time, not to do his
own will.
John v. 19 : " Verily, I say unto you, the Son
can do nothing of himself." Ver. 25 : " As the
Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the
Son to have life in himself; and hath given him au-
thority to execute judgment also, because he is the
Son of Man."
Matt, xxviii. 18: "All power is GIVEN to me in
heaven and in earth."
Heb. iii. 3 : " For this man (Christ) was counted
worthy of more glory than Moses."
Surely, if he was the Eternal God, there was little
occasion for the writer of this epistle to enter into
an argument to prove that he was superior to Moses.
In all these texts, if the word God were substituted
in the place of Christ, the absurdity would be evi-
dent.
John xvii. 3 : " This is life eternal, that they
might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus
Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Here Christ is expressly distinguished from the
only true God, and, therefore, could not be that
true God by whom he was sent.
Eph. v. 20 : " Giving thanks always for all things
unto God and the Father, in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ."
There is no manner of doubt that God and the
Father mean the same person, as if it were written
God our Father, or God even the Father. It is
fortunate, however, that the latter part of this text
ON THE TRINITY. 95
was added, otherwise the Trinitarians might have
interpreted God to mean Christ, though they would,
by that interpretation, have given him the precedence
of God the Father : but as we are commanded to
pray to God in the name of Christ, it unavoidably
follows that they are distinct beings.
Matt. xix. 17: "Why callest thou me good?
there is none good but one, that is, God."
Here he evidently distinguishes himself from God.
It is clear that the apostles considered Jesus
as a man.
John xx. 9 : " For as yet they knew not the
Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead."
Indeed, it appears that after his crucifixion they
had given up all their hopes, a certain proof that
they believed him to be mortal, like themselves ; for
if he had been a god, his death and sufferings would
have been the miracle, not his resurrection. The
incredulity of the Apostle Thomas may likewise be
adduced as incontrovertible evidence that he had no
idea of him but as a mere man. Even after his re-
surrection, they neither represent him as a god, nor
direct any worship to be paid to him, mentioning
him only as a man approved of God, by whom he
was empowered to work miracles, as they were
themselves. He is called an high priest and a me-
diator, characters which absolutely exclude the
idea of his being the God to whom he officiated
as priest, or the t King with whom he acted as
mediator.
Besides those texts in which our Saviour is desig-
96 ON THE TRINITY.
nated as a man, the whole purport and tendency of
the New Testament represent him as such ; and
even our orthodox divines,, when not on their guard,
sometimes consider him, at least, as inferior to the
Father. Sherlock, in his Fifty-first Sermon, says,
" The fall of man was the loss of so many subjects
to Christ, their natural Lord, under God."
There are a few passages in which Christ is said
to have been worshiped ; but in scripture the word
" worship" is not confined to the adoration of the
Deity, but is often used to signify the respect paid
to a superior : for instance, Dan. ii. 46, " Nebuchad-
nezzar fell upon his face and worshiped Daniel";
Matt, xviii. 26, " The servant fell down and wor-
shiped his Lord."
Much stress has sometimes been laid on those
texts in which Christ is spoken of as the Son of God,
and as being born of God. These and similar ex-
pressions, even in their most literal sense, necessarily
imply his inferiority to the Father, by expressly
pointing to the difference between an uncaused,
self-existent Being, and another being proceeding
from and produced by Him. And it has been shewn
by Locke, that "the Son of God" was the title
which the Jews gave to their promised Messiah,
whom, at the same time, they expected to be a
human, not a divine being. Besides which, it is to
be remarked, that the same expressions are frequently
applied to mere mortals, both in the Old and in the
New Testament. To cite a tenth part of those pas-
sages would fill a volume, and exhaust the patience
ON THE TRINITY. 9?
of the reader. I will, however, quote a few in proof
of my assertion.
Exod. iv. 22 : " Israel is my son, even my first-born."
Hosea i. 10 : "Ye are the sons of the living God."
In both these passages the expression is applied
to the whole body of the Israelites a striking in-
stance of the latitude in which it is used.
Romans viii. 14: "For as many as are led by
the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."
According to this description, Christ might well be
called the Son of God in the most distinguished man-
ner.
1 John v. 18 : " We know that whosoever is born
of God sinneth not ; but he that is begotten of God
keepeth himself."
This proves that, by being born and begotten of
God, a divine nature is not necessarily implied.
1 John v. 1 : "Whosoever believeth that Jesus
is the Messiah, is born of God"
Phil. ii. 15 : " That ye may be blameless and
harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke."
John i. 12 : "As many as received him, to them
gave he power to become the sons of God, even to
them that believe on his name."
2 Pet. i. 4 : " That by these ye might be par-
takers of the divine nature"
These are very strong expressions ; and if they had
been applied to Christ, what a powerful argument they
would have supplied to the believers in his Divinity !
In the first verse of the fourth chapter of St.
H
98 ON THE TRINITY.
Luke are these words : " And Jesus, being full of
the Holy Ghost, was led by the Spirit into the
wilderness."
Though there is here no immediate reference to
the nature of Christ, yet this account is quite incon-
sistent with his divinity. If Christ be the Supreme
God, and the Holy Ghost be the Supreme God, we
have one Supreme God come to assist another
Supreme God to encounter the Devil. If Christ be
God, he could not possibly require any aid on this
or any other occasion ; but supposing him, as he is
always represented in Scripture, to be a man, it was
necessary he should be under the guidance and di-
rection of the Spirit of God, or the divine influence,
which is all that is meant by what we translate the
Holy Ghost.
In Luke xxii. 43, when Christ was praying in his
agony, it is said, " And there appeared an angel unto
him from heaven, strengthening him."
Can any thing be more ridiculous than the idea
that God should want the help of an angel to
strengthen him ? Nor will it remove the objection
to say, that it was only the human nature of Christ
that wanted to be strengthened ; for if his human
nature never received assistance from his divine na-
ture, it is difficult to say what purpose the latter
could possibly answer. It does not appear that it
ever came into action ; but every thing that Christ
did was done in his human capacity, and when su-
peripr assistance was required, it was bestowed upon
ON THE TRINITY. 99
him by the Spirit of God. The idea we entertain of
God is that of a being, eternal, uncaused, self-exist-
ent, impassible, omnipresent, incapable of change.
Can we apply any of these attributes to Christ ?
It is useless to multiply texts ; so strong, indeed,
is the evidence resulting from them, that the Trini-
tarians have endeavoured to evade their force by
supposing, that Christ being both God and man, is
sometimes to be considered in one capacity and
sometimes in the other ; and as they see three per-
sons in one nature, so they also see two natures in
one person. This, as Whitby says, is really to bur-
lesque scripture.
But so far from removing the difficulty, this sup-
position only leads to more glaring inconsistencies
and contradictions. For instance, if the Trinitarians
say that the Christ that suffered on the cross was
the same Christ, the second person of the Trinity,
who is the object of their worship, then God suffered
and died : if they say that Christ suffered only in
his human nature, as they are pleased to phrase it,
then his sufferings were only the sufferings of a
man. In the same manner, it is impossible to
reconcile with these two natures the exaltation of
the Son of Man and his sitting at the right hand of
God. In his divine nature he was incapable of being
exalted; and if he was exalted, in his human nature,
we must suppose that the Supreme God, in his
union with human infirmities, contracted so great a
predilection for our nature that he continued the
union after his ascension into heaven. So, likewise,
H2
ON THE TRINITY.
if Christ was God, then his prayers were addressed
to himself, or, according to the puzzling system of a
double nature, they were addressed by his human na-
ture to his divine nature ; and his prayer on the cross
for the forgiveness of his persecutors, upon this
supposition, according to which the same being who
prayed for them had it in his power (whether in his
human or his divine nature is immaterial) to pardon
them himself, is reduced to a mere mockery.
In conclusion, let me ask those who maintain the
divinity of Christ one simple question : Did Jesus
suffer only in his human, or likewise in his divine
nature ? If he suffered in his human nature only,
his were only the sufferings of a man, which is the
doctrine I am endeavouring to establish ; if he suf-
fered likewise in his divine nature, I must further
ask, whether those sufferings were confined to that
section of the divine nature which was incorporated in
his person, or whether the whole of the divine nature
participated in those sufferings. If they were con-
fined to the personal divinity of Christ himself, then
we have evidently two Gods, one God who inflicts,
and another God who suffers punishment ; and if
we suppose that God the Father participated in
those sufferings, we fall into the old heresy of the
Patripassians ; we have an impassible being in a
state of suffering, an immortal being dying on the
cross, and a just and omnipotent being punishing
the sins of men, not on the sinners, but on himself.
Upon the whole, the divinity of Christ appears
to me to be so at variance with the whole spirit and
ON THE TRINITY. 101
tendency of the Gospel, as well as so repugnant to
reason, that it cannot be admitted either by the
Christian or the philosopher. The Christian cannot
find any sufficient foundation for it in scripture ; and
if he could, the philosopher would rather reject
Christianity than admit a doctrine so revolting to
reason, and, at the same time, so inconsistent with
every idea of the Deity which we are taught to en-
tertain by Revelation, as contained in the Old and
New Testaments.
The Arians undoubtedly urge many plausible
arguments in support of their system ; and there are
certainly several texts in which the pre-existence of
Christ appears, at first sight, to be strongly implied.
One of the most prominent of these is John xvii. 5 :
" Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with
the glory which I had with thee before the world
was." But a critical examination of the language of
scripture will shew that things are often said to have
been, when they are only intended or pre-ordained ;
and that such is the true construction of this text
will evidently appear by comparing it with similar
expressions in other passages, where the meaning is
too clear to admit of a doubt.
Rev. xiii. 8 : " The Lamb slain from the founda-
tion of the world."
This can mean only what has been more explicitly
expressed by St. Peter. 1 Pet. i. 19, 20 : "A lamb,
without blemish, fore-ordained before the foundation
of the world."
102 ON THE TRINITY.
And, in the same manner, the glory of Christ,
mentioned in the former text, means nothing more
than the glory to which he was destined before the
world was.
Ephesians i. 4 : " According as he hath chosen us
in him, before the foundation of the world, that we
should be holy and without blame, before him in
love."
If the pre-existence of Christ is established by the
former passage, this, upon the same principle of
interpretation, would prove the pre-existence of the
apostles.
It appears to me, however, that the dispute is not
so much to be decided by any particular texts, many
of which are figurative and obscure, as by the gene-
ral tendency of the Scriptures, and the ideas which
a fair and impartial view of the whole dispensation
is calculated to impress on the mind ; and this, I
think, is greatly in favour of the Unitarian hypo-
thesis.
If Christ was not a man, his example cannot be
held out to our imitation ; nor would his resurrec-
tion be a pledge of ours. The whole history is that
of a man; of a man, indeed, particularly distin-
guished and inspired by the Almighty, but still a
man in other respects like ourselves : as such he
was represented by the apostles, before and after
his resurrection. There are, likewise, some texts
which the utmost ingenuity of divines cannot easily
elude. I shall cite very few. Acts ii. 22 : " Jesus
of Nazareth, A MAN approved of God." This was said
ON THE TRINITY. 103
after his resurrection. 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22 : " For since
by man came death, by MAN came also the resurrection
from the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in
Christ shall all be made alive." Man must surely
have the same signification in both members of the
first sentence ; and the conclusion from the whole is,
that Christ was as much a man as Adam. 1 Tim.
ii. 5 : " For there is one God and one Mediator be-
tween God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus."
The Jews had a divine law and a divine revelation,
which they held as sacred as Christians do the Gos-
pel ; but their veneration for their law and their
faith in their revelation were not founded on the
sanctity of the person by whom it was promulgated
to them. Moses was a man, a sinner like them-
selves; nor was he distinguished from the rest of
his brethren, except inasmuch as he was chosen by
the Almighty to declare his will to them. As such
he was venerated by them, but in no other respect ;
they did not ascribe to the messenger the glory of
the Almighty Being by whom he was delegated.
Deuteronomy xviii. 15 : " The Lord thy God will
raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee,
of thy brethren, like unto me."
If this is to be understood of Christ, as is com-
monly acknowledged, and as it is applied to him by
St. Peter, even after his resurrection ; then it must
follow, from the natural sense of the words, either
that Moses was a divine being like Christ, or that
Christ was to be a mere man like Moses ; for surely
nothing can be more unlike than a mortal man and
104 ON THE TRINITY.
an immortal God. And this prophet was to arise
"from the midst of thee, of thy brethren;" not to be
sent down from heaven like a God. If it is objected,
that the words like unto me are not to be understood
strictly and absolutely as of the same substance,
essence, or nature, but that, as his office and object
were to be similar to those of Moses, he might be
said to be like unto him in those respects ; surely
those who argue in that manner, cannot consistent-
ly object to the same latitude of interpretation in
those texts in which the Father and Christ are
figuratively compared or assimilated.
The controversy, however, between the Arians
and the Unitarians is not like that with the Trinita-
rians; for there is nothing in the tenets of either
repugnant to reason, or inconsistent with the spirit
of Christianity, or the attributes of the Deity ; nor
does it make any material difference whether God
communicates his will to us by a man like ourselves,
or by an angel of a superior nature and dignity.
The argument with respect to the divinity and
personality of the Holy Ghost is encumbered with
far fewer difficulties. Never, perhaps, was there a
doctrine of any sect or religion built on grounds so
slender and unsatisfactory. The Holy Ghost, or, a&
the words would be more properly rendered, the
Holy Spirit, has, indeed, in most of the established
churches, been recognized as a distinct person, and
promoted to the third place in the Trinity ; but, in
other respects, he occupies a very subordinate share
ON THE TRINITY.
I
of their attention, and in Roman Catholic countries^
he seems to be scarcely more an object of worship
and adoration than the meanest of their saints.
In every page of scripture we read of the apostles
and others being filled with the Holy Ghost, by
which we are not to understand a person, but a gift,
an influence : the simple meaning is, that they were
vested with spiritual powers, or directed by the
Spirit of God. This is the meaning of the term Holy
Spirit throughout the Scriptures, except, perhaps, in
a very few figurative passages, where it is used by
way of personification.
The Grace of God is sometimes spoken of in the
same manner, but yet has never been exalted into a
separate person.
The Jews had, certainly, no idea of the Holy
Ghost as a divine being, distinct from God the
Father; yet the same expressions are applied to the
Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, which are used
in the New with respect to the Holy Ghost.
Numbers xi. 25 : " And the Lord came down in
a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit
that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy
elders; and it came to pass, that when the spirit
rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not
cease."
The terms in which this is expressed terms
which are utterly inconsistent with the idea of the
divinity or even of the individuality of the Spirit
are precisely similar to those used in the New Tes-
106 ON THE TRINITY.
lament when the Holy Ghost was bestowed on the
apostles.
Isaiah Ixiii. 11 : " Where is he that put his holy
Spirit within him T
Luke i. 15 : " John shall be filled with the Holy
Ghost even from his mother's womb."
Acts. xi. 24 : " For he was a good man, and full
of the Holy Ghost." Again, Acts vi. 3 : " Where-
fore, brethren, look ye out among you men of
honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom."
If, in this passage, the Holy Ghost is a God, I do
not see why Wisdom should not be a God likewise.
It appears, from a number of clear and positive
passages, that the Holy Ghost was merely a gift
from God.
Luke xi. 13 : " Much more shall your heavenly
Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him."
Acts xv. 8 : " And God, who knoweth the hearts,
bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even
as he did unto us."
John iii. 34 : " For God giveth not the Spirit by
measure unto him."
And in Acts x. 38 : " You know how God
anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost
and with power."
The meaning of this text, according to the ortho-
dox system, would be, that one God gives another
God to a third God ; and that, nevertheless, these
three Gods, the giver, the receiver, and the gift, are,
at the same time, one and the same God.
ON THE TRINITY. 10?
In all these passages, let those who believe in the
divinity of the Holy Ghost substitute the word
"God" wherever the term occurs, and judge for
themselves whether the effect be reasonable or
absurd.
The principal text on which the personal existence
of the Holy Ghost is founded, is that where the
apostles are sent to baptize in the name of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which means no
more than that their disciples should be initiated
into the religion revealed by God through Christ,
with miraculous powers, or in the spirit of holiness.
The Holy Spirit, or spirit of God, is frequently
used merely in opposition to the spirit of this world.
And in the same sense the spirit is opposed to the
flesh, and spiritual to carnal objects. The gifts of
the Spirit are the spiritual powers which God con-
ferred on the apostles ; and the fruits of the Spirit
are the virtues which proceed from a spirit of holi-
ness.
Even the Trinitarians frequently drop into the
proper use of the word " Spirit," in a sense quite
irreconcileable to the idea of its being a god. It is
so used more than once in the liturgy of the Church
of England :
" That it may please Thee to give to all Thy peo-
ple increase of grace to hear meekly Thy word, and
to receive it with pure affection, and to bring forth
the fruits of the Spirit."
" That it may please Thee to give us true re-
pentance, to forgive us all our sins, negligences, and
108 ON THE TRINITY.
ignorances, and to endue us with the grace of Thy
Holy Spirit, to amend our lives according to thy
Holy Word."
The words Spirit and Holy Spirit are here em-
ployed in the same sense in which they are used in
scripture, and give us by no means the idea of a
Deity, or any person distinct from God himself, but
merely of the powers or gifts conferred by him. We
may, perhaps, be told, that the Spirit here mention-
ed is something different from the Holy Ghost : we
are even told, that the very expression Holy Ghost
is not always to be understood in the same sense,
an admission of the fact, that there are passages in
which it cannot by possibility be interpreted to sig-
nify a person, much less a deity. Thus are the
Trinitarians themselves driven to acknowledge that
there are several texts concerning the Holy Ghost
which they cannot reconcile to their system ; and in
order to obviate the difficulty that presses on them,
they teach us that the word sometimes means one
thing, sometimes another, without informing us how
we may distinguish between the two. What pains
have been taken, how much labour bestowed, what
industry exerted, what ability employed to mystify
a subject which was in itself so plain, clear, and in-
telligible !
CHAPTER V.
ON THE ATONEMENT.
ANOTHER stumbling-block in the way of unbe-
lievers is the orthodox doctrine of Atonement. That
the Almighty cannot forgive the sins of men without
a satisfaction to his justice, and that this satisfaction
is to be obtained, not by the punishment of the
offenders, not by the sufferings only of the inno-
cent, but by the death of God himself, expiring on
the cross, is a supposition so repugnant to our feel-
ings, so derogatory to the character of the Deity,
that it is astonishing that it should even have ever
entered the mind of a human being, much more,
that it should have been entertained by learned,
sober, and pious men. What should we think
of a prince who could not grant a criminal his life
unless his justice was satisfied by cutting off his own
hand, or by the death of his son ? The Atonement
of the Arians softens, but does not remove the ob-
jection ; it does not shock us with the idea of the
sufferings of the Deity, and whatever might be the
sufferings of the Logos, he might receive adequate
110 ON THE ATONEMENT.
compensation for them. But still, the idea of vica-
rious punishment, and satisfaction made for sin by
the innocent to atone divine justice, is one so totally
irreconcileable with our ideas of right and wrong,
and with the attributes of God, that it is impossible
to admit a system of which it forms a part.
It must be remembered, that the chief part of the
Jewish worship consisted of oblations made to God ;
and we find the term sacrifice applied not only to
things so offered, but, in a figurative manner, to any
thing performed with a view to the service of God.
In this sense of the word, as Christ laid down his life
in obedience to God for the benefit of mankind, his
death may well be called a sacrifice. A similar use
of the term frequently occurs in the New Testament ;
for instance, in St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, xii.
1 : " I beseech you, brethren, by the mercies of God,
that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,"
&c. In this sense the death of Christ might very
properly be called a sacrifice.
Phil. iv. 18 : "I am full, having received of Epa-
phroditus the things which were sent from you, an
odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-
pleasing to God." This sacrifice was only a sum of
money sent to St. Paul in his necessities.
The same observations will apply to the word Re-
demption, which, in the original, signifies deliverance
in general, and does not imply that any particular
price was paid to obtain that deliverance; but to
understand the system of redemption contained in
the Gospel, we must trace the matter to its source.
ON THE ATONEMENT. Ill
Death was the punishment threatened in case of
Adam's disobedience ; and after he had tasted the
forbidden fruit, the sentence passed upon him was,
" In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread until
thou return unto the ground ; for out of it wast thou
taken : for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou
return." What can any one understand, but that
Adam was to be no more ; that his being was to be
extinguished, and his existence totally annihilated ?
There are, however, some outrageous divines who
are not satisfied with that, but who insist that, by
death is to be understood an eternal existence in a
place of torment and everlasting misery, and that, in
consequence of this fatal apple, all mankind would
have been doomed to everlasting torments, had not
Jesus Christ come into the world to save a few or-
thodox believers from this miserable state. A French
author observes somewhere, " Si dieu a fait 1'homme
a son image, l'homme le lui a bien rendu." This
supposition at one stroke divests the Almighty of all
his attributes except his power, of which it repre-
sents him as making the most cruel and tyrannical
exertion ; for such a condemnation of mankind a
priori to eternal misery, in spite of any thing in
their power to avoid it, is as irreconcilable to his
justice and equity as to his goodness and mercy. I
do not believe eternal death is mentioned in Scrip-
ture ; but if it is, it certainly requires a peculiarly
orthodox brain to construe what obviously means an
eternal cessation of being into an everlasting exist-
ence in misery. Jortin, Law, Locke, and the most
112 ON THE ATONEMENT.
rational expounders, understand this passage in its
real and only admissible sense, that Adam, in con-
sequence of his disobedience, became mortal, and
lost his claim to immortality both for himself and
his posterity.
Adam being rendered mortal, it follows that his
descendants must be likewise mortal, as naturally as
that a colt is the progeny of a horse. Nor can there
be the least impeachment of the Divine justice on
this account. Life is the free gift of the Creator,
and, whether it be long or short, we ought to be
grateful for it.
But though God was under no obligation to
bestow immortality on man, or to extend his being
beyond this transitory life, yet he was graciously
pleased to afford him the means of being restored to
that immortality which had been forfeited by the
transgression of Adam ; and for this purpose Christ
was sent into the world, to bring life and immortality
to light through the Gospel, that is, to announce to
mankind the certainty of a future state, and to teach
them how they might secure to themselves a happy
immortality, by repentance and a virtuous life.
Those who are of opinion that all these things
were already sufficiently taught by the law of nature,
have puzzled themselves with several mysterious
doctrines which are held out as essential to salva-
tion, independently of moral duties, and the most
extravagant notions of the merit of faith have been
propagated through the Christian world. I have
already explained, that faith is only valuable as a
ON THE ATONEMENT. 113
means, Christ came to save those that believe,
that is, those who give so much credit to his reve-
lation as to endeavour, by the virtuous life he pre-
scribed, to attain the happy immortality he pro-
mised.
So far from the salvation of mankind depending
on mere belief or the merits of faith, in all the de-
scriptions we have of the last judgment, faith is no-
where placed among those qualities which shall en-
title man to reward or rescue him from punishment.
On the contrary, it appears that even those who had
faith sufficient to prophesy in the name of Christ, to
cast out devils, and to perform many wonderful works,
were rejected among the workers of iniquity. Faith
is only valuable as the path to righteousness; but
righteousness, whether the fruit of faith or reason,
will be acceptable. Repentance or a virtuous life
was the doctrine preached by Christ. The sanction
of this doctrine was the promise of immortal life ;
but this promise would not be of any authority, un-
less Christ was believed to come from God, or, ac-
cording to the Jewish language, to be the Messiah.
This appears to me to be the whole of the Scripture
doctrine of faith, which has been converted into such
a mysterious and inconceivable obligation.
There is one objection, however, and a very im-
portant one, to the hypothesis, that Christ came
from God to reveal the universal restoration of man-
kind to immortality, and to instruct them in the
means of obtaining felicity in the next world. It
will be said, if such a communication was neces-
i
114 ON THE ATONEMENT.
sary, it ought to have been made to all mankind,,
since all are equally interested in it ; whereas it
came very late, and the knowledge of it has been
confined, even since its promulgation, to compara-
tively a small portion of the human race. In answer
to this I shall observe, that it appears to me highly
probable (and, indeed, this opinion is confirmed by
numberless texts of scripture), that Christ not only
was sent to reveal the restoration of mankind, but
that he was himself the instrument by which God
thought proper to effect this restoration.
Here, however, we must be careful to steer clear
of the erroneous ideas of satisfaction which have so
long prevailed in almost every Christian church, as
if God could not pardon the sins of men freely
without punishing their offenses either on them-
selves, or on some innocent being who would
consent to be the sacrifice, and whose punishment
would be the more agreeable to divine justice
because unmerited. This is absolutely denying the
mercy of God ; for if he cannot forgive without due
compensation, he is not merciful ; and, at the same
time, gives such an idea of his justice as contradicts
every idea of that virtue ever entertained by reason-
able men. God's ways, we are told, are not as our
ways ; but what notion can we entertain of the
Divine attributes, but from our own ideas of the
qualities ascribed to him ? If, under the name of
justice and mercy, we suppose him to act in a
manner exactly the reverse of our own notions of
justice and mercy, there are no ideas annexed to
ON THE ATONEMENT. 115
words; and if his justice is the reverse of our no-
tions of justice, why may not his veracity differ
equally from the ideas we entertain of that quality,
and then where is our reliance in his promises ?
When Christ tells us that God is good and mer-
ciful, he either means that we should understand
him according to our ideas of goodness and mercy,
or what he said was unintelligible. We are told to
be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect, and,
still more to the point, to be merciful as our Father
in heaven is merciful, and are even taught to pray
daily to God to forgive us our faults as we forgive
them that trespass against us. Now, if the mercy
of God cannot pardon without an equivalent, or
compensation, or satisfaction, it will follow, that we
also are not required to forgive freely, nor unless
the like satisfaction be offered to us.
We may, however, suppose, that there was some-
thing more in the mission of Christ than merely the
revelation of a future state and the disclosure of the
means by which we might make it a happy one.
But whatever it was, it was the free, spontaneous
gift of God himself, who sent Jesus Christ for that
purpose ; and the latter was only the instrument of
his Father to effect that great work, for which he
was amply rewarded.
Let us consider this very remarkable text, 1 Cor.
xv. 21, 22 : " For since by man came death, by man
came also the resurrection from the dead. For as
in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made
alive." The natural construction of this passage is,
i2
116 ON THE ATONEMENT.
that as mortality was the consequence of Adam's
transgression, so the restoration of mankind to im-
mortality was effected by the instrumentality of the
man Christ Jesus. In this sense the death of Christ
might, without much impropriety, be called an
atonement, not for the sins of men in general, but
for the particular transgression of Adam. Or, to ex-
plain myself more properly, if, in consequence of
Adam's disobedience, all men were involved in the
sentence of death passed upon him, why might not
the perfect obedience of Christ, "who, for the glory
that was set before him, endured the cross, despising
the shame, and is now set down at the right hand of
God," reverse that sentence and restore them to the
immortality from which they had fallen? Con-
sidered in this light, the death of Christ, as it was
the necessary consequence of the scheme adopted
by Divine Wisdom, as it was the strongest proof he
could give of his obedience, and a necessary prelude
to his resurrection, might undoubtedly, in a meta-
phorical sense, be represented as a sacrifice, an
atonement ; and, even without any metaphor what-
ever, he may be said to have suffered for us ; not
instead of us, but for our advantage, on our ac-
count.
If, by the expression that Christ died for us, we
are to understand that he died in our stead, he must
have suffered that death which we should otherwise
have incurred. But is that the case here? Put
what construction you please on the word die, yet
it will be found that in no sense will it bear this
ON THE ATONEMENT. 117
conclusion. If you suppose that it means eternal
death, as the divines call it, it is certainly not appli-
cable to Christ, who suffered no such death ; if you
understand by it temporal or natural death, it is
equally inapplicable ; for though Christ suffered this
death, he certainly did not suffer it in our stead, for
we all remain subject to it. It is, therefore, only by
the use of equivocal terms that such a meaning can
be forced upon that expression. We are told, that
Christ died in our stead, because, by suffering tem-
poral, he saved us from eternal death ; and this is
called explaining scripture !
The obedience and the sufferings of Christ on our
account were rewarded by the Supreme Being, by
whom he was sent, and in obedience to whom he
submitted to suffer and die on the cross. He was
exalted into heaven, where he sitteth on the right
hand of God. This means the enjoyment of great
power and authority, which is sometimes called his
kingdom ; so that it is plainly intimated that he is
invested with glory and power and dominion, all
which are conferred upon him in consequence of his
obedience here on earth. By this power conferred
on Christ, it is probable the dead will be raised, and
he will judge the world on the last day. If there
is any ground for this supposition, it will appear,
that though the revelation of Jesus was preached
only to few, the benefits of his coming will extend to
the whole world, who will all equally appear before
his judgment-seat.
I believe the Unitarians in general do not admit
118 ON THE ATONEMENT.
this kingdom of Christ to the extent here described ;
but I see no reason why they should not, as well as
the Arians. The power, dominion, kingdom, and
glory bestowed on Christ, as a reward for his obe-
dience and sufferings, are conferred by the free
grace of God ; it makes no difference whether the
person on whom they are bestowed was originally a
man or an angel ; if he was the former, his nature
was exalted beyond the common nature of man, as
we expect our own nature will be in a future state.
It is not unreasonable in itself, and it is an opinion
strongly supported by many texts of scripture, that
the same being who brought life and immortality to
light will be the person who shall dispense these
blessings to those who may have rendered them-
selves worthy of them. If Christ was merely a
preacher of righteousness, or if he came only to re-
veal doctrines which might be supposed necessary
motives to induce us to adopt a virtuous course of
life, it will be difficult to account for the very par-
tial and narrow promulgation of a law which is re-
presented by some to be necessary to salvation.
It will, no doubt, be objected by the Trinitarians,
that a mere man could not reconcile an angry and
offended God by any thing in his power to do, that
it required more meritorious sufferings to atone for
the sins of men. The imperfection of language
obliges us often to use very inadequate expressions
respecting the Deity, which are frequently the means
of introducing erroneous opinions. Thus, to express
that God condemns or disapproves of any particular
ON THE ATONEMENT. 1 19
act, it is often said, that God is offended by it ; and
we hear every day of the necessity of the punish-
ment of the wicked to vindicate the glory of God ;
as if such insignificant beings as we are could, in a
literal sense, increase or dimmish the glory of God ;
or as if he could be offended with man in the same
sense in which men are offended with one another,
which always implies some emotion of uneasiness or
resentment. If we were to vary the phrase a little,
and to say that God is rendered unhappy, instead of
being offended, the absurdity would strike us at
once. Thus we evidently pervert the meaning of
such expressions, when we say, that the offended
glory of God requires the punishment of offenders.
But, after all, why must the God of the Christian
be always an angry and an offended God? Why
must his mercy be always circumscribed in the
narrowest limits, and his anger and vengeance
be without bounds? Such is not the account he
gives of himself, when he says, he visits the sins of
the fathers upon the children unto the third and
fourth generation of them that hate him, but shews
mercy unto thousands in them that love him and
keep his commandments : such is the God of hea-
ven, but not such is the God of theologians. Now,
if his mercy is only commensurate with his rigour,
is there any absurdity in believing, that the obedi-
ence of one man might restore what was lost by the
disobedience of another? and that the man Christ
might recover that immortality which the transgres-
sions of Adam would otherwise have forfeited for
120 ON THE ATONEMENT.
ever? This is a plain, a simple and credible ac-
count, as given in the text above cited ; and with
a mind impressed with the strongest notions of
the mercy and benevolence of the Deity, I own I
find it more difficult to account for the rigour of the
fate entailed upon mankind by the sentence passed
upon Adam, than for the revocation of the harshest
part of it in consequence of the merits and obedi-
ence of the man Christ Jesus ; who, as a reward for
that obedience, may have been invested by the Al-
mighty with power to shew mercy to all mankind,
when they finally appear before him as their Judge.
CHAPTER VI.
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
IN answer to the views stated in the preceding
chapter, it may be objected, that if the sentence
passed on mankind, after Adam's transgression, ex-
tended only to the extinction of being, and death was
only the cessation of animal life, Christ, by restoring
men to immortality, did certainly confer an inesti-
mable blessing on those who were to be rewarded
with eternal felicity, but that it was at the expense
of those who were rescued from a state of non-entity
only to be consigned to eternal punishment. The
system of those who suppose that the sentence
against Adam implied a state of everlasting suffer-
ing after death, stands undoubtedly clear of this
objection. Their system confers the highest bless-
ings on the righteous, and only leaves the damned
where it found them.
It must be owned,' that the objection is both
weighty in itself and leads to the most weighty con-
siderations. The great question is, are eternal pun-
ishments reconcileable to the mercy and justice of
God?
122 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
We can only conceive the propriety of punish-
ment as a corrective in a state of discipline, but can-
not account for it as the final condition of mankind ;
neither is it consistent with our ideas of equity, that
the transgressions of a finite, temporary being, should
be punished by sufferings of eternal duration ; there
certainly, to our apprehensions, are no proportions
between the crime and the punishment. The inflic-
tion of pain on any creature, when it cannot be
productive of improvement to the sufferer, either in
this or a future state, appears rather a vindictive
than a correctionary measure.
It is said, to be sure, that as the happiness of the
righteous will be eternal, it is but just that the suf-
ferings of the wicked should be of equal duration ;
but the analogy is fallacious. Though the most vir-
tuous of mankind can have no claim to everlasting
happiness from his own merits, yet there is nothing
either unreasonable or unjust in the idea that Infinite
Goodness should bestow rewards to which man has
no claim, and which are the gratuitous gift of Divine
Benevolence. But neither the justice nor the good-
ness of God will permit him to inflict punishment
more severe than is merited by the sinner. Let me
appeal to the most vindictive and rancorous of man-
kind, let him ask his own implacable breast, whether
he would wish his greatest enemy to be consigned
to everlasting torments. Bad and depraved as hu-
man nature is, I flatter myself that there is no man
who, in his cool and sober moments, could form so
diabolical a wish, however justly that enemy might
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 123
have incurred his resentment. And if neither the
collision of interests, the rivalry of emulation, the
sense of wrongs sustained, injuries wantonly in-
flicted, if neither the insolence of tyranny nor the
weight of oppression, could draw a cool and deli-
berate wish of so uncharitable a nature from such a
frail, imperfect and irritable being as man, can it be
believed that such a principle should regulate the
conduct of the Father of Mercies ?
If the most fertile imagination were to be let loose
to form an idea of the most cruel and malevolent
being, endued with a wish to find out and infinite
power to contrive the greatest tortures, and to inflict
the greatest misery, could that imagination suggest
any thing more cruel and inhuman than the infliction
of infinite and everlasting punishment ? We are
supposed to have some account of the Devil in Scrip-
ture, though there is not so much said of him as
many people imagine. Poets and orators have en-
larged on his wickedness and depravity : but neither
in the relations of scripture, in the fiction of poets,
nor the declamation of orators, does he appear in so
hateful a light as our orthodox divines represent
the God of Love and Mercy, when they suppose
that this benevolent Being will condemn a large
portion of mankind to be literally consumed by fire
for an endless succession of ages. Yet this opinion
has not been confined to ages of ignorance ; it ap-
pears to be the doctrine of our church, and was
supported by the late Bishop Horsley. His lord-
ship says, and very justly, that the present life, even
124 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
if it were much longer, must always be short if com-
pared with eternity : and, therefore, an eternal pun-
ishment, even if much less severe than that which
it is supposed will be the portion of the wicked,
could not be reconciled to our idea of justice, be-
cause there can be no comparison between finite
and infinite, between time and eternity.
The Bishop's attempt to account for the eternity
of punishment is, if possible, even worse than the
doctrine itself. He supposes that the eternal suf-
ferings of these poor devoted wretches may be ne-
cessary to confirm the elect in their obedience, and
to prevent their swerving from rectitude, and by
that means forfeiting the enjoyment of a felicity
which, till his lordship wrote, we had been taught to
believe was to be eternal, but which, according to
his doctrine, is only contingent. But if, notwith-
standing the promises of the Gospel, the happy may
fall from their blessed state by swerving from recti-
tude, why may not also the wicked be relieved from
punishment by repentance and conversion ? Why
must every deviation from the letter of the law, as
supposed to be written in the Gospel, be towards
punishment, while the door of mercy remains for
ever closed ?
The Bishop seems to have borrowed this idea,
not from the Gospel, but from the Spartan history,
where we find the slaves were made drunk, that
the children of the Spartans might, by their exam-
ple, be induced to avoid so shameful and degrading
a vice. According to this view, the wicked would
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 125
suffer, not so much as a punishment for their sins as
for a warning to others, and would be made a sacri-
fice to secure the permanent felicity of the elect.
If the virtue of the blessed is so frail, that the fear
of losing the enjoyment of a blessed eternity is not
sufficient to maintain their perseverance, are we to
believe that Almighty Power and Goodness could
not supply motives as forcible to preserve their in-
tegrity, without keeping so many victims in a state
of eternal misery ?
It is melancholy to observe that a man like the
late Bishop Watson should have fallen into a similiar
mode of reasoning. In the 32d page of the first vo-
lume of the Anecdotes of his Life, he observes, very
justly, " Reason is shocked at the idea of God being
considered as a relentless tyrant, inflicting everlast-
ing punishment which answers no benevolent end."
But, then, he contrives to escape from the conclu-
sion that must naturally be drawn from his observa-
tion, by the gratuitous supposition that some bene-
volent end may possibly be answered, by keeping
the righteous in everlasting holiness and obedience.
What an idea does he give us of the Almighty ! that
a Being of infinite power and goodness cannot be-
stow everlasting happiness on some of his creatures,
without committing on others what the learned
prelate himself designates as an act of relentless
tyranny !
The belief of eternal punishment has given a
meaning to the word damnation which does not, in
the original language, belong to it ; and the signifi-
126 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
cation it has thus acquired has afforded support
to the doctrine itself. Every unlearned reader by
damnation understands a condemnation to eternal
misery ; but its literal meaning is merely condem-
nation, and is just as applicable to any other penalty,
whatever be its nature or its duration.
It must be owned, however, that the doctrine of
eternal punishment is very ancient, and has almost
universally prevailed in the Christian church ; and
that there are many texts in Scripture which seem
to confirm it, though, perhaps, on close examination,
they may be explained in a manner more consistent
with the ideas we entertain of the goodness and be-
nevolence of the Divine Being : and this inquiry is
the more important, as on the issue of it the credit
of Christianity in a great measure depends ; for the
idea of an omnipotent Being of perfect goodness and
benevolence, and that of a Being who consigns to
everlasting torments creatures that are the work of
his hands, whom he has formed of his own accord,
and whom he was under no necessity of calling into
existence, are, in my opinion, two ideas absolutely
inconsistent and contradictory.
There are two ways of explaining the passages in
Scripture supposed to favour this doctrine, without
admitting the eternity of punishments. The first,
by understanding the word eternal in a more indefi-
nite sense ; the other, that the final punishment will
consist in the total destruction and annihilation of
the sinner. The accounts we have on this subject
are highly figurative : sometimes the punishment of
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 127
the wicked is represented as an exclusion from hap-
piness, sometimes as a total destruction, sometimes
as a state of actual and positive suffering.
Those who contend for a limited duration of pu-
nishment say, that the word eternal is susceptible of
a less precise and determinate explanation than is
usually understood, and may only mean a long but
not eternal duration. But if we take the nature of
the punishment in its literal sense (that of being con-
sumed by fire), or in any sense that will bear the least
affinity to sufferings so intense, a very long duration
of such torment is almost as shocking to our feel-
ings as an absolute eternity.
It is, also, very judiciously contended, on the
other side, that as the same word is used to express
the duration of the happiness of the just and of
the miseries of the wicked, it must, according to
every rule of criticism, be understood in the same
sense. Admitting, however, the force of the argu-
ment, I would rather take it in the loose and inde-
terminate sense than in the positive one. In both
cases, on this hypothesis, the wicked will be con-
signed to a state of suffering for a time, till they
are corrected and reformed, and after this purgation
be admitted to a state of felicity ; in other words,
they substitute the purgatory of the Catholics for
the hell of the Protestants. This opinion, however,
has little countenance either from any particular
texts or from the whole tenor of Scripture, which
represents that state as final, in which men shall be
placed on their departure from this life.
128 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
It appears to me more consonant to the language
of Scripture to believe that the wicked will be con-
demned to everlasting destruction or annihilation ;
and I believe, on strict examination, there are few
or none of the texts alluding to this great event,
which, if some allowance be made for the figurative
language in which they are delivered, may not be
reconciled with this opinion. To be deprived for
ever of existence in a state of happiness, is, in
every sense of the word, an eternal punishment ;
for if such an exclusion is a punishment, (which few
will be inclined to deny,) as it is to continue for
ever, it is therefore everlasting. It is, certainly, an
eternal death, in a much more positive and literal
sense than that in which it has been represented.
If the world, as many suppose, is to be destroyed by
fire, it is not improbable that the wicked may perish
in the conflagration, which may have given rise to
the expressions used in Scripture on this occasion.
Whether they shall be restored to life previously to
their final destruction by fire or otherwise, does not
affect the argument.
The total destruction and annihilation of the
wicked, though certainly a heavy misfortune, is en-
tirely reconcileable with the equity and goodness of
God. As he was under no obligation to give them
life, he cannot be bound to continue it longer than
he chooses, especially after they have proved them-
selves, by their conduct, unworthy of it. On the
contrary, it is absolutely consistent both with his
goodness and justice to put an end to the existence
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 129
of a mischievous being, whose life is a constant
source of uneasiness and vexation to other beings
much better than himself.
It is objected to this system, that the soul, being
immortal, must exist somewhere, either in a state
of happiness or misery : these objectors find them-
selves under the necessity of sending it either to
heaven or to hell, not knowing how they could other-
wise dispose of it. The providence of God may,
perhaps, find itself under no such embarrassment.
Without entering into any metaphysical disquisi-
tions upon the nature of the soul, I shall only ob-
serve, that both the soul and body are the work of
God's hands, and that they are both subject to his
power and dependent on his will.
The sentence passed on Adam, as I have before
observed, was a sentence of annihilation. Those
commentators who think that dying and living for
ever in a state of torment are convertible terms, will
find it difficult to interpret the passage where St.
Paul says, " as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all
be made alive." If the sentence on Adam meant
damnation, and not natural death, the same must
be the meaning of the word die in this passage ; for
Christ came to deliver mankind from the death in-
flicted on them by Adam's fall. Therefore, if Adam's
sentence was damnation, the meaning of St. Paul
must be, As in Adam all were damned, so in Christ
shall all be saved ; and by this exposition the same
people shall be damned and saved. What can be
more absurd and contradictory ! Whereas, by taking
130 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
the words in their plain and literal sense, they are*
perfectly consistent and intelligible. Adam and his
posterity, in consequence of his disobedience, were
rendered mortal and subject to death,, and Christ
came to restore them to the means of gaining the
immortality which Adam lost.
Another objection is, that, if the wicked should
only be annihilated, they would suffer no punish-
ment, or, at least, no punishment adequate to their
sins. I pity the understanding of those who can
discover no punishment in annihilation, and being
deprived of an eternity of celestial bliss ; but I detest
the heart of the man who finds such a punishment
insufficient to satisfy his vindictive zeal. If being
deprived of a life of happiness through an endless
succession of ages, and being condemned to anni-
hilation for ever, will not satisfy the rigorous justice
of the relentless sons of the church, I shall only say,
that it is happy for poor mortals that God's ways
are not their ways. The severest punishment that
can be inflicted by human laws is death ; a punish-
ment which has been thought by many too severe
for the most enormous offenses : and what is death
but being deprived of a few years' existence ? I will
not say in this abode of guilt and misery, because, in
matters of argument, I wish to avoid all exaggerated
declamation, but it is, at most, an exclusion from
a world where there is, indeed, a mixture of hap-
piness and misery, of suffering and enjoyment ; but
in which those who fall by the hand of justice are,
in, general, so circumstanced as to have reason to.
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 131
expect more of the bitter and less of the sweet than
the generality of mankind. Now, if an exclusion for
a few years from a scene of such precarious happi-
ness is considered the greatest punishment that can
be inflicted, will it be thought no punishment at all
to be excluded for ever from the enjoyment of per-
fect and everlasting felicity ? To minds unwarped
by superstition, and not under the terrors which are
often the result of great crimes, I know no idea so
shocking as the idea of annihilation. The mind
shrinks from it with horror.
It may, however, with some reason be objected,
that, upon this hypothesis, all the wicked, though they
differ materially in the degree of their wickedness,
shall yet, without discrimination, incur the same degree
of punishment. I admit the difficulty ; but, in a mat-
ter so obscure, where is the system that is free from
difficulties ? Let my opponents, before they attempt
to take the mote out of my eye, take the beam
out of their own. When they consign the good to
eternal bliss, and the wicked to everlasting damna-
tion, with an immeasurable abyss between them ; let
them draw the line of demarcation where they please,
such is the mixed character of mankind, that the
least virtuous of the good who are rewarded, will
differ very little indeed from the least culpable of
the wicked that are punished. To this it is answered
generally, that there will be different degrees of
rewards and punishments : but this is a mere evasion
of the question ; for, certainly, he that shall enjoy
the lowest degree of celestial bliss, will be removed
K 2
132 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
at an immense distance of happiness from him who
shall be scorched in the mildest manner in the flames
of hell ; and yet there can be but a very slight shade
of difference in their respective merits.
To a man who takes a dispassionate survey of
mankind, it will, perhaps, appear that the generality
are deserving neither of great reward nor of heavy
punishment. The majority seem to lead a kind of
animal life. The man who earns his bread by hard
work from morning to night, has little time for any
occupations but what are immediately necessary to
his existence; and this class constitutes the great
mass of mankind. In more elevated stations, the
woman who spends her mornings in shopping and
gossipping, and her evenings at the ball or the card-
table ; with the idle man, as he is very justly called,
who wastes his days in riding and lounging, and
his nights in gambling or dissipation among all
these there will, undoubtedly, be some difference of
temper and moral excellence, but, take them upon
the whole, the object of their pursuits is much the
same, to pass their time in this world as pleasantly
as they can, without much attention to the next ; and
making some exceptions for those few who are dis-
tinguished by superior depravity or conspicuous
jnerit, (and neither the one nor the other is often met
with in this class of beings,) the far greater number
are insignificant, indeed, useless and unprofitable
servants, but innocent and harmless ; and though less
excusable than those who are doomed to incessant
toil, yet they are rather proper objects to be con-
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 133
signed to eternal oblivion, than to be delivered to
everlasting punishment.
It may be said, that however uniform the lives of
the idle and the laborious may appear to a superficial
observer, there are such discriminating features in
their characters as may justly entitle some to in-
finite reward, and others to infinite punishment,
though we, who cannot search into the hearts of men,
may not be able to distinguish their respective merits.
Be it so. But what is to become of children on this
hypothesis, who die before they are conscious of the
difference between good and evil ? They have, cer-
tainly, done nothing to entitle them to reward ; but
are they, therefore, to incur eternal punishment,
because they were cut off before they had an op-
portunity of qualifying themselves for a state of hap-
piness ? No, you will say ; God will shew them mercy.
But what mercy ? If he receives them into Paradise,
then that blessed state is not the reward of well-
doing, since these infants have had no opportunity
of doing any thing to entitle them to the smallest
reward. And if the gates of paradise are open to
all infants that die before the age at which they
can be accounted moral agents, then the most
charitable action a man could do would be, to take
their life as soon as they are born, and thereby ensure
their everlasting happiness, which must be of infi-
nitely greater consequence to them than any blessings
this world can afford.
Several texts of Scripture represent the punishment
of sinners in the light of a mere exclusion from hap-
134 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
piness. When the good and virtuous are assisting
at the marriage feast, the wicked are shut out in
outer darkness, where shall be weeping and gnashing
of teeth. Whether this weeping and gnashing of
teeth proceeds from their being excluded from hap-
piness, or owing to any additional sufferings, is not
explained. In the same manner is the unprofit-
able servant (Matt. xxv. 30) excluded from the
happiness enjoyed by his fellow servants, and cast
into outer darkness, where shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth : and the foolish virgins are repre-
sented as shut out and knocking in vain at the door
for admittance.
Luke xiii. 28 : " There shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the king-
dom of God, and you yourselves thrust out."
Here the weeping and gnashing of teeth are ascribed
to their exclusion from happiness, not to positive
suffering.
In 2 Thess. i. 9, the wicked are represented as
" punished with everlasting destruction from the pre-
sence of the Lord and from the glory of his power."
This strongly favours the idea of absolute destruc-
tion or annihilation. So, likewise, 2 Pet. iii. 7, " the
earth is reserved unto fire, against the day of judg-
ment and perdition of ungodly men."
John v. 28. " All that are in the graves shall hear
his voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life ; and they that have
done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
ON THE ETERNITY O PUNISHMENT. 135
This only gives room to believe that both just and
unjust shall rise ; but damnation by no means as-
certains the nature of the punishment of those that
have done evil : and if the general resurrection is
only a scenic representation,, and every man receives
his sentence immediately after his death, it only
proves that all men shall be judged according to
their merits.
Matt. xxv. 46 : " And these shall go away into
everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life
eternal."
This is undoubtedly a strong text, and can only
be explained on the consideration, that the total
extinction and complete annihilation to which they
were condemned was a punishment for their sins,
which would continue for ever, and therefore be
everlasting.
Matt. iii. 12 : "He will gather his wheat into the
garner, but he will burn up the chaff with unquench-
able fire."
It appears evident to me, from this allusion to the
husbandman who gathers his wheat and burns his
chaff, that it was by no means the intention of the
speaker to intimate the eternity of the punishment
of the wicked. It certainly means the destruc-
tion of the chaff by fire ; for, far from continuing in
a state of combustion, nothing is so speedily con-
sumed as chaff: the expression " unquenchable
fire" only signifies that the fire will always be ready
to consume the chaff, not that the chaff will burn
to eternity ; and only means that the sinner will
136 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
as surely be destroyed as chaff is consumed by the
flames.
So when Christ says, Matt. vii. 19, that "every
tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down
and cast into the fire," the obvious meaning is, that
it is utterly destroyed.
Matt. xiii. 41 :" The son of man shall send forth
his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom
all things that offend, and them which do iniquity ;
and shall cast them into a furnace of fire : there shall
be wailing and gnashing of teeth." And in ver. 49 :
" The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked
from among the just, and shall cast them into the
furnace of fire."
This expression is not inconsistent with the idea
that they were to be destroyed by this furnace of
fire, which is not only the most obvious construc-
tion, but is confirmed by the context. The wicked
are compared, first, to tares which are gathered and
burnt in the fire, and most certainly are destroyed:
the second comparison is this, the kingdom of
heaven is like a net that was cast into the sea, and
gathered of every kind, which, when it was full,
they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the
good into vessels, but cast the bad away. This
shews that the good were to be preserved ; but as in
the first comparison the tares were to be destroyed,
and in the second the bad fish neglected and thrown
away, the inference is, that the wicked, who are here
typified, should likewise be destroyed and rooted out.
I do not think that the figurative expression of
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
137
" their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched,"
which is taken from Isaiah, can at all allude to the
eternity of punishment.
I do not cite any texts from the Revelation, which
are too obscure to be understood : there, however,
are some passages which favour the doctrine of fire
and brimstone, where the devil and the wicked are
to be tormented for ever. There are two resur-
rections mentioned ; and it is altogether so dark and
obscure, that I do not think we can draw any infer-
ence from it.
What in our translation is called Hell, is ex-
pressed in the original either by the word 'A ifag, or
Gehenna. The first only signifies the state of the
dead, whether good or bad, happy or unhappy.
Gehenna is an allusion to a place of that name at
Jerusalem, where a fire was kept constantly burning,
in which were thrown all the filth and impurities of
the place, to be utterly consumed ; and, as this fire
was always kept up for that purpose, it might very
properly be called the everlasting fire, or the fire that
was never quenched, for such is its proper meaning,
and in the French Bibles it is translated, " le feu qui
ne s'eteint point."
We find the same expression of eternal fire used
in Scripture, where it cannot be possibly understood
in the sense applied to it, as it relates to future
punishments.
St. Jude, ver. 7, says, " Even as Sodom and Go-
morrah, and the cities about them, are set forth for
an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
138 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
In Jeremiah xvii. 27 : "I will kindle a fire in the
gates of Jerusalem, and it shall devour the palaces of
Jerusalem ; and it shall not be quenched." And in
the fourth verse of the same chapter he says, " it
shall burn for ever."
This proves with what latitude we are to under-
stand these strong expressions, which are here and
there used as a threat against the Israelites, in the
same manner as everlasting punishment against the
wicked ; the meaning, is in both cases, that the fire
shall not be quenched till it has effected the purpose
for which it was kindled.
There are two texts, which in my opinion, strongly
confirm the view I have taken of the future state of
mankind. The first is Matt. x. 28 : " Fear not them
which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul ;
but rather fear him which is able to destroy both
soul and body in hell."
Here the obvious meaning is, an exhortation to
fear him who can deprive men of life both in this
world and the next, rather than those whose power
extends only over the present life. The words imply
the destruction of the whole man, body and soul,
which is very different from an eternal existence in
misery.
But we are told that it is to be destroyed in Hell;
and as we have been taught to believe a state of ever-
lasting suffering to be implied in the word Hell,
we are led to give an explanation of the word destroy,
which is certainly very different from its natural
meaning. But if we understand the word Hell in
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 139
the sense which I conceive to be the true one, then
this passage is clear and consistent, and signifies
that the soul of the wicked man, as well as his body,
shall be destroyed at his death.
The second text is, John iii. 16 : " For God so
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life."
Here the advantage derived from the mission of
Christ is evidently stated in the strongest terms : and
what does it amount to ? Not that man should be
delivered from eternal punishment, but that he
should not perish that he should not be destroyed
as he would otherwise have been. Christ could de-
liver the repentant sinner only from that state and
from those evils which he would otherwise have in-
curred, and that was the sentence pronounced against
Adam, " Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou re-
turn ;" which certainly conveys no idea of eternal
punishment. In both these texts the future happi-
ness of the virtuous is opposed and contrasted, not
by the eternal sufferings of the wicked, but by their
destruction. In the first, we are told that the wicked
shall be destroyed ; in the second, that the virtuous
shall not perish, but be saved from that destruction
which will be the fate of others.
One of the greatest objections to this hypothesis
is derived from the parable of the rich man and La-
zarus, where the former is represented as in a state
of torment ; and though it is only a parable, yet it is
140 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
not easy to account for the introduction of an er-
roneous representation of so material a point. This
parable is certainly one of the most disheartening
accounts of our future expectations to be found in
the Gospel. The rich man, who is sent to a place
of torment, is not accused of any sin or particular
vice ; he is represented merely as a luxurious man,
who enjoyed his fortune, was fond of pomp and good
living ; but he is not accused of injustice, extortion,
or even uncharitableness. Lazarus, to be sure, was
at his gate, and wishing to be fed from the crumbs
that fell from his table ; nor is it said that these were
refused. In all probability, the rich man enjoyed
himself at his convivial board without troubling him-
self about Lazarus, or even knowing that he was at
his door : and what rich man disturbs his festivity
with the thoughts of the beggars who may be at his
gate ? Yet this man is sent to a place of torment,
and, by way of reconciling him to his situation, or at
least to shew him the justice of his sentence, he is
told, that as he was happy during life, and Lazarus
miserable, it is right that they should now change
conditions, that each might be happy in his turn. No
other reason is alleged for his present sufferings,
except his having been happy before. A strict inter-
pretation of this parable would lead us to the un-
avoidable inference, that it is an unpardonable sin in a
rich man to indulge himself in expensive amusements
and luxurious enjoyments, while many of his fellow-
creatures are destitute of the necessaries of life.
It may, however, be alleged with some appearance
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 141
of reason, that, as parables and apologues are designed
to make a forcible impression on the mind, they may
be sometimes painted in figures larger than life, and
conveyed in language that will not bear a literal in-
terpretation. To a certain degree, the observation
may be just ; we must, however, be careful not to
carry it too far : for although, when we take a view
of the manners, the customs, and the ideas that pre-
vail in the world, it may appear to be a hard saying,
that the man is highly criminal who lays out his
revenues in the elegancies, the superfluities, the
luxuries, and splendour of this world, while thousands
of his fellow-mortals are living around him in a state
of absolute destitution; perhaps it will appear, on
mature consideration, that this judgment is rather
founded on habits, on example, and, I may say, on
prescription, than on reason or justice. This has
been so much the established custom, not in one
but in all countries, that it is almost considered to be
a natural distinction, and that the rich and the poor
are beings as different in their nature as they are
in their habits ; that some are born for enjoyment,
others for suffering ; and that it is the province of
the latter to administer to the convenience, the hap-
piness, and superfluities of the former.
Even the indulgent morality, however, of this age
of selfish gratification would strongly reprobate, and
hold in merited detestation, the conduct of the man
who should indulge part of his family in every kind
of luxury and expensive enjoyments, while he suffered
another part to languish in poverty and want. Now
142 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
every community is nothing more than a large
family, in which we find a few in a state of affluence,
able to gratify every wish and every caprice, while a
great number are destitute of the comforts, and some
even without the necessaries of life. Can those men,
then, be innocent, who squander away in capricious
luxuries, in vain ostentation, and empty magnificence,
sums, which, if duly applied, would be more than
adequate to the relief of the wants of their destitute
and suffering brethren ? Is not the rich man, who
riots in luxury, and wastes his substance in the
gratification of his vanity or sensuality, regardless of
the wants, the infirmities, and the helpless condition
of his poor neighbours, deficient in that first of all
the virtues, Christian charity, or, to use the language
even of those who reject Christianity, of benevolence
and philanthropy ? But so far from endeavouring to
raise the poor as much as possible from their mi-
serable and degraded state, it is the study of the rich
to widen as much as they can the distance, already
too great, which fortune has placed between them ;
and profuse and extravagant as they may be in the
gratification of their appetites, yet the sums wasted
to satisfy and pamper them are insignificant in com-
parison with those that are lavished to gratify their
vanity by an ostentatious display of wealth and
magnificence, that they may be more effectually dis-
tinguished and separated from the vulgar, and appear
like beings of a superior order. This, surely, is a
spirit of arrogant superiority, not more inconsistent
with the meekness of the Christian than the morality
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 143
of the philosopher, who is as loud as the divine in
his declamations on the natural equality of mankind,
and on the little intrinsic value of the adventitious
distinctions of rank and fortune. The opulent man,
therefore, who consults merely his own gratifications,
regardless of the miserable objects that surround him,
stands condemned, not only by the precepts of the
Gospel, but by the dictates of philosophy and the
reason and feelings of mankind.
We must not, however, carry even our benevolent
propensities to an extreme, nor hold it out as proper
or reasonable that a rich man should be obliged
to maintain a poor man who is too idle to work for
his maintenance. This would not only be too heavy
a tax on the opulent, but prove ultimately injurious
to the poor themselves, as it would remove the
strongest motive to virtuous industry, by which
numbers are raised from poverty to affluence ; and,
by promoting an universal spirit of idleness, sloth,
and dependency, ultimately reduce the rich them-
selves to a state of penury. While property remains
so unequally divided as it is at present in every na-
tion of Europe, it is a certain truth that the poor are
indebted for their livelihood to the luxury of the rich,
which is the chief spur to their industry and the first
foundation of their independence. I have no doubt,
at the same time, that a more equal distribution of
property would create more substantial happiness,
and also be more conducive to morality, though
perhaps it might be attended with less wealth and
splendour, and that false glare which is so errorie-
144 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
ously denominated national prosperity. But to dis-
cuss this point, even in the most superficial manner,
would alone require a volume. In the mean time,
without denying the beneficial effects, on a general
scale, of the luxury of the rich, there will always re-
main many occasions on which they may and ought
to relieve the infirmities of the destitute and helpless.
This, however, is foreign to my subject, and
I acknowledge that, though only a parable, a pre-
sumption at least may be drawn from the suffer-
ings of the rich man, that the wicked shall undergo
some punishment. Whether this single passage is
sufficient to establish that doctrine I very much
doubt : it cannot, at any rate, be brought as an evi-
dence for the eternity of punishment, for there is not
a word said about its duration. If the wicked are
not utterly destroyed, (which I own appears to me,
upon the whole the most probable opinion,) I should
incline to the opinion that their punishment will
principally consist in their exclusion from a state of
happiness, and some positive afflictions annexed to
their situation, to which either use may reconcile
them or from which repentance may at last release
them, and ultimately obtain their pardon and some
degree of happiness. But a state of exquisite torment
for ever and ever cannot be reconciled to our ideas of
a just and benevolent Providence : and if the wicked
are not utterly destroyed and annihilated, we must
hope and believe that they will ultimately, after un-
dergoing some previous punishment, be placed in a
state of tolerable ease and comfort. This may be
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 145
done either by a change in their situation, or by
rendering that situation easy and even pleasant by
habit and custom, which at the beginning was
grievous and unhappy.
It must, however, be considered, that on such sub-
jects as these we can only see through a glass dark-
ly : we can know no more than is revealed to us.
But, even though we should admit everlasting de-
struction or annihilation to be the fate destined to the
greatest sinners, there is no improbability in the sup-
position that those who are less guilty may meet
with greater indulgence, and, after some corrective
punishment, be admitted into the mansions of the
blessed, or placed in some other state of less felicity,
or be otherwise disposed of in such a manner as God
in his providence may order, and which our igno-
rance cannot foresee.
Samuel Bourne has an excellent discourse on this
subject in one of the volumes of his sermons, which
ought to be read by every Christian. His idea seems
to be, that sinners shall be punished more or less se-
verely, according to their demerits, before they are
finally destroyed. But I do not see what beneficial
effects can result from punishments which cannot by
their correction improve the being on whom they are
inflicted ; nor, as far as we can perceive, operate as
an example to others after the consummation of all
things. Such is my reliance on the goodness and be-
nevolence of the Supreme Being, that I feel in-
clined to admit of any interpretation which tends to
L
146 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
mitigate rather than one that aggravates the dread-
ful sentence of eternal destruction which is to be
passed on sinners.
Matt. xvi. 28 : " Verily I say unto you, There be
some standing here which shall not taste of death,
till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
The interpretation given by Bishop Horsley of
this text is to me astonishing : and what surprises
me still more is, that the same view was entertained
by so sober and enlightened a commentator as Dr.
Samuel Clarke. The Bishop understands by this
passage, that at the second coming of Christ the
wicked shall be condemned to eternal sufferings so
intense, that their natural death and whatever they
may have endured in their intermediate state, will
appear to them in comparison so light and trivial,
that they may be said not to taste of death ; that
is, not to experience its bitterness and severity till the
consummation of their misery takes place at the
final judgment of mankind. If such fanciful expo-
sitions are to be admitted, Scripture may be made to
signify anything which may be necessary to support
the system of the expositor, and its plain and obvious
meaning will be lost. In that case, not only the vul-
gar, but the most learned ought not to read the
Scriptures without a commentator by his side ; and
the commentator ought to be inspired as well as the
Scripture. In my opinion, the reverend prelate's in-
terpretation is totally at variance with the context.
1. It is clear that this passage refers not to the na-
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 147
ture or degree of punishment to be inflicted on the
wicked, but merely to the time of the coming of
Christ, whatever may be meant by that coming,
and signifies that it should happen during the life-
time of some of those that were present Jesus is
here speaking to his disciples, not denouncing curses
on the wicked.
2. He says that SOME shall not taste of death,
which implies that others should, and cannot be
reconciled to the doctrine that none shall taste
the bitterness of death till the resurrection and the
coming of Christ.
3. It appears to me to be exactly similar to the xxiv.
chap. 34 ver. " Verily, I say unto you, This genera-
tion shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
The time when the next life is to begin is a matter
of much controversy and equal uncertainty. The
common opinion is, that after death the soul will
remain in a kind of imperfect happiness or misery
till the resurrection, when the happiness or misery
of body and soul united will be complete. This
opinion, I think, is not to be maintained. The manner
in which divines argue on this point is, indeed, truly
curious. They tell us that the body, while we live,
is a clog to the soul ; and afterwards they say that
the soul, when separated from the body, will remain
in an imperfect state, a kind of half-existence, till it
is re-united to that clog which was said to check and
impede its native energies. Every idea of an inter-
mediate state is to me entirely unsatisfactory. If the
L2
148 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
soul is judged and its fate determined immediately
after death, the last judgment would be absolutely
nugatory ; it would be a judgment upon those who
were already condemned or acquitted. We must
either believe that, if man enters into another life im-
mediately after the expiration of the present, his judg-
ment takes place at once ; that this is what the Scrip-
ture means by the last day and the resurrection ; and
that there will be neither a universal judgment nor a
resurrection of the identical body that was buried in
the ground ; or we must believe that the existence of
man, soul and body, whatever you may call it, will be
suspended till the day of judgment and the resurrec-
tion. But whether by resurrection is meant the rising
of the body that was buried, or the resurrection of
the same intelligent being only, is not very clear.
Having given up the intermediate state as totally
unsupported either by reason or scripture, the only
question that remains is, whether men shall enter
into a state of reward and punishment immediately
after death, or remain in a state of insensibility till
the last judgment. On the former hypothesis, both
will take place with respect to each individual at the
moment of his dissolution. As what is an argument
in favour of one of these systems, is an objection to
the other, and vice versa they must be both con-
sidered at one view. But it is necessary to divest
ourselves of all preconceived notions respecting the
materiality or spirituality of the soul, by which our
minds are too apt to be prejudiced. If the soul is
spiritual, still the Being who made it can either
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 149
suspend or totally annihilate its functions ; and though
it should depend on the organization of the body, or
be, as it were, the spring that sets it in motion, still it
may be transferred to another substance or body
without losing its individuality. We do not, indeed,
know in what manner ; but it is no more incompre-
hensible than the resurrection of the same body that
is dissolved, and the re-union of its organs.
It must be acknowledged, that all the intimations
we have in Scripture of a future life are intimately
connected with and made to depend on the resurrec-
tion, the universal judgment, and the last day, the
coming and appearing of Christ. But it is answered,
that when a general resurrection and judgment are
mentioned, it is with a view of exhibiting a mag-
nificent scenic representation of what will happen
separately to each individual: and that though, in
their literal sense, such passages are indicative of an
universal judgment, when all mankind shall rise up
at once after a long sleep, yet, as they may be
taken in a figurative sense, they are not decisive of
the question.
Thus, when it is said, John v. 28, that " the hour
is coming when all that are in the graves shall hear
his voice, and shall come forth," it may be contended
that by the phrase, all that are in the graves, may
simply be understood the dead, and that they may
hear his voice and come forth, either at the general
resurrection, or on their own resuscitation imme-
diately after their dissolution. On this supposition,
to every individual the day of his death is the last
150 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
day, the coming of Christ ; in consequence of which
he is restored to life and brought immediately to
judgment. 1 Thess. iv. 13 et seq., though per-
haps capable of another interpretation, strongly
corroborates this opinion; and so do the texts in
which the coming of Christ is represented as being
near at hand.
But, on the other hand, there are some passages
which seem irreconcilable with any such supposition.
The famous text, " of that day knoweth no man, &c.
but the Father," can be understood only of the day of
judgment, when the fate of all mankind shall be
finally decided : it cannot relate to the day of each
man's death and judgment, which, on that system,
must be the daily and natural course of things ; it
evidently relates to the end of the world, which
must be of little consequence to the generality of
mankind, if their destination is fixed immediately on
their departure from this life.
2 Tim. iv. 1 : " The Lord Jesus Christ, who shall
judge the quick and the dead at his appearing,"
cannot easily be construed to refer to any thing
but one general judgment.
The resurrection of Lazarus appears to me a
strong objection both to the intermediate state and
the immediate restoration of man. Had his soul
been in a conscious state, he must have been able to
decide the question by his own experience ; and as
he is represented to have been a good man, it would
have been no kindness to bring him back from a
state of perfect happiness to the cares and troubles
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 151
of this mortal life, which must have proved doubly
irksome to him after he had been initiated into the
joys of eternal felicity. If it is said, that as he was
to be resuscitated, he was continued in a state dif-
ferent from others, the miracle is frittered away to
nothing : for, on that supposition, Lazarus was not
dead, but only in a trance or lethargy.
Another material observation is this : if the re-
storation of mankind to life and immortality de-
pended on the sufferings and obedience of Christ,
and was the reward given him in consequence of
them, it is evident that the resurrection or restoration
of men to life could not have taken place before his
coming into this world; and all those that died
before that event could not have been restored to
life immediately on their dissolution : and this view
is confirmed by John xiv. 2, 3 : " I go to prepare a
place for you, and I will come again and receive you
unto myself, that where I am ye may be also." But
any preparation would have been useless if men were
already transferred into another life at the moment
of losing this.
The doctrine of an universal judgment is not af-
fected by the question whether the same physical
body which was buried shall be raised again, or
whether the spirit, breath, or life, or soul of the indi-
vidual shall be transferred to another and more glori-
ous habitation : but the resurrection of the same iden-
tical body is totally inconsistent with the supposition
that the final judgment takes place immediately after
death : the resurrection of the body is, however,
152 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
not mentioned any where in Scripture, except very
obscurely in the Revelation : and, allowing for the
highly figurative expressions used in that book, we
may fairly admit, that, when the grave and the sea
are said to give up their dead, the meaning is, that
all those that have been buried in the earth, or
drowned in the waters, shall rise, without assuming
that they shall appear in the same identical bodies
they were clothed in when they died.
The manner of the resurrection is not very clear-
ly explained by St. Paul, the difficulties being re-
solved chiefly by the power of God ; and it is highly
probable that St. Paul himself did not know the
manner in which it would take place. If Christ
himself was ignorant of the time when, St. Paul
might be equally ignorant of the manner how, it
should be brought about ; but his argument is cer-
tainly adverse to the resurrection of the same body.
1 Cor. xv. 42 : " It is sown in corruption, it is raised
in incorruption," &c. ; and verse 50, " Flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither
doth corruption inherit incorruption." And ver. 51 :
" We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed
in a moment, at the last trump !" If even those who
are alive at the last day must undergo such trans-
formation, what would be the use of collecting all
the particles which composed our mortal body, when
immediately after they must undergo a total trans-
mutation ?
It must be admitted, that the idea that every man
shall, immediately after his death, enter into the
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 153
state of his final destination, is more agreeable to
the general economy of nature than the supposition
that existence should be so long suspended, and that
the whole should at last be concluded by an uni-
versal instantaneous resurrection and judgment :
nature certainly acts in a more silent, progressive,
and unostentatious manner.
The interval between death and the resurrection
is likewise revolting to our feelings, as it gives the
idea of a long though temporary annihilation. It is,
indeed, very philosophically argued, that as we shall
be void of consciousness all that time, the hour of our
death and that of our resurrection will appear to be
coincident, and to follow one another without inter-
ruption. But, in spite of philosophy, we cannot but
consider ten thousand years as a very long sleep ;
and I believe there is no man who would not prefer
a certainty of happiness to take place immediately
on his dissolution to one that should not commence
till after the lapse of several thousand years.
The question, however, is not to be decided
merely by our wishes, and, upon the whole, it appears
to me that the general tenor of Scripture is strongly
in favour of a resurrection and judgment to take
place at the end of the world, when all the dead
shall be raised from a state of insensibility. There
are not, however, wanting objections to this system ;
and though the texts in favour of an immediate
judgment are neither so numerous nor so clear as
those adduced in proof of a general resurrection, yet
there are some which are deserving of consideration.
154 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
Luke xx. 38 : For He is not a God of the dead,
but of the living."
It would be tedious to enter into an examination
of the arguments used to reconcile this with the sup-
posed state of death or immortality of the patriarchs ;
they may be just, but I cannot say they carry con-
viction to my mind.
The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is one
of the sheet-anchors of this system. It is, indeed,
only a parable ; but it must have been intended to
convey some instruction, and it certainly seems to
intimate that Abraham, the Rich Man, and Lazarus,
were all in a state of consciousness : it is not con-
clusive, I allow ; but it affords a strong presumption.
The objection Law makes to it, that the Rich Man
is represented as having a body, is a good argument
against the intermediate state to which he applies it,
but is of no weight if urged against his final destina-
tion, as, in that case, he would have been clothed
with a new body.
The promise of our Saviour to the thief on the
cross, " This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise,"
is another text justly alleged in support of that opi-
nion. To this it has been, as it appears to me, very
unsatisfactorily answered, that to-day alluded to the
time the promise was made, and not to the time
when it should be fulfilled. I am surprised to find
such trifling in a work of Dr. Priestley's; and am
still more astonished that he should suppose that
by Paradise might, perhaps, be meant the unconsci-
ous state of the virtuous dead. If the state of the
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 155
dead were unconscious, what difference could there
be between the state of the virtuous dead and that
of the sinful ? When the Jews, as he observes, di-
vided the state of the dead into Paradise and Ge-
henna, they certainly never considered that to be an
unconscious state. The only way to explain this
passage in such a manner as to render it consistent
with the insensibility of the whole man till the re-
surrection, is to suppose that to-day is not to be under-
stood strictly, but that it is to be construed in the
same manner as the threat to Adam, that on the
day on which he ate the fruit he should die ; which
only meant that his death should be certain ; and
that so the promise to the thief was intended merely
to signify the certainty of his going to Paradise, with-
out ascertaining the same.
Upon the whole, whether men shall be restored
to consciousness and receive their final sentence im-
mediately after their decease, or whether they are to
remain in a state of insensibility till the day of judg-
ment, are questions which I feel myself by no means
competent to decide : but it appears to me that one
or the other must necessarily take place ; that there
can be no medium in the case ; and that the interme-
diate state which was intended to reconcile those
two opinions elucidates nothing, and is attended with
additional difficulties ; for if the fate of man is de-
cided at th$ time of his dissolution, the last judg-
ment dwindles into a mere piece of formality, or
rather, according to a vulgar expression, is like
hanging a man first and trying him afterwards.
156 ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT.
It evidently appears that it was not the design of
God to give us a clear and certain knowledge of the
time or the manner in which we should be punished
and rewarded hereafter; it is, therefore, rash and
presumptuous to pretend to discover what he has
determined we should not know. It deserves, how-
ever, I think, some commendation to endeavour to
explain what communications he has been pleased to
make, in such a manner as to reconcile them to his
justice and goodness, and to the qualities which both
reason and revelation have taught us to attribute to
him.
We may not know when our trial is to take place ;
we may be ignorant of the circumstances that will
attend it ; whether the wicked shall be consigned to
utter destruction whether they shall, after due
punishment and correction, be admitted to some
degree of felicity, or continue in a state which, com-
pared to the happiness of the virtuous, may be called
punishment : but, while we acknowledge a good and
merciful God, we can never believe that he has cre-
ated so many beings to make them eternally miser-
able. The accounts we have in Scripture of the dis-
pensation are too dark, obscure, and uncertain, to
support the conclusions which have been drawn from
them ; and the plainest expressions would be insuf-
ficient to convince us of the truth of a doctrine so
utterly at variance with our ideas of a benevolent and
merciful Creator. The restoration of man to im-
mortality is always represented as a universal bless-
ing ; which would be far from being the case if I
ON THE ETERNITY OF PUNISHMENT. 157
will not say the greater part but a considerable
portion of mankind were condemned to everlasting
torments.
Yet such is the doctrine admitted, enforced, and
endeavoured to be justified by almost every Christian
church. And who are the unhappy beings that are
to be consigned to this place of everlasting torment
and eternal sufferings ? Those who do not believe
in the real presence, says the Catholic those who
do not believe the divinity of Christ and a Trinity
in unity, says the Trinitarian those whose name
God has not thought proper to insert among the
elect, says the Predestinarian. When the mercies
of a Being of infinite goodness and benevolence are
represented in this light, are we to be surprised if the
faith of the candid inquirer after truth is staggered,
and revolts at a doctrine so repugnant to his feel-
ings, so irreconcileable with every notion of the good-
ness and equity of the Supreme Being ? and is not
God more honoured by the doubts of such a man
than by the sturdy faith of more orthodox believers ?
CHAPTER VII.
ON GRACE.
HAVING endeavoured, in the preceding pages, to
explain the nature of faith and atonement in a man-
ner consistent with reason and Scripture, and at-
tempted to prove that the Trinity, the divinity of
Christ, and the personality of the Holy Ghost, are
not the doctrines of the Gospel, but the inventions
of men; and that the revelations concerning a fu-
ture state do not ascertain the time of our judgment,
nor disclose to us the nature or duration of the state
to which the wicked are doomed in terms suffi-
ciently clear and explicit to warrant the doctrine of
eternal punishments ; if I have been in any degree
successful in the task I have undertaken, I think I
have obviated the strongest objections urged against
the reasonableness of Christianity.
The remaining objections are levelled against
points of less importance, and more obviously the
corruptions of men.
Among these the doctrines respecting Grace de-
serve particular attention, as they have given room
for as many false notions and acrimonious disputes
as any of the contested points in Christianity.
The divine grace has been supposed to mean, a
ON GRACE. 159
mysterious operation of God without the agency of
man, by which he is elected to a state of future hap-
piness.
All men being supposed to be involved in the
guilt as well as in the consequences of Adam's
transgression, and to be so universally tainted with
this original sin, that it was impossible for them to
conceive a good thought or perform a virtuous action,
they would all have been consigned to eternal misery
if God had not been pleased to except a few from
the general doom, and by a peculiar grace or favour
enabled them to please him in spite of their original
sin, and predestinated them to a state of happiness.
This doctrine of predestination, by which some
are arbitrarily elected to happiness, and others re-
proved and consigned to eternal misery, is one which
saps the foundation of all religion and morality. For
if our future destination depends on the arbitrary
will of another, and not on our own exertions, there
is an end to all arguments in favour of virtue, as well
as of every motive to practise it. All we can say to
such preachers is, if my fate depends on predesti-
nation, for heaven's sake hold your tongue, and let
me go on my own way, since if there is any truth in
your doctrine, neither what all your eloquence can
urge nor the utmost I can do can possibly change
the immutable decrees of God. If I am irrevocably
predestinated to misery in the next world, what ad-
vantage can I derive from piety or virtue ? All I have
to do is, to submit to the fate destined for me hereafter,
and make myself as happy in this world as I can.
160 ON GRACE.
Many, however, who do not admit the doctrines
either of original sin or predestination in their full ex-
tent, are still of opinion that the grace or spirit of God
operates in a miraculous though insensible manner
on the mind of man, and that its co-operation with
his otherwise imperfect endeavours is necessary to
render his humble efforts acceptable to God. But
is it reconcileable to reason or our ideas of divine
goodness that God should require of us what we are
unable to perform without preternatural assistance ?
It may be said, God will grant it to those who are
sincerely desirous and worthy of it. This, however,
amounts to nothing unless it implies a contradiction.
For how can they render themselves worthy of it, if
they can do nothing good or acceptable without it ?
If they can render themselves worthy of it by their
own efforts, it shews that a man may do what is
right without and independent of it. On this hy-
pothesis, nothing good can be done without it, and
yet it shall only be given to those who have proved
themselves worthy of it by their previous good dis-
position, of which they are incapable without it.
The grace of God is nothing more than the favour
of God. As far as his favour is confined to those that
are virtuous, it implies virtue in those that are the
objects of it : but the grace of God is the conse-
quence of their virtue, and not their virtue of his
grace, I mean when applied to individuals. For the
grace of God, like the love of God, is often used to
express his goodness towards all mankind, and more
particularly the favour he has shewn the world in the
ON GRACE. 161
dispensations revealed in the Gospel. Our salvation
or future happiness is justly called the grace of
God, because it is a gift or favour granted to those
who choose to comply with the conditions on
which it is offered. But it is not a grace conferred
in an arbitrary and capricious manner by the elec-
tion of one man and the reprobation of another.
Grace is sometimes used for pardon, not only in
Scripture, but in common conversation. In the
times of the Apostles, as extraordinary spiritual
powers were often bestowed, so it is not improbable
that supernatural assistance was given them, which
might be well called a peculiar grace or favour.
As we are totally dependent on the providence of
God, it may in some sense be said that we cannot work
out our own salvation without his grace or assistance,
any more than we can succeed in the ordinary con-
cerns of life without his favour or permission. We
often say that he has been pleased to bless us in our
endeavours to obtain worldly prosperity, as well as in
our spiritual efforts to become righteous for in him
we live and move and have our being ; and I have
no doubt that there is no more immediate agency
in the one case than in the other.
Having thus, to the best of my ability, disencum-
bered what I conceive to be genuine Christianity from
the corruptions, additions, and inventions with which,
in a long course of ages, it has been disfigured and
obscured, I flatter myself I have in a great measure
obviated the principal objections urged against it by
M
162 ON GRACE.
unbelievers, whose most powerful arguments I have
always found to be levelled rather against its credi-
bility and reasonableness than against its evidence.
It must be acknowledged, that there are some
positions too absurd and contradictory to be es-
tablished by any testimony whatever. It is, there-
fore, a most material point to prove that Christianity,
properly understood, contains no position of this
nature, whatever may be the representations of those
who have presumed to place their own conjectures
and conclusions on a level with divine revelation.
The sum of Christianity may, in my opinion, be
reduced to a belief, that Christ was sent from God to
reveal his will to mankind, and to bring life and im-
mortality to light to declare the certainty of a future
state and to teach us how we may secure to ourselves
a happy existence for ever. If in consequence of such
a belief we avail ourselves of this revelation, by regu-
lating our conduct in such a manner as to entitle us
to the rewards which are promised to the good, we
are every thing, both in faith and practice, that can
be required of Christians ; and as the Rev. T. Balguy*
observes, it will never be laid to our charge, that we
have misconceived certain metaphysical niceties
which have been drawn from obscure passages of
Scripture by the magical operation of Pagan philo-
sophy.
Charge I.
CHAPTER VIII.
ON THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY.
HAVING endeavoured to shew, in the preceding
chapters, that the tenets which have occasioned the
strongest objections against Christianity are no part
of its genuine doctrines, I shall now proceed to ex-
amine the proofs on which its credibility depends.
It is not pretended that the truth of Christianity
is of a nature that will admit of demonstration :
it is founded chiefly on existing facts, on internal
evidence, and on historical testimony. It is by an
examination of its origin, its progress, and present
condition, that we can judge of its claims to our
belief. It is not a simple, but a complicated question,
the investigation of which requires the greatest care
and attention.
The following propositions will, perhaps, be of con-
siderable use in conducting the inquiry :
I. That Christianity was founded on and originated
in those facts and circumstances, whether true or
false, which are now held out to us as the foundation
of our faith.
II. That the first Christians had ample opportu-
nities of ascertaining whether these facts were true
or false.
M2
164 ON THE HISTORICAL
III. That Chistianity was promulgated by ignorant
and illiterate men, of low condition, who could have no
personal influence on their hearers, and must derive
their whole importance from the weight and evidence
of their doctrines, instead of giving them any con-
sequence from their character or station.
IV. That men so ignorant and uninformed could
not, morally speaking, have invented, without superior
aid and assistance, a system of morals and theology
which is superior to any which the wisest philoso-
phers had ever imagined.
I. Christianity was founded and originated in those
facts and circumstances, whether true or false, which
are now held out to us as the foundation of our faith.
There is the strongest historical evidence that the
several books of the New Testament were written by
the persons whose names they bear.
From the earliest accounts we have of the origin
and progress of Christianity, we find them acknow-
ledged, quoted, and appealed to, as works of un-
doubted authority, and as the productions of the
writers to whom we ascribe them. All the differ-
ent sects received them, with a few exceptions, and
appealed to them in support of their respective sys-
tems. Innumerable copies were dispersed throughout
the world, and they were translated into a variety
of languages, and manuscripts of great antiquity are
still extant. They were early collected into one
volume, and preserved with great care in the several
churches of the Christian world, being always looked
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 165
up to with respect and veneration as the foundation
of their faith, the rule of their conduct, and the law
by which all controversies or differences of opinion
were to be decided.
It is not within the scope of these observations to
enter into the mass of evidence which might be pro-
duced in support of the authenticity of the Scriptures ;
neither am I equal to the task : the subject has been
investigated by Dr. Lardner with great learning and
industry, and Paley has given a clear and compen-
dious view of the general argument.
I do not see that the genuineness of any writings
is established on better grounds than that of the
Gospels and St. Paul's Epistles. Still it may be
urged, that the strongest evidence of this nature can
amount only to a high degree of probability. Al-
lowing, therefore, for the sake of argument, that the
books which are transmitted to us under the name
of Matthew, John, Paul, &c., may have been the
productions of other persons, and attributed to the
apostles to give them more weight and credit, still
it must be admitted that they were written at the
time, or very soon after the first progress of Christi-
anity, and for this I shall only assign two reasons :
1. The material evidence arising from the
minute specification of names, time, place, and local
circumstances, which could only be noticed by men
who wrote at the time when the events were recent ;
as well as the allusion to several occurrences which
are rather hinted at than explained, and which in
many places, especially in St. Paul's epistles, throw
166 ON THE HISTORICAL
an obscurity over several parts of his writings, which
it is not always easy to elucidate.
2. Because all these writings are alluded to,
quoted, and discussed, by the earliest fathers, some
of whom were contemporary with the apostles ; so
that they must have been written in the first age of
Christianity.
But though it be allowed that books under the
same name as those transmitted to us were extant at
that time, and that they might contain many passages
which now make part of our bible, still it may be
objected that it does not necessarily follow that those
ancient books contained every thing we find in our
own Scriptures, and nothing besides ; or, in other
words, it is not impossible that these books may have
undergone many alterations, and that though, from
the very beginning of Christianity, there might be
Gospels of St. Matthew, St. John, &c., it is not cer-
tain that they were exactly the same as those which
we now receive under the same names. Though
this is merely the suggestion of a bare possibility, to-
tally unsupported by proof, yet I am willing to allow
the objection its utmost weight ; but still I think that
the argument I mean to urge in favour of Revelation
will nevertheless remain in full force, as it stands on
the evidence of facts not to be controverted or ex-
plained away.
Christianity is in existence at the present day, it
has been for many ages the established religion of
the greatest part of civilized Europe, it originated
at or near the time and at the place specified in the
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 167
sacred writings ; these are facts, about which I ap-
prehend there will be no dispute.
It is equally certain that, as far back as Christi-
anity can be traced, its essential doctrines have ever
been the same as those which at the present day form
the grounds of our belief.
That Jesus Christ was sent by the Almighty to
announce the doctrine of a future state, and to
exhort men by repentance and amendment of life
to ensure their salvation that he proved his divine
mission by a long series of miracles that after being
crucified and buried he rose from the dead and
that he then commissioned the Apostles to preach
the Gospel to all nations, and enabled them to work
miracles in attestation of their divine Commission :
these, which have been held by all sects down to the
present time as fundamental truths of Christianity,
these are the grounds, true or false, real or pretended,
on which Christianity was originally founded.
This being the case, even if we were to admit that
the books of the New Testament were not written
by those persons to whom they have always been
attributed, and that the date of their original promul-
gation were obscure and uncertain ; and even that
they might have been corrupted, and have suffered
material alterations, all which suppositions are in the
highest degree improbable still the important and
material fact would remain indisputable, that the
fundamental doctrines on which Christianity was es-
tablished were substantially the same as those which
are universally received among Christians to this day.
168 * ON THE HISTORICAL
II. As it is incontrovertible that Christianity took
its rise about the time when these facts, real or pre-
tended, were recent, it follows that the first Chris-
tians had an opportunity of inquiring into the truth
of them.
Events so incredible, promulgated by men without
influence or education, could not be universally re-
ceived, merely on their individual authority. It was
as easy as it was natural for those to whom this new
religion was addressed, to inquire whether such a
man as Jesus ever existed, whether he went about
preaching the doctrine that was proposed to them,
whether he was crucified, and afterwards rose from
the dead. The existence of Jesus, his preaching, and
his death, were facts which could easily be ascertained,
and which, if found not to be true, must overthrow
the new religion at once. The crucifixion is repre-
sented to have taken place at the feast of the Pass-
over, when the whole population of Judea was, in a
manner, present at Jerusalem : this, at least, could
not have been a fiction : had it been so, any other
place than Jerusalem, and any other time than the
Passover, would have been chosen for the scene of
action.
The truth of the miracles and of the resurrection
it would, perhaps, be more difficult to ascertain. But
as the former were performed in the sight of
multitudes, and the latter, though less public, was
seen by many witnesses, they were not incapable of
proof.
And although the Gentiles had not the same op-
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 169
portunities of examining into the truth of these facts,
yet they received their accounts from eye-witnesses,
whose testimony, uniform and consistent in itself,
was corroborated by the miracles which they were
enabled to work. The extraordinary gifts which
were exercised by the apostles, were not only an at-
testation of their own veracity, but likewise a strong
indirect confirmation of the miracles of their Lord,
by whom such power had been conferred on them.
Miracles require particular consideration. Divines
are accused of reasoning in a circle at one time
proving the doctrine by the miracles, and at others
the miracles by the doctrine. The objection is not
well founded ; for it is to be observed that miracles
are to be considered in a twofold light ; first, as they
are proofs and confirmations of the divine mission of
Christ ; and, secondly, as they are objections to the
truth of the Revelation transmitted to us. To
the first Christians, to the apostles and disciples who
were eye-witnesses of them, and were convinced of
their reality, they were evident proofs of the super-
natural powers of Christ, whence they might deduce
the necessary inference that he was sent from God
and was the promised Messiah ; and to all those who
believe in Christianity, they must appear in the same
light. But with respect to those who refuse their
assent to the Scriptures, the case is widely different ;
instead of proving the doctrines, the miracles are the
great difficulty to be surmounted.
For this reason it appears to me that miracles
170 ON THE HISTORICAL
ought to be adduced with great caution as evidences
of the truth of Christianity : they are a part a very
essential part of the revelation itself; but as they
are the most questionable of all the facts submitted
to our belief, they cannot be taken for granted with-
out evidence proportionably strong.
It is true that, when once miracles are established,
there can no longer be a doubt of the divine origin of
the revelation which they attest, and therefore the
miraculous powers of Jesus were originally the
strongest proofs of his divine mission. But as they
at that time proved the doctrine to be divine, so now
they must, in a great measure, derive their credibi-
lity from the doctrine itself, and from the other evi-
dences by which the truth of the gospel is established.
To urge the miracles, in the first instance, to an un-
believer, as evidences of the truth of Christianity, is
to begin at the wrong end ; and he may fairly reply,
That what you insist upon as proofs, are the very
things which require to be proved, and which it is
the most difficult to believe.
To deny the possibility, or, at least, the credibility,
of miracles in all cases, appears to me to be equally
weak and presumptuous. It is said that a miracle
contradicts experience. But what experience ? If
a man's individual experience, it is trifling and ab-
surd. It is making one man's ignorance the judge
of the wisdom of others. On this principle, a child
of ten years old would be justified in disbelieving
what he is told by his tutor, because contrary to his
juvenile experience. If a man is to believe any thing
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 171
beyond his own experience, he must believe it on the
testimony of others ; and here the principle is evi-
dently abandoned, and the question will rest on the
value and weight of the testimony on which any fact
is to be believed. If no fact is to be believed that
does not fall within a man's limited experience and
confined knowledge, the best established truths will
be doubted or denied ; and the moment a fact is ad-
mitted on the knowledge or experience of others, it
must rest for its foundation on human testimony or
historical evidence. On Mr. Hume's principle, as
he himself acknowledges, the inhabitant of the torrid
zone, who should refuse to believe the congelation of
water, would act rationally; and yet he certainly
would form an erroneous judgment. And on the
same principle, the man who should disbelieve the
power of the loadstone to attract iron, or that the
needle invariably points to the north, would argue
philosophically, if he was so situated that he could
not have recourse to actual experiment.
But, it is urged, no fact is to be admitted which is
against the laws of nature. Define, then, those laws
of nature, and prove that they have always been uni-
form and without any interruption. According to
these laws, the earth, in its regular and insensible
rotation around the sun, appears to us quiescent, sta-
ble, and immoveable. This state of quiescence is,
however, frequently interrupted by earthquakes.
This is to us a fact so well established, that no man
in England of common information entertains any
more doubts of the earthquake of Lisbon than he
172 ON THE HISTORICAL
does of the great fire of London. Would a man
who inhabited a country not subject to these violent
interruptions of what he had always considered to be
the laws of nature, and who had never heard of such
phenomena, be justified in disbelieving the accounts
of earthquakes that he might receive from other
quarters of the globe ?
It cannot, indeed, be denied that the Being who esta-
blished may also suspend or alter the laws of nature.
But as such a suspension or alteration is contrary to our
experience, it requires the clearest evidence to con-
vince us that it has really taken place. And for this
reason, when it is urged, as has been sometimes done,
but in my opinion very injudiciously, that Christianity
is as well supported by evidence as any part of ancient
history, it must be observed, that something more
than what would be sufficient to attest an ordinary
occurrence is requisite in the case of a miracle.
If a person of common veracity should tell me
that he has met a man in the street whom I know
to be living in the neighbourhood, I should have no
hesitation in believing what he said ; but if the same
man should tell me that he met, at the same time,
another of my acquaintance whom I know to be in
India, or to have been dead for some time, I certainly
should conclude, not that my friend was miraculously
conveyed from the East, or risen from the dead, but
that the relator had either been deceived himself, or
that he wished to deceive me.
In our judgment of ancient history we proceed on
the same principle. Some critics reject the first 500
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 173
years of the Roman history as entirely fabulous ;
others, admitting the leading facts to be true, very
judiciously withhold their assent from all the prodi-
gies with which Livy has embellished or disfigured
that part of his narrative. We may very consist-
ently believe that such a man as Tarquin existed,
without being convinced that he cut a flint with a
razor. Ancient history is no matter of faith, and
every judicious reader will peruse it with discrimina-
tion, rejecting those parts which appear unworthy of
credit, even though at the same time he assents to
other portions of the same narrative resting on the
same authority.
The case is widely different with respect to Chris-
tianity, which owes its very foundation to the super-
natural interposition of the Deity ; and therefore un-
less we believe the miracles, we must necessarily reject
the revelation altogether. If this part of the story is
not true, if Christ possessed no powers beyond other
men, if after his crucifixion he remained buried in
the grave, without rising from the dead, if the
Apostles were not endowed with miraculous powers,
the Gospel history is nothing more than a romance.
In order to render miracles credible to us, who
only receive them on the testimony of men, which
must be allowed not to be infallible, it is necessary
to shew that there was a dignus vindice nodus, that
they were performed to answer mighty and import-
ant purposes. If we were told as an isolated fact,
unaccompanied with any circumstances, and unat-
tended with any consequences that could account
174 ON THE HISTORICAL
for this apparent violation- of the laws of nature, that
a man was risen from the dead, however credible
the testimony on which we received it, we should
very rationally withhold our assent. In like manner,
if the miracles recorded in the sacred books were
presented to us in the same naked unconnected state,
we should be justified in viewing them with distrust ;
but if it can be proved to us that they were worthy
the wisdom of divine providence, to establish a new
dispensation tending to the happiness of man, by
announcing and promising him another life after this ;
if it can be shewn that they are necessarily con-
nected with the origin and progress of that dispen-
sation, and that without them it could not have
been effected, then these miracles will become pro-
per objects of our attention, and we shall listen
without prejudice to the testimony adduced to prove
their reality. The argument, therefore, stands thus :
the disciples of Christ who saw the miracles inferred
from thence the divinity of his mission, and the
truth of his doctrines. We who first learn the ex-
cellence of his doctrines, the wisdom of his precepts,
and the importance of his promises, find in them
marks and characters so superior to the wisdom of
the greatest philosophers, as to lead us to the opi-
nion that their origin may be divine ; and our minds
being thus prepared to admit the possibility that
miraculous powers may have been exerted in sup-
port of so excellent a dispensation, are thus dis-
posed to inquire into the evidence on which these
powers are attempted to be established.
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 175
Christianity, as I have before observed, is evi-
dently founded on miracles ; and those to whom it
was originally preached either knew that they were
false, or believed them to be true. If they knew
that they were false, then the persons who at-
tested them, and pretended to perform them, must
have been impostors, and would have been univer-
sally treated as such. For though it is not impos-
sible that a few crafty and designing men should,
for crafty and selfish purposes, join in propagating
a doctrine which they knew to be false, it is contrary
to the knowledge we have of human nature to sup-
pose that multitudes should embrace what they
knew to be an imposture, when by adopting it they
must sacrifice their dearest enjoyments, and submit
to privations, hardships, and dangers, without any
hope of recompense, either here or hereafter. If,
on the other hand, they believed the miracles to
be true, it is a very strong presumption that they
were so ; for they had opportunities of examining
and inquiring into the facts propounded to them, to
judge of the credit of the persons by whom those
facts were attested. And, above all, they were
themselves witnesses of the miracles which the first
propagators of the gospel performed in attestation
of the truth of their narrative. Let the epistles as-
cribed to St. Paul have been written at what
time and by whom you please, they prove that
miraculous powers existed in those days, as they
appeal not only to those who had witnessed the ex-
hibition of them, but also to those who were pos-
176 ON THE HISTORICAL
sessed of power to perform them ; and these, cer-
tainly, could hardly be mistaken as to the truth of
their existence.
It is not easy to account for the first propagation
and subsequent progress of Christianity, on the sup-
position of the whole being a fabrication, when we
consider, 1. The improbability of the story ; 2.
The nature of the doctrine ; and, 3. The insignifi-
cance of the persons by whom it was promul-
gated.
1. The story, that a man, after having suffered
death as a malefactor, rose again from his grave,
and gave a commission to a few illiterate and ob-
scure men to announce a new religion in direct op-
position to the prejudices, the passions, the habits
and customs of the several people to whom it was
preached, was not likely, in the first instance, to meet
with much credit. It annihilated at one stroke the
Jewish ritual and worship, which they had sancti-
moniously observed for several ages, and to which
they were superstitiously attached ; and it is not to
be believed that the new religion would have met
with any proselytes in that country, if all the facts
on which it pretended to be founded, had been mere
inventions, and the fabrications of its propagators :
the Jews, undoubtedly, had every opportunity possi-
ble to judge of the truth of these facts.
Though the Gentiles had not equal opportunities of
examining into the truth of the miracles and resur-
rection of Jesus, yet they had an account of these
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 177
events from eye-witnesses, irreproachable men,
whose testimony was not only uniform and consistent,
but confirmed by the miraculous powers which they
themselves manifested on several occasions, and
which were a direct and irrefutable appeal to the
senses of those they addressed. This happened in
a civilized age, among learned and enlightened na-
tions, in Greece and Rome ; nor is it to be imagined
that men of education and knowledge, or even of
common sense, would have listened to a story of a
man rising from the dead, and authorizing a few
vagrant Jews to promulgate a new religion to the
world, unless they could give better credentials of
their mission than their bare affirmation.
2. The nature of the doctrine. Had the Apostles
preached a doctrine which flattered the prejudices or
inflamed the passions of their hearers, it is possible
they might have made proselytes without the aid of
miracles, or being obliged to bring proofs of the won-
derful facts they related. But the very reverse was
the truth. Nothing could so strongly shock the pre-
judices of the Jews as the new tenets that were sub-
mitted to them. They put an end to all hopes of de-
liverance from the yoke of Rome, to all the temporal
glories of the reign of their long-expected Messiah,
and, above all, reduced them to a level with other na-
tions of the earth, from whom they always considered
it as their peculiar privilege and glory to have been
separated and particularly distinguished by the singu-
lar favour and partial selection of the Almighty. All
this must have been abandoned, and themselves re-
N
178 ON THE HISTORICAL
duced to receive a new religion from the hands of
the followers and servants of the man whom they
had crucified as an impostor. Would they, but on
the strongest evidence, receive that doctrine from the
apostles, for which they had inflicted death on their
master ? The crucifixion of Jesus, if not followed
by his resurrection, must naturally have thrown dis-
credit on the cause ; and accordingly we find that
the apostles themselves only thought of dispersing,
and giving up every thing for lost. Under these cir-
cumstances, is it probable that their preaching should
have met with the success it did, without the assist-
ance of supernatural events ?
Nor was the strict morality prescribed by the
apostles less repugnant to the corrupt state of morals
among the Gentiles than to the prejudices of the
Jews. An exhortation to abandon not only the
vices, but the pomp and vanities of this world,
to overcome rooted habits, and turn their attention
to new and distant objects, v/as not a proposition
to be lightly assented to by men whose affections
had been hitherto absolutely confined to worldly
pursuits.
It is true, a tempting recompense was held out to
them in the hope and promise of eternal happiness
in a future state ; but as the object was vast and stu-
pendous, it required evidence proportionably strong to
obtain credit to promises so extraordinary, and which
the hearer must know it was impossible for mere
unassisted human reason to discover, or human
power to bestow. It required, therefore, something
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 179
more than the individual testimony of a few wander-
ing Jews to induce mankind to receive such pro-
mises with implicit faith. On the whole, the great
incompatibility of the doctrine with the prejudices,
the passions, the habits, of those to whom it was
proposed, forbids our belief that it could be received
by them without examination ; and the great and
astounding importance of the doctrine of eternal
life, was such as called, in a particular manner, for
the strictest investigation into the authority by
which obscure men held forth such magnificent pro-
mises.
When Mahomet promulgated his religion, he ad-
dressed himself to Arabs, men who lived by violence
and rapine. He promised them victory over their
enemies, rich booty, and great plunder ; he held out
to them the promise of conquest and opulence in this
world, and the joys of a sensual paradise in the next ;
he indulged their prejudices, and roused their pas-
sions, and by these obvious means secured their ad-
herence. Had he prescribed to them a peaceable
and quiet life, and a total abstinence from violence
and blood, I am inclined to believe that all the
houris of his sensual paradise could not have in-
duced any of his followers to embrace Islamism.
3. The insignificance of the persons by whom
Christianity was promulgated : and this leads us to
consider the third head of my argument.
III. Christianity was promulgated by ignorant and
illiterate men, who had no personal influence, and
N2
180 ON THE HISTORICAL
must have derived their whole credit from the weight
and evidence of their doctrines, instead of giving any
consequence to those doctrines from their character
or station.
It sometimes happens that opinions are dissemi-
nated and customs established, and even modes of
faith and systems of religion consecrated, by the au-
thority and influence of their authors. But no such
thing can be pretended in this case. Far from being
men of authority and influence, the Apostles laboured
under every possible disadvantage.
With respect to the Jews, they were not only
known to be low, obscure, and illiterate, but they
must have been peculiarly obnoxious, as being the
followers of a man who, after having foretold that he
should rise again the third day, had been executed
as an impostor. If the prophecy was not accom-
plished, the crucifixion of the person who uttered it
must have totally blasted the cause ; and the Apos-
tles who, notwithstanding the death of their master
and the falsehood of his prophecy, should have ven-
tured to revive the exploded imposition, must have
been universally hooted and discountenanced : nor
can their success, under such circumstances, be
ascribed to any other cause than the proofs they
gave of Christ's resurrection, and the manifestation
of their own miraculous powers.
With respect to the Gentiles, the Apostles were
mere wandering strangers, obscure, and unconnected,
known only as coming from Judaea, a country held
in the utmost contempt. Is it to be conceived that
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 181
such men would have been listened to, and that
whole nations, abandoning their own religion, should
have embraced their doctrine, on a bare, incredible
relation, unless they had brought proofs of some kind
to render so extraordinary an account reconcileable
to reason and the common feelings of mankind ?
It may be objected, indeed it is a common objec-
tion, that the Jewish nation, among whom these
miracles were said to have been exhibited, were not
converted ; that only private individuals believed in
Christ; and that in all towns there is always an
ignorant rabble ready and willing to adopt any inno-
vation, and to give credit to the most groundless fic-
tions, especially if they are of a marvellous nature. It
would be absurd to contend that there is no weight
in the objection. At first sight, and separately con-
sidered, it carries a strong appearance of reason ; but
when the whole dispensation is examined with atten-
tion and impartiality, it will perhaps be found that
the evidence to the truth of the Gospel is, upon the
whole, rather strengthened than diminished by the
incredulity of the Jews. 1. If Christianity had been
proposed to the Gentiles supported by the whole
weight of the Jewish nation, it would not have rested,
as it does at present, so entirely on the bare evidence
of facts, or the supernatural aid it received from
above. 2. It would have contradicted the prophe-
cies. And, 3, We should have been deprived of one
of the strongest and most striking evidences of its
truth by the very singular dispersion of the Jews.
The good character, and the sufferings of the
182 ON THE HISTORICAL
Apostles and early Christians have been much in-
sisted on ; and it is often contended, that in expos-
ing themselves to hardships, to dangers, and to
death, they could have been impelled by no other
motive than a sincere persuasion of the truth of what
they professed.
Too much stress has, in my opinion, been laid
upon these arguments. In this, as in many other
instances, revelation has suffered more from the in-
judicious defense of its supporters than from the
attacks of its opponents. When weak and inconclu-
sive arguments are relied on, it is naturally inferred
that no better can be adduced ; and when the intel-
ligent inquirer after truth finds Christianity defended
only by arguments which carry no conviction to his
mind, he is apt, without further investigation, to re-
ject a system which he finds so inadequately sup-
ported; and it seldom happens that he examines
whether the feebleness of the defense results from
the weakness of the cause, from want of ability in its
supporters, or, as is very frequently the case, from
the false views which are entertained by the advo-
cate, who is generally more anxious to support
some particular establishment than to vindicate the
genuine doctrines of Christianity.
The sufferings of the martyrs prove, at the utmost,
the sincerity of their belief; but they by no means
establish the truth of the doctrine itself. Every reli-
gion and every sect has had its martyrs; and it
would betray a very imperfect knowledge of human
nature to contend that men must be convinced of
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 183
the truth and justice of every cause in which they
expose themselves to danger. Every man who em-
braces the profession of a soldier suffers as many
hardships and encounters as many perils as those
who first devoted themselves to the propagation
of Christianity : and what are the usual induce-
ments to adopt a military life ? The love of fame,
a fondness for distinction, idle and dissipated habits,
are the motives which generally tempt men to the
profession of arms. And they adopt it with a full
knowledge of the dangers to which it subjects them,
though many of them might live in the enjoyment
of ease and comfort among their families and friends.
When once men have engaged in any important
enterprise, and have distinguished themselves by
supporting it whether they were originally actuated
by motives of duty, of interest, or of ambition, they
are usually found to adhere to their purpose, in spite
of every opposition, and through all the misfortunes
which may beset them. Consistency, firmness,
and the same energy of character that originally
suggested the attempt, support their constancy in
the moment of trial, and induce them rather to
sacrifice their lives than disgrace themselves and the
cause they have espoused by a pusillanimous recan-
tation.
Innumerable are the instances that might be
adduced to shew how often men will encounter
death from obstinacy, the shame of retracting, or a
fear of the opinions of others. We daily see men ex-
pose their lives in a duel, in opposition to reason,
184 ON THE HISTORICAL
morality, and religion, merely to comply with the
prevailing point of honour. We have instances,
even in the softer sex, of women who have sacri-
ficed their lives in defense of their honour, resisting
at the same time the strongest impulse of nature,
and the instinctive love of existence. The Malabar
women are so devoted to a false point of honour, as
voluntarily to sacrifice themselves on the funeral
piles of their deceased husbands.
Nor is the argument, that the Apostles could have
no motive to deceive mankind at the expense of their
ease, their safety, and their lives, in my opinion, by
any means conclusive. Even if no rational motive
could be discovered for their conduct, it might be said
that men do not always act rationally, or that they
might have been influenced by motives of which we
are ignorant. Do we not every day see men engage
in pursuits which cannot be accounted for on any
principles of reason ? And when it is considered how
many various passions constitute the springs of human
conduct, there will not appear any thing more unac-
countable in their conduct even supposing it an im-
posture than we find every day in the conduct
of impostors. They were men of the lowest de-
scription, who earned their bread by their daily
labour, and any change in their situation might ap-
pear to them advantageous ; and, in point of fact, it
may, perhaps, admit of a doubt, whether their con-
dition as preachers of the Gospel was not, in point of
worldly enjoyment and comfort, preferable to that
which they quitted. The toil, the sufferings, and
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 185
the persecutions, endured by the Apostles, must not
be compared with the ease and luxuries of the opu-
lent, but with the servile drudgery and laborious
occupations of those who earn their daily bread by
their daily toil. But, supposing that they did suffer
greater hardships from their new way of life, they
are not the first who have made a false estimate
of human affairs, and who, with the view of bet-
tering their condition, have abandoned a safe and
easy situation to engage in pursuits which have
destroyed their tranquillity and happiness, and
brought them to an untimely grave.
The vanity or ambition of being at the head of a
new sect might, perhaps, be a sufficient temptation to
engage them to abandon their mean and laborious
occupations, in the hope of being the teachers of
nations and the leaders of mankind. If these were
the feelings by which they were prompted, it must
be acknowledged that the success which attended
their undertaking was quite sufficient to gratify them.
It is very true, that they incurred danger, and that
some of them suffered death. This, however, is the
usual lot attending all ambitious schemes, all at-
tempts to change the religion or the government of
a state. Yet in all ages, and in all nations, we find
that such attempts have been common. And from
the accounts we have received of the false Messiahs
that about this time appeared among the Jews, it is
evident that the dangers they were likely to incur
did not deter impostors from engaging in these peril-
ous adventures.
186 ON THE HISTORICAL
Though, in my opinion, the arguments urged from
the supposed motives of the Apostles are by no
means conclusive, yet it appears to me that the
most satisfactory conclusions may be drawn in favour
of the truth of Christianity from the great improba-
bility that twelve men, such as we find them to
have been, should have formed the extensive plan
of changing the religion of the whole world, and
the moral impossibility that they could have in-
vented such a system of morals and theology as is
contained in the Gospel.
It is undeniable that the men who propagated the
new faith were of a low condition in life, illiterate,
and, as far as appears to us, of no great abilities,
natural or acquired. That such men should have
conceived the design of overturning the religion,
not only of Judaea, but of the whole civilized world,
is as inconceivable as that they should have succeed-
ed in it by their own natural means, without divine
assistance. The false Messiahs we read of in history
were, in all probability, possessed of greater natural
abilities, and certainly they appeared under pretenses
as favourable to the prejudices of the Jews as the
doctrines of the Apostles were hostile to them : yet
none of them met with the slightest success.
That the disciples of a man who suffered death as
an impostor should, in the name of their crucified
master, be able without the influence of power or
riches, of learning or natural abilities to establish
a new religion, which militated against the prejudices,
the interests, and inveterate habits of their country-
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 187
men, a religion founded on the authority of a dead
man, who had foretold his resurrection at the end of
three days, and who, therefore, if he did not rise must
be convicted of falsehood, is, surely, an event not easily
to be accounted for, according to the common prin-
ciples and motives that actuate mankind. Nor is it
more probable that a few obscure fishermen and
handicraftsmen, coming from the most despised and
abhorred country in the world, should be able to
draw the attention and engage the confidence of the
most learned and enlightened nations on the globe,
and to induce them to give so much credit to a
story in itself improbable, as to admit it as the basis
of a new faith, to which they sacrificed both the
religion of their ancestors, and the speculations of
their philosophers, unless the preachers of the new
faith had brought some stronger evidence of the
truth of the miraculous facts they taught them than
the bare assertion of a few obscure and illiterate wan-
derers. Is it possible to account for their success,
without believing that they illustrated the truth of
what they taught, either by undeniable testimony
or by the evidence of miraculous powers ?
A late celebrated historian took very great pains,
but, in my opinion, with very little success, to
shew that Christianity might have sprung up and
prevailed as it has done without any supernatural
assistance : but even when I entertained the strong-
est doubts of the truth of revelation, I always
thought his five causes were indebted for the great
attention with which they were received, examined,
188 ON THE HISTORICAL
and refuted, rather to the popularity of the work in
which they appeared, and the celebrity of its author,
than to any intrinsic weight of argument or force of
reasoning. I am persuaded that, had they come into
the world in plain language as an anonymous pam-
phlet, they would have met with little notice.
1 . The zeal of the first Christians.
It will be admitted on all hands that the propaga-
tion of Christianity was, in a great degree, owing to
the zeal of its first professors ; but this very zeal ap-
pears to me a strong evidence at least of their per-
suasion of the truth of the doctrines they maintained,
and, therefore, is of itself a strong presumption of
the truth of that revelation, which they had every
opportunity of examining, and which afterwards
they embraced with so much ardour. Their zeal
must have been founded on conviction at least, if not
on evidence.
2. The doctrine of a future life is stated as the
second cause.
The hope of a future state of everlasting happiness
is no doubt a strong motive to religion and virtue ;
but as the object is great, in the same proportion
must the evidence of such promises be clear and
strong. It does not follow, because a man wishes
for immortality, that he must listen to every idle
fellow who promises such a boon to his followers.
Men must know that mere man, without a divine
revelation, cannot bestow such a blessing on his fel-
low men. The first Christians must therefore have
had^some stronger motives for believing the future
immortality of mankind, as delivered and explained
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 189
by the Apostles,, than others had for believing the
same doctrine when disseminated by others. For
a future state was not a new tenet, invented by the
Apostles : it had been much canvassed by the philo-
sophers; and though some of them had before
strongly inculcated such an opinion, yet it had no
practical effect: the immortality of the soul, like
any other philosophical proposition, was merely a
subject of speculation ; it was reserved for the Gospel
to render it subservient to morality. According to
that system, it was immediately connected with the
moral conduct of men, by which their happiness or
misery was eternally to be decided. Such a doc-
trine must undoubtedly have a great influence on
the minds of those who received it ; but then it was
not a doctrine to be lightly adopted, on the bare
word of a few contemptible fishermen, wandering
about the country, and coming from the despised
land of Judaea.
3. The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive
Christians.
This leads us back to the question, Whether the
miracles ascribed to them are true or false. If true,
then the inferences drawn from them respecting the
truth of revelation are indisputable. There appears
a shrewd ambiguity in the historian's reasoning, or
rather a wish to confound the miracles related in
Scripture with those afterwards ascribed to the
Church, the truth of which has been reasonably
doubted. But admitting, what I am afraid cannot be
denied, that the Church, when vested with power,
190 ON THE HISTORICAL
authority, and influence, has on several occasions
endeavoured to increase that authority by pretended
miracles,, that will not account for the original pro-
gress of Christianity. There was then no church to
use a corrupt influence ; the assent of the first be-
lievers arose from the evidence and facts laid before
them by men who, far from having any power or in-
fluence to enforce their doctrines, preached them
with a halter round their neck, at the risk of their
lives and liberty, and involved those who listened to
them in similar danger. When, therefore, mention
is made of the miracles ascribed to the primitive
church, a distinction is to be made between the
miracles recorded in Scripture and those ascribed to
the Church in after ages. With the latter we have
nothing to do ; and with respect to the former, the
whole will depend on the great question, whether
those miracles were truly or falsely ascribed to the
apostles and those authorized by them.
As to the 4th cause, The virtues of the first Christ-
tans.
This is rather a singular argument. The vices of
Christians have often, and with some reason, been
urged to discredit their religion ; but now their very
virtues are set in array against them. We may,
without danger to the cause, admit the fact, that the
virtues of the first Christians were highly instrument-
al in spreading and recommending their religion :
they were known by their fruits. But how will the
historian account for those virtues, which he ac-
knowledges to have distinguished the early pro-
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 191
fessors of Christianity ? They have been hitherto
considered as evidences of the excellence of the
morality, and of the purity of the doctrines, as well
as of the sincerity of those who practised them. It
is a singular way of reasoning, to contend that they
were impostors, because they were virtuous ; and
that the religion which led them to form societies,
which made them austere in their morals, peaceable
and patient in their conduct, sober, chaste, and
temperate, abstaining from pleasure, luxury, and
every immoral gratification, was a religion founded
on hypocrisy or delusion ; or that they would have
voluntarily embraced such a self-denying way of life,
without some well-grounded hope of future com-
pensation for all the pleasures and enjoyments they
sacrificed in obedience to the faith which they pro-
fessed.
5. The union and discipline of the Church.
This seems to me very weak and inconclusive.
At best it will only account for the progress and not
for the origin of Christianity, which is the great and
material point. An army must be enlisted before it
can be disciplined : so, before union and discipline
were introduced into the Christian church, Christians
must have already existed ; and the origin of their
church or societies appears to have been owing to
the necessity of consulting together for their own
safety, in an age when they were exposed to perse-
cution and various sorts of vexation, from the adhe-
rents of the old pagan superstitions. With the con-
duct of the church after it was firmly established
102 ON THE HISTORICAL
we have nothing to do. After a certain time, every
miraculous interference seems to have been with-
held, and the further propagation of Christianity to
have been left to the operation of secondary causes,
assisted by the proofs and evidences of the miracu-
lous origin upon which it was contended to have
been founded. It is, therefore, sufficient to prove
that those secondary causes will by no means ac-
count for the original propagation of Christianity,
without admitting the miraculous events in which it
professes to have its foundation.
The very circumstances, alleged by the historian to
prove that Christianity was propagated by natural
causes, are to me the strongest evidence of its divine
origin and miraculous establishment. I am willing
to grant all that he contends for. I will admit that
the zeal of the first Christians, their belief of a
future stale, their miraculous powers, their virtues,
and the union and discipline of their community,
were the means by which Christianity was propa-
gated and spread over the world ; and as the mira-
culous powers are evidently believed by the his-
torian to have been rather ascribed to than really
possessed by them, I am willing to leave them out
of the account. Admitting, therefore, all the efficacy
he chooses to ascribe to these several causes, still it is
incumbent on him to account for the existence and
concurrence of these causes which were never found
so united and efficacious on any other occasion. It
is evident that they were themselves the effects of
some antecedent cause, which it was the duty of
EVIDENCE OP CHRISTIANITY. 193
the author to have investigated ; and as he has not
taught us where to look for it, we are inevitably
compelled to receive the only solution yet offered us,
which can rationally account for the concurrence
of all these causes in spreading the new faith.
If we believe what is recorded in the Gospels and
the book of Acts, of the preaching, the doctrine,
the miracles, and the resurrection, of Christ, as
well as the miraculous powers bestowed on the
Apostles, we shall easily account for the zeal of the
early Christians, and that their belief of a future state
should be productive of those virtues which distin-
guished their conduct, as well as of those regulations
of order and discipline which served to maintain
the purity of their religion among themselves, and
to recommend it to the world; but if we reject those
records, I am at a loss where to find motives that
could have produced such effects.
It is not necessary, in order to prove the divine
origin of our religion, to admit the truth of all the
legends of miracles which have been imposed upon
the world ; neither is it necessary to ascertain the
precise time when miraculous powers ceased in the
Christian church. It is sufficient if we believe in the
miraculous powers recorded in Scripture during the
ministry of Christ and the apostolic age ; because the
very object of these miracles was, by the assurance of
a h appy immortality in a ftiture state, to rouse that
zeal, and create those virtues, which afterwards
enabled the converts to the new faith to propagate
their religion without supernatural assistance.
194 ON THE HISTORICAL
If the causes by which Christianity was propaga-
ted, as stated by the historian, refer to that period
when miracles were withdrawn, and the propaga-
tion of the new religion was left to the operation of
natural causes, we may admit the efficacy of these
causes, without the slightest impeachment of its
divine and miraculous origin and early progress,
for it is universally admitted, after a certain pe-
riod, to have been left to the operation of secondary
causes, and the natural course of events. But r
though applied chronologically to the period of
which he treats, it seems to have been the intention
of the historian that his arguments should have a
retrospective reference to the origin and institution
of Christianity itself. Considered in themselves, and
abstractedly from the observations which they were
intended to introduce, there is nothing really objec-
tionable in the five causes ; they are even such as an
advocate for Christianity might adopt with the strict-
est propriety. He might reason thus :
After the apostolic age, when the truth of Christ-
ianity had been sufficiently established by the miracles
and wonderful works which proved its divine origin,
the church was no longer invested with miraculous
powers; but the further progress and propagation
of that religion were left to the operation of natural
causes, and to the zeal of its professors, which was
so strongly excited by the certain hopes of future
immortality founded on the miraculous exertions of
power, which, confirming the divine mission of the
Author of their faith, convinced them of the truth
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 195
of his promises that it induced them to devote
themselves to the propagation of their religion, and
to recommend it to the surrounding nations by the
most exemplary virtues and purity of life ; and led
them to adopt such discipline and regulations in their
communities, as to give the most powerful effect to
their labours in promulgating their doctrines.
Upon the whole, it appears to me that it is in-
controvertible that the original grounds on which
Christianity was founded, are, in every essential
particular, the same as those which constitute now
the foundation of a Christian's faith : and as the
facts alleged in its support were of such a nature as
to be open to the examination of the new converts,
and as it is reasonable to believe that neither Jews
nor Gentiles would take these facts for granted with-
out investigation, on such slender authority as their
confidence in the obscure and insignificant persons
who reported them, who were either strangers or ob-
noxious to them ; so it is natural to suppose that they
used the means of inquiry that were open to them,
and did not admit the reality of those facts without
sufficient evidence : and, when all these things are
considered, I cannot but be of opinion that the very
existence of Christianity at this day is a strong pre-
sumption of its truth; because it is difficult to
imagine, and it has never yet been suggested, how
it could have obtained its rise and progress on the
supposition that it was an imposture.
o2
196 ON THE HISTORICAL
IV. Nor is it easy to imagine that men, such as
the Apostles are represented, could have invented so
excellent a doctrine; a system which the wisest
philosophers could never have thought of.
In the first place, it is highly improbable that a
few uneducated fishermen should have been able to
form a system of morality, more perfect, more pure,
more consistent and uniform, than all the wisdom of
the wisest philosophers from the beginning of the
world had been able to produce.
If it is objected, that these ostensible authors of
the new faith might be only instruments in the
hands of more able and ingenious men by whom the
whole scheme was concocted in secret, can we
imagine that these able and ingenious men should
have committed the charge of propagating their
views to persons so totally unqualified for the under-
taking ? Besides which, if Christianity had been a
fable thus cunningly devised, we should expect to
find, that, when it had begun to spread, as it did beyond
what could possibly have been foreseen or hoped for,
some of the real authors would have come publicly
forward to turn the success of the Apostles to their
own advantage. But no one ever appeared to claim
the glory of the undertaking. Of those who subse-
quently joined the first preachers of the Gospel,
St. Paul was the only man at all distinguished either
for abilities or education : and though he was cer-
tainly superior to the rest of the Apostles in both
respects, yet he appears to have been more remark-
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 197
able for zeal, ardour, and intrepidity, than for any
uncommon strength of abilities or powers of reason-
ing ; and, indeed, the religion he preached was, as
he observed, rather founded on facts than argument.
Though he was a Pharisee, and therefore of some
distinction, it does not appear that he was a man of
any great weight or large property among them, as
he is represented to be a tent-maker. But whatever
might be his learning, his abilities, his wealth, or
influence, it is certain he was not the original con-
triver of the new religion, since he was, in the first
instance, one of its most violent persecutors.
Whether, however, the Apostles were the real au-
thors of the new faith, or whether they were put
forward by secret advisers of more skill and wisdom
and if the latter was the case, they remain secret
and unknown to this day, still it will always re-
main a question, how they or their advisers were able
to produce rules of morality, not only so much
purer and more perfect than any philosophical sys-
tem hitherto known, but which were, at the same
time, so repugnant to the prejudices of the Jews,
and so incompatible with the morals of the Gentiles,
as to be calculated rather to obstruct than to fa-
cilitate the propagation of the religion which they
taught. That they should have undertaken such
a task, that they should have announced with
confidence and boldness the certainty of a future
state, which it was impossible, as men, they should
know without a special revelation from above, and
that they should therefore appeal in confirmation of
198 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY.
their doctrine to the miracles performed by Christ
during his abode on earth, to his resurrection, and
to the miraculous powers which they possessed
themselves, and which they bestowed on others, if
all these pretensions were without the least founda-
tion; requires more faith to believe than any of
the doctrines of Christianity.
CHAPTER IX.
ON THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY.
THE arguments contained in the foregoing chapter
may fairly be alleged, even on the confined ground
which I have there taken ; viz. that the moral doc-
trines of Christ and his promise of future life, sanc-
tioned by the miracles he performed, by his resurrec-
tion, and the extraordinary powers he bestowed on
the Apostles (which formed the original basis of Christ-
ianity, and continue to be the fundamental articles
of our faith), were the only unquestioned facts upon
which we could depend for the truth of revelation.
But the evidence in its favour will receive strong ad-
ditional confirmation, if we make it appear that the
books of the New Testament are the same which
were received as authentic by the earliest Christians,
and must, therefore, have been written at the time,
and by or under the direction of those in whose
name they are come down to us.
It is known that the first Christians had books
under the same designation, which they looked upon
with veneration, as containing the authentic records
and the origin of their faith ; that these books agreed
with our own in the great fundamentals of Christ-
ianity, and, as far as we can judge, from the numerous
200 ON THE INTERNAL
quotations contained in the writings of the fathers,
that they also agreed with them in their contents.
It is likewise known, that, from the times of the
earliest Christians, these sacred depositories of their
religion were kept with extreme care and caution ;
that they were multiplied to an immense extent,
translated into various languages, and spread over
the whole world. Is it, therefore, I will not say
probable, but possible, that the copies of these ge-
nuine books should have been all destroyed without
exception ; and that a spurious and fabricated version
should have been insensibly substituted in their
place, and universally received through all the
nations of the Christian world, without the least
trace or intimation that a different version had ever
existed ? Very soon after the establishment of Christ-
ianity, it was divided into various sects, which all,
however, acknowledged the same books as authority ;
for, notwithstanding their violent contentions as
to the sense and interpretation of Scripture, they
all agreed as to the authenticity of the text. If
there was some dispute with respect to a few books
of no material importance, it will only confirm my
statement, because here, as in other cases, the ex-
ception proves the rule.
Surely, if any of the books thus admitted to be ge-
nuine had been changed or corrupted by any one of
those sects, the adverse party would have detected
and exposed the imposture. The bare attempt to
substitute a new book in the room of any of those
which had acquired the veneration of the Christian
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY.
world would have been met with universal indigna-
tion : still more impossible is it to believe that all
the old versions should have been changed for the new
ones at the same moment, through so many different
nations, languages, and contending sects ; and that
those who had studied and were conversant with
the one should have received the other without any
discussion, and without being sensible of the change :
this, surely, would be as great a miracle as any re-
corded in the Gospel.
For these reasons, I have no doubt but that the
Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul, which we have
in our Bibles, are the same as the books which the
earliest Christians admitted as the authentic records
of their faith. When I say they are the same, I do
not vouch for every letter or sentence : some inaccu-
racies may, and some have been proved to, exist in
these writings ; but from the great multiplication of
them, and the various sects in whose hands they
were, it is not probable that these variations can be
numerous or important. We have the copies of the
different churches, which agree with each other in
all material points, and afford a strong proof of the
care that was taken of those books, and the venera-
tion in which they were held; since the spirit of
party, and, of all parties the most virulent, that of
religious animosity, has not prevailed so far as to
induce any of the contending sects to falsify these
sacred records, in order to adapt them to their own
purposes.
These arguments receive additional confirmation
202 ON THE INTERNAL
from the internal evidence of the writings them-
selves, which bear strong marks of having been
written by contemporary writers at the time of the
establishment of Christianity, most especially the
Epistles of St. Paul, which are clearly occasional,
written to different assemblies of Christians, and re-
lating chiefly to temporal events and local circum-
stances which happened to those different societies
at their first institution ; insomuch that many of the
references are now obscure and not easily to be ex-
plained, even by learned commentators ; but there
is enough sufficiently intelligible to convince every
attentive and impartial reader, that they must have
been written in the very outset and first propagation
of the Christian faith.
Now, if we admit the books of Scripture in our
hands to be genuine, that is, to have been written
at the time by persons who had the means of know-
ing the truth of what they related, their contents
will afford a very strong internal evidence in favour
of the truth of revelation.
When we talk of the internal evidence of Scrip-
ture, I am aware it is a two-edged sword, and that
the strongest objections have been derived from the
doctrines which are supposed to be contained in
those books. And certainly, if predestination, and
the indefeasible election of some men and final re-
probation of others ; if the doctrine of a Trinity in
Unity ; if the sufferings of a God who is impassible ;
if the death of a being who is immortal ; if the
punishment of an innocent, perfect, and divine being
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 203
for the sins of such miserable creatures as we are ;
if these, and some other tenets which have been but
too extensively received in the Christian world, were
articles of faith contained in those writings, the ques-
tion would be at an end ; nothing would remain but
to close the books and consign them to oblivion ;
for no evidence can be so strong, no argument so
cogent, as to establish conclusions so derogatory to
common sense, so destructive of every rational con-
ception of the Deity. But when these notions are
exploded, and the doctrines of the Gospel recon-
ciled to the reason of mankind, as I have endea-
voured to do in the early part of this treatise ; then it
must be acknowledged that the books of the New
Testament bear the strongest marks of truth, both
from the matter which they contain, and the man-
ner in which they are related ; and afford, from their
internal evidence, one of the strongest proofs of the
divine origin of Christianity.
The first object that presents itself is the excel-
lence of the morality of Jesus. Even if it were true
that there is nothing absolutely new in any of his
precepts, yet where can we find a code of morals at
once so comprehensive, and so unexceptionable ?
Is there any duty that is not enforced, or any thing
recommended which reason would disavow ? While
the showy ostentatious qualities that drew upon them
the admiration of the Heathens, as well as the formal
and ceremonious practices to which the Jews attri-
buted so much merit, are passed over without notice,
204 ON THE INTERNAL
the more amiable but less obtrusive virtues of meek-
ness, humility, forgiveness of injuries, and universal
kindness and benevolence, are insisted upon as the
proper and indispensable qualifications of a Christ-
ian.
These virtues, if not absolutely a new discovery,
were certainly placed in a new and much stronger
light than ever they had appeared in before. In-
deed, I cannot but consider humility, forgiveness of
injuries, and love of our enemies, as doctrines peculiar
to Christianity. It might indeed happen, that when
philosophers and orators were inveighing against
excessive pride or inordinate revenge, they might in
the warmth of their eloquence recommend meekness
of temper and placability of spirit : but these were
not inculcated among the great duties of life ; and
even when forgiveness was recommended, it was
from a spirit of pride rather than from benevolence,
and the offender was held out more as an object of
contempt than of affection.
The precepts of Jesus, it must likewise be re-
marked, are not confined to the regulation of the
outward conduct ; on the contrary, their chief aim
is the improvement and purification of the heart.
Every sort of ostentation is banished from the
social and religious duties of a Christian. The ap-
plause or censure of the world is not in any degree
to be taken as the guide of his actions ; his only
object is to obtain the approbation of God and of
his own conscience.
Now, from what but a divine source could these
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 205
uneducated men have drawn this pure, perfect, and
comprehensive scheme of morality ? Was it from
the exclusive theology of the Jews among whom
every stranger was considered as an enemy, and
viewed with jealousy and hatred that they derived
that spirit of universal charity which constitutes the
very essence of Christianity ? Or was this spirit of
diffusive benevolence suggested by the narrow and
confined virtue of Gentile patriotism? We who,
from our Christian education, have been familiar
with these doctrines from our infancy, cannot easily
form an idea of the moral impossibility that they
should have suggested themselves to a few fisher-
men of Galilee, nursed up in the prejudices of the
Jews, and possessed of no human means of acquir-
ing a system of morality so utterly at variance with
the feelings, the opinions, and the religion, of their
countrymen.
But the morality of Jesus, however entitled to
admiration, is neither the most astonishing nor the
most efficient part of the Gospel. The most per-
fect system of ethics will be little more than a sub-
ject of mere speculation, unless it holds out some
sanction to its precepts. Philosophers have exerted
themselves with great industry to prove that virtue
is conducive to happiness in this life ; and with some
degree of success: but as they were sensible that
their rule did not hold good in all cases, they have
endeavoured to supply that defect by enlarging on
the intrinsic excellence, the beauty, and the love-
liness of virtue, which they contended ought to be
206 ON THE INTERNAL
cultivated for its own sake, independently of any ad-
vantages resulting from it. This was a very good
theme for eloquent declamation, but never came
home to the bosom of mankind :
Quis enim virtutem amplectitur ipsam,
Praemia si tollas ?
If, in the regulation of their conduct, men were
confined to considerations regarding its consequences
in the present life, prudence would undoubtedly be
the cardinal virtue. Few men would sacrifice any
point of material importance on account of the
beauty of some virtue, the observance of which would
neither promote their happiness, raise their credit,
nor contribute to their glory either here or here-
after.
It is by supplying a motive to the practice of vir-
tue, independently of its influence on our happiness
in this life, that the Gospel is distinguished from
every other religion or moral system that ever
existed. A future state of retribution is the great
sanction of the moral precepts of Jesus. This final
state of retribution was not put forward with diffi-
dence and doubt ; nor was it deduced from uncertain
reasoning or probable inference, as the dark glim-
merings of the doctrine had been by heathen philoso-
phers ; nor was it treated, as it had been by them,
as a mere subject of speculation and dispute : it was
announced by Jesus as a certain and absolute fact,
on which the very end of his mission entirely de-
pended, which he therefore published on divine
authority, and which he held forth as the great mo-
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 207
tive for repentance and amendment of life. Upon
this was built his whole system of morality ; it was
the end of his preaching, of his suffering, of his
death, of his resurrection. If there was no future
state, all these were vain and to no purpose.
It appears morally impossible that a future state
should have been implicitly believed, unless the au-
thority of the person by whom it was announced
were established by some proof of his power to make
good what he had promised. Accordingly Jesus
appealed for the truth of his mission to the miracles
which he performed ; and it is scarcely possible that
those who believed the promise he made should
disbelieve the miracles on which they were founded.
They were performed, or said to be performed, in
the most public manner ; before enemies as well as
friends ; in the presence of the priests and Pharisees,
and all the ruling powers, interested to prove them
to be false, who did not even deny the reality of
them, without admitting, as a consequence, that he
who performed them was the Messiah. And if these
miracles were the invention of the relators of them,
it is absolutely incredible that they should dare to
annex to their accounts the names of persons, places,
dates, and other local circumstances, which must
have exposed the falsehood to certain detection.
The wonderful simplicity of the narrative shews
that it is the production of the most artless or of the
most artful of mankind. Either it is what it pro-
fesses to be, a naked and unadorned exposition of
208 ON THE INTERNAL
facts, related as they occurred ; or it is a fabrication
by the most consummate proficients in deception,
who had reached the highest perfection of skill
the art of concealing art. There is what the French
call a naivete in the whole which is truly astonish-
ing. It is a bare, simple narrative without the least
appearance of design, or even of interest. There is
no attempt to serve a particular purpose : the
foibles, the weaknesses, and the prejudices, of the
writers are faithfully recorded; and not a word
escapes them that can directly or indirectly be con-
strued into an attempt to praise or recommend
themselves, not even an encomium on their master.
There is no endeavour in any of the Evangelists to
prove the truth of Christ's mission by any kind of
reasoning independently of his actions and dis-
courses, except in the few instances where reference
is made to the prophecies in attestation of his being
the Messiah. And is it conceivable that these
writers should have recourse to fictitious miracles in
support of a cause which they do not even endeavour
to sustain by argument or inference ? If this pro-
ceeded from simplicity and artlessness, the same
disposition of mind would prevent their having re-
course to falsehood and deceit ; and if it arose from
incapacity, the same want of ability which rendered
them unfit for the use of argument would hardly
have supplied them with so many miracles as we
find in the Gospel ; which, if fictitious, are so
plausibly fabricated, and so artfully connected with
the moral precepts and characteristic discourses of
EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 209
their master, as to require more than common
abilities to invent and amalgamate. The miracles
are related with the same simplicity and with the
same degree of circumstantiality as the rest of the
narrative : the writers draw no inference from them,
but leave them to speak for themselves.
There are several minute passages in the books of
the New Testament which prove, beyond a doubt,
that they were written at the time supposed, by
Jews, or persons to whom the state, customs, and
opinions of the Jews were not only known but fami-
liar : and what fixes the date with greater precision
is, that the Jews were at that particular time in a
kind of middle and ambiguous state, neither abso-
lutely free and independent, nor yet totally in sub-
jection to the Romans ; their political condition, even
in the course of the narrative, underwent several vari-
ations; and the whole of the account harmonizes in
the most remarkable manner with the different altera-
tions that took place in their government and in
their relative situation to the Romans.
What is deserving of particular attention is, the
character of Jesus himself, so different from any
other in real or fictitious narrative, and yet main-
tained throughout with such perfect consistency.
The history of his life is related by four several
biographers; and the narrative of each is so far
different from that of the other three, as to prove
that they are not copies of one another. Yet, what
identity is there in their several accounts! The
210 INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY*
Jesus of Matthew is evidently the Jesus of Mark,
Luke, and John.
There was nothing systematic in his manner of
teaching, nothing of that artificial and studied
logic under which imposture would have sheltered
itself. He spoke as one having authority, and not
as the Scribes. His discourses were in general
occasional, arising from some circumstances that oc-
curred. They were sometimes plain and dogmatical,
at others, obscure and prophetic ; and yet there was
a manner in all of them that was peculiarly his own.
When the whole of the narrative is thoroughly
examined, I think it will appear to every unpreju-
diced mind, that it was impossible for the poor, un-
educated followers of Jesus to have devised such a
system, and to have pursued it with any appearance
or hope of success ; and that men of the highest
abilities and the greatest talents, even if they had
been wise enough to invent the morality of Jesus,
would never have thought of propagating and en-
forcing it by forging such a narrative as the Gospel :
there is nothing in it of the means adopted by human
wisdom for the attainment of its objects.
As, from a contemplation of the works of nature
we deduce the proof of a First Cause, so, by a
similar process of reasoning, from the success of
a religion, which human wisdom could never have
invented, by means which it was impossible for
human wisdom to supply, we are justified in ascrib-
ing its origin and its success to the especial agency
of Divine Providence,
CHAPTER X.
ON THE PROPHECIES.
BESIDES the arguments already urged in support
of the truth of Christianity, there are others that will
lead us to the same conclusion ; and among these
the prophecies have always been allowed great
weight. It must be owned that many of them are
obscure ; to me, as well as to others who have not
made them the particular object of their studies,
they are very much so; and it cannot be denied
that, in the interpretation of them, there is great
room for the exercise?of ingenuity and imagination
It cannot, however, be denied that, when some of
them are attentively considered and compared with
the events which they are supposed to foretel, there
is a striking correspondence between them, that
cannot be accounted for on any other principle.
The prophecies in the Old Testament which are
applied to Christ cannot, at all events, be suspected
of having being written after the event ; and if there
is some obscurity in them, it must be remembered
that the Jews, who were better acquainted with the
prophetic style of their own Scriptures than we are,
understood those very prophecies as intended to de-
signate the Messiah, whom, upon the strength of
p 2
212 ON THE PROPHECIES.
them, they expected at the very time when Jesus
did in fact appear.
The Jews agree with us (and I consider their
opinion in this respect of great weight), that these
prophecies were to be applied to the Messiah, and,
until their rejection of the Gospel led them to another
interpretation, that he was to come at that very
time; and if it is granted that they were pro-
phetic of the Messiah, I consider the greatest dif-
ficulty to be removed; for, if referable to such a
person, there can be little doubt that Christ was that
person, from the many striking particulars in which
the prophecy and the fulfilment exactly correspond.
It may, perhaps, be urged, that the authors of the
life of Jesus, being Jews acquainted with the Old
Testament, might accommodate and embellish the
events which they related in such a manner as to
assimilate them to the prophecies which had been ap-
plied by their countrymen to the expected Messiah.
But their whole narrative is so evidently void of de-
ceit, or apparent design of any kind, that it would be
unjust to suspect them of such an artifice; and,
indeed, any attempt of that nature to impose on the
Jews was exactly that which was sure to expose
them to detection.
There are prophecies, likewise, in the New Tes-
tament that require no small degree of attention.
The destruction of the Temple would be a most
striking proof of the prophetic powers of Jesus, if it
were absolutely certain that the Gospels were written
before that event. I say absolutely certain, for
ON THE PROPHECIES. 213
there is every degree of probability, short of absolute
certainty, that they were so : they are referred to
a date prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the
concurrent testimony of the ancient Christians ; and
if they had been written after, it is almost impossible
but that they would have contained allusions, either
designed or accidental, to so striking an event, espe-
cially as it would have afforded a proof of the fulfil-
ment of the prophecies. If they were written after
the destruction of Jerusalem, they would not derive
much authority from the prophecy, unless it was
known to have been made before : in that case, if
mentioned at all, it would be by appealing to the
testimony of those who had heard the prophecy,
and knew it to have been made by Jesus ; and then
the fulfilment, not the prophecy, would have been
chiefly adverted to.
The prophecy, likewise, is so interwoven with
other matters, and delivered in words which, till
they had been explained by the event, appeared so
obscure, that it is highly improbable they should
have been interpolated afterwards. The caution
given to the Jews to fly from the calamity is likewise
so strongly indicative of its having been delivered
before the event, that it is almost impossible to at-
tribute it to artifice or fraud ; indeed, if it had been
fabricated afterwards to answer any particular purpose,
there is every reason to believe it would have been
more direct and particular, and less in the style and
obscurity of ancient prophecies.
There are other prophecies in the New Testament
214 ON THE PROPHECIES.
which cannot possibly have been written after the
event. The success attending the propagation of
Christianity, and the persecution of its professors,
two events which, at first sight, appear rather con-
tradictory than coincident, and yet both verified by
the event, were among the predictions of the
Gospel. But the most remarkable is the destruction
and dispersion of the Jews, with the promise of their
final restoration, which latter part is not yet fulfilled.
But their destruction as a nation, and the dispersion
of the people, are the most stupendous events re-
corded in history : this is a standing miracle, a per-
manent testimony of the providential interference of
God in the punishment and preservation of that
people. Here no argument is wanted, no proof is
required; the fact is obvious, certain, and indis-
putable, a fact, the only one of the kind ever known,
and as unaccountable as it is notorious. The Jews
have ceased for seventeen centuries to be a nation ;
but though dispersed far and wide throughout the
habitable world, they continue to be a people distinct
and separate from the nations among whom they live,
in manner, in religion, and even in appearance. No
instance in any degree similar occurs in the page of
history.
England was inhabited by the ancient Britons;
they were conquered by the Romans ; the Saxons
afterwards subdued the kingdom; the Danes then
established their victorious hordes in the country,
which was afterwards subdued by the Normans.
But all these races, though originally different
ON THE PROPHECIES. 215
in manners, in religion, in habits, and long at
variance and hostility with each other, have at
last been consolidated into one people ; and it is
never asked, and could very seldom be answered,
whether a man is descended from a Briton, a
Roman, a Saxon, a Dane, or a Norman. What
has occurred in this country has likewise happened
in France, in Spain, and all the other nations in
Europe, which are composed of various tribes, hordes,
and races, yet so amalgamated into the same people
that their origin is forgotten and unknown.
It is to little purpose to say that in some countries
there are tribes which have preserved their ancient
manners and customs, and have never been con-
founded with the more potent nations among whom
they live. In the first place, the account we have of
these people is too uncertain to prove anything.
But if a small body of people should go and form a
distinct community in a country thinly peopled,
where they are left unmolested, there is nothing
wonderful in their continuing as a distinct race to the
end of time. But is there any similarity between
them and a people, not living in a corner together
by themselves, but dispersed in small divisions
through every nation of the earth, and through all
parts of each nation, forming no separate political
body, without any judicature of their own; not a
conquering but a subservient race, and yet for so
many ages continuing to be totally distinct from all
those under whose dominion they live ?
And here I cannot help observing, that the laws
216 ON THE PROPHECIES.
given them by Moses and their other lawgivers seem
to have been intended to this end, that by contracting
an anti-social spirit, and looking with contempt and
abhorrence upon strangers, they might continue an
isolated people, obstinately attached to their own
tribe, their own ceremonies and traditions, and so
remain a standing monument of the providence of
God in his dispensations towards that people, and,
through them, towards mankind in general. Were
all the Jews converted to Christianity, agreeably to
the blind zeal of some Christians, it would annihilate
one of the strongest proofs of the truth of revelation.
CHAPTER XI.
ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.
OBJECTIONS certainly have been advanced to the
truth of Revelation, and some of them, it must be
acknowledged, not without weight ; but it must be
observed, that no possible revelation could be pro-
mulgated to which the wit of man could not find
something to object.
I. There is one objection which has been more
insisted on than it seems to me to deserve : it is not,
indeed, peculiar to Christianity, but, if it is a difficulty
at all, it is one that is equally applicable to natural
as well as revealed religion ; I mean the impossi-
bility of reconciling the foreknowledge of God with
the liberty of man. It may appear presumptuous in
me to see very little difficulty in what both Locke and
Priestley confess to be inconceivable ; but I think it
the duty of every man to make the best use of his
own reason, without being imposed upon by the
weight of authorities, however respectable. I must,
however, premise that I am no advocate for the
doctrine of philosophical liberty, though I think the
Divine prescience has nothing to do with the subject,
218 ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.
notwithstanding Priestley considers it as in a manner
decisive in favour of the necessitarian hypothesis.
It is very true that we cannot foresee any con-
tingent event, except by inferring effects from
causes : but then we are not gods, and it does not
follow that the Almighty cannot foreknow that which
is to happen without tracing it through its progress
from cause to effect. This is judging of perfect and
infinite wisdom by the rules of an imperfect and
finite understanding.
The mere knowledge of a present action does not
necessitate or influence that action ; and on the same
principle, there is no reason to suppose that the
foresight or foreknowledge of a future action must
necessitate or influence that action. If I stand at
my window and see a man ploughing a field, my
knowledge that he is ploughing that field neither
causes nor necessitates him to plough it : he would
plough it equally though I did not stand at the window.
Supposing my powers of sight to be miraculously
extended, I might behold a man ploughing a field
in the East Indies; yet the knowledge I should
derive from this extended vision, would no more
influence the Indian ploughman than the man who
ploughs before my window. Suppose, again, that
my organs were further miraculously improved, so
as to make me a spectator, not of what is passing at
the distance of thousands of miles, but of what is to
come to pass next year ; my bare knowledge of the
facts which are then to happen, and which would
happen equally though I had not foreseen them, will
ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY. 219
have no influence on those facts, any more than on
those that are daily passing before my eyes.
Now if, by his prescience, every event, past and
future, is in the sight of God as visible as the present,
he does not necessarily influence the future any more
than he does the present event; both may be
equally known to him without his influencing either.
Separate for a moment his prescience from his om-
nipotence, and the thing will, in my opinion, be
manifest. Imagine a being endued with omnis-
cience but divested of all power, I can imagine that
such a being, by means of his foreknowledge, might
be capable of knowing what will happen in future, in
the same manner as we know what passes before
our eyes; yet it is plain that if he was without
power he could not possess the means of causing and
influencing those events.
The only difficulty is in conceiving how God can
foresee contingent events. To explain the manner
is certainly impossible; neither can I account for
any of the Divine attributes ; but it is by no means
inconceivable to me, that the Being who created the
world, who carries his view through the whole
universe, should likewise extend it to futurity : nor is
the Divine prescience, in my opinion, by any means so
inconceivable as his self-existence, his eternity, or
the infinity of space ideas which, though we cannot
comprehend them, we are bound to admit.
It is not, therefore, necessary to deny the prescience
of God, because we are unable to define it ; if that
were the case, we must deny the being itself of a God,
220 ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.
and take refuge in Atheism. But foreknowledge no
more implies influence and causation than actual
knowledge does. The difficulty in my mind is, not
to reconcile the Divine prescience with the liberty of
human actions, but to reconcile the foreknowledge
of all the calamities and miseries which have afflicted
this world with the Divine wisdom and goodness :
but that is another consideration.
II. Having already said so much of miracles, I shall
here add but little on the subject. The objections
to miracles, a prori, I have before considered as
weak and untenable ; nor is it at all a reasonable
conclusion, that because we do not at present witness
any deviations from the established laws of nature,
none can at any time have occurred : on the contrary,
it is a matter susceptible of proof, that such devia-
tions have taken place. Although we now find the
system of the universe regulated by established
laws, yet there must have been a time when this
system had its origin, or else it was eternal and
uncaused, and in that case we are unavoidably led to
Atheism. If, then, this universe had a beginning, it
must have been originally formed by miraculous
powers ; and are we justified in asserting that such
miraculous powers could not exist then, because
we have no experience of their having been exerted
within the times to which our own information
extends ? Does the Gospel contain any miracle so
stupendous as the creation of the world? or was
the formation of man from nothing, or from a com-
ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY. 221
bination of matter, less a miracle than the restoration
of a dead body to life ? If we deny altogether the pos-
sibility of miracles because we do not see them recur
every day, we must on the same principle deny the
creation of the world and the original formation of
mankind : and if we admit the miraculous operation of
God in these great events, we must likewise admit the
possibility at least, if not the probability, of the Divine
interference after the creation, even though from
our own individual experience, or what we choose to
call authentic historical testimony, we have no evi-
dence of any similar interposition.
But, then, the difficulty of proving a miracle. It
has been observed, that it is more probable that a
man should lie, than that the law of nature should be
suspended. I grant it: and most certainly if the
truth of the miracles depended solely on the veracity
of any single individual, the objection would be just :
for I am willing to admit that it is not the mere as-
sertion of one man, nor even of a great number of
men, unless supported by other evidence, that can
establish a miracle. It is not simply because the
miracles of the Gospel have been recorded by the
Evangelists that they are entitled to our belief; it is
because these miracles having been urged as proofs of
the mission of Christ before persons who had an op-
portunity of forming a judgment on the subject, these
persons were convinced of their truth, and, in conse-
quence of that conviction, embraced the religion that
was preached to them, at the expense of all their
worldly prospects. It is because these miracles were
222 ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.
attested and foretold by former prophecies, and con-
firmed by prophecies delivered at the time, many of
which have since received their completion. It is
because they were performed in support of a doctrine
and a system of morality which could not be the
invention of those who promulgated it, and could only
proceed from the same divine origin to which alone
the miracles can be ascribed. These are the reasons
why, notwithstanding the great caution which ought
to be exercised on such subjects, we are justified in
giving credit to the miracles of the Gospel.
If these miracles had been solitary, unconnected
facts, if they had been performed for no purpose,
or for one that was trifling and insignificant, if they
had been attended with no results, then I am
willing to admit that they would be entitled to little
attention : and, indeed, in that case, it would not
be of much consequence whether they were believed
or not. But as the miracles we're, in the first
instance, a proof of the divine origin of the doctrines
in support of which they were wrought, or rather a
proof of the divine commission of him who per-
formed them; so, in the present times, the ex-
cellence of the doctrine and the importance of its
sanctions add a considerable value to the testimony
by which the miracles are proved.
In all reasoning the mind argues from a known
fact, from which it draws a probable, and, in some
cases a necessary, inference. Thus, the first Christ-
ians, from the evidence of the miracles, the reality
of which they could not call in question, inferred the
ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY. 223
supernatural powers of him that wrought them, and
consequently the divine origin of the doctrines which
he taught. To them the miracles were the facts ;
the divine authority of the doctrines was the inference
they drew from those facts. We reason in a different
process. The miracles are not to us an object of
personal knowledge ; but the doctrines we are com-
petent to judge of; we see their excellence, and we
argue that it is, if not absolutely impossible, at least
highly improbable, that they should have been the
invention of the persons by whom they were pro-
mulgated, and from whom they received the sanction
of a future state ; and on these grounds we are pre-
pared to admit, that they were introduced by super-
natural means. With us, therefore, the excellence
of the morality and the doctrine of a future state
are the facts we reason from ; and the probability of
miracles being wrought in support of them is the
inference which we draw.
A divine revelation, in any case, must necessarily
be miraculous : and it must be acknowledged by
every one who is not an Atheist and with an Atheist
it would be absurd to argue about revelation that
the Being who established the laws of nature may
alter or suspend them. But it may be said that,
admitting the power, it is necessary to prove that
such power has been exerted. Now we found the
credibility of such an exertion, 1. On the plain,
artless, consistent account delivered to us in the nar-
ratives of the Evangelists ; 2. On the success of the
Gospel, which was supported by those miracles ;
224 ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.
3. On the excellence of the doctrines and the
importance of the revelations which those miracles
were wrought to support ; 4. On the twofold evidence
from prophecy, on which this revelation rests : first, as
the completion of former prophecies ; and, secondly,
as uttering prophecies which have been since ac-
complished.
It is usual to distinguish the evidence afforded by
prophecy from the evidence afforded by miracles ;
but by separating them the proof is weakened:
they both appear to me to constitute links in the
same chain of argument, yielding support and as-
sistance to each other ; indeed, a prophecy is itself
a miracle. From the success of the doctrines pro-
pagated by miracles, their harmony with former pro-
phecies, and the accomplishment of the events
foretold in the Gospels, I argue that there must
have been a miraculous interposition, without which
I can neither account for the coincidence between
the prophecies and the events, nor for the origin
and propagation of the sublime doctrine on which
the religion of civilized Europe is founded.
III. The want of universality is another objection
much insisted on ; and, indeed, when urged in oppo-
sition to the creed of the Roman Catholics and
some other Christian sects, it is, in my opinion, un-
answerable; for I cannot conceive how those who
believe that none but Christians can be saved, and
that the rest of mankind will be condemned to ever-
lasting misery, can reconcile such a dispensation with
ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY. 225
the mercy and justice of God. If such were, indeed,
the doctrine of Christianity, that those who never
heard of Christ are to be consigned to eternal damna-
tion because they have not believed what they never
so much as heard of, nor complied with a law which
they never knew, or had any opportunity of knowing,
it certainly may be justly objected, that the law
upon which their final and eternal doom depends
ought to have been made known to them ; and that
it is not only injustice but cruelty to condemn them
to punishment because they did not believe what
they had no possibility of being in the least acquainted
with. It is consigning them to punishment, and
the most dreadful of punishments, for what it was
utterly impossible for them and I use the word
impossible in its strictest sense to avoid ; and in that
case they were most undoubtedly predestinated,
without any possibility of redemption, to eternal
damnation.
If such a doctrine should be announced as the
dispensation of a just and benevolent being by an
angel descending from Heaven, it is so contrary to
every idea we entertain of the justice and goodness of
God, that we cannot for a moment believe that
it can proceed from so perfect a being ; and if we
once give up the idea of the goodness and justice
of God, we may as well turn Atheists at once : for
if we_do not believe that God is good and just, we can
entertain no rational ideas concerning him, and we
shall, in that case, have no idea left of any thing but
his power.
Q
226 ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.
Those who entertain more just notions of Christ-
ianity will not find much weight in the objection;
for though the knowledge of the Christian dispen-
sation was confined to some, the benefits of it will
extend to all; and as many die in all countries
without knowing that their death is the consequence
of Adam's fall, so many will rise again, although they
are ignorant at present of the promise of a resur-
rection held out in the Gospel. In this there seems
to me no greater difference than there is in the
variety of God's dispensations towards mankind, with
respect to their persons, their abilities, and fortunes ;
some are handsome, strong, and healthy, others are
deformed, weak, and sickly ; some are acute, learned,
and intelligent, others stupid, ignorant, and dull;
some are rich and powerful, others poor and op-
pressed ; some are throughout their lives happy in
their families, prosperous in their undertakings, and in
the enjoyment of ease, plenty, and security while
others are friendless, unsuccessful in their projects,
straitened in their circumstances, exposed to dan-
gers, and inured to hardships. Even in Christian
countries all men have not the same means of moral
and religious instruction, and are therefore unequal
in their means of spiritual improvement ; so that in
no case does there appear any thing like equality
among men. Neither can such equality be reason-
ably expected.
If the rich man should complain that he is not a
king, the poor man might complain that he is not
rich. Nay, it might be carried farther : for if the
ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY. 227
Almighty is under the necessity of exercising a strict
impartiality towards all his creatures, the worm might
with as much justice complain that he was not a man,
or a man that he was not an angel. They are all
the work of his hands ; and if he can make beings of
different orders and capacities, why may he not make
some difference between man and man ? always sup-
posing that he will deal equitably with all, requiring
no more than is consistent with the capacity of
each ; for, to suppose that he would punish a man
because he had not the wisdom and perfections of
an angel, or that he would torture a worm for not
displaying the powers and intelligence of a man,
would be as inconsistent with his justice as if he
condemned one who had never heard of the Gospel
for not believing the doctrines which it contains.
If we were taught by revelation, as some pretend,
that faith in the Gospel is necessary to salvation,
and, much more, that it is necessary to preserve
men from eternal damnation, then it would be utterly
impossible to reconcile the want of universality with
the justice of God ; but if, on the other hand, as I
have before endeavoured to shew, the blessings which
Christianity announces to mankind will be universal,
if those who have lived and died in ignorance of it
will, as well as its professors, be partakers of its
benefits, and, like them, be restored to life and im-
mortality, if it be indeed true that " as in Adam all
die, so in Christ shall all be made alive," I see no
objection to its want of universality ; for, as many
men have died who never heard of Adam's fell, so
Q2
228 ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.
likewise they may rise again, though they never
heard of Christ's resurrection.
IV. Perhaps one of the strongest objections to
revelation arises from some portions of the Old
Testament. Indeed, if Christianity depended on
our believing every word which is there contained, I
am very much afraid it would be difficult to establish
its truth.
I shall consider these objections under three different
heads : 1. The history of the creation, the fall, and the
peopling of the world; 2. The Jewish ritual; and,
3. The order to destroy the Canaanites, and similar
passages.
1. It cannot be denied that the Mosaic account of the
creation is liable to considerable difficulties. It seems
in itself very improbable that so extensive a globe as
that which we inhabit should have been formed, and
only one man and one woman placed in it to people it
by their descendants ; which, according to the common
course of nature, must be a work of considerable time,
more especially when we consider the longevity of
mankind in the antediluvian aera; for the period of
infancy must be supposed to have borne its due pro-
portion to the length of life ; and we find accordingly,
that the time of marriage, as far as we can judge
from the instances recorded, was deferred to an age
proportionably late so that, in fact, there were
properly, in one sense, but two or three generations
between the creation and the deluge ; for as nine
hundred years was no very uncommon age, it was
ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY. 229
possible that some of the contemporaries of Noah
might have remembered and conversed with Adam,
or at least with his sons, that is, admitting the
vulgar chronology. But the Mosaic history is
extremely short and imperfect, and it is not im-
probable that, in the genealogies it contains, several
intermediate links may have been omitted, which is
certainly the case in some of them. So that the
time which elapsed between the creation and the
deluge may have been longer than is generally
supposed. Indeed, if it had been so short, it would
not, I apprehend, be easy to account for mankind
having multiplied to such a degree as to fill the earth
with inhabitants ; and after the deluge at least
if it was universal inasmuch as the great work of
population was to begin over again, there is the
same difficulty in accounting for the numerous
societies of men which are so soon represented as
subsisting. At the same time, I think we may reject
the chronology of Moses without refusing credit to
the leading facts of the history, which is evidently a
very brief abstract of the times.
The fall of Adam has been the subject of so much
discussion, that it would be endless to enter into an
examination of all that has been alleged respecting
it. Some, unable to reconcile the facts to their own
ideas of reason, have got rid of the difficulty by
believing it to be an allegory. This interpretation
cannot, however, be admitted without absolutely
overthrowing the whole system ; for the fall of Adam
is not only stated as a fact, but as the fundamental
230
ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.
fact from whence all subsequent facts contained in
that history derive their origin ; so that, even if it
were allegorical, it must, if it has any meaning at all,
be illustrative of the disobedience of the first man,
and of the sentence passed upon him in consequence
of that disobedience.
2. I do not see any great weight in the objection
arising from the Jewish ritual, which I think, at least
as to its minutiae, ought rather to be considered as
the law of Moses than as immediately coming from
God. It is indeed said, that God spake to Moses :
this, however, I conceive need not be taken literally,
as if God had uttered verbally every thing contained
in these laws : it is sufficient, in my opinion, if we
believe that God suggested their general purport ;
and, indeed, we find that no part of them was the
object of equal veneration with the commandments,
which were supposed to have been dictated imme-
diately by God himself. This shews, evidently, that
a great difference was made between what they
received as coming immediately from the Deity and
what Moses communicated to them by the divine
suggestion.
3. With respect to the objection urged from the
divine command for the destruction of the Canaanites*
and other similar passages, it is an objection which I
have never heard answered, I will not say satisfacto-
rily, but even with any degree of plausibility. It is, in
my opinion, unanswerable. Priestley has laboured, as
well as others, in endeavouring to justify this trans-
action, and to reconcile it with the justice of God.
ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY. 231
There is a very remarkable passage by that author
in extenuation of this severity " That though ex-
pressed in absolute terms, the order was supposed by
some to have been conditional in fact, and that the
lives of the Canaanites were to have been spared
upon their submission, and especially on their
forsaking idolatry." What would the Doctor have
said if all the Unitarians had been condemned to
death, but mercifully spared on condition of their
subscribing to the Athanasian Creed ? I imagine he
would not have much applauded such a dispensation.
In fact, all these attempts to soften and explain away
the facts, prove that they will not admit of vindication.
That God, who may dispose at his will of the lives
of all his creatures, had a right to punish the
Canaanites with death for their delinquencies, and
that he might use the sword of their enemies with as
much justice and propriety as a pestilence or famine,
or any other kind of death, is certain and indis-
putable, but unfortunately is nothing to the purpose.
The question is, whether God could, as a moral
governor, give orders in absolute contradiction to the
precepts which he had promulgated as the laws from
which the people were not to deviate, as well as in
opposition to every sentiment of benevolence and
humanity implanted by himself in the heart of man.
If there is any such thing as moral right and wrong,
it will scarcely be disputed that cruelty to the van-
quished, oppression to those who are in our power,
a refusal of mercy to those who have no other hope,
and the indiscriminate infliction of death on a prostrate
232 ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.
and unresisting enemy, are actions that exhibit human
nature in its most savage and barbarous aspect.
These suggestions of the law of nature were fur-
ther confirmed by the laws which were revealed
by God himself. It makes one of the ten com-
mandments : elsewhere it is said, that whoever sheds
man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. How,
then, can an order so repugnant to every natural and
revealed law be supposed to emanate from the author
of those laws ? Priestley talks of the good effects
resulting from this severe and inhuman act : this is
like the theory of certain politicians, that private
vices are public benefits. This theory, however, is the
less unreasonable of the two; for in the administra-
tion of states it is not always possible to effect any
great benefit without some toleration of evil. But to
argue from the feeble and imperfect government of
man to the dispensations of an all-wise and omnipotent
God, is absurd in the extreme. Can we suppose
that his power was so weak, or his wisdom so
limited, that he could not effect his purposes without
compelling his people to the transgression of his own
laws?
Priestley also argues, that the hand of God would
not have been so visible, if the destruction of the
Canaanites had been effected by a flood or an earth-
quake, or by fire from heaven as in the case of
Sodom and Gomorrah as when the punishment
was inflicted by the hands of the Israelites. Strange
position! Let me only ask, which bears the most
visible marks of the hand of God, the destruction of
ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY. 233
the Americans by the Spaniards, or the universal
deluge ?
In answer to all these objections, arising from the
Old Testament, I shall observe in general, that
the defenders of Christianity often undertake too
much, and by endeavouring to support what is by
no means essential to their cause, they weaken the
evidence of what is really susceptible of proof. I
think Paley has put this point on its true footing, by
admitting that Christianity does not depend on the
truth of every particular recorded in the Jewish
Scriptures. The supposed necessity of receiving
every word contained in them as an article of faith
has arisen from the supposition that every word in
the Old and New Testament was written by inspira-
tion a supposition which is totally at variance with
the internal evidence of those writings.
It is plain, from numerous passages in the New
Testament, that though the Apostles were occasion-
ally distinguished by divine communications and en-
dowed with supernatural powers, yet they were not
always under the influence of immediate inspiration.
It was some time before they understood that they
were commissioned to preach the Gospel to the
heathens as well as the Jews, and this was revealed
to Peter in a vision ; which, if he had been always
inspired, would surely have been altogether unne-
cessary. It was a matter of doubt among the
Apostles whether the heathen converts were bound
to observe the law of Moses before they were
admitted to baptism. We hear of a dispute between
234 ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.
St. Peter and St. Paul ; which could not have hap-
pened had they both been always inspired. And in
their exhortations, the Apostles make a distinction
between what they advise as a matter of opinion, and
what they deliver in a more peremptory style as
a doctrine revealed to them. This shews that on
many occasions they were left to their own judgment,
and that it was only occasionally, and when necessity
required, that they were assisted by divine inspiration.
Even divine inspiration would be no security for
the accuracy of the Scriptures as they are handed
down to us ; for though the original writers should
have been inspired, yet unless the same inspiration
was extended to every transcriber and translator
of those books, many alterations or corruptions
might, through inadvertence or design, have crept
into the sacred text.
The Jewish Scriptures are certainly not trans-
mitted to us with the same authority, nor with the
same degree of credit, as the writings of the New
Testament. It is not easy to ascertain the time or
the persons by whom many of the books were written :
they were in the custody of the priesthood for a great
length of time : many of them being purely historical,
are therefore to be considered in the same manner
as other ancient histories ; and we may reasonably
withhold our belief from some particulars without
rejecting the whole, which is the judgment we form
every day on reading the early annals of Greece and
Rome.
I do not mean, however, to infer that the miracu-
ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY. 235
lous events recorded in the Old Testament deserve
no more regard than the events of the same nature
which we find in other histories. The very peculiar
government, religion, and customs, of the Jewish
nation, the superior knowledge which, notwith-
standing their inferiority to the rest of the world in
every other branch of learning and improvement,
they possessed respecting God and his attributes, are
strong arguments that they did not obtain their
religious instruction from the same source whence
other nations derived their absurd superstitions, and
give no inconsiderable weight to their pretensions of
having received it from the Deity himself, and the
accomplishment of several of the predictions of their
prophets proves that their claims to prophecy were
not unfounded. We may, therefore, give credit to
predictions, when we find them confirmed by the
events, without believing every thing recorded in
their annals. We may believe that they were a
people set apart from other nations by the imme-
diate providence of God, because this is attested by
their whole history, and more especially by their
continuing to this day to subsist as a distinct people,
notwithstanding their dispersion. As it appears that
they were appointed as the instruments of communi-
cating the Divine dispensations to mankind, and that
for this purpose they were placed in a peculiar manner
under the especial guidance of Providence, it is not
unreasonable to believe those extraordinary facts
transmitted down through them, for the promulgation
of which their whole economy seems to have been insti-
236 ON THE OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.
tuted, especially when those facts are confirmed by
the Gospel. The facts I principally allude to are
the creation of man and the fall of our first parents,
which cannot be rejected by a believer in the Gospel,
as the resurrection from death is there represented
as a redemption, through the obedience of the second
Adam, from the penalty incurred by mankind in
consequence of the disobedience of the first.
CHAPTER XII.
ON THE ADOPTION OF CHRISTIANITY.
As I am not writing to support a system, or merely
to make the most of an argument, I am ready to
admit that the evidence in favour of revelation
consists merely in probability, though, in my opinion,
such strong probability as amounts nearly to moral
certainty. I make this admission, because it ap-
pears to me infinitely more probable that Providence
should miraculously interpose with a divine revela-
tion, than that a few ignorant and uneducated men
should have formed so extravagant a design as to
change the religion of the world by unfounded
attempts to impose on the credulity of mankind,
that men, plain and artless as they appear to have
been, should have conceived the most artful system of
fraud and imposture, that men without education
or intellectual abilities should have devised a system of
morality more pure, more perfect, extensive and un-
exceptionable than any that the wisdom of the wisest
philosophers had ever produced that they should,
on the authority of their own affirmation, obscure,
insignificant, and contemptible as they were have
238 ON THE ADOPTION OF CHRISTIANITY.
presumed to sanction their system by the promise of
a future state of immortality, or that any body
could have believed them if they had; that, in
proof of their authority, they should have appealed
to the miracles they performed, when, in fact, their
pretensions to miraculous powers were fraudulent
and false that the fulfilment of the prophecies
was either not true or merely accidental, and that
the prophecies which they themselves foretold, and
which have since been accomplished, were accidental
and fortuitous, a combination of all these circum-
stances appears to me more miraculous than the
revelation which we are desired to believe.
However strong the conviction arising from these
considerations, yet I think it by no means necessary
nor indeed is it possible to feel the same absolute
certainty of the truth of revelation that we do of our
own existence : it is not in the nature of things that
men should have such a persuasion in reality, what-
ever they may pretend or fancy ; and those who are
best qualified to form a sound judgment, knowing
the weakness of our faculties and the fallibility of
human testimony, are fully sensible that, notwith-
standing the conclusions they draw, on what they
believe to be reasonable grounds, still it is possible
that they may be mistaken. But if, after having
considered the subject with all the attention they are
capable of, they are of opinion that the arguments
in favour of Christianity outweigh those that are
brought against it, and in consequence of that per-
suasion endeavour, to the best of their abilities, to
ON THE ADOPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. 239
obey its precepts, and make it the guide of their
actions, I consider these men, even though they
should not be able absolutely to silence every doubt,
to be far better Christians than those who hastily
receive it without any previous examination, merely
because it was the first lesson they were taught in
their infancy.
It must be confessed, at the same time, that the
stronger our conviction of its truth, the greater will
be the comforts we shall derive from the practice of
its duties, and the more powerful its influence on
our conduct. It is not, therefore, a matter of indif-
ference what degree of faith we give ; but, at the
same time, if we yield implicit credence to what is
proposed to us without consulting our judgment, we
run every risk of being led astray. This is, however,
the method adopted by the great majority of man-
kind. They call themselves sincere believers ; they
never doubt, because they have never inquired into
the subject. And for this conduct they are not to
blame ; most of them have neither leisure nor capa-
city to form a sound judgment : on the contrary, we
commonly find that, when the ignorant and unedu-
cated attempt to inquire into the grounds and nature
of religion, they entangle themselves in all the laby-
rinths of superstition and enthusiasm.
The generality of mankind must receive their reli-
gion as they do their laws, from authority. I do
not mean that they are to be kept in ignorance, and
the means of information withheld from them : far
from it. The more diffused religious instruction the
240 ON THE ADOPTION OF CHRISTIANITY.
better ; and particularly if the attention is turned
to plain, intelligible subjects, which will refine and
correct the heart without puzzling and bewildering
the understanding.
But after every method has been adopted to
spread religious information more generally among
the lower ranks, still it must be admitted that few of
them will be qualified to inquire into the first princi-
ples, and that they must receive the grounds of their
religion chiefly from the information of others ; and
the greatest part will have neither inclination, time,
nor abilities, to carry their researches further than the
instructions given them, which, consequently, they
receive upon trust. The national religion ought,
therefore, to be as simple, plain, and rational as pos-
sible ; all questions of mere controversial theology
should be banished from its creed, and its doctrines
confined to those fundamental points on which are
built the hopes and duties of Christians, leaving it
to men of more leisure, better capacities, and greater
information, to draw their own conclusions on all less
obvious and more controverted points, without en-
deavouring to impose them on others as articles of
faith.
Whoever feels any doubts of the truth of Christ-
ianity, ought to direct his inquiries to these three
material questions: 1. What is Christianity? 2.
What are its evidences ? 3. What religion can be
substituted for it ?
1. As far as my own observations extend, the objec-
ON THE ADOPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. 241
tions of infidels, as I have before had occasion to
observe, are not so much levelled against the evi-
dences of Christianity as the credibility of the doc-
trines it is represented to contain. The first thing,
therefore, incumbent on a candid inquirer is, to
examine whether those tenets which form the prin-
cipal obstacle to his faith are, indeed, the real doc-
trines of Jesus.
His first object should be to separate the revela-
tion of God from the inventions of men. And if,
on an impartial investigation, he is convinced that
the doctrines to which they could not but refuse
their assent, as being impossible in themselves,
utterly incredible or irreconcilable to the attributes
of God, are not, as they are represented to be, the
genuine doctrines of the Gospel, but the corruptions
by which the Gospel has been adulterated by the
ignorance, the passions, and the policy of men
then I conceive the greatest difficulty will be re-
moved ; and when once Christianity is reduced to a
rational system, consistent with reason, and with our
conceptions of God, the next question will be, whe-
ther there is reason to believe, from the evidence
adduced in its support, that it was really what it pro-
fesses to be, a divine revelation.
2. It must be confessed that the Gospel narrative
stands on the strongest historical evidence. It pro-
ceeds not from one, but several eye-witnesses, the
friends, the companions, the disciples of Jesus, or at
least from persons immediately connected with them.
242 ON THE ADOPTION OF CHRISTIANITY.
Their accounts, though they vary in the manner
and circumstances of telling the story, agree in every
material and important point : there is exactly that
variation and coincidence that might be expected
from different eye-witnesses relating the same events.
The mode, the expression, the order of the narra-
tive would be different ; but if they were accurate
and faithful, the facts, at least those of most weight
and importance, would be the same. Such is the
variation and harmony of the Evangelists. We have
likewise the original correspondence of many of the
most distinguished of the Apostles, so interspersed
with local and temporary circumstances as to leave
no doubt of their authenticity.
There is, perhaps, no event in ancient or modern
history that stands on stronger testimony. It may,
however, be objected, that as this is a fact so dif-
ferent from those which happen in the course of
nature, it is not entitled to belief merely on the same
testimony which is sufficient to substantiate any
ordinary occurrence ; that as it is so uncommon and
improbable in itself, it requires a proportionate de-
gree of evidence. 1 admit the propriety of the
objection, and in answer to it I shall observe, that
in addition to the strong historical testimony which
revelation derives from eye-witnesses, it is likewise
supported by other peculiar and appropriate evi-
dence, resulting from its extraordinary and wonder-
ful nature.
The prophecies by which it was foretold, prophecies
acknowledged and revered by its most determined
ON THE ADOPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. 243
opponents; the miracles to which the historians of
the Gospels appeal, and which were never contra-
dicted; and the predictions in that Gospel which
have since been verified; all these, together or
separately, afford the strongest confirmation to the
testimony of the Evangelists, and thus the mira-
culous events they record are established by evi-
dence equally miraculous and extraordinary.
3. If we reject Christianity, what religion shall we
substitute in its place? I by no means mean to
argue that we should receive a false religion, because
we have nothing better to place in its room ; but it
is usual for those who wish to depreciate revelation
to cry up and exaggerate the value of natural faith.
But I believe it generally happens that the most
acute and sagacious seceders from the established
religion, when they come to examine more narrowly
into the nature and foundation of natural religion,
soon discover that, after it has been deprived of those
lights which are borrowed from revelation, it is at
best an obscure and uncertain guide ; and that the
same process of reasoning which led them to doubt
of the truth and disbelieve the evidences of reve-
lation, will soon induce them to question the obli-
gations imposed on them by natural religion, and
drive them at last into irreligion and universal scep-
ticism.
There never existed, as I have before shewn,
and I may venture to add there never will exist, any
community professing natural religion. The mutual
relation of man to man will, indeed, always establish
R2
244 ON THE ADOPTION OF CHRISTIANITY.
some sort of morality, and the light of nature would
no doubt lead us to the knowledge of a first cause.
But beyond this, it is impossible to advance without
the aid of revelation : with respect to our relations
to that cause, reason will give very little light. We
cannot avoid confessing the power of God, and as
far as good prevails over evil here on earth, we shall
be persuaded of his benevolence ; but of our duties to
him (except the vague ideas of fear and gratitude) we
can form no distinct notions ; and if our duties were
ever so clearly ascertained, where is the motive to
induce us to the performance of them ? I cannot
imagine any strong enough to induce a man to sacri-
fice any of his temporal interests to his duty, but the
expectation of reward either in this or another life.
Experience teaches us that we cannot depend on
receiving any such rewards in this world; and
although many who have been brought up in the
Christian faith have imagined that the doctrine of a
future life was discoverable without the aid of revela-
tion, yet I think I have shewn, in the earlier part
of this treatise, that all the expectations of it which
ever have been, or ever could be, afforded by the
light of nature are dark, dubious, and uncertain
resting on no solid foundation, exercising no influence
on the conduct.
It must be admitted, that, whatever arguments
may be adduced independently of revelation, they
cannot go beyond the probability of a future state.
They must always leave doubts even in the most san-
guine minds as we find they did among the ancient
philosophers of the certainty of its existence, and
ON THE ADOPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. 245
respecting its nature and duration they can give us
no light whatever. It is manifestly not improbable
that what has had a beginning may have an end ;
and there is no more reason in the nature of things
why our duration should be eternal, than there was
for our existing from all eternity. It is in vain to
talk of the spirituality and consequent immortality
of the soul ; for whatever may be the nature of our
existence, we know that it derives it origin from the
will of its Creator, who may at his pleasure resolve
it again into the nonentity from whence he drew it
forth : our observations on the birth, progress, and
decay of man, and the analogy of his nature with
that of brutes and even of plants, which grow
and strengthen till they reach maturity, then gra-
dually decay, and finally perish as their organs are
impaired by age, are certainly not favourable to the
hope so fondly entertained of the natural immortal-
ity of the soul of man.
Without the belief of a future state, I cannot
conceive how religion, under whatever form, can
exist to any practical purpose. There may be pro-
cessions, there may be ceremonies, there may be
superstitions, all the outside, all the abuses, all the
corruptions of religion, but its spirit, its beneficial
influence, its practical operation, must be null.
These notions may be called mercenary and narrow,
but, as far as my observation has gone, they are
founded on the nature of man : happiness is his great
object, and he will never give up a considerable
advantage but in the hopes, by that sacrifice, of
attaining a greater good. All legislation and, all
246 ON THE ADOPTION OF CHRISTIANITY.
systems of religion, whether true or false, are ad-
dressed to our hopes and fears, and hold forth either
rewards or punishments. With these feelings, I am
fully persuaded that, as all our hopes of a future
state are founded on revelation, if we reject that, we
can have no religion at all.
Christianity therefore, even if its truth were liable
to some degree of uncertainty, ought to be the choice
of every reflecting man. It is undoubtedly favour-
able to moral government in this world ; and it has
never been pretended that an observance of its
precepts will interfere with our happiness hereafter,
upon any other system of religion which holds
out the prospect of a future life.
Whatever may be thought of the doctrines of
Christianity, it must be allowed that its precepts are
wise, just, and conducive to the welfare of society ;
and it must likewise be admitted, that the hopes of
future happiness and the fears of future punishment
are the strongest motives that any religion can
propose for a compliance with its precepts ; and, con-
sequently, no religion was ever so well calculated as
Christianity to improve the morals and promote the
happiness of man. If it were a human contrivance,
still it is so beneficial, so salutary, so superior to any
other institution, that it ought to be encouraged and
supported by every friend to order, virtue, and
morality. Until, therefore, those who reject it shall
establish a system of natural religion that shall hold
forth stronger motives to virtue, better grounded
hopes of future happiness, better regulations for the
welfare of society, and stronger sanctions for its
ON THE ADOPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. 247
precepts, I would advise every man to be cautious
how he abandons a religion, which, notwithstanding
all the corruptions and abuses by which it has been
deformed, has contributed more to improve the
morals and promote the happiness of mankind than
any institution that ever was established in the
world.
I know it is said, that belief is not in our power;
and that we cannot assent to doctrines which our
judgment refuses to admit. When urged in oppo-
sition to the extravagant notions of faith which have
but too much prevailed among Christians, the objec-
tion is just ; but, in the rational view of it which I
have endeavoured to lay down, it appears to me to
be of very little weight.
Christianity is a practical religion ; all the precepts
of Christ are of a moral nature. He always preached
repentance and amendment of life : humility, charity,
piety, sobriety, and temperance, are the virtues he in-
variably inculcates ; and on the conduct of men in this
life he represents their happiness or misery in the
next to depend. " Not every one that saith unto me
Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven,
but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven." Matt. vii. 21. And wherever he gives us
any representation of the final judgment, he does
not separate believers from unbelievers, the orthodox
from the heretic, or the Christian from the Pagan,
but the charitable from the uncharitable, the just
from the unjust, the good from the wicked.
Whence, then, it may be asked, proceeds the
stress laid upon faith in some parts of the New
248 ON THE ADOPTION OF CHRISTIANITY.
Testament ? from the necessity of adopting those
means which are necessary to the attainment of the
end proposed. The whole of the doctrine of Chris-
tianity absolutely necessary to be believed, may,
perhaps, be reduced to this single proposition,
(( That God at the last day will judge the world in
righteousness." A persuasion of the truth of this one
article of faith will be sufficient to draw every well-
disposed mind from evil courses, and induce it to
devote itself to the practice of those virtues which
will secure its eternal felicity.
Unless we believe in a future state, all arguments
drawn from it will have no influence on our conduct ;
neither can it be supposed that we should adopt a
doctrine of so important a nature, and which it is
impossible for human reason to discover, on the
bare authority of any man whatever, still less on the
declaration of a carpenter's son. To believe, therefore,
a future judgment to any practical purpose, we must
be satisfied that it was announced by divine authority,
and thence the necessity of faith ; for we cannot be
expected to be influenced by what we do not believe
to be true.
Mere unbelief is so far from being in itself an un-
pardonable sin, that St. Paul, when he condemns
himself for his persecution of the Christians, mentions
it as some mitigation or excuse of that offense ;
" I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly, in un-
belief." According to the notions of some extra-
vagant sects, his unbelief would have been not only
an aggravation of his fault, but an unpardonable sin
of itself.
CHAPTER XIII.
ON CHRISTIAN RITES AND OBSERVANCES.
IF the views contained in the last chapter re-
specting the nature of faith are correct, and if it is
true as I trust will be admitted by all rational pro-
fessors of the Gospel that every man who believes
that Christ was sent by God to announce a future
state of retribution, and who, in consequence of that
belief, leads a godly, righteous, and sober life, and
complies, as far as human weakness will allow, with
all the precepts of the Gospel, is in every respect a
good Christian, and may expect to be a partaker in
the future state of happiness announced by Jesus,
then it cannot be denied that the belief of that pro-
position is sufficient to ensure his salvation ; and that
consequently all additional articles of faith, of what
kind soever, whether true or false, are at least unne-
cessary. On this principle Christianity contains
only one point which can be called a mystery or
deviation from the natural course of events, that is,
the supernatural revelation of the doctrine of a
future state ; the authenticity of which revelation is
proved by the miraculous works performed by Jesus
and his Apostles in attestation of its divine authority.
250 ON CHRISTIAN RITES AND OBSERVANCES.
If this single point is sufficient to ensure a man's
salvation, provided his conduct is conformable to his
belief, it follows necessarily that it is sufficient to
answer air the purposes of revelation, which has no
other object but the salvation of mankind. Why,
then, introduce a number of incomprehensible dogmas
to puzzle the understanding and revolt the judgment ?
dogmas upon which mankind have always been
divided in opinion, and which, far from answering
any useful end, have been the cause of disputes, and
uncharitableness, and bloodshed, for so many cen-
turies. When all sects are agreed that Christ was
commissioned to announce the will of God to man-
kind, where is the necessity for any church to decide
whether he was a God, an angel, or a man ?
When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush,
would it not have been absurd in the Israelites to
have divided themselves into sects, and called one
another heretics, because some might be of opinion
that God was personally present in the bush, while
others might maintain that it was only a manifesta-
tion of his power, in order to convince Moses that
the communication was divine ?
If there is, indeed, a revelation of the will and design
of God, then, whatever may be the instrument
through which it has pleased him to make the com-
munication, it is equally entitled to our acceptance :
and although there are, and in all probability there
always will be, various opinions respecting the nature,
office, and dignity of Christ, yet since all agree that
he came to declare the will of God, why should not
ON CHRISTIAN RITES AND OBSERVANCES. 251
every one be left to his own opinions on those doubtful
points ? Is it not enough that all should be unani-
mous as to the obligation we are under of obeying
the will of God which Christ has declared to us, and
of believing the promises which God has made to
us through him ? Why should not Christianity be
reduced to the same simplicity as Mahomedanism,
that the Almighty is God, and Jesus Christ is his
prophet ? If the belief of this, and a practice in
conformity with that belief, is sufficient to ensure
salvation, why introduce a number of unnecessary and
incomprehensible articles ?
Let mutual charity be the bond of union between
Christians of different opinions in religion, and as
they are unanimous in the main and essential point,
let them allow others the liberty which they claim
for themselves of exercising their own judgment on
other questions upon which the best and worthiest
men may differ without any impeachment of their
virtue or sincerity. Instead of the Trinitarian ac-
cusing the Unitarian of impiety, or the Unitarian
reviling the Trinitarian as an idolater, let them
both follow the dictates of their own reason, without
presuming to impose their opinions upon each other.
Let each do justice to the good intention of the
other, and put the most favourable construction on
what he considers to be his mistakes. Let the
Unitarian reflect, that, when the Trinitarian worships
Jesus, he only worships him as being one and the
same with the everlasting God, so that he cannot
properly be said to worship another God ; and if he
252 ON CHRISTIAN RITES AND OBSERVANCES.
is under a mistake, it is at best a pardonable error of
the understanding, and not a wilful transgression of
the heart. On the other hand, when the Trini-
tarian accuses the Unitarian of impiety, because he
refuses that worship to Christ which he conceives
ought to be paid to him as the second person in the
Trinity, he should consider that the Unitarian
worships the great and almighty God in all his
omnipotence and immensity ; and that, if Christ is
really one and the same with the Father, he cannot
worship the Father without at the same time wor-
shipping Christ.
The great misfortune is, that all sects lay more stress
on the insignificant opinions in which they differ
from each other than on the more essential points
in which they all concur. Hence their established
modes of worship are framed with a view to exclude
every one who does not believe exactly as they do,
rather than on the comprehensive plan of including
all who assent to the great doctrines necessary to
constitute a Christian. If every doubtful tenet were
strictly excluded, there would still remain doctrines
enough, in which all parties are united, to form a
rational and universal worship.
A Protestant cannot with a safe conscience join
in the Roman Catholic ritual ; but there is nothing
in the liturgy of the Church of England that could
exclude the most scrupulous adherent of the Church
of Rome. In like manner, the Unitarian cannot
join in the ritual of the Church of England, because
to worship as God a being whom he believes to have
ON CHRISTIAN RITES AND OBSERVANCES. 253
been a man like himself, or at least a created being
in every respect inferior to God, would in him be
idolatry: but, on the contrary, a member of the
Church of England might join in the worship of
Unitarians ; for though he believes more than the
Unitarian, it is not necessary that his faith should
always be stretched to the utmost, or that he should
refuse to join with him on points in which they both
concur, because there are a few subjects of minor
importance on which they happen to differ.
A community of worship, however, is so little to
be expected, that we find not only the Unitarians
and other sects dissenting from the Established
Church because they cannot assent to all the
doctrines which make part of its worship, but we find
others likewise" seceding from its communion, not
because they object to any of its tenets, but because
it does not countenance some mysterious notions of
theirs which they imagine to be necessary to the
perfection at least, if not to the very being, of a
Christian ; and it is a melancholy fact, that these
exaggerated opinions are daily gaining ground under
the various denominations of Methodists, Calvinists,
and Evangelical Christians. Little disposed as I am
to concur in their visionary notions, I entertain no
doubt that most of them are sincere, and act from
truly conscientious motives ; and I believe it will be
generally admitted that they have manifested a
greater degree of zeal, industry, and order in propa-
gating their doctrines, than the Established Church
or the more rational Dissenters ; and I am of opinion,
254 ON CHRISTIAN RITES AND OBSERVANCES.
that what sense of religion remains among the lower
ranks of the people is, in a great measure, to be
attributed to their efforts and zeal. Indeed, the
ardent but often erroneous effusions of enthusiasm
have always been found to have had a far more
powerful sway over the imagination of the people
than the cool suggestions and dry deductions of
reason.
While men differ so widely, it is scarcely possible
that they should be brought to unite in any com-
munity of worship, even though the interested policy
of those who enjoy a monopoly under the present
establishment should oppose no obstacle to so com-
prehensive a scheme : this, however, is hardly to be ex-
pected from them. Individuals may be disinterested ;
bodies of men seldom, I may say never, are. Where-
ever the advantage of a community is concerned,
the interest of the individuals who compose it is
supported by what assumes the tone of public spirit,
but is, in fact, nothing more than esprit de corps.
This remark is peculiarly applicable to religious
communities ; for while they are, in fact, contending
for the exclusive temporal advantages of their church,
they ostentatiously represent themselves as standing
up in defense of the essential doctrines of their
religion.
Whatever favourable sentiments I may entertain
with respect to the doctrines of the Unitarians and
their exclusive adoration of one God, there is one
point in their worship which I cannot approve. I
ON CHRISTIAN RITES AND OBSERVANCES. 255
am decidedly of opinion that there should be some
established form of prayer, from which no minister
should be allowed to depart. It is too great a con-
fidence to be reposed in any one man to permit him
to use whatever prayers he may choose to select ;
and thus to leave it in his power to impose his
own crude and ill-digested ideas, and even his
erroneous views, in the solemn act of worship offered
up to the Almighty in the name of the whole con-
gregation.
That, however, is not the only nor perhaps the
principal objection. It is difficult for the greatest
part of a congregation to follow with any degree of
devotion the extemporary effusions of a minister ;
whereas, when he is obliged to adhere to a prescribed
and well-known ritual, the ideas of his hearers will
join with perfect ease in every part of the service.
And as in large assembles it is not always easy for
all present to hear every word that is said by the
minister, that deficiency is supplied by the assistance
of a book, which is a great help to the attention,
especially of the lower and ignorant part of the
audience ; besides that it affords them the means of
preparation, if they choose to refer to it previously
to their assisting at the divine service. All these
advantages are lost by leaving the choice of the
prayers to the discretion of the minister.
In most, if not all, Christian communities, the
celebration of the Lord's supper has been esteemed
the most solemn and essential part of their worship.
If we were to form our opinion from what we read
256 ON CHRISTIAN RITES AND OBSERVANCES.
respecting its institution, it would not, in my opinion,
appear to possess this superior degree of importance.
It is mentioned only once in the Gospel, and the
precept which Jesus gave to his disciples, "do this
in remembrance of me," seems rather intended as a
peculiar memorial of friendship, than a religious
precept of universal obligation, or an injunction of
the greatest weight and importance to all future
believers. Indeed, the solemnity with which Christ
celebrated his last supper upon earth seems to have
had for its object to intimate the death and sufferings
which he was so soon to undergo, and of which the
Apostles were still ignorant. In no other part of the
Gospel do we find any the most distant reference
to this, which has since been reckoned the most
solemn act of worship.
St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles never, in
any of their Epistles, lay any express injunction on
their disciples to observe this ceremony, as they do
with respect to prayer and public worship. Indeed,
it is mentioned only by St. Paul, and that incidentally.
He reproves the Corinthians for converting a religious
ceremony into an occasion of excess and drunkenness.
This reproof of the Apostle's shews, indeed, that it
was a rite introduced from the very beginning of
Christianity, and that it was an ordinance universally
received and approved by the Apostles themselves,
as a t memorial of the death and sufferings of Christ.
There does not appear, however, to have been any
mysterious sanctity ascribed to it. Nay, the very
indecent manner in which it was celebrated by the
Corinthians is far from affording any reason to think
ON CHRISTIAN RITES AND OBSERVAN
that they considered it an act of more than
seriousness or solemnity it was, in fact, nothing
more than a declaration of their faith by joining
in a commemoration of the death of Christ in
whom they believed.
This simple rite was, however, in the course of
time, converted into a sacrament and mystery,
and has even been represented as the most essential
Christian duty. Indeed, it is not surprising that it
should have been deemed a matter of great im-
portance ; for as it was a confession and declaration
of faith, it became the distinction between a believer
and a Pagan : it was the criterion and evidence of
being a Christian, and was therefore looked upon
with respect and veneration.
The importance, solemnity, and mysterious ad-
vantages attributed to this ceremony continued
gradually to increase, till the doctrine of Transub-
stantiation brought the matter to its acme. It would
be a great mistake to suppose that Transubstantiation
originated in the council by which it was first recog-
nized as one of the fundamental doctrines of the
Church. No such doctrine would have been imposed
unless the minds of men had been previously dis-
posed to receive it.
The difficulty of eradicating superstitious opinions
when they have once been firmly rooted in men's
minds, is strikingly exemplified by the fact, that
Transubstantiation, notwithstanding its palpable ab-
surdity, was very slowly and cautiously attacked at
the time of the reformation. Luther's opinions on
258 ON CHRISTIAN RITES AND OBSERVANCES.
the subject were far from clear, and he was inclined
rather to modify the doctrine than to reject it
altogether. Some Protestant churches, even at the
present day, though they reject the literal doctrine,
adopt all its mysterious effects : they retain the
inference, though they deny the premises. - They
ascribe the same beneficial effects to the spiritual
operation of the Eucharist which the Catholics
believe to attach to it as a partaking of the real body
and blood of Christ; and in the catechism of the
Church of England there is an article which goes
very far towards asserting the doctrine of Transub-
stantiation for I cannot understand how it can
otherwise be said that the body and blood of Christ
are verily and indeed taken and received by the
faithful in the Lord's supper.
Prayer and worship are, beyond comparison, more
strongly inculcated, both in the Gospels and the
Epistles, than the celebration of the Eucharist, and
constitute, in my opinion, a far more necessary part
of our religious duties. But though the peculiar
importance attached to the administration of the
communion does not appear to be founded on any
Scripture authority, but, on the contrary, to have
derived its origin from the doctrine of the real
presence, yet I am far from condemning it; nor
should I wish to see the veneration which is paid to
it in any degree diminished. The generality of
mankind are not philosophers: it is necessary to
strike the imagination, in order to touch the heart ;
and I see no reason why we should reject the
ON CHRISTIAN RITES AND OBSERVANCES. 259
beneficial effects which a religious ceremony is
capable of producing, even though we abjure as
superstitious the foundation upon which it was
erected.
As the celebration of the Eucharist is a serious and
open declaration of our adhering to the religion of
Christ, and forms, indeed, the great line of separation
between a Christian and an infidel, it can scarcely be
observed with too much solemnity; indeed, the
greater the solemnity the more strongly will it recall
to our remembrance the duties as well as the hopes
of a Christian. It will in a most forcible manner
draw our attention to the death of Jesus, who laid
down his life in attestation of the doctrines he was
sent to reveal doctrines by which we are taught the
way to life and immortality. In order to add to the
solemnity of the effect, I think it ought not to be
celebrated too often ; for whatever is done frequently
becomes habitual and a matter of course.
The prejudice that it is an enormous sin to
approach the sacred table while guilty of any par-
ticular crime or indulging in any favourite sin, is at
least an innocent prejudice, and may be the means of
leading to repentance and amendment of life.
This feeling, indeed, seems to be not altogether
without foundation. We are taught by Scripture
to avoid intruding into the presence of God while
we are uncharitably disposed towards our neighbours.
Matt. v. 23 : " If thou bring thy gift to the
altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath
ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the
s2
260 ON CHRISTIAN RITES AND OBSERVANCES.
altar, and go thy way first be reconciled to thy
brother, and then come and offer thy gift." And
though it is certain that the same motives which
deter a man from appearing at the communion table
ought to operate as powerfully to prevent his drawing
near to God in prayer and supplication, yet, if a man
is more effectually restrained from iniquity by the
dread of an unworthy communion, let us not remove
this salutary restraint.
Of Baptism I shall say very little. On the first
propagation of Christianity it was the mode adopted
to distinguish its converts, and as some mode was
necessary, that was as good as any other; though
I cannot find any mystery in it. It was so far an
important ceremony, that the person who was bap-
tized abjured his former faith or infidelity, and became
a professor of the religion of Christ. Whether the
same necessity exists at present for observing this
ceremony, might, perhaps, admit of doubt ; as it is,
however, perfectly harmless, I do not see that there
can be any objection to it; on the contrary, it is a
public initiation of the person baptized into the com-
munity of Christians. Whether baptism should be
administered to infants, or deferred till they come to
years of discretion, is a question that would admit
of much dispute. The Church of England has,
perhaps, adopted the best principle by having the
infant baptized and the adult confirmed. The practice,
however, appears in some measure defective, as the
baptism of the infant is the part of the institution by
ON CHRISTIAN RITES AND OBSERVANCES. 261
far the most attended to, and the most regularly
performed, the confirmation being a mere form, which
even is often neglected. I should be inclined to
reverse the method of proceeding, and make the
baptism of the infant a mere presentation of the
child as a future member of the Christian community,
without the introduction of sponsors ; and when he
comes to years of discretion, I would have him
initiated into the church in a more solemn manner,
thus making his profession of Christianity his own
choice, and the result of deliberate reflection.
CONCI.l -ON.
:<>W close this , m ulnch my
endeavour has ben to establish tlu
. that ( ;.rrl\ under-
! riiiity in : he di\ii
! -S \\lleli the d
:i and asnlute predestination,
ifl and in >mprehensible do-
^png faith and grace, nc added to tin- simple
uondertnl that the
r truth sh'
. :
iuse a body
not, his
i. instead oftol-
i
ID. No hi,
osophic r into the truth
not u .n'n^
insi;p- --hirh arc
absurd and ( >ry ; hut \\hat I
m
would
is to
absurd and c
a part <t lin-
net cmi
>M. 1U3
not often attended to,
lance, whether these
trnu-s nally constitute
n, or whether they are
the fallibility and the
of man. Wpenerally derive our first
of Christianity rater from the particular
JmtkuiNEis of the ser h we live than from
the Gospel itself. Kv< rjftruui is familiar with Ins
lituigjr before he is tolmftr versed in the contents
of Scripturr ; and havingftcehred his rudiments of
religh>ii.skn<mlr<l-rt"rM I1 } (bniu-r, h nn. i-m.-s tli.it
which he has
or sect to venerate as
lie countries, where
and especially in those
there is no rhui,v
infn: whereas, if
y of those that
would, instead of aban-
, enrol thgmsshes in
be teen in tht Gospel
been taught by his
laments! In
stianity b
willing enough to admit
with respect to the
there are but few
whom it may not be
therefore, separate th.
revelation of God, and
264 CONCLUSION.
without paying the least attention to the dogmas
of any particular church, seek for instruction from
that book which all Christian communities acknow-
ledge to be the authentic record of divine truth.
If he should there find that the main part, if not the
whole, of the Christian dispensation consists in the
following proposition " That the man Christ Jesus
was sent by the Almighty to announce the doctrine of
a future state of retribution, and to teach us how we
may secure eternal happiness by our conduct in
this world ; and that he, by the miracles which he
performed while on earth, and by his rising again
from the dead, proved that his mission was, in fact,
divine, and that consequently his promises were
true" he must acknowledge that there is nothing in
this inconsistent with reason or contradictory in itself.
It may perhaps be objected, that, from the view
which I have taken of the Christian religion, it loses
much of the awful and stupendous dignity which it
exhibits in the mysterious representations of those
who call themselves orthodox ; that the sufferings of
a mere man, however distinguished and dignified,
can bear no competition with those of a divine being,
of the son of God, nay of God himself; all this I am
willing to admit : but we must not be wise above
what is written we must state things as they are,
and not with a view to dramatic effect ; and if the
doctrine I have endeavoured to establish operates
less forcibly on our imagination, it is certainly more
satisfactory to our reason.
It should be remembered, that it has always been
CONCLUSION. 265
the custom with men to magnify the objects of their
reverence and esteem. This was the source of
Pagan idolatry, and I am afraid the same propensity
has found its way into Christian communities.
Hence in Catholic countries the worship of Christ
is more religiously attended to than that of God the
Father ; and the adoration paid to the Holy Virgin
has almost superseded the worship of the Father and
the Son ; more prayers are addressed to her than to
the three persons of the Trinity : nor is that all ; they
have, by the invocation of saints and the reverence
paid to their reliques, advanced them to the dignity
of Dii minorum gentium ; and it is not wonderful
that, when such idolatrous worship was offered to
the Virgin and the Saints, divine honours should
have been paid to Jesus Christ.
II. When the inquirer finds that these and other
extravagant doctrines are no part of Christianity
itself, it will be worth his while to examine whether
the evidence in favour of this extraordinary interpo-
sition is such as will warrant his assent. Difficulties
alone are not sufficient to justify his incredulity;
difficulties there are and must be in all religions :
and even in what is called natural religion, there are
some stronger in every respect than can be objected
to the plain and rational system of Christianity I
have delineated. For instance, what is there in that
system so incomprehensible as the ideas of eternity,
or so unaccountable as the origin of evil, when viewed
by no other light than that of natural reason ? If,
therefore, the inquirer after truth will concede so
266 CONCLUSION.
far as to admit the possibility of such a system, and
to examine the grounds on which it is founded, he
will, in my opinion, find that the evidence in its favour
is strong, powerful, and not easily to be controverted ;
and that is the second proposition I have endeavoured
to establish.
III. The third object which I proposed to myself
was to shew that there is, in reality, no alternative
between Christianity and no religion at all. The
man who, after diligent inquiry, rejects Christianity,
will not easily be led to embrace Judaism, or to
submit to the authority of Mahomet ; still less will
he think of restoring the heathen mythology ; nor
will the superstitions of the Eastern world claim that
faith which is denied to the religion of Jesus. No ;
but natural religion is the refuge which opens its
gates to the deserter from the Christian faith. It is,
indeed, sufficiently extensive to contain deserters of
every description : but it wants the very essence
the only real sanction of religion the assurance of
a future state.
Setting aside what we are taught by revelation,
we must believe either that our existence will con-
clude with the present life or that we shall continue
to exist hereafter, but without any reference to our
conduct while on earth or else that our removal
from this world will be followed by a state of retribu-
tion : these are the only alternatives ; and unless we
are content to live on in utter uncertainty as to the
nature of what may ultimately prove our lot, one
or other of them we necessarily must admit. If
CONCLUSION. 267
there is no future state, or if our existence in a future
state does not depend on our conduct here, religion
is a matter of little moment ; for if all our prospects
are confined to this life, prudence is the only guide
of our actions, and it would become the exclusive
pursuit of every reasonable man to secure himself
the greatest possible amount of ease and comfort
during this short and transitory existence. If a
convert to natural religion should remain persuaded
of a future state of retribution, still it is impossible
that his new faith should lead him to a purer morality
than is found in the Gospel ; so that he gains nothing
by abandoning the positive promises of Christianity
for the uncertain suggestions of the religion which
he has adopted in its place.
The votary of natural religion may entertain a
wish, he may indulge a hope, but he can feel no
confident expectation of a life after this; and we
find that few of those who reject Christianity from
reflection continue long to hold the belief of immor-
tality. When the French revolutionists abandoned
Christianity, they professed the utmost devotion for
the religion of nature ; and the first doctrine taught
them by their new faith was, that death was an eter-
nal sleep.
Natural religion is a wide and extensive field, in
which every speculative opinion and every extrava-
gant tenet has ample room to display itself, in
which every man is left to the deductions of his own
reason or the suggestions of his own imagination, in
which neither his future hopes nor present obligations
are established on any certain foundation, where
268 CONCLUSION.
the morality of every action may be a matter of
dispute, and even the moral accountability of man-
kind may be called in question. In that boundless
ocean of uncertainty, I find but two undisputed
principles, the being of God, and the dependency
of man. It is, indeed, nothing more nor less than
the philosophy of the ancients; and what sort of
religion that produced is a matter not of speculation,
but of fact and experience.
It may be urged, that if a man finds, after a careful
examination, that Christianity is inconsistent with
reason, or not sufficiently supported by evidence, it
will not be possible for him to admit its divine origin,
and that in this case his only resource is natural
religion ; in other words, he is left to the suggestions
of his own reason, which, however imperfect and
uncertain, must be his only guide. There is un-
doubtedly a great deal of truth in the observation ;
and for this reason I consider that man to be the
greatest benefactor of the human race, and the best
advocate for Christianity, who endeavours to prove
that it is not inconsistent with reason or repugnant
to common sense, by clearing it from the incum-
brances with which it has been loaded, and almost
overlaid, by ignorance, superstition, and enthusiasm,
by the interested or ambitious views of some of
its votaries, and the blind zeal and credulity of their
followers.
If the loose and imperfect hints I have here thrown
out should be the means of inducing others, better
qualified for the task than I can pretend to be, to
exert their abilities in attempting to restore Christi-
CONCLUSION. 269
anity to its original reasonableness and simplicity, it
would afford the best answer to infidels, and remove
the chief obstacles in the way of the candid and in-
genuous sceptic.
I am fully persuaded that more infidels have been
made by the injudicious defenders of Christianity
than by all the wit and argument of its enemies.
The former have, in fact, supplied the latter with
the most formidable weapons which have been
directed against revelation ; for I believe it will be
found upon examination, that the most weighty ob-
jections are levelled rather against the corruptions
and mistaken notions of Christianity than against
Christianity itself. I have little hope, however, that
such a work as I have suggested will be undertaken :
divines are always more anxious to vindicate the
religion of their church than the religion of Jesus ;
and if a man should step forward and engage in the
cause of genuine Christianity without respect to the
institutions or prejudices of any particular establish-
ment, he would be opposed by most and supported
by none.
If an impugner of Christianity were to come to us
and say, Here is a religion which contains a more
rational faith, which is founded on stronger evidence,
which holds forth a purer morality, which ascertains
on surer grounds a future state of immortality,
and gives us better security for future happiness, I
should applaud his conduct ; and, even if he were
mistaken, the goodness of his motives would be a
sufficient apology for the error of his judgment.
But those have no claim to that indulgence, who, for
270 CONCLUSION.
the hopes of revelation, of which they attempt to
deprive mankind, have nothing to substitute besides
natural religion, which, in fact, is no religion at all,
but leaves every man to the deductions of his own
reason, the delusions of his fancy, and the wanderings
of his imagination. It has long been tried and found
wanting; it has proved an insufficient guide to the
wisest of its votaries ; and wherever it has prevailed,
the bulk of mankind have been invariably sunk into
the most degrading superstition.
I have no doubt that I shall incur the censure of
the rigid sons of orthodoxy, who will tell me that
my notions of Christianity are no better than deism,
and that, when stripped of their beloved mysteries,
the Christian religion loses all its use and efficacy,
and is no better than a caput mortuum. But, if I do
not form a false conclusion, the two great objects of
Christianity are, to render men better in this world,
and happier in the next. The first is the means by
which the latter may be attained.
If the rational idea I have endeavoured to give of
the religion taught by Jesus Christ, divested of all
its enthusiastic doctrines and fanciful mysteries, be
equally conducive to the attainment of these two
ends, why should it be condemned, because it is plain,
intelligible, and reconcileable to the common sense of
mankind ? On the contrary, I am firmly of opinion
that those who place the merit of their faith in un-
intelligible doctrines, and in the belief of contradic-
tions and absurdities, have furnished infidels with
the most formidable weapons that were ever wielded
against Christianity.
APPENDIX.
APPENDIX.
A.
ON MATTER AND SPIRIT.
THE more I consider the subject, the more fully I am con-
vinced that all the disputes which have been supported with
so much zeal and acrimony about matter and spirit are entirely
verbal at least have no influence on religion, however in-
teresting they may be as a question merely philosophical.
Every one must acknowledge that the sentient and intellec-
tual principle, which moves, thinks, wills, and determines, is
something different in its faculties and operations from a
stone or a log of wood. The materialist ascribes this differ-
ence to a particular organization of matter; while the imma-
terialist attributes it to the intervention of what he calls a
spiritual substance united to organized matter : but whatever
may be its nature, the result is exactly the same, whether it
proceeds immediately from organized matter, or from a spiritual
substance acting through the bodily organs.
What has given importance to this dispute are the unau-
thorized inferences which both sides have drawn from their
respective systems. The materialist concludes that the sen-
tient principle, depending upon the organization of the material
body, must necessarily cease when the matter of which that
body is composed becomes dissolved by death ; while the
immaterialist contends, that what he calls the soul, being
spiritual, must necessarily continue to exist after its separation
from the body : but neither of these conclusions appears to
me to be just.
T
274 APPENDIX.
It is by no means a necessary conclusion, that, because the
sentient and intellectual faculties of man depend on the or-
ganization of the brain, they must be finally extinguished by
the dissolution of the body. This cannot seriously be main-
tained, at least by those who believe in the resurrection of the
body itself, which, if it rises, will consequently rise again in
all its organized perfection. Whether this intellectual faculty
proceeds from what we call matter, or what is designated by
the word spirit, appears to me to be of little consequence,
when we consider that the same being who is supposed to
create this spirit can modify matter in endless combinations
which our limited understanding cannot discover. Indeed,
the distinction between matter and spirit is a presumptuous
decision in beings who are ignorant of the nature and proper-
ties of both ; for of matter we know but little, of spirit nothing
at all. We know indeed some properties of matter ; but who
is the man so bold as to presume that he has discovered all
the properties of matter, or that he has found out all its pos-
sible combinations and modifications 1 Till such a discovery
has been made, is it not presumptuous dogmatically to decide
that it is necessary to introduce a new substance to account
for faculties and properties which we have in our wisdom
decided that the Almighty cannot communicate to matter,
because we do not find it necessarily inherent in every mass
which we designate by that name]
On the other hand, the immaterialist is still less warranted
in his conclusion, that, because the soul is spiritual, (which
is rather a negative than a positive expression, for it, in fact,
means nothing but that it is not material, for what spiritual
does positively mean cannot easily be explained,) I say,
because the soul is spiritual or immaterial, which is the pro-
perest expression, it does not follow that it must be immortal,
unless it is assumed that its spiritual nature renders it self-
existent and independent of the Almighty; a conclusion
which would be much more irreconcilable with Christianity,
APPENDIX. 275
or any other rational religion, than any doctrine of the mate-
rialists. For man, body and soul, material or spiritual, is
the creature of the Almighty ; he exists by his permission,
and ceases to be at his pleasure : we know that what we call
his soul, whether spiritual or material, has had a beginning,
and therefore may have an end ; that it is not therefore in its
nature immortal, but, like the body, depends on the Almighty
will and pleasure for the continuance of its existence.
Where, then, is the difference between the two different
systems 1 According to the materialist, the sentient and in-
tellectual principle, usually called the soul, depends on the
organization of material substance, liable to change and decay,
but which God may continue to all eternity ; according to the
immaterialist, it is a spiritual substance, not indeed in its
nature liable to decay, but which is liable to be affected by
the organs of the body, and which God may annihilate at his
pleasure : and where is the practical difference as to any
religious or moral purpose 1 If it is acknowledged and few
will be found bold enough to deny it that God may prolong
the existence of matter as long as he pleases, and that he may
at his pleasure annihilate what we call spiritual substances,
the result is precisely the same, and the nature of the soul
becomes a mere question of philosophy, without any practical
influence on our religious practice.
APPENDIX.
B.
ON THE GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE
SCRIPTURES.
IT is no uncommon thing to contend that the Bible is as
well attested as any other ancient book, and Homer is fre-
quently cited as an instance. Between the Bible and Homer
T2
276 APPENDIX.
there can be no rational comparison. In any disquisition re-
specting ancient writings we must be cautious not to confound
the genuineness and the authenticity of the work. For in-
stance, if the Gospel of St. John was written by that Apostle,
it is genuine; but it does not follow that it is authentic, because
it might be written by him without being true. On the other
hand, it might be authentic, that is, the whole of its contents
might be true, though written by somebody else ; but it
would not be genuine. In the first case it would be genuine
but not authentic, in the other it would be authentic but not
genuine : but neither in point of genuineness or authenti-
city can it be compared with Homer. Homer is known to us
only as the author of the Iliad and Odyssey : we are ignorant
of the time and place of his birth, as well as of every cir-
cumstance of his life, except the tradition of his being blind,
which certainly is not an article of faith : at least it is evident
from his works that he was not always blind, though it is
possible that he might have been so during some part of his
life. In fact, Homer and the author of the Iliad and Odyssey
are convertible terms. When we talk of him we consider
him in no other light but as the author of these two poems ;
we annex no other idea to that name, which we use to avoid
the periphrasis of the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey. If
we should call him Hobin, it would by no means affect any
of the observations made on that poet, who is only known or
referred to as the real or supposed author of these poems.
The genuineness of his works is, therefore, totally out of the
question, since by Homer we only mean to designate the
author of these two poems ; because the name of the author,
who is known only by these works, is a matter of mere in-
difference. In point of authenticity, or the truth of their
contents, the comparison of the two books is still more irre-
levant. The poems of Homer are mere works of imagination,
and, whether founded on real or fictitious occurrences, were
not certainly intended as articles of faith, nor to be received
APPENDIX. 277
as undoubted and accurate facts ; so that neither in point of
genuineness or authenticity can there be any thing like a
comparison between the poems of Homer and the Gospel.
If compared with the ancients, the Gospel should be compared
with Cicero, Caesar, Tacitus, and other writers who were well
known personages, and are the authors of historical facts, and
of works admitted to be both genuine and authentic.
APPENDIX.
C.
ON THE RESURRECTION.
THE Author has to apologize to the Reader for the repetition
that will be found, in the following pages, of several arguments
which have already appeared in the preceding work. But
as he thought the subject was such as deserved further dis-
cussion, he conceived he could not do justice to it without
bringing forward again some of the observations which he
had already submitted to the reader.
Whether we shall be transferred into another state of ex-
istence immediately at the time of our death, or whether we
shall remain in a state of insensibility till the day of judgment
after the consummation of all things, is a question which will
not admit of an easy or certain solution, as many strong argu-
ments may be and have been urged on both sides. It was, in
all probability, in consequence of these conflicting opinions
that an expedient was invented to reconcile both doctrines,
by adopting that of an intermediate state, by which we are
required to believe that the body remains in a quiescent
insensible state till the resurrection, while the soul, which by
its nature is immortal, continues in a separate state of ex-
278 APPENDIX.
istence till the resurrection, when it shall again be united with
its old associate, the body, which is then to be raised from
the grave. Although this doctrine appears to me to be liable
to stronger objections than either of the other two, it has
prevailed almost universally, and has been adopted by almost
every Christian community.
We are taught that during this life the soul is impeded
in its energies by being united to such a dull heavy clog as
our material body. We should, then, congratulate this airy
spiritual being on its emancipation from its material prison ;
but, on the contrary, we are told that this immortal spiritual
substance cannot arrive to perfect happiness till it is reunited
to the same gross material body which was such a clog during
their former joint existence.
I must acknowledge, at the same time, that there appears to
me very strong objections to Bishop Law's system of the insen-
sibility of mankind between death and the day of judgment.
They must, indeed, be insuperable to the immaterialist ; for
though the body remains as quiet and inert as he could wish,
he must find it difficult to account for the torpid state of the
soul all this time ; for as he conceives it to be in its nature
spiritual and immortal, a state of insensibility for thousands
of years cannot easily be reconciled to the energies of this
spiritual and immortal substance, which obliged him to have
recourse to an intermediate state.
But I should think the materialist would likewise be
puzzled to account for this long cessation of existence, and
the restoration of the individual body after so long a state of un-
consciousness ; and I think he will find sufficient employment
to account for the reunion of the particles which formed the
body of each individual, and which for thousands of years
have been dispersed and undergone a thousand mutations and
changes.
The improbability of so long a suspension of existence is
increased by the consideration of the very great difference
APPENDIX. 279
of duration between the short period of a man's life in this
world and the long suspension of his being that must take
place between his death and resurrection. We are told, indeed,
that as a man will be totally insensible, that long interval
will not be perceived, and that the moment of his dissolution
and his restoration to life will appear contemporaneous. All
this may be abstractedly true ; but it does not come home to
our feelings ; and I believe I may appeal to any man upon
his death-bed, whether he would not prefer an assurance of
a moderate share of happiness immediately on his dissolution
to a greater share of felicity ten thousand years hence. Sus-
pension of existence for so long a time is little better than
annihilation ; and the restoration of his being after so long a
period, is rather a new creation than a continuation of ex-
istence.
The greatest part of Law's arguments in favour of the
insensibility of mankind till the resurrection may be easily
reconciled to the continuance of his existence immediately
after death. For admitting that he shall not be restored to a
state of consciousness, as the Bishop contends, till the resur-
rection, we are unavoidably told to inquire what the resur-
rection or wctquffic signifies. It is nowhere asserted in
Scripture that our bodies shall rise, but merely that man shall
be restored to a state of existence which may take place
immediately after death as well as at any other time ; and it
appears to me that the resurrection of the body could answer
no possible end, and, if any thing were impossible to God,
would amount to an impossibility. Suppose a man to die in
a state of extenuation, with every member paralyzed, or with
his limbs mutilated, is that man to rise again in that extenu-
ated and mutilated state ? When the endless combinations
and changes which the particles which compose our body
must unavoidably undergo are taken into consideration, it
will not be easy to account how those particles which have
suffered so many changes and modifications can be reunited.
280 APPENDIX.
The omnipotence of God is here appealed to as an unanswer-
able argument, but perhaps even that omnipotence cannot
solve the objection. It does not extend to contradictions; it
cannot cause a thing to be and not to be, nor a body to be
in two places at once. Now, if we suppose a man to be
drowned, and devoured by a fish, of which he becomes a
component part, which fish is afterwards eaten by another
man, it will follow that the particles which formerly belonged
to the drowned man, having been converted into the sub-
stance of the fish, ultimately became part of the substantial
body of the man who fed upon it. These same particles
having belonged at different times to different men, which
is to claim them at the resurrection? Certain it is they
cannot belong to both.
Without dwelling, however, on these difficulties, if this
infirm, extenuated, and mutilated body must undergo a total
transmutation, what is the use of raising this cadaverous
body previously to such transmutation, after every particle
of which it is composed must have undergone a thousand
combinations and modifications ? St. Paul tells us positively
that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God ; that
we shall be clothed with a spiritual and incorruptible body ;
and if so, what purpose would it answer to collect the various
particles of the deceased body, dispersed through earth, air,
and water, merely to change it into a spiritual body to restore
it, only to substitute another in its stead] If we are to have
an incorruptible body, why be at the trouble of assembling
all the particles of the corruptible and corrupted body which
moulders in the grave ?
It must however be admitted, that, if the fate of mankind
is decided immediately after death, it is no easy matter to
reconcile it with the account we have in Scripture of the day
of judgment, if we take that account in a literal sense. But
the same objection will remain in full force if we adopt the
intermediate system. If the soul or sentient principle in
APPENDIX. 281
man, whatever you may chuse to call it whether spiritual
or material is of little consequence, because both matter and
spirit are equally plastic in the hands of the Almighty I say,
if this sentient principle, which is acknowledged to be the
best part of our nature, receives its sentence immediately
after death, and is consigned to a state of happiness, misery, or
destruction, its fate is finally decided, and a future judgment
dwindles into absolute insignificance, and is nothing more than
mere parade.
We should consider that all descriptions of a future state
are conveyed in language highly figurative, and which cannot
admit of a literal interpretation ; and that the description of
the final judgment is only a scenic representation to strike
our imaginations by an analogy with our most solemn trials.
Surely, when we are told that the books will be opened, we
are not to believe that the Almighty will register all our sins
in a book ; and if the book be only a metaphor, why may
not the whole be a figurative but forcible representation of
that awful trial and judgment which every man must un-
dergo ; not indeed all at the same time, but every one at the
time of his death, and which may therefore very properly be
called an universal judgment'?
The phrase that the grave and the sea will give up their
dead, and other similar expressions, are, like the opening of
the books, mere figurative modes of speaking, to signify that
all that are swallowed up in the deep or buried in the earth
shall be restored to life, as the other, that they shall be
brought to account for their actions as if they were registered
in a book. Upon the whole, I think that the time, the nature,
the Circumstances of our future life are involved in impe-
netrable obscurity; and by giving a literal construction to
figurative expressions, many errors have been entertained,
and systems built on no better foundation than a figure or
metaphor.
From St. Paul's expression, that it was better to be absent
282 APPENDIX.
from the body, and present with the Lord, it might be argued
that the body will not be admitted in the Lord's presence. I
lay, however, no stress upon this argument, because the
meaning evidently is, that it is better to be present with the
Lord than to continue in this world; but it evidently appears
from that mode of reasoning, that he expected to appear in
the Lord's presence immediately on his leaving the body, or
being removed from this world.
From the account we have of the Millennium, which has so
much puzzled commentators, and on which they have thrown
so little light, and especially from what St. Paul tells us of
the reign of Christ, who after a certain time is to give up the
administration to God, there is some reason to doubt whether
the state of man there described shall be absolutely final and
eternal. The words eternal, and for ever, and everlasting,
are often used in Scripture with a greater degree of latitude
than we usually annex to those words : as in Genesis xvii.
8, "I will give unto thee the land wherein thou art a
stranger for an everlasting possession ;" Numbers x. 8, " The
sons of Adam shall blow with the trumpets, and they shall be
to you an ordinance/or ever' 1 St. Jude, 7, " Even as Sodom
and Gomorrah are set forth as an example, suffering the
vengeance of eternal fire."
That the immediate decision of our fate, and the con-
tinuation of consciousness and the existence of the sentient
principle after death, are liable to many objections, I am not
disposed to deny. There is one in particular which it is not
easy to answer; and that is, that if Jesus Christ has been the
means of restoring mankind to immortality, if he is the first-
fruit of them that slept, and those who died before his coming
were restored to life at the time of their dissolution, the
effect preceded the cause, and mankind were redeemed from
the grave, and restored to immortality, before the Redeemer
had done any thing to restore them.
It must likewise be acknowledged that our future state,
APPENDIX. 283
and the sentence which is to be passed upon us, are always
connected with the coming of Christ to judge the world, with
the last day, when it is said the dead shall rise ; and there is
even a distinction made by St. Paul between those who shall
be then living and those that shall rise from the dead.
There is one thing which has often occurred to me, and
which I do not remember to have seen noticed by any one
who has written on the subject, owing most probably to my
want of memory, or my imperfect and partial researches ; and
that is, that we have accounts in the Gospel of Lazarus and
others being raised from the dead : and if the soul or sentient
principle continued in existence, and retained its consciousness,
they must have known what state they were in between their
dissolution and their resurrection. Lazarus had been dead
some days ; and those who rose out of their graves at the time
of the crucifixion had probably been dead a longer time.
Upon the whole, the conclusion which I draw from the best
consideration I have been able to bestow on the subject (others,
perhaps, may see light where to me nothing but obscurity
presents itself) is, that all we can learn from Scripture is, that
there will be a state of retribution after this life, in which men
will be rewarded or punished according to their works ; but
of the time, place, or even duration, of that state we must be
content to remain in ignorance ; the figurative expressions
in which it is announced being rather meant to excite our.
attention than to gratify our curiosity. It may, perhaps, ex-
pose me to censure when I say that the duration of that state
is a matter left in uncertainty, because the words eternal and
for ever, as I have already observed and proved, are not
always to be taken in their strict and literal acceptation, nor
is it to be concluded as matter of faith that our situation in
a future state will admit of no change, but will remain eter-
nally the same.
But whatever doubts or difficulties may attend the subject,
they are not removed but aggravated by the belief of an in-
284 APPENDIX.
termediate state ; which was, in all probability, devised to
reconcile both opinions, but which elucidates nothing, answers
no objection, but creates additional difficulties, and divides
man into two substances, as the Godhead was divided into
three persons, and the person of Christ into two natures.
Perhaps a great deal of the difficulties which perplex us
respecting the time of the resurrection will vanish, if we admit
the possibility that time and duration may be providential
dispensations appropriated to our existence in this world,
without any necessary connexion with the Supreme Being or
our future state of existence. Such a possibility has often
occurred to me, though, as it might appear visionary, I was
cautious how I promulgated such a tenet, till I found it sanc-
tioned by greater authority and wiser heads than my own,
and particularly by the celebrated Dr. Channing. It cer-
tainly cannot be enforced as an article of faith, though it by
no means appears to me void of probability : our dreams often
embrace a much longer space of time than the few hours
we indulge in sleep. It is true that we cannot conceive the
idea of existence without that of time and duration ; yet I
will undertake to explain it in the clearest manner, when any
one will teach me how to account for eternity, immensity, and
self-existence, which, however incomprehensible to us, we are
obliged to admit.
APPENDIX.
D.
ON FAITH.
MATT. xvi. 16 : " He that believeth and is baptized, shall
be saved ; but he that believeth not, shall be damned."
. This is one of the strongholds of those who magnify the
merits of faith and depreciate the value of good works. A
APPENDIX. 285
true Christian, they say, a regenerate man, need not trouble
himself with the duties of morality ; his faith is sufficient ;
and the divine grace, without any efforts of his own, will
ensure his salvation. He is the elect of God, and therefore
cannot sin. If they were to draw a rational inference from
their own position, that a true believer is incapable of sin,
they would conclude when they saw a man sin, notwith-
standing his profession of faith, that he was not a true believer;
and by making a man's moral conduct the criterion of his
faith, they would practically come to a very rational conclusion
in favour of morality. But they argue in a very different
manner, and contend that those actions which would be sinful
in others, become innocent, if not meritorious, when committed
by the elect, whose sanctity spiritualizes all their actions.
Such a doctrine is, in my opinion, the greatest subversion of
all religion, and degrades Christianity even below the various
superstitions which have at different times prevailed in the
world ; and it is to be hoped that few adopt tenets so destruc-
tive of all virtue and morality at least to their full extent.
But even those who do not entirely rely upon faith, to the
exclusion of all virtue and morality, are often apt to ascribe
more merit to the mere act of believing than reason or
Scripture, well understood, will warrant; and perhaps this
text has been chiefly instrumental in creating and encouraging
such an opinion. In other places, where faith is extolled in
opposition to works, the word, faith may rationally and even
critically be explained so as to signify something more than
mere assent or belief. In some places it is used as synony-
mous with the Christian dispensation, in opposition to the
ceremonial law established by Moses. In other places it may
be understood as including fidelity, and all the virtues which
may be expected to be the fruits of a sincere faith, in the
same manner as the fear of God is often used for religion in
general. But in this text there is no room for any such in-
terpretation : it refers to mere belief and the ceremony of
286 APPENDIX.
baptism ; and all that can be inferred is, that such a belief
is supposed to be intended as will be followed by the effects
which may be expected to proceed from a firm persuasion,
and that such effects are implied in the observation, though
not expressed. I would by no means reject this explanation,
which is in substance adopted by Clarke and Priestley, and
several others, if no better could be found ; but it appears to
me that this text may be interpreted in a manner at once more
plain, obvious, and satisfactory.
I own it may be considered as great presumption in a
person like myself, who has not made it his particular object
to study the Sacred Writings, to propose a new elucidation
of a passage which has escaped the penetration of so many
able and learned commentators, who have spent their lives and
dedicated their abilities to the examination and interpretation
of this and other difficult passages in the New Testament ; and
I am almost tempted to suspect, either that there is less weight
in the following observations than I imagine, or that the same
explanation has been proposed by others, though from my
circumscribed reading and imperfect knowledge of the subject
it has never fallen in my way. It is possible that the same
considerations which to me appear weighty and convincing,
may be considered by others as trifling and inconclusive, and
that arguments which come to me with the appearance of
novelty may be familiar to others. Such as they are, however,
I will submit them to the reader with all the diffidence which
becomes the subject and the writer.
I will therefore at once acknowledge, that to me it appears
that the very import of this passage has been totally mistaken,
and that there is no reference in it to our future state. This
may, at first sight, be considered as a bold assertion ; but those
who will condescend to examine the subject coolly and dis-
passionately, and forget their preconceived notions, will, I
flatter myself, be disposed to acknowledge that my opinion
is not so rash and unfounded as it may appear at first sight.
APPENDIX. 287
Many of the most absurd doctrines which prevail in the
Christian world are founded on a misunderstanding of some
of the most common expressions in Scripture, which have
obtained a meaning quite different from that which the
writers intended to convey. The word hell, for instance,
which occurs so frequently, does not always mean, as it is
generally understood, a place of torment : it means sometimes
the state of the dead in general, sometimes the grave, and
sometimes a deep pit. The translators of the Old Testament,
by using the word Redeemer, have led commentators to
apply many texts to Christ which would not have admitted
of such an application if the proper word, Deliverer, had been
adopted by them instead of Redeemer.
The same remark applies to the two words, salvation
and damnation. Salvation is always understood, in modern
phraseology, to refer to our eternal state in another world,
whereas it frequently alludes in Scripture to the state of those
who were converted to Christianity, and were by that means
supposed to be saved from the danger to which those who
remained in an unconverted state were exposed. And it is
in this sense I understand the word saved in our present
text, of which I conceive the meaning to be, " Those that
believe your doctrine, and are baptized, shall be received into
your communion, and admitted among those that are saved
or converted."
In the interpretation of doubtful expressions it is neces-
sary to attend to the context, to consider the occasion and the
design of the speaker, and not take them abstractedly and
without reference to what precedes or follows. It is evident
that Christ was not here alluding to a future state of rewards
and punishments, but was giving directions to the Apostles
with respect to their ministry in this world. The whole of
his instructions is contained in the four following verses :
15. " And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world,
and preach the Gospel to every creature.
288 APPENDIX.
16. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17. " And these signs shall follow them that believe : In
my name shall they cast out devils ; they shall speak with
new tongues;
18. " They shall take up serpents ; and if they drink any
deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ; they shall lay hands on
the sick, and they shall recover."
In the 15th verse he tells them what was the object of
their mission, to preach the Gospel everywhere. In the
16th he directs them how they were to conduct themselves,
by receiving into their communion those that believed and
received baptism, and by rejecting those who did not believe.
In the following verses he mentions the distinguishing marks
of those who should be saved in consequence of their belief,
not that they should be happy to all eternity, which would
have been the case if their eternal salvation had been meant ;
but the believers were to cast out devils, to heal the sick,
and speak unknown tongues, &c. ; all which' had reference
to the privileges they were to enjoy in this world, but with-
out the most distant reference to their happiness in the next.
It would, indeed, be a strange anti-climax, if, after saying,
in the 16th verse, that believers should enjoy eternal happi-
ness, he should dwell, in the following verses, on the various
privileges they should enjoy in this world; whereas, if we
take the word saved in the sense which, I think, belongs to
it here, and in which, as I shall prove, it is used in many
other places, the whole will be consistent, and one part follow
the other in the most natural manner possible. " Go and
preach the Gospel to all men ; those that believe you and are
baptized shall be received among the converts, and believers
shall be distinguished by many spiritual gifts."
I will now proceed to shew that the word is used in the
sense I annex to it in several other places in Scripture ; but
there is one text in particular that deserves a more than usual
APPENDIX. 28$
share of attention I mean Ephes. ii, 8 : For by grace are
ye saved, through faith ; and that not of yourselves ; it is
the gift of God."
It is evident that the salvation here mentioned is not a
future salvation, but a salvation which they then enjoyed.
These words are addressed to the whole church of Ephesus,
who were all saved, that is, converted to Christianity, admitted
members of the Christian church ; but surely St. Paul could
not mean to say that they would all ultimately be saved, much
less that they were so already. The meaning is, " you are
now placed in a state of salvation through faith in the
Gospel, not from any merit of your own, but because it
pleased God to have it preached unto you." And it is no
small satisfaction to me that I do not stand alone in my inter-
pretation of this text, but am supported by the authority of
Bishop Pearce, who understands it in the same sense, and
from whom I shall quote the following extract :
" The holy penmen of the New Testament constantly de-
scribe Christianity as a state of salvation; they speak of
those who were baptized into it, upon their repentance and
their faith in Christ Jesus, as of persons then actually saved
by baptism from eternal misery, because they then entered
into such a covenant with God as entitled them to this benefit.
This, I say, is their constant language the language of St.
Paul especially : for instance, speaking of the state of Christ-
ians, he describes them as persons not to be saved in the next
world, but as persons then already saved, on account of their
having embraced Christianity. His words are, 2 Tim. i. 9,
' God hath saved us, not according to our works, but according
to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ
Jesus.' The same way of speaking is repeated by him in
the same account, where, when his discourse was concerning
God, he says, 'according to his mercy he saved us, by the
washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,'
Tit. iii. 5; agreeably to which, what we read in Acts ii. 47,
u
290 APPENDIX.
'The Lord added daily such as should be saved/ ought to
have been rendered, 'such as were saved.' And so in my
text we read/ by grace are ye saved,' sure creffcac^evoi 'ye are
persons who have been saved,' as the original words properly
signify. You see thus that in these passages the salvation
of Christians is spoken of as of a thing then already past
and done, not as we commonly understand salvation, for a
happy event to take place in a future state of recompense
(and afterwards). By becoming Christians, they were, im-
mediately upon their repentance towards God and faith in
our Lord Jesus, saved from eternal misery. The new state
they were put into promised them this, and secured it to them,
if they on their parts did not afterwards forget this great
benefit."
Thus far the Bishop ; and now, if the word saved will admit
of this interpretation in this passage of St. Paul's to the
Ephesians, as well as in the other texts cited by the Bishop,
why should it not admit of the same sense in the passage
which is the subject of these remarks ? The expression is
used and applied by Jesus Christ in our text, and by St. Paul,
exactly to the same persons. Jesus says, that those who
l>elieve and are baptized shall be saved ; and St. Paul says
to those who believed and were baptized that they were
saved. Upon every principle of criticism, the same salva-
tion which is signified in the one case must be meant in the
other : the occasion, nay, the very individuals are the same ;
the one referring to an event which was to take place, the
other to the same event after it was accomplished.
I shall, however, to shew that this is no unusual meaning
of the word saved, add a few other instances, from many
more, in confirmation of my interpretation.
In Rom. xi. ver. 25, 26, St. Paul says, "I would not,
brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye
should be wise in your own conceits ; that blindness in part is
happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come
APPENDIX. 201
in." "And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written,
There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn
away ungodliness from Jacob."
Here the salvation of Israel can only be understood of the
conversion of the Jews to Christianity not of their eternal
salvation.
In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. i. 18, St. Paul
says, " For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish,
foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of
God."
It is plain that by saved must be understood being con-
verted to Christianity ; and therefore in a state of salvation :
none could yet be said to be saved, in the common sense of
the words, whatever they might be hereafter ; and, indeed,
their final salvation was so far from being, with the Apostle,
a matter of certainty, that in one place he is under some
apprehension that, after having preached to others, he might
himself be a castaway.
It is unnecessary to accumulate texts to prove that a con-
version to Christianity is, in Scripture language, called sal-
vation, and that those who embraced it were said to be saved.
It only remains, therefore, to explain the latter part of the text,
which says that he that " believeth not shall be damned."
Now damned is clearly opposed to saved ; and therefore if
saved means that those that are saved shall be admitted into
the Christian communion, it is plain that those that are
to be damned are to be punished by not being received, but
are to be rejected and excluded from it. The meaning is
much the same as on a former occasion, when Jesus sent his
disciples to preach the Gospel \o the Jews, Matt. x. 14 :
" And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words,
when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust
of your feet."
Indeed, the meaning of the word save is so very far from
292 APPENDIX.
being confined, even in English, to our eternal salvation, that
its more general signification is to preserve from any danger
or calamity, and in this sense it is frequently used in Scrip-
ture. When Jesus had healed a sick person, he says to him,
" Thy faith hath saved thee," not that his faith had secured
his eternal salvation, but that it had saved him from the
calamity he suffered from his sickness. And, perhaps, the
same expression in the text would not have been so strictly
applied to a future state, if it had not been for the latter part
of the sentence, in which those that are damned are opposed
to those that are saved. But though the word damned seems
to have a more positive meaning, yet this is merely owing to
our translation, for the word in the original has not that ex-
clusive signification which we give to the words damn and
damnation. This exclusive meaning is confined to modern
languages by which we are often led to discover many things
in our translation which are not in the original. The Greek
word in the original, as well as the Latin, whence the words
damn and damnation are immediately derived, signifies only
condemnation, without any distinction of its nature and
extent : the man who is convicted of stealing an apple is as
much condemned, or, according to our idiom, damned, as he
who is found guilty of the greatest crime. By annexing this
exclusive meaning to the word, we are led to convert every
sort of censure or condemnation mentioned in Scripture into a
sentence of eternal damnation. As an instance of this, I will
only quote 1 Cor. xi. 29 : " He that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself." This
text has been the cause of much uneasiness to many sincere
Christians, from the mistaken sense in which they understood
the word damnation, which is now allowed by all rational
and candid commentators to signify merely condemnation or
punishment, but to have no reference whatever to a future
state.
APPENDIX. 293
If the words in the text are taken in the sense which I un-
derstand them to convey, they will be appropriate to the
occasion when they were used, and at the same time will give
us a plain, rational meaning, which will admit neither of
cavil nor difficulty. Our Saviour here gives his Apostles a
commission to preach the Gospel to all men ; then he directs
them how they are to conduct themselves towards believers
and unbelievers; and then he tells them the powers and
privileges which believers shall receive, not in the next
world, but immediately on their conversion, or, as it is ex-
pressed, on being saved. Here the connexion is preserved,
which certainly would not not be the case if by being saved
we should understand their everlasting salvation to be
intended.
In this sense the text is free from the objections which
have been urged against it in its usual acceptation ; for we
cannot easily be persuaded that all that believe and are baptized
shall be saved that is, finally saved any more than we can
suppose that all that believe not shall be damned. The words
indeed, as generally understood, and taken in their literal
acceptation, would tend to establish not only the absolute
necessity, but likewise the sufficiency, of faith alone to our
eternal salvation.
I am well aware that many strong and indeed incontro-
vertible arguments have been adduced against understanding
these words literally, as if mere belief without a corresponding
practice were sufficient to secure our salvation; but these
arguments are chiefly founded on the absurdity of such a
literal interpretation, and its manifest contradiction to many
plain and express texts of Scripture which contain a doctrine
in direct opposition to such enthusiastic notions of the exclu-
sive sufficiency of faith alone, independent of good works.
The interpretation I have ventured to suggest entirely
removes all possibility of wresting the text to answer the
294 APPENDIX.
purposes of fanaticism; it makes it consistent with other
parts of Scripture, and at the same time it renders the in-
structions and directions of Jesus to his Apostles more con-
nected and consistent than the usual mode of interpretation.
The sole object of his discourses seems to be, to order the
Gospel to be preached to all men, to direct them how to
conduct themselves in their ministry towards believers and
unbelievers, and the gifts which the believers should receive
for the more successful propagation of the Gospel but not a
word as to the future condition of its professors. It may,
perhaps, be some confirmation of the view I have taken of
this text, that, in the parallel places in the other Evangelists
which relate this commission of Christ to his disciples, the
whole account is confined to the temporal transactions and
consequences of their ministry, without any reference to the
future state of believers or unbelievers.
Before I conclude, it may not be improper to add a few
passages in which the word damnation signifies only blame,
condemnation, and censure, and has no reference whatever to
future punishments.
In Rom. iii. 8, " And not rather, (as we be slanderously
reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil that
good may come ] whose damnation is just." Upon which
words we have the following very just comment in Hewlett's
Bible : " Rather, the censure or condemnation of whom is
well founded or deserved." And I believe no man under-
stands the words in any other sense.
In the chap. xiii. of the same epistle, verse 2, " Who-
soever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance
of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves
damnation."
There may, perhaps, be some difference of opinion in what
sense the word damnation is to be taken in this place, though
the most obvious meaning, and that adopted by the best
APPENDIX. 29,5
commentators, and confirmed by the context, refers to the
temporal punishment inflicted by the civil power ; and we
have this note in Hewlett's Bible : " the original word is
*p/pia, meaning here the sentence of a court of judicature."
And in verse 23d of the xivth chapter, " And he that
doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith ;
for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." It will scarcely be
contended that St. Paul here should intend to say, that eat-
ing was a damning sin, but merely that, in cases of doubt, it
was wrong to eat; and so, indeed, it is explained by the
commentator in Hewlett's Bible : " Is condemned ; in other
words, he bringeth on himself the sentence of self-condemn-
ation."
Indeed, to those who have carefully and critically examined
the subject, I believe it will appear that the real difficulty is
not to find texts of Scripture where the word damnation is
to be understood as signifying blame, censure, or condemna-
tion, without any reference to future punishments, that be-
ing the way in which it is generally, if not universally,
used, but that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find
any place in which it is used in any other sense, or where it
is intended to express what we mean by the popular accepta-
tion of the word damnation. The text on which I have been
commenting is, as far as I recollect, the only instance in
which such a meaning can be applied to it. 2 Thess. ii. 12,
may, perhaps, admit of that interpertation, but it is better
explained in the larger sense, condemnation, viz., " That
they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had
pleasure in unrighteousness :" but why should the word there
be taken in a sense different from that in which it is used in
so many other places in Scripture, when it is known and
acknowledged that the original word in the Greek and the
Latin, from which we derive the modern word damnation,
have not the exclusive meaning which we annex to that word
296 APPENDIX.
but may be understood to mean condemnation, blame, or
censure, as well in this as in the other texts in which it
is universally taken in that sense ?
Neither the Greeks nor Romans used the word which we
translate damnation in the exclusive sense we understand it;
nor does it appear that either Jesus Christ or his Apos-
tles used it in that sense in any other place, either in the
Gospel or Epistles. If so, why should it be understood in
this place in a sense different from that in which it is used
in all other instances 1 especially as, by taking it to have the
same meaning which it has on other occasions, it agrees
better with the context, and gives no room for the monstrous
doctrines relating to faith which have been built upon it
doctrines as repugnant to reason as they are irreconcilable
with the real doctrines of revelation, and subversive of all
morality.
It appears to me rather extraordinary that such able com-
mentators as Clarke, Priestley, and Lardner, men who
thought for themselves and were so well versed in the Scrip-
tures, should have understood this text in the usual sense ;
for so evidently did Priestley, in his Notes on the Bible, and
Clarke, in his two Sermons on that text, understand it ; and
Lardner gives no interpretation of the text : the only obser-
vation he makes on the subject is, that the latter part of the
16th chapter of St. Mark, of which this passage makes a
part, is omitted in some of the ancient copies. When I
began the above comment, I had never met with any author
who understood the words in what I consider to be their pro-
per meaning; but I have since found that Taylor, in his
Seventh Letter of Ben Mordecai, has given the same inter-
pretation as that which appears to me to be the true one. If
the 16th verse, taken by itself, and separate from the con-
text, could be in the least doubtful, yet surely its meaning is
sufficiently ascertained by that which immediately follows;
APPENDIX. 297
for we are told that those who shall have been saved in con-
sequence of their belief and baptism, shall not enjoy ever-
lasting happiness in the presence of God and his angels,
the usual description of eternal felicity but that they shall
cast out devils, and speak with new tongues, here on this
earth, and which could not therefore possibly be the result
of their eternal salvation.
Upon the whole it, appears clearly that this passage contains
three particular objects. The first, an injunction to preach the
Gospel to every creature. The second, how the Apostles
were to conduct themselves towards believers and unbe-
lievers. The third, what would be the blessings by which
believers were to be distinguished. With respect to the
first, there seems to be no dispute : the only observation I shall
make upon it is, that " every creature" is not to be understood
so strictly as if the Apostles were to preach the Gospel to
every individual, or, indeed, to every people ; the principal
meaning is, that they were not to confine their preaching to
the Jews, but to extend it to the Gentiles. The second
article ordains, that those who shall believe, and, as a proof of
their belief, receive baptism, shall be considered in a state of
salvation, which we have seen is often the meaning of the
word saved, and received into the church or communion of
Christians; and unbelievers were to be condemned or re-
jected. That this is the meaning is evident from the third
particular, which describes the privileges which those who
are saved in consequence of their belief are to enjoy : and
these are, not immortal felicity in a future state, which
would certainly have been stated as the consequence if allu-
sion was made to their eternal salvation, but merely that
they shall cast out devils and speak with new tongues, which
undoubtedly refer to their temporal state, and not to their final
salvation.
x
298 APPENDIX.
I have been informed that Whitby understands this text
in the same sense as I have endeavoured to explain it. It
would be a great satisfaction to have my opinion sanctioned
by so great an authority ; but as I have never had an oppor-
tunity of reading any of his works, I cannot be certain that
he takes exactly the same view of it as I have done. Taylor,
however, an acute reasoner, in his Ben Mordecai, interprets
this passage much in the same manner as I have done.
ERRATA.
Page 77, note, Pearce's Sermons, for Vol. IV. read Vol. I.
for Ib. p. 91, read Vol. IV. p. 91.
187, line 12, " and to induce" dele " to."
239, line 13, for give read have.
243, line 14, for natural faith read natural religion.
. The contents of Appendix B were intended to be inserted in the body
of the work, p. 165, to which they properly belong, but were omitted by
mistake.
PRINTED BY G. SMALLFIELD, 69, NEWGATE STREET,
J
YC15955A
