The infidel's text-book, being the substance of thirteen lectures on the Bible

THE

INFIDEL'S TEXT-BOOK,

BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF

THIRTEEN LECTURES

THE BIBLE.

BY ROBERT ^OOPER,

AUTHOR OF " THE HOLY SCRIPTURES ANALYZED," &c.

"The greatest part of the Christian world can hardly give any reason why they
believe the Bible to be the Word of God, but because they have always believed it,
and they were taught so from their infancy." — Dr. Isaao Watts.

FIRST AMERICAN,
REPUBLISHED FROM THE LONDON EDITION.

BOSTON:

PUBLISHED BY J. P. MENDUM,

At the Office of the Boston Investigator.

1858.
a-

21?.

} /

PKEEACE.

The Author of the present publication has long
been of opinion, that a small work, written in a
plain and dispassionate style, arranged with order
and perspicuity, and published at a cheap rate, con-
taining a summary of the best arguments of the
Infidel world against the divinity of the Jewish and
Christian Scriptures, was a desideratum in heterodox
literature that ought to be supplied as speedily as
possible. With the view of promoting so desirable
a consummation, the following Lectures are respect-
fully submitted to the consideration of the inquiring
public.

Many Infidel works have appeared, which are of
so desultory a character, or devoted only to some
particular portion of the question, that they have
been, of themselves^ as a book of ready reference,
of little general use to the " unbeliever." If he
was anxious to furnish a Christian opponent with
a full refutation of the subject, he has had to pur-
chase a variety of works, one of which only, in
many instances, would be as expensive as the pro-
duction now offered to him.

IV PREFACE.

The "Infidel's Text-Book," it is hoped, will prove
as useful a pocket companion to the sceptical com-
munity as its predecessor — " The Holy Scriptures
Analyzed."

The following are the points discussed, which, it
is conceived, embrace the whole argument :— -

Lectures. Page.

I. — The History of the Old Testament. 1

II. — The History of the New Testament. 21

III. — The Character of the Christian Fathers

and Apostles. 39

IV. — External Evidence. 61
V. — External Evidence. 79

VI. — The Genuineness of the Scriptures. 97

VII. — Prophecy. 117

VIII.— Miracles. 135

IX. — The Consistency of the Bible. 155

X. — The Morality of the Bible. 177

XI. — The Philosophy of the Bible. 199

XII. — Influence of the Bible on Society. 221

XIII. — Morality without the Bible. 243

The reader will please to observe, that a separate
Lecture is devoted to each of the above subjects, in
the order in which they are stated. This arrange-
ment, it is presumed, will be a convenience, and
contribute to the general usefulness of the work.

London, (Eng.) January, 1846.

THE

INFIDEL'S TEXT-BOOK.

LECTURE FIRST.

HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Friends—

This evening we purpose to enter upon an inquiry
which demands the most serious attention of every
unflinching and uncompromising friend to truth and
enlightenment. To those who are solicitous that the
mental existence of man should no longer be one of
ignorance, imbecility, and delusion, but one ennobling
scene of intelligence, reason, and free inquiry,— ra
scene in which his aspiration after the true and the
good, would remain unchecked by the trammels of
priestly arrogance, and vulgar intolerance, — an in-
vestigation like the present will appear one of pecu-
liar interest.

We live in an age when it has become imperative
upon every honest and independent man to declare,
fearlessly and unreservedly, the genuine sentiments
of his mind upon every question which involves the
freedom and progression of humanity. Too long have
the masses been held in leading-strings. Too long
have they thought by proxy. It is now time to think
for themselves, examine for themselves, speak for
themselves. While they continue to admire the play-
things of their mental babyhood, and refuse to exert
the energy and independence which become their

^ HISTORY OF

maturity, error and imposture will continue to delude
and enslave them. Priestcraft will still crush, in its
brutal grasp, the best efforts of the bold and the true.
I am of opinion, that so long as this great moral nui-
sance— priestcraft — is tolerated, all endeavors to se-
cure the permanent independence of the millions will
be frustrated.

This it is, that, in all ages, and all countries, but
more especially in Christendom, has blasted the hopes
and labors of the patriot, the philosopher, and the
philanthropist ! It is, therefore, we enter upon the
subject before us, believing that if the faith of the
people in the Divinity of this " tale of a tub " is once
exploded, the grand corner-stone of the priestly sys-
tem is shaken, and the whole fabric must speedily be
razed to the ground. Once deprive the priest of his
magic wand— the Bible — and his " occupation will
be gone."

In this, our first discourse, I purpose to commence
a compendious history of the "Holy Bible/5 from the
remotest date on record, to the present period; and
from that history to demonstrate the moral impossibil-
ity of such a production being a revelation from Deity.

We may rationally presume, at the outset, that any
work emanating from a God, would have been imme-
diately and generally known, and produced at once,
such an impression as to occasion instant and univer-
sal conviction. ."If God had spoken, the universe
must have been convinced.'' So far, however, from
this being the fact, the early history of the Bible is
shrouded in almost impenetrable darkness. It was
entirely unknown to any of the human race, except
a contemptibly small section, the Jews, until so late
a date as the year 287 B. C. Neither Hesiod, Homer,
Herodotus, nor any of the immortal minds of antiquity,
make any allusion to it. The great Phoenician histo-
rian, Sanchoniatho, though quoted by the Christian
father, Eusebius, makes no reference to the Bible, or
even to the Jews as a nation. The celebrated Wyt-

THE OLD TESTAMENT. 3

tembach, in his famous reply to Josephus, (Opuscula,
vol. 2, p. 416,) shows that the Jews only came into
notice in Greece after the time of Alexander the Great,
and that the historical monuments preceding that pe-
riod, make not the slightest mention of any Jewish
transaction. In short, he triumphantly establishes the
important fact, so anxiously withheld by the Christian
priests, — that the Jews were unknown to the toorld as
a nation, until they were subjected by the Romans. —
Yet are we to believe that a book like the Bible, al-
leged to be " divinely inspired," and so "essential"
to the eternal welfare of humanity at large; remained
so long in utter obscurity !

Professor Cooper, of America, observes, — " No
authentic historian of ancient times, Josephus except-
ed, has ever mentioned the Jews as an independ-
ent nation or state, or as being in possession of Pal-
estine, or any part of great Syria, before, or in the
time of Alexander. As a nation, they appear to have
been entirely unknown to Herodotus, and all other
Greek historians. What had become of them when
Xenophon wrote of the Eastern Nations? which was
only 150 years after their alleged return from Baby-
lon. He mentions the Syrians of Palestine as under
the Persian government, but not a word about the Jews.
Herodotus mentions the invasions of the Scythians,
through Syria, even to the borders of Egypt ; but ac-
knowledges no Jews or Israelites. In the fragments
which remain of Sanchoniatho, Ctesias, Borosus, and
Manetho, they are not noticed, even as a petty or sub-
ject state ; so that we have the fullest negative evi-
dence, that in the times of these historians, no part of
Syria was a Jewish country. Diodorus, in detailing
the events in that country, the Siege of Tyre, &c,
during Alexander's conquests, says not a word of the
Jews forming a state or colony, or of their boasted
city of Jerusalem ; and he is equally silent as to their
existence as a nation, during the time of Alexander's
immediate successors; nor have we any account of

'k HISTORY OF

them, deserving of credit, until the time of Antiochus
the 4th, under whom they lived, and he was subject
to the Romans, If the territory of Judea was given
to them by the King of Babylon only about 200 years
before the Macedonian conqueror went to the east,
ivhy did not he and his historians find them there ? —
The plain and simple truth is, the Jews never formed
an independent state ; and that part of Syria called
Palestine, was; in all known ages, subject either to the
Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks,
or Romans, (according to the tide of conquest) as it
now is to the Turks.'*

But who. were these Jews wno alone enjoy ea the
precious privilege of the " Holy Word ? " A great —
a philanthropic — a noble people ? No ; but on the
contrary, they were held in sovereign contempt by
every nation who became acquainted with them. —
Apollonius, as quoted by Josephus himself, the histo-
rian of the Jews, in his work against Apion, said of
them, "they (the Jews) were the most trifling of all
the barbarians, and that they were the only people
who had never found out anything useful for life" —
Dr. Burnet, in his Archcelogios Philosophic?., admits
that "they were of a gross and sluggish nature — of a
dull and heavy disposition — bereft of humanity — a
vile company of men — an assembly of slaves, brought
out of Egyptian prisons, who understood no art but
that of making bricks ! " Josephus himself, even
admits that his countrymen were so illiterate as never
to have written anything, or to have held intercouse
with their learned neighbors. Indeed, no people of
antiquity were more ignorant, credulous, intolerant,
and wretched, than the Jews. While the ancient
Chaldeans, Arabians, Egyptians. Grecians, and Ro-
mans, produced their men of science and erudition,
the Jews added nothing to the glorious pyramid of
human knowledge. And yet we are to believe, even
in the nineteenth century, that a being said to be " all-
wise," and " all-good, " selected such a race as his

THE OLD TESTAMENT. 5

" chosen people/* — the people who were solely and
specially entrusted with his " divine word.;; What a
mockery !

"I hasten, however, to show that the Jews themselves,
even their own priests, were ignorant of the "divine
law/' for many centuries subsequent to the time when
it is supposed to have been written. The first time
any reference is made to any work answering the
Jewish Text-book, was in the year 628, B. C, when
a priest named Hilkiah, is stated to have found " a
book of the law.7* The story is told in the 34th c. of
the 2nd book of Chronicles, vs. 14, 15, 18, 19, and
30. — "And when they brought out the money that
was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah, the
priest, found a book of the law of the Lord, given by
Moses. And Hilkiah answered and said unto Sha-
phan, the Scribe, I have found the book of the laio, in
the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book
to Shaphan. Then Shaphan, the Scribe, told the
King, saying, Hilkiah, the priest, hath given me a
book ; and Shaphan read it before the King. And it
came to pass when the King had heard the words of
the law, that he rent his clothes. And the King went
up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Ju-
dah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests,
and the Levites, and all the people, great and small.
And he read in their ears all the words of the book
of the covenant that was found in the house of the
Lord.,; There are two circumstances connected with
this story upon which I feel it necessary to remark. —
The first is, that it appears exceedingly strange if the
"book of the law " existed prior to that date (628),
that the King, the scribes, the people, and, above all,
the priests, should have displayed such gross ignor-
ance of its contents, as to express the utmost astonish-
ment upon its being read to them. It is evident if the
Jews were acquainted with the "law of the Lord"
before Hilkiah read it to them, they would not have
manifested such surprise. And if this was the first
1*

6 HISTORY OF

time the Jewish people heard the law, it is clear the
whole of the direct external testimony in favor of the
authenticity and genuineness of the Old Testament, (at
least, so far as concerns the Pentateucli) rests solely
upon the ipse dixit of the old jjriest Hilkiah ; and
those who have read the Bible, mast be familiar with
the u honorable " character of the Jewish priesthood,
and will, therefore, know what confidence to place in
the testimony of such a man. They will naturally
ask, what authority have we that Hilkiah did not
write this book himself? or if he really found it, that
he did not make what alterations he pleased? From
the cunning with which he acted on this occasion — his
employing a scribe to make it known to the youthful
King, makes it very probable he was really the author
of the book he pretended to have found, and took this
opportunity of imposing it upon the mind of the young
King. At all events, it is manifest there was only one
copy then in possession, of the whole Jewish nation,
and they were indebted for this copy to a. priest who
offered no evidence of the truth of his statement, but
his own word ! Presuming, however, that the Israel-
ites were familiar with the " book of the Lord" ante-
rior to its being found by the priest Hilkiah, is it not
a matter of amazement such a precious book should
have been lost at all, much less for so many genera-
tions ?

There are some circumstances, however, which
lead us to the opinion that the story of Hilkiah find-
ing the book, and its being read to the people, is a
mere fiction. I will appeal to every person in the
slightest degree acquainted with language, whether
any man could read off, at once, a book written 800
years before ? The phraseology would necessarily be
so altered by time, as to render it comparatively un-
intelligible at the first glance. It is so with the Latin,
French, English, and all other languages. Suppose
any person of the present day was to produce a book
of laws written in the time of King Ethelbert, of Eng-

THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1

land, and promulgated by his authority, would not
the learned world require a full and particular account
of the book, and the discovery of it, and undeniable
evidence of its authenticity before they would believe
it ? Here is a book claiming to be the autograph of
the great national lawgiver of the Jews — the only
code of laws, religious and civil, — the only authority
for the claims of the priests — a book that ought to
h'ave been periodically read to the people, by the
clergy appointed so to do — that ought to have been
familiar to their men of learning and rank — produced
for the first time, after an interval of 800 years, by a
man who gives no other account of it than — I found
it! Why, just the same reason could be alleged in
favor of the divinity of Joe Smith's Bible — the " Book
of the Mormons. " He pretends to have fowid it.

Professor Cooper, in his admirable Letter on the
Pentateuch, very judiciously observes, when referring
to the account of Hilkiah finding this book — u Now,
of this book, no account whatever is given but this —
Hilkiah has found a book. We are not informed
where it was hidden and found, on what materials it
was written, in what dialect^ or character, in what
kind of preservation it was. whether it was an auto-
graph of the Jewish lawgiver, or some recent copjr,
what its contents were, and what time it took to read
it ; we are furnished with no information to authen-
ticate it, nor is any inquiry made concerning it. —
Shaphan reads it off as if it were written recently.
All this is done under the very suspicious circumstan-
ces of the workmen being bribed by having no reck-
, oning made with them as to what they had earned,
but the money was delivered to them in a lump, — 2
Chron. c. xxxiv. v. 17 — without check or inquiry, or
any questions asked. It appears, also, from Josiah/s
remarks, that neither the Jews of that day, nor their
forefathers, knew anything about the law, or used
any observance of it. It appears, from the whole
account, Hilkiah had enlisted his pupil, the young

8 HISTORY OF

king, in support of the Jewish priests, against the
priests of Baal ; and as the Jews knew nothing of the
law of Moses, something of the kind was necessary
as a system of religious ceremonies. He composed a
book of the law, and pretended to have found it in the
temple, after bribing his workmen to silence and se-
crecy. No wonder, under these circumstances, that
when the book was produced, no inquiry was made,
and no question asked. The whole is a concerted
plan, which the prophetess Hulda is brought over to
authenticate. I say no impartial reader can put any
other construction on this manifest contrivance, as
described in the books of Kings and Chronicles. —
This account amounts to fall proof that the book of
the law, whatever it was, rests upon the credit, not
of Moses, but Hilkiah. It is Hilkiah7 s book of the
law, according to the narration as it stands, for it is
not attempted to trace it backwards to any one else.'7
But this is not the only time the u Holy Writings,'7
as we are taught to call them, were missing. We are
told by Jewish writers themselves, that they were
completely lost during the Babylonish captivity (which
was only a few years after they were said to be found
by Hilkiah), and were not restored until the priest
Ezra, was inspired to re-write them, some 400 years
before the Christian era. So that we must believe
this invaluable book was first lost for eight centuries,
then read for a short time, and subsequently lost again,
never to be recovered. How the " chosen people ?7 prized
their Godly treasure ! The manner in which Ezra
performed the onerous task of re-writing the Jewish
Text-book, is detailed hi 4th book of Esdras — a book
deemed authentic by the Creek church. He dictated
the Holy books during forty successive days and
nights, to five scribes, who were continually writing.
Thus, then, do the authenticity and genuineness of
the Old Testament, rest upon the authority of that one
priest, who might dictate to the scribes what he pleased
— omit or add^ or alter jiist lohat he felt disposed. —

THE OLD TESTAMENT. 9

That he would have every opportunity of indulging
in these liberties, is proved by the fact, as stated by
Brown, in his Dictionary of the Bible, Bishop Marsh
in his " Lectures," and in the 8th c. of JNehemiah,
that the Jews lost their own language during the Ba-
bylonish captivity, and spoke the Ohaldaic tongue, the
priests being obliged to expound the Holy books to the
people in that language, thereby affording them every
facility to introduce what matter they thought fit, the
multitude being quite incompetent to detect any inter-
polation, alteration, or omission. It is now admitted
by most Christian writers of eminence, that the com-
pilation made by Ezra, is the authority upon which
Ave have to depend for our translations. Nay, the
Christian father Ireneus, distinctly declared that the
books of the Old Testament, were not in existence
until " they were fabricated seventy years after the
Babylonish captivity, by Esclras," (or Ezra.)

This is a fact of some moment, and one with which
the people are generally unacquainted. Hence, the
vulgar belief that the Bible is a work of extraordinary
antiquity — that it was the first, and, therefore, accord-
ing to the logic of the crowd, the best that was ever
written. There were many composers who flourished
before Ezra — the real author of the Old Testament. —
He lived only 400 years B. C, while Orpheus flour-
ished 900 B. 0. Hesiod and Homer, 800, Zoroaster
and Belus, 700, Lycurgus, Numa, Thales, Pittacus,
and Bias, 600, Pythagoras, JEsop, Solon, and many
of the earlier Grecian philosophers, 500 B. C. I shall
not remark upon the ancient books of the Chaldeans,
Arabians, Hindoos, and Chinese, as I shall have oc-
casion to refer to them in a subsequent lecture, or it
could be easily shown that the pretended sacred writ-
ings of these nations, are of much greater antiquity
than our own. It is necessary I should here inform
you, that there was no proper canon or collection of
the writings of the Old Testament, until the time of
the synagogue under the Maccabees, which was only

10 HISTORY OF

about 200 years before the appeai^ance of Christ ! Up
to this period, the " Holy books" were scattered and
liable to be altered or amended just as priests might
determine ! It is generally supposed by the " vulgar"
that the Bible always retained its present form, but
such an idea is manifestly erroneous. '

It is a matter of considerable importance, at this
stage of our inquiry, to ascertain the character of the
men who drew up this canon or authorized collection
of the Jewish writings. We must know whether
they were inspired or not. If they were destitute of
the " Holy Spirit " it is possible, according to the logic
oi the pious, they may have made mistakes, and very
serious ones, too, and thereby mislead the Jewish and
Christian world.' What says Le Clerc, upon this vi-
tal point 1 — a first-rate Christian writer. In his Dis-
quisition upon Inspiration, he remarks: " It may be
said that the books in the Jewish canon, ought to be
acknowledged as divinely inspired, rather than the
Apocrypha that never were in it. I answer first, that
no clear reason is brought to convince us that those
who made the canon or catalogue of their books, were
infallible, or had any. inspiration whereby to distin-
guish inspired books from those which were not in-
spired." Such are the opinions of a writer much
admired by Christians —opinions which go to prove
that we have only the tcstimon)^ of fallible human
beings, and those of the worst class — the most fallible
— ignorant and cunning priests, in favor of the genu-
ineness of our present canon of the Old Testament.

Presuming, however, that these men were inspired,
I find, in reference to the same Synagogue, several
very extraordinary circumstances which tend, in no
slight degree, to invalidate the authenticity and gen-
uineness of the Old Testament. We are told in the
Talmud, that this memorable assembly of priests
were about to reject the book of Proverbs, (one of the
very few decent books that are to be found in the Old
Testament,) the prophecies of Ezekiel and Ecclesias-

THE OLD TESTAMENT. 11

tcs, because those writings were contradictory to the
law of God, but a certain Rabbi, having undertaken
to reconcile them, they were preserved as "canoni-
cal." Here, the three books, Proverbs, Ezekiel, and
Ecclesiastes, are confessedly-presented to us as altered
by an impudent Jewish Rabbi ! Notwithstanding,
writings thus mutilated, to suit the purposes of priest-
craft, are declared to be the wo?'d of God ! Oh i
orthodoxy, when wilt thou blush for thy blind and
shameless credulity ?

But this is not all The Samaritan Jews, and the
ancient Sadducees, rejected all but the Pentateuch. —
There was also about this period, a prodigious num-
ber of forged books of Esdras, Daniel, and other
prophets in circulation. And what authority have
we that our present copies are not taken from the
spurious ? Prom these facts, it is obvious, the Jews
tliemselves differed as to which of the present canon
were genuine, and which were not. And this differ-
ence of opinion has existed down to our time, both
amongst the most learned Jews and Christians. The
Apocrypha, for instance, is pronounced genuine by
the Catholics, but utterly rejected by the Protestants.
The Canticles have been denounced as forgeries by
the learned Dr. Whiston, and the books of Jonah and
Daniel have been repudiated by Doctors Aitkin and
Eichorn, as mere " legends and romances." Ten
whole books are rejected by the Swedenborgians ; and
the celebrated Belsham, in his Evidences, p. 117,
though supporting Christianity, positively declares
that " of the law of Moses, that which is genuine,
bears but a small proportion to that which is spuri-
ous ! " And we are denounced as "dangerous men,"
because we will not believe that to be divine, upon
which such contradictory opinions exist, amongst the
very people who profess to acknowledg it !

I must now acquaint you with a very curious fact
connected with this portion of our inquiry, as attested
upon the authority ot a distinguished Christian pro-

12 HISTORY OF

fessor. Granting for a moment that all the present
books of the Scripture canon are genuine, I neverthe-
less hold that the Christian world are not in posses-
sion of the real " Word of God/7 inasmuch as many
of the " sacred " books have been absolutely lost, and
never transmitted to posterity. In confirmation of an
opinion so bold, and, apparently, unwarrantable, I
shall first quote from Du Pin. He was Professor of
Philosophy, at Paris, and author of "a complete his-
tory of the canon, and writers of the books of the Old
and New Testaments." From vol. 1, c. 1, sect. 8,
and page 26, of that memorable work, I take the fol-
lowing passage: — "St. Eucharius says, it is evident
why we have not remaining the books which the
Holy Scriptures approve of, because Judea, having
been ravaged by the Chaldeans, and the ancient bib-
liotheque being burnt, there remaining only a small
number of the books which at present make up the
Holy Scriptures, and which were collected and re-es-
tablished by the care of Ezra.;; Here, then, we are
informed that before the ravages of the Chaldeans,
and the burning of the ancient bibliotheque, the
" Word of God " consisted of a great number of
books, but in consequence of that event, many of
them were destroyed, and those we have remaining,
are but a snicdl portion of what once constituted the
"Holy Book!"

But I find that the Jews themselves actually burnt
several of the holy books, and lost others. Simon, in
his " Critical History of the Version of the New Tes-
tament,7' quotes St. Chrysostom as follows : — " The
Jews having been at sometimes careless, and at others
profane, they suffered some of the sacred books to be
lost through their carelessness, and have burnt and
destroyed others." We are here deliberately told, by
Christian writers of great repute, that the Jews were
so grossly negligent about the u Word of God " that
much of it is completely lost, and other portions they
actually burnt and destroyed ! ! Burnt the Bible ! ! !

THE OLD TESTAMENT. 13

What outrageous sacrilege ! Had it been Infidels
who had burnt the Bible, what an affecting story we
should have heard from the " gentleman of the cloth ! "
All the ladies in Christendom would have been in
tears !

There is something connected with this matter
which is not a little singular, and, to the true Chris-
tian, not a little alarming. We are assured that a
belief in the Bible is essential to our eternal salvation.
Now we have not the " Word of God," but only a
portion, and that, according to St. Eucharius, a very
small portion. " And therefore/' says an able writer,
" calculating upon our salvation according to the quan-
tity of the Word of God, we shall be a quarter saved,
and three quarters damned."

As a further corroboration of the preceding facts, I
will give you a brief quotation from Dr. Campbell's
Introduction to the Gospel according to St. Matthew,
who not only admits that some of the " inspired"
books have been entirely lost, but even mentions some
of them by name. "The Book of the Wars of the
Lord/' says he, " the Book of Jasher, the Book of
Nathan the Prophet, the Book of Gad the Seer, and
several others, are referred to in the Old Testament,
manifestly as of equal authority with the book which
refers to them, and as fuller in point of information.
Yet, these are, to all appearance, irrecoverably lost."

I have now given you a brief history of the Old
Testament, up to the time of its translation into Greek,
which event occurred in the year 287, B. C Before
this date, the " book of life " had been confined to the
Jeios alone. The individual so fortunate in abolishing
this pious "monopoly," was an Egyptian King, Ptol-
emy Philadelphia. He wrote to the High Priest at
Jerusalem, requesting to be furnished with a copy,
and also seventy-two learned men who understood
the Hebrew and Greek languages, for the purpose of
translating it into Greek. His request was conceded ;
and the translation then made was called the Septua-
2

14' HISTORY OF

gint, from which, principally,, the rest of our transla-
tions have been taken. It becomes a matter, therefore,
of great moment, to ascertain whether this version
was correct, for if not, presuming the Hebrew text
was genuine, (but which 1 have shown was not the
case) we cannot be certain that we possess, in our
modern copies, the true u Will of God." Now, I dis-
tinctly affirm, and upon Christian authority too, that
the Septuagint is not a correct translation.

Before I establish this point, I will give you an idea
of the nature of the Hebrew language, and the great
difficulty experienced in translating it. Simon, in his
u Critical History," alluding to the meaning of the
Hebrew words, remarks, — " It is unquestionable that
the greater part of them are equivocal, and their sig-
nification utterly uncertain. Even the most learned
Jews doubt almost everything about their proper mean-
ing." Bishop Marsh, in his celebrated u Lectures,"
No. 14, declares that — u The Old Testament is the
only work which remains in the ancient Hebrew, nor
have we anything like a lexicon, or glossary, com-
posed while it was yet a living language."

One of the most learned Hebraists has declared that
no two translators would agree in rendering any verb
from the Hebrew. Godfrey Higgins says — " I am
quite certain that I shall be able to show — to prove —
that every letter of the Hebrew language has four,
and probably Jive meanings." What an accommodat-
ing language for the priests, truly !

Le Clerc affirms, in his " Sentim," p. 156, that —
" The learned merely guess at the sense of the Old
Testament in an infinity of places, which produces a
prodigious number of discordant interpretations." —
The Christian Father, St. Jerome, too, in his Com-
mentary on the 40th chap, of Ezekiel, states, that
— " When we translate the Hebrew into Latin, we
are sometimes guided by conjecture ! " As an instance
of the guessing abilities of our learned interpreters,
I may refer you to that chapter in. Genesis giving an

THE OLD TESTAMENT. 15

account of Noah's ark. With respect to the materials
of which the ark is said to have been composed, our
modern version interprets it to be gopher wood. On-
kilhos translates it as being made of cedar ; Castellus,
of Juniper wood. The Arabic commentators declare
it to be box wood ; the Persian, pine wood. The cele-
brated Bochart declares it was ebony ; and Dr. Geddes
affirms it to be tvicker work ; while the distinguished
Christian, Dawson, stoutly contends that it was made
of bid/rushes daubed with slime ! Such are the sin-
gular difficulties attending the translation of the He-
brew text, and the contradictory interpretations given
to the same words by diiferent writers. It is obvious,
from these facts, that no confidence can be placed in
any translation from the Hebrew tongue.

While upon this subject it is necessary I should re-
mind you that, up to the 5th Century, the Hebrew
language was utterly destitute of any method of punc-
tuation, as well as void .of vowels. It was a mere
mass of words without order or system. To ascertain
the true signification was next to impossible. Dr. Du
Pin observes : — " The Hebrew alphabet is composed
of twenty-two letters, as well as those of the Samari-
tans, Chaldeans, and Syreneans. But besides these
letters, none of which is, at present, a vowel, and by
consequence, they cannot determine the pronunciation,
— the Hebrews have invented points, which, being
put under the letters, serve instead of voivels. These
vowel-points serve not only to fix pronunciation, but
also the signification of a word, because the word
being differently pointed, signify things wholly differ-
ent. This is the circumstance which has made the
question as to the antiquity of the points seem of con-
sequence, and hath, therefore, been treated of very
prolixly. Some have pretended that these points are
as ancient as the Hebrew language, and that Abram
made use of them. Others make Moses the author
of them. But the most common opinion among the
Jews, is, that Moses having learned of God the true

16 HISTORY OF

pronunciation of Hebrew words, this science was pre-
served in the Synagogue by oral tradition, until the
time of Esdras, who invented the points and accents
to preserve it. Elias Levita, a German Jew of the
last age, and very learned in the Hebrew Grammar,
hath rejected this sentiment, and maintained that the
invention of points was much later. He ascribes it to
the Jews of Tiberias, about the 500th year of Christ,
and alleged that this art was not perfected until about
the year 1040, by two famous Massorites, Ben Asher
and Ben Napthali."

Prom this it appears that it was not until the 11th
Century that anything like certainty was given to the
signification of that language in which it is said God
thought proper to convey his ideas and wishes to poor
human nature ! Wonderfully strange that he should
have revealed his "will " in the most imperfect and
ambiguous language in the world ! — a language which
the most erudite could not clearly understand. Com-
mon sense would have suggested the selection of the
plainest and most perfect language possible, but, 1
suppose, u God's ways are not our ways.77 I hope
they never will be, if they are as stupid as these.

I have made an assertion, however, which it is
highly necessary I should substantiate. We have
affirmed that the Septuagint translation, from which
our modern versions are generally taken, is not cor-
rect. Now for my proof. My first authority is the
learned Christian Professor, Du Pin. He remarks, m
the work before quoted, — " In short, we must confess
that there are many differences betwixt the Hebrew
text and the version of the Septuagint, which arose
from the corruption and confusion that are in the
Greek version we now have. It is certain that it
hath been revised divers times, and that several au-
thors have taken the liberty to add thereunto, to re-
trench, and to correct divers things ! " He further
observes — "It is mere superstition to assert, as some
authors do, that the Hebrew text which we have at

THE OLD TESTAMENT. 17

present, is not corrupted in any place, and that there
is no fault, nor anything left out, and that we must
indispensably follow it at all time. This is not only
to speak without all evidence, and contrary to all pro-
bability, but we have every good proof to the contrary.
For, in the first place, there have been differences be-
twixt the oldest of the Hebrew copies, which the
Massorites have observed, by that which they call
Keri, and Ketib, and putting one of the readings in
the text, and the other in the margin, we have the
different readings of the Jews of the East, and the
Jews of the West, — the Ben Asher, and the Ben
Napthali."

My next authority is a still more learned writer
than even Du Pin, and with whose works the Eng-
lish reader may be better acquainted.

1 mean Bellamy, author of the New Translation of
the Bible. In the introduction to that able and elab-
orate production, Bellamy denounces, in no qualified
terms, the Septuagint version, and points out numer-
ous errors and discrepancies of the most flagrant
character. In Genesis, says he, c. 15, v. 11, there is
a sentence, " he drove them away,'; which ought to
have been " he remained with them" In the 6 c. v. 6,
there is an expression " it grieved him at his heart, "
which should be " he idolized himself at his heart,7'
implying congratulation, rather than regret. The
sentence in the 22 c. v. 16, stating that "thus she
was reproved," should have been translated " thus
she was justified" meaning the very reverse to that
we are trained to believe. The notorious exclamation
of Jeremiah, in the 20 c. of his book, " O Lord, thou
hast deceived me, and I was deceived" should have
been rendered " O Lord, thou hast persuaded me, thus
I was persuaded! ! " These and many other Holy
blunders, the learned Bellamy exposes, and concludes
by declaring that the authors of the Septuagint did
not critically understand the Hebreio language. And
yet, forsooth, it is the comoosition of these pious blun-
2*

18 - HISTORY OF

derers, which we are called upon to esteem as " Di-
vine," the infallible guide to " truth and salvation ! "
What a mockery ! What a delusion !

Bishop Usher, a man of vast biblical acquirements,
goes further than either Du Pin, or Bellamy. He
maintains, as quoted by Bellamy in his Introduction
to the New Translation, that the version known as
the Septuagint, is not only replete with the most seri-
ous errors, but that it is only a SPURIOUS copy ! ! —
The real Septuagint was never circulated, being lost
at the destruction of the Alexandrian Library, in
which it was then deposited. The Bishop says, "The
Septuagint translation continually adds to, takes from,
and changes the Hebrew text at pleasure" and that
"the original translation of it was lost long ago, and
what has ever since gone by that name, is a spurious
copy, abounding in omissions, additions, and altera-
tions of the Hebrew text." If the opinion of the
learned Prelate is correct, it follows that the Christian
world have been propagating that as the genuine word
of God, which is nothing but a forgery — a pious fraud
— an imposition ! Looking at these circumstances,
we may consider that the Christian scheme has been
one of damjtation rather than salvation. How the
Infidel may pity the fate of the humble Bible-monger !

After all, it is not quite the "safest to believe." —
The Infidel who repudiates the Bible altogether, is
nearer the truth than the Christian who disseminates
a forgery — a lie.

In concluding this discourse, I purpose to show that
this famous Greek version, the Septuagint, has itself
suffered the most villanous mutilations, on being trans-
lated into Latin, and other languages. The Christian
Father, St. Jerome, alluding to the Latin version of
the Old Testament, taken from the Septuagint, asks,
— "If they say the Latin copies are to be credited, let
them tell me which ; for there are almost as many
different copies as there are manuscripts, and if the
truth be searched for among so many, why should

THE OLD TESTAMENT. 19

we not have recourse to the Greek original, in order
to correct the faults that have proceeded either from
the bad translations of the interpreters, or from unrea-
sonable corrections that have been made by unskilful
critics, and alterations that have happened through
the carelessness of the copiers." We are told by St.
Jerome, that Origen, the famous Christian Father,
and opponent of the ancient Infidel Celsus, wrote a
version of Ihe Old Testament, from which many of
our more modern copies have been taken. Jerome de-
clared that in this translation, Origen altered the Greek
text most abominably. The following are the words
of Du Pin on this point : — " St. Jerome makes frequent
mention of the additions, corrections, and subtractions
made in the version of the Septuagint by Origen, and
of the bars and astericks he made use of for that pur-
pose. ' When Origen,' says Jerome, ' saw there was
less in the Greek than the Hebrew, he did supply it
from the version of Theodotion, and put an asterisk
or star to it, to signify that this was to illustrate what
was obscure ! '"

This same Theodotion, we are informed by St. Je-
rome, was an Infidel, and that his version was con-
founded with the Septuagint. The French Professor
says, " By the carelessness of the transcribers, and
sometimes of those who set them to work, the aster-
isks of Origen, being misunderstood, or entirely left
out, m some places, the additions of Theodotion were
confounded with the version of the Septuagint, which,
perhaps, moved Jerome to say, that Origen had cor-
rupted and confounded the version of the Septuagint."
Thus, then, does it appear, that in the version of Ori-
gen, from which many of our present copies are taken,
the words of Theodotion the Infidel, were confounded
with God's words ! ! What a medley ! Oh ! Chris-
tians, how do you know when you read your Bibles,
but you are reading the words of an Infidel ? Let
me advise you, for your own sakes, never to read it
again

20 HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Curwen, in his published Journal, from which sa
many extracts have been made by the press of late,
records a fact which I cannot but submit to you ere J
retire. He writes : — " I saw in the British Museum,
the first Bible printed in Vellum, and turning to the
91st Psalm, v. 5, instead of ' Thou shalt not be afraid
for the terror by night, <fcc,? I saw the following, — -
1 Thou shalt not fear the hugs and vermin by night.'"
1 suppose the words as given in our moden version, is
one of the " unreasonable corrections," spoken of by
Father Jerome.

I have now, my friends, given you as far as my
time would possibly admit, the History of the Old
Testament, from the earliest period to the time of its
coming into the hands of the Christians. In my next
Address, I shall trace its history, in connection with
the New Testament, to the present century, and sup-
ply you with facts equally as curious and important,
as those which have this evening been read to you,
and upon authority equally as respectable and unim-
peachable. In retiring, I distinctly challenge any man
to meet the testimony I have adduced. I court inqui-
ry into the subject, as I believe it could only tend to
hasten the downfall of that vast scheme of imposture
which has, hitherto, strewn the mental pathway of
man with error, ignorance, cant, and delusion !

LECTURE SECOND.

HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Friends —

In rising to resume the subject upon which I ad-
dressed you last Sunday evening, I deem it advisable
to recapitulate the most important points then dis-
cussed. I adopt this course in order that parties, who
may not have been present on that occasion, may
observe the connection between the present and pre-
ceding discourse, — a connection which it is highly
necessary should be distinctly understood.

We commenced by expressing our conviction as to
the many advantages which must attend an inquiry
of this character. We then proceeded to trace the
History of the Old Testament from the earliest times.
We remarked that a book said to be so precious — a
book, a belief in which is declared to be so essential to
the eternal salvation of every human being, had been
known only to a contemptibly small section of the
human race, — the Jews, until so recent a period as
the year 287, B. C. Up to this time, that barbarous
race had alone enjoyed the peculiar and inestimable
privilege of its perusal. We expressed our astonish-
ment at the extraordinary circumstance of a book
containing the revealed will of an omniscient and
omnipotent Deity remaining so long in comparative
obscurity. We then proceeded to show that the Jews
themselves were generally ignorant of the Sacred Law
until so late a date as the year 628, before Christ, the
book of the law being then found, we were told, by

22 HISTORY OF

an old priest named Hilkiah, in one of the houses of
the Lord, and further, that in the interval between
this period and the year 287, when it was translated
into Greek, the " book " had been lost — absolutely de-
stroyed during the Babylonish captivity. In fact, the
Old Testament as it is now offered to us, was a com-
paratively modern production, being written by an
old cunning priest named Ezra, only some 400 years
before the time of Christ. We next stated that the
Bible is not complete ', being only a small portion of
the " word of God," — that many books were never
transmitted to posterity in consequence of the ravages
of the Chaldeans, and the carelessness and profanity
of the Jews themselves, who not only lost whole books
of the " Bible," but positively burnt others. We
proved there was no proper canon or authorized col-
lection of the Old Testament, until the Maccabees,
which was only 200 years before the Christian epoch.
We commented upon the translation of the Old Tes-
tament into Greek by order of Ptolemy Philadelphia,
in the year 287, B. C. We proved that this transla-
tion could not be depended upon, the most villanous
mutilations having been made in the Hebrew Text
by way of " alterations, additions, and omissions,"
and that similar liberties had been taken by the " Fa-
thers " in translations subsequently made from this
famous version.

We have thus brought our historical review of the
Scriptures to the Christian era. This introduces us
to a new field of discussion. We have now to con-
sider, in connection with the old, a more recent pro-
duction— the New Testament. This modern portion
of the " word of God" is esteemed by the Christians
as eminently valuable and important — so much so,
that were the Old Testament perfectly false, the New
Testament they conceive remains absolutely true. —
Many Christians are disposed to admit, that just and
reasonable doubts may be entertained of the authen-
ticity and genuineness of many books of the Old

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 23

Testament, but the evidence in favor of the New
they affirm is irrefragable. To this opinion, however,
I mast decidedly demur. I deny that the testimony
in favor of the New Testament is unquestionable. I
question indeed whether it is at all superior to the
Old. In some respects, the Old Testament has the
advantage, for the most important portion of that di-
vision of the " Holy Word" is said to have been
written by the man immediately connected with it —
Moses ; but Christ — the hero of the New Testament,
never wrote a line of that book, nor, according to Du
Pin, did he ever order any one else to write it. Neither
the Old nor the New Testament, however, have the
advantage of the Koran. Mahomet declares that he
received his Bible directly from Heaven, chapter by
chapter. Now the Christian Scriptures are confessedly
written by priests, — priests, as I shall show in a sub-
sequent address, of the most ignorant, credulous and
worthless character.

My friends, it is admitted on all hands that no
portion of the New Testament was written during the
life of Christ. The very earliest, as stated by the
Christians themselves, was not written till the year
64 — that is, rather more than 30 years after his death.
But we have just reason to believe they were not
written until long afterwards, particularly the four
Gospels,

The first time any allusion is made to the Gospels
was by the Christian Father, Ireneus, in the year 182,
that is, nearly 150 years after the time of Christ. Dr.
Lardner maintains that the five books of Ireneus
against heresies, in which this reference is made, (vol.
3, c. 1,) could not be published earlier than this date.
Tillemont and Massuett, two great French Christian
writers, think the more probable date of this publica-
tion was 192, about the latter end of the time of
Elutherus. (See the London edition of Dr. Lardner's
works, in 12 vols., 1788, vol. 2, 154 to 159.)

Had these books been in existence prior to this

24 HISTORY OF

period, it is exceedingly strange they are not men-
tioned by any of the Apostolic fathers who lived vat,
or immediately subsequent to, the time of Christ, nor
by the earlier Christian fathers, who flourished at the
close of the first, and commencement of the second
century. It is admitted, on all hands, that they are
not named by the apostolic father Barnabas, who
lived in the year 71 — nor by Clemens Romanus, who
flourished A. D. 96 — nor by Hermas, who lived A. D.
100— nor by St. Ignatius, who lived in the year 107
— nor Polycarp, 108 — Papias, 116 — Justin Martyr,
140 — Tatian, 172— nor by Hegesippus, so late as the
year A. D. 173.

The learned Dodwell, in his Dissertation upon
Ireneus, says, " We have at this day certain most
authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clem-
ens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Poly-
carp, who wrote in the same order wherein 1 have
named them, and after all the writers of the New
Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one
single passage, or any mention of the New Testa-
ment, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists
named. "

I repeat, then, that Ireneus is the first who mentions
the four gospels, which circumstance did not occur
until 150 years after the death of Christ. And upon
what authority does Ireneus present these four gospels
as genuine 1 Why, on his own authority only. Now
let us suppose a case. Charles the 1st succeeded to
the throne in 1628 — some 200 years ago. Suppose
that now, 1846, for the first time, a despicable priest
like Ireneus should say that certain accounts of a
man endowed with miraculous powers, who lived in
London in 1628, and who worked miracles there,
were published by Matthew Bay, Mark Randall,
Luke Faust, and John Johnstone, {persons net heard
of before, or mentioned by any other writer of the
time,) of something miraculous that happened under
Charles the 1st. What credit ought to be given or

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 25

ascribed to such a narration ? Yet on such kind of
evidence, is Christianity founded !

But pray who was this Ireneus, upon whose verac-
ity so much depends? Why, a " Christian Father,"
and one of the most ignorant and credulous, of that
superstitious, cunning, and I will add, dishonest class
of men.

I shall have occasion to speak in very strong terms
of the character of these "holy men" in. my next
discourse. I reserve, therefore, any lengthened re-
marks upon this head, until a future occasion. At
this moment I shall only quote a brief passage from
the De Script. Interpret., page 73, of the celebrated
Dr. Whitby, where he is alluding to the conduct of
Ireneus and the Father Papias. The Dr. complains
bitterly of their having "handed down the actions of
the apostles and their disciples from paltry rumors,
and dubious reports, and as having scandalously de-
luded the world with fables and lying narrations"
If such were the general practices of Ireneus, what
authority have Ave that these four Gospels, said by
him to be written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John, are not, like the rest of his productions, "mere
fables and lying narrations?" We have every occa-
sion to believe, indeed, that such is the fact, especially
when we remember the extraordinary reasons he
assigns for there being four, and just four gospels
inspired. His reasons are, "because there are but
four quarters of the world, and every cherubim has
four faces!" Strange animals those cherubims, un-
questionably, but what a reason! How worthy of a
priest ! Every cherubim has four faces, ergo, there
are only four inspired gospels ! What logic ! How
convincing! How unanszaerable ! How worthy of
the book they are written to support !

And we are "Infidels" because we cannot believe
such farrago. Be it so. Better be the Infidel whose
reason and common sense enables him to repudiate

3

26 HISTORY OF

such absurdity, than the saint whose blind credulity
and narrow prejudices induce him to accredit it.

At the time Ireneus introduced these four gospels
to the world, it is notorious there were many other
" gospels" in circulation, which were held in high es-
teem by the majority of the early Christians. By what
means, then, did Ireneus determine that these four
gospels alone were genuine, and the rest spurious ?
Did the "cherubims with four faces" enlighten him
upon the subject? Be that as it may, such an impor-
tant question could not be determined except by one
of enlarged intellect, erudition, and perspicacity. And
was Ireneus such a man ? Confessedly not. On the
contrary, he was weak and credulous, and, as Dr.
Whitby says, in the habit of writing " fables and ly-
ing narrations." It is evident, therefore, the authority
of Ireneus upon this vital point is just worth as much
as his logic.

To show you the great difficulty attending this
portion of our inquiry, and the very unsatisfactory
manner in which it was decided, I will quote from
the 4th vol., page 260, of the Introduction to the
Scriptures, second edition, by the Rev. J. H. Home:
"The accounts left us," says he, " by eclesiastical
writers of antiquity, concerning the time when the
gospels were written or published, are so vague, con-
fused, and discordant, that they lead to no certain or
solid determination. The eldest of the ancient fathers
collected the Reports of their own times, and set
them down as certain truths, and those who followed
adopted their accounts with implicit revere?ice. Thus
tradition, true or false, passed on from one writer to
another, without examination, until, at last, it became
too late to examine them to any purpose."

I have said that at the time Ireneus first mentioned
these four gospels, there were many others in circula-
tion, some of which had existed, we are told, for
nearly a century before, and were considered genuine

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 27

by the early Christians, and actually read and quoted
as the word of God. There were, also, a great num-
ber of Epistles, Acts, Revelations, <fcc., which were
also deemed genuine. The best list of these spurious
productions is to be found in Toland's Amynter, as
corrected by Jones in his Treatise on the Canon,
copied into Home's collection. I may name a few of
the most important. There were the Gospel of St.
Peter, St. Thomas, St. Mathias, St. Bartholomew. St.
Philip, Judas Iscariot, Thaddeus, and Barnabas. The
Acts of St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Andrew, St. John, St.
Philip, and St. Thomas ; and the Revelations of St.
Paul, St. Thomas, St. Stephen, and the Great Apostle.
There were upwards of fifty altogether. All these
Gospels, Acts, and Revelations were, at one time
considered the " divine word." It was only by believ-
ing in these books that mankind could be "saved; "
while the Gospels, Acts, and Revelations which are
now offered to us were denounced as spurious,— as
"fables and lying narrations."

And who are the most likely to know which are
false and which are true ? Those who lived at the
time these books are said to have appeared, or those
who flourished centuries subsequently ? Undoubtedly
the former. Viewing the subject, therefore, in this
point of view, we have just reason to believe that
those rejected gospels are more likely to be true (if
any are so) than our modern version. And. oh. Christ-
ians! if such be the fact, in what a quandary are
you placed? What a serious responsibility rests upon
your pious shoulders? You have rejected the true
gospels, and allowed them to fall into utter oblivion
while you have sanctioned that which is false and
spurious ! ! ! How many millions of credulous wretch-
es have you by these means, led into eternal perdition ?
and it you believe in these books yourselves, you may
afso meet with the same unenviable fate ! Miserable
mistaken, and unfortunate men ! What a motley as-
semblage of deluded Christians, — believers iii the

28 HISTORY OP

wrong gospel, will the honest but despised Infidel
behold on his arrival at the torrid regions of eternity !
What a splendid run of business his Satanic Majesty
will enjoy ! What a monopoly of " departed spirits " !
No "bad times " — no lack of trade with him. The
Infidel may rest assured, when he is snugly reposing
in his infernal domicil, that he will not quite be "lone
in his glory."

To convince you that I am not indulging in mere
idle surmise, or uncourteous banter, I will refer you
to the writings of some celebrated Christians. This,
I opine, will expunge all my "sins," for if you can
only cite some Christian priest in favor of any propo-
sition, it will be received with acclamation, while,
were the same statements to come from one who is
esteemed an " Infidel,'7 they would instantly be repro-
bated as "blasphemies." I have affirmed, then, that
many of these rejected gospels were held in high
consideration, not only before, but subsequent, to the
sanction of our present canon. Nay, many learned
men of recent times have had strong predilections in
favor of many of these discarded books, considering
them as genuine as any of our canonized version.
Listen to the opinions of the learned Dr. Whiston, in
his " Exact Time," page 28. He has declared that
no less than twenty-seven of these books are genuine.
" Can any one," says he, "be so weak as to imagine
Mark, and Luke, and James, and Jude, who were
none of them more than companions of the Apostles,
to be our sacred and unerring guides, while Barnabas,
Thaddeus, Clement, Timothy, Hcrmas, Ignatius, and
P lycarp, who were equally companions of the same
Apostles, to be of no authority at all? " The Rev.
J. Martineau, in his " Rationale of Religious En-
quiry," observes, — "If we could recover the gospels
of the Hebrews, and that of the Egyptians, it would
be difficult to give a reason Avhy they should not form
a part of the New Testament; and an epistle actually
exists, by Clement, the fellow-laborer of Paul, which

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 29

has as good a claim to stand there, as the Epistle to
the Hebrews, or the Gospel of Luke. If none but
the works of the twelve apostles were admitted, the
rule would be clear and simple, but what are Mark
and Luke, who are received, more than Clement and
Barnabas, who are excluded?" And Archbishop
Wake actually translated from the Greek the Apos-
tolic Fathers of the first century, viz., St. Barnabas, St.
Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, and St. Hermas,
and strongly recommended them to the Christian
world as " inspired," and " containing an authoritative
declaration of the Gospel of Christ to us." (See
Wake's Apostol. Fathers.) The learned Bishop Marsh
positively avers that, " It is an undoubted fact that
those Christians by whom the now-rejected gospels
were received, and who are now called heretics, were
in the right in many points of criticism, where the
fathers accused them of wilful corruption."

I now approach a most material portion of our
inquiry. From the era of Christ, until the latter end
of the fourth century, there was no authorised collec-
tion of the writings of the New Testament. All was
doubt, and dispute, for the first 300 years, during the
very time everything should have been certain and
satisfactory. If it was all doubt 1500 years ago, can
it be all certainty now ?

About the middle of the third century, however,
Origen, the celebrated Christian father, — a man who
had almost unlimited power in the church, — thought
proper to make a selection from the great number of
books then current amongst the Christians. The
selection included the canon in circulation at this day.
Through the dominant influence Origen possessed in
the church at this period, his selection soon became
popular, and in the year 363 was declared by the
Council of Laodicea, to be the only " genuine Scrip-
tures." It is more than probable, had not Origen
made this selection, and possessed such supreme influ-
ence among the Christians of his day, that our present
3*

30 HISTORY OF

canon would have been forgotten, like many of the
ra?^-rejected books.

Is it not, my friends, very extraordinary that a
book like the New Testament, claiming to be of
"divine" origin, should have remained so long in ob-
scurity, and at last only saved from eternal oblivion
through the presumption of a cunning and despotic
priest, and finally determined to be genuine by the
mere dicta of a council of priests, equally deceitful,
and arbitrary as himself? This simple fact is alone
sufficient to convince every unprejudiced mind that
the Bible has no more to do with Deity than Gulliver's
Travels or Tom Thumb.

An important question here suggests itself. How
did this Council of Laodicea decide that our present
canon of the New Testament is the true word of
God ? Did they receive a special message from
heaven upon the subject ? No, indeed, but this vital
matter was decided solely by vote — decided as your
Town Council might decide upon a police force, or
the House of Commons upon a tariff. It might have
happened the majority had voted against our present
authorised version, and in favor of some of the re-
jected books. And what then ? Why, that which
we now esteem the " Word of God" would have been
denounced, as were the repudiated copies, "as mere
fables and lying narrations," and we should noiv have
been promulgating as the " Holy Word" that which
was then declared to be false and spurious. William
Penn, the celebrated Quaker, in arguing that the
Bible cannot be the rule of faith and practice, says —
" I demand of our adversaries if they are well assured
of those men who first collected, embodied, and de-
clared them (the Scriptures) authentic, by a public
canon which we read was in the Council of Laodicea,
held 360 years after Christ," — "I say, hoxo do they
know that these men rightly discerned true from
spurious ? Now, sure it is, that some of the Scrip-
tures taken in by one council, were rejected by another

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 31

iov apocryphal, and that which was left out by the
former for apocryphal, was taken in by the latter for
canonical. Now, visible it is, that they contradict
each other, and as true that they hath erred respect-
ing the present belief." (Penn's Works, vol. 1, p.
302, 303, 304, London, 1782.)

It is manifest, my friends, the whole matter rests
merely on human dicta, and not divine interposition,
and therefore the pretensions of the Christian world
to the divinity of their " Sacred" oracle, are alike
tuitous and absurd.

Presuming, however, this was a legitimate mode of
determining the divinity of Scripture, a further ques-
tion has to be considered, whether the men who
composed these councils were competent to decide
such critical matters ? We must be assured they were
enlightened and unprejudiced, and disposed to discuss
the subject dispassionately. We must be certain they
examined, minutely and deliberately, all the evidence,
pro et con, in reference to the different Gospels, Acts,
Epistles, and Revelations, claiming to be genuine
Scripture. For if they were not persons of this high
character, acting in the enlightened spirit proposed,
no confidence can be placed in their decisions. They
would be calculated only to mislead, — to confound
rather than to settle the controvesy.

Now I aver most fearlessly that they were not men
so distinguished and estimable. They were, on the
contrary, excessively bigoted, prejudiced, and credu-
lous— indissolubly wedded to their own crotchets.
Their conduct, indeed, in those "holy councils,"
would have disgraced a pot-house.

My friends, these are bold assertions, and require
very distinct proof. I will at once adduce it. I shall
first quote from an eye witness, upon the authority of
the Christian writer, Tindal, in the 195th p^ge of his
work, entitled, "Rights of the Christian Church."
"St. Gregory Nazianzen" says he, "in his letter to
Procopius, tells him ' That he fled all as3eroblives of

32 HISTORY OF

i

bishops, because he never saw a good and happy end
of any council, but that they did rather increase than
lessen the evil, that the love vf contention and ambi-
tion always overcomes their reason / / / ' " Pretty men
to determine questions of such vital moment ! |

But listen further to the words of the pious Nazian-
zen. He reiterates his determination of never going to
any council, " because nothing is to be heard there bid
geese and cranes I who fight without understanding
one another/' An unique, pious, and rational assem-
bly this, truly ! How characteristic of the priestly
system ! We are here informed by one who was
present at these councils, that there was nothing to be
heard but " geese and cranes" and it is upon the de-
cisions of animals like these, that the authenticity
and genuineness of our Bible rests. O, Christians !
when will you be ashamed of your credulity? Little
do these " geese and cranes " know the deference you
pay to their rational and enlightened dicta !

Listen again if you please, to the opinions of Tin-
dal, as to the character of these " pious " assemblies.
Alluding, in particular, to the memorable Council of
Nice, held in the year 327, at which the Emperor
Constantine presided, he observes : — " And if these
accusations and libels which the bishops at the Coun-
cil of Nice give in of one another to the Emperor,
were now extant, in all probability, we should have
such rolls of scandal, that few would have much rea-
son to boast of the first (Ecumenical council, where,
with such heat, passion, and fury, the Bishops fell
fold on one another, insomuch, that had not the Em-
peror by a trick burnt their Church memorials, pro-
bably they must have broke up in confusion ! After
that Council was over, the Bishops made so great a
bristle and disturbance, and were so unruly, that the
good Emperor was forced to tell them " that if they
would not be more quiet and peaceable for the future,
he would no longer continue his expedition against
the Infidels, but must return to keep them in order.''

I

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 33

"Indeed," says Tindal, " the confusion and disorder
were so great amongst them, especially in their Sy-
nods, that it sometimes came to blows ; as for instance,
Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, cuffed and kicked
Flavianus, Patriarch of Constantinople, (at the sec-
ond Synod of Ephesus) with that fury that within
Ihree days after he died!!" Oh! what Christians,
and Christian Bishops, too ! — the men upon whose
judgment the Christian world depend for their creeds
and their Scriptures ! What a mockery !

But, my friends, listen still further. You have
heard of their bigotry and violence. A word as to
their honesty and consistency. Tindal, speaking of
this subject, observes, "for though they were most
obstinate as to power, they were most flexible as to
faith, and in their councils complimented the Emper-
or with whatsoever creeds they had a mind to, and
never scrupled to recant what they had before enacted,
or to re-enact what they had before recanted. Nay,
so very variable were they that St. Hilary, Bishop of
Poictiers, says that i since the Nicene Synod, we do
nothing but write creeds; that while we fight about
words ; while we raise questions about novelties ;
while we quarrel about things doubtful, and about
authors, while we contend in parties, there is almost
none that is Christ's. We decree every year of the
Lord a new creed concerning God, nay, every change
of the moon our faith is altered.'" Flexible gentle-
men, indeed ! They remind me of the words of
Byron : —

u The moment you had pronounced him one,
Presto ! his face changed and he was another,
And when that change was hardly well put on,
It varied, till I don't think his own mother/
(If that he had a mother) would her son
Have known, he shifted so from one to t' other. "

i The following fact, mentioned by Pappius in his
"Synodicum of the Council of Nice" is, however,
worth all the preceding, valuable and curious though

34 HISTORY OF

they be. Pappius informs us of the manner in which
the true Gospels were selected from the false at that
memorable Council. This \tas done, says he, "by
placing all the books under a communion table, and,
upon the prayers of the council, the inspired books
jumped upon the table! while the false ones remained
under! ! " What a test of truth! What a proof of
inspiration ! It is quite a stirring argument. Who,
after this, will venture to doubt the authenticity of
the Scriptures?

From St. Cyril's Letters we learn that when the
people of Ephesus were informed that the Fathers of
the council had declared they might call the " Virgin
Mary " the " Mother of God," they were transported
with joy ; they kissed the hands of the bishops — they
embraced their knees, and the whole city resounded
with acclamations. Happy creatures ! After this,
surely no one will doubt that " ignorance is bliss."

Enough, however, of these councils, their squabbles
and their freaks. It must be evident to all of you,
they cannot be relied upon by any one possessing or-
dinary intelligence, and if these councils are not to be
depended upon, we have no means of ascertaining
which of the immense number of Gospels, Acts, Epis-
tles, and Revelations, are really genuine, or if any are
so. All is confusion, doubt, and uncertainty ! A
curious state of things when the book is said to be of
divine origin.

We must now hasten to the conclusion of our histo-
ry.— After the Council of Laodicea, in the year 363,
there were two other great councils, one in the year
406, and the other in 680. The council of 406 re-
jected several books deemed canonical by the council
of 363, but the council of 680 again restored them
to the canon. Thus were the " Sacred Writings " the
" Word of God" tossed like a battledoor, from sect to
sect, and altered as the spirit of faction might dictate.

From this period (close of the 7th century) to the
15th, when printing was invented, the "word of God "

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 35

remained in pious seclusion. It was locked up in
Monasteries in the exclusive possession of Monks. —
The people were forbidden to read it. If they were
detected in such an "impious" act, they were pun-
ished most severely. The priesthood at this period,
therefore, had every opportunity to do Avhat they liked
with the Bible — to alter, add, or omit, just as it was
most convenient. So greatly in fact were the priest-
hood afraid of the people reading the Bible that a Bill
was actually introduced into Parliament to prohibit
any one reading the Scriptures except those who were
authorized.

When printing became general, the Bible, despite
the anxiety of the clergy, was more accessible to the
laity ; and what was the consequence ? Did it decide
the grand question which of these numerous Scrip-
tures were genuine? By no means. It only enhanced
the doubt and confusion which previously existed. It
split up the European World into numberless petty
sectaries, all of which very politely promised each
other eternal damnation. Up to this moment there
are no two of the leading sects of Christendom who
entirely agree upon any one of the versions or books
of the New Testament, or even of the Old. Luther
himself rejected the Epistle of James. And Erasmus
and Calvin doubted of the Revelations. The Unita-
rians, headed by the Rev. N. Lardner, regard the
Epistle to the Hebrews, Epistle of James, the 2nd of
Peter, the 2nd and 3rd of John, Jude, and Revela-
tions as doubtful, and, as they express it, not "jit" to
be alleged as affording sufficient proof of any doctrine.

The New Testament published by the learned
Evanson in 1807, contains only the Gospel of St.
Luke, Acts, ten of Paul's Epistles, and Revelations,
and even those are said to " abound with manifest
and numerous interpolations." The Gospel of Mat-
thew, Mark, and John, he coritemptiiously rejects as
" spurious fictions of the second century."

The Swedenborgians admit only the four Gospels
and Revelations. The German Baptists, and the fol-

36 HISTORY OF

lowers of Servetus, do not receive the Gospel of St.
Matthew, and the learned Professor Bauer in 1803
denounced it as an absolute " forgery.7' The 2nd
Epistle to Timothy, and Titus, were rejected by Dr.
Eichorn, and the 1st Epistle to Timothy in 1807 by
Dr. Scheliermacher, the celebrated German. The
Gospel of St. John was rejected in 1820 by Dr. Bret-
schneider, and the 1st Chapter of Matthew and Luke
are denounced by the Unitarians in the Monthly Re-
pository as " absolute falsities ! ' " The Catholic Bible,
say the Protestants, abounds with innumerable gross
errors, and in a great number of places, exhibits the
most shocking barbarity of style, and the most impen-
etrable obscurity with respect to the sense of the
inspired writers. Yet this Bible was pronounced au-
thentic by a decree of the Council of Trent.

The Protestant Bible in return is denounced, even
so lately as 1816, by the Pope of Rome, as u pregnant
with errors ; J? and the old Protestant Bible is repudi-
ated by the critic Broughton, who was himself a Pro-
testant, as u perverting the text of the Old Testament
in 848 places, and causing millions to reject the New,
and to run into everlasting flames ! " As for the
present version, " its translators5' say the learned
Catholics, " ought to be abhorred to the depths of
hell."

We exposed in our last lecture many blunders and
false translations which had been made in the Old
Testament. Had I time I could point out similar
ones in the New. For instance, a ludicrous case of
false translation appears in Mark 10, c. 25, where,
according to the learned, the word in the original
means a cable rope, not a camel. In the notion of a
cable going through the eye of a needle, an association
of ideas is preserved, but the other meaning is forced
and ridiculous. Calmet, the famous Bible critic, de-
clares that the 7th and 8th verses of the 5th c. of
John's 1st Epistle, " are not in any ancient Bible." —
This interpolation was an impudent stroke to support
the trinity. Cappellus informs us that he was thirty-

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 37

six years in writing the books in which he detects the
numerous errors and frauds of the Protestant Bible.
That learned English Divine, Dr. John Mill, assures
us that thirty years' researches upon the New Testa-
ment, alone enabled him to detect the enormous num-
ber of 80, 000 different readings of that book. Could
anything match the stupidity and monstrous credulity
of calling such a work inspired and infallible? It
appears that even the favorite maxim of Christians,
"thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself/' has been
considered by some learned writers to be an interpo-
lation. The great Christian father, Origen, in his
commentary on Matthew's Gospel, speaking of this
sentence is forced to admit that " If indeed, there was
no disagreement in other copies, it would be irreligious
to suspect that expression was interpolated, and not
pronounced by our Saviour. But now, alas ! what
with the blunders of transcribers — what with the im-
pious temerity of correcting the text — what with the
licentiousness of others, who interpolate or expunge,
just what they please, it is plain the copies do strange-
ly disagree"

Nay, my friends, it has actually been proved by a
record in the Cronicon of Muis, that a general altera^
tion of the four Gospels took place in the 6th century,
by order of the Emperor Anastatius, who decreed : —
"That the Holy Gospels, as written, Idiotis Evangel-
istis, are to be corrected and amended^ This fact is
mentioned by Scaliger, and Dr. Mill vouches for the
truth of the record, and says that Messala was Consul
at the time. Well might the New Testament be com-
pared to Lord Chancellor Eldon's silk stocking, that
was darned all over with worsted, until there was no
silk remaining ; so, in like manner, it is now impossi-
ble to say, with certainty, what this book was origin-
ally, by whom, where, or when, its component parts
were written, or how many alterations, additions,
contradictory translations, and forged interpolations,
which, from time to time, it has undergone.
4

38 HISTORY OF

I shall sum up with the following startling observa-
tion of the distinguished Christian, Le Clerc. He
curiously observes, in his u Disquisition on Inspira-
tion," p. 27, — " There is no heresy in rejecting a book
of the Jewish canon, as neither is it to reject one of
our own ; at least, the Protestants have not called
Luther a heretic for saying that the Epistle of James
is an Epistle of straw, no more than they have many
of the learned for not receiving the Second Epistle of
Peter, which a famous critic (James Scaliger) styles
c a fiction of some ancient Christian misemploying his
leisure time.' The Jewish Sanhedrim may easily
have received into their canon books that had no di-
vine authority ,"

Here we are told that it is no heresy to doubt any
of the sacred writings, and that the Jews may have
easily received into the Old Testament books which
are not of divine origin. Strange production to be
the word of God, any portion of which you may re-
pudiate with impunity, and any part of which may
not be of divine origin ! And we are still called upon,
in this, the boasted age of science and inquiry, to
acknowledge such a book as divine. Oh ! wheji will
the intellectual and thinking of our race cease to con-
nive at such absurdity? When will man throw off
his mental leading strings, and act as a man? Will
he never rise above his intellectual babyhood ? Will
he always adhere to the falsehoods, fancies, and delu-
sions, accredited by his infantile credulity? Truth
and humanity forbid it ! Oh ! when, then, will this
change take place? When ! my friends? when men
dare be honest — when they dare " keep a conscience"
when they dare seize upon the precious jewel of truth
wherever it is to be found, despite the anathemas of
priests, and the sneers, insults, and persecutions of
bigots. And may that day soon arrive. May the
time not be far distant, when the sacred halo of reason
and goodness will encircle the minds and the hearts
of men !

LECTURE THIEB^

CHARACTER OF THE

CHRISTIAN FATHERS AND APOSTLES.

Friends —

In our two preceding discourses, I furnished you
with a compendious history of the Bible from the
earliest times on record, to the present age. In devel-
oping that history I had occasion to lay before you
facts of the most curious and extraordinary kind —
facts resting upon the authority of Christians them-
selves— facts which must convince every enlightened
and unprejudiced mind that the pretensions of the
Christian world touching the Divinity of this notori-
ous book are perfectly unwarrantable and absurd. I
deemed it necessary to supply you with this history
in order that all parties may be enabled to take an
accurate, comprehensive, and, therefore, just view of
this great and important question. It has too often,
unfortunately, been the practice of Biblical disputants
to confine themselves to a very limited and narrow
consideration of this vast subject— to the possibility
of some ridiculous miracle, the fulfillment of some
foolish prophecy, the testimony of some obsolete his-
torian, or the freaks of some fanatical, impudent, and
cunning priest. To obviate this mistake, however, I
am endeavoring, in the first instance, to familiarise
you with the general bearings of this extensive topic*

On this occasion, it is our intention to expatiate
upon a .portion of our inquiry which is intimately and

40 CHARACTER OF THE

inseparably connected with the history of the Bible.
In fact, it may be considered part and parcel of the
subject. I allude to the character and doings of those
individuals in whose hands the Scriptures originally
reposed, particularly during the first four centuries of
the Christian era, when no authorised canon or col-
lection of the books of the New Testament was
established.

My remarks at this moment will more especially
apply to this portion of " the Divine Word," as I
have already partly anticipated this subject, in rela-
tion to the Old Testament, in my first address. The
parties to whom I shall, in the first place, more par-
ticularly allude, are, the Apostolic and other Christian
fathers.

It is a matter of the utmost moment to ascertain if
those men were honorable, ingenuous, and consistent.
We must inquire if they were persons upon whom an
honest and conscientious man can place reliance ; for
if it can be shown they were not individuals of this
character, the grand corner-stone of Christian evi-
dence is undermined. You must remember that it is
upon the authority of these u Holy Fathers " we are
called upon to believe the Scriptures genuine. If,
therefore, it can be demonstrated that their authority
is exceptionable, we at once overturn the very foun-
dation of the argument.

It is necessary I should here inform you, in order
to explain how much depends upon the veracity of
these holy fathers, that the originals of the New
Testament are irrecoverably and absolutely lost. We
find, on referring to the Introduction to the New Tes-
tament, by Michaelis, the famous German Professor,
as translated by Bishop Marsh, that the most ancient
MSS. of this portion of the u Word of God" were
writen so lately as the 6th century, — that is, nearly
500 years after the time the originals are said to have
been composed ! The originals of the New Testa-
ment, indeed, have not been seen, says Michaelis, by

CHRISTIAN FATHERS AND APOSTLES. 41

any writer extant, nor do they record that any one of
their contemporaries had seen them. The "holy
fathers " themselves do not profess to have seen the
originals. Professor Michaelis further observes, "None
of the most early fathers, as Ignatius or Tertullian,
appeal to the originals, or had seen them ; " and Pro-
fessor Du Pin, in his " History of the Canon/7 &c,
remarks — " We do not find that the two greatest men
of the church, I mean Origen and St. Hierom, who
had searched the ancient copies of the Scriptures with
so much care and diligence, and have visited so many
churches in the east, have ever spoken of the origi-
nals of the New Testament, written with the hands
of the Apostles, which they would not have failed to
do if there had been any in their times." Again, he
observes, "But it hath been already made to appear
elsewhere that it is no wonder that the primitive
Christians, who had not a regular body of a state in
which they lived, and whose assemblies were, on the
contrary, furiously disturbed by the Jews and Pa-
gans, had lost the originals of their books!" —
"Nay," says he, "in the primitive ages, there was
no talk of reading the Holy Scriptures in their origi-
nals ; any copy whatever ^ provided it were used in the
orthodox churches, might be relied upon, as if it had
been the first original, written with the hands of the
apostles " ! The Rev. Dr. Campbell, in his work on
the Four Gospels, page 117, also observes, — "The
autographs, (the originals,) it is acknowledged on all
hands., are noivhere to be found. What we have in
their stead are the copies of copies, (through how
many successors it is impossible to say) which were
originally taken from these autographs." Rev. Dr.
Hug, in his Introduction to the New Testament, goes
further, however, than Michaelis or Campbell. He act-
ually affirms that, " It is probable there could have
been no autographs of the New Testament at all."

Since, then, the originals of the New Testament are
absolutely lost, and, according to Michaelis and Du
4*

42 THE CHARACTER OF THE

Pin, have not been seen by any writer extant, or any
of their cotemporaries, it is, manifest we have nothing
to depend upon but the copies these holy men have pre-
sented to us. I repeat, therefore, it is a question of
vital importance — the question, indeed, to ascertain if
these men are worthy of credit.

Now I unhesitatingly denounce them as persons
unworthy of belief, whose testimony, at this period,
would not be received in any court of law in Christ-
endom upon the most frivolous case imaginable. De-
liberately do I aver that imposture and deception was
their common practice. They esteemed dissimulation
and falsehood as excellencies, and not as vices — as
excellencies to be imitated, — not as vices to be despised.
To deceive the people, they considered a positive
virtue. Not only did they think such infamous prac-
tices necessary to the success of religion! but actually
honorable to it. In short, if there were at any time
one body of men, as public teachers, more deceit fid
dishonest, and despicable than another, they were the
class of whom I am now speaking, — the class upon
whom the Christian world depend foi the genuine-
ness of their Scriptures.

This, my friends, may be considered a rash decla-
ration. Let those, however, who labor under such a
conception, listen to my proof. I shall first quote
from the most able ecclesiastical historian of modern
times — the German Historian and Professor, Mo-
sheim. In his Ecclesiastical History, part 2nd, chap.
3rd, he makes use of the following extraordinary
language: — u The interest of virtue and true religion
suffered yet more grievously by the monstrous errors
that were almost universally adopted in this century,
Cthe fourth) and became a source of innumerable
calamities and mischiefs in the succeeding ages. The
first of these maxims was, ' that it was an act of vir-
tue to deceive and lte, when by that means the
interest of the church might be promoted;' and the
second, equally horrible, though in another point of

CHRISTIAN FATHERS AND APOSTLES. 43

view, was, l that errors in religion, when maintained
and adhered to after proper admonition, were punish-
able with civil penalties and corporeal tortures.' The
former of these erroneous maxims was now of long
standing ! it had been adopted for some ages past,
and had produced an incredible number of ridiculous
fables, fictitious prodigies, and pious frauds ! to the
unspeakable detriment of that glorious cause in which
they were employed. And it must be frankly con-
fessed, that the greatest men and most eminent saints
of this century were more or less tainted with the
infection of this corrupt principle, as will appear
evident to such as look, with an attentive eye, to their
writings and actions. We would willingly except
from this charge Ambrose and Hiliary, Augustine,
Gregory, Nazianzen, and Jerome ; but truth, which is
more respectable than these venerable fathers, obliges
us to involve them in the general accusation." He
further observes, as translated by Vidal, — " At a time
when he (Hermas) wrote, it was an established max-
im with many of the Christians to avail themselves
of fraud and deception, if it was likely they would
conduce towards the attainment of any considerable
good." "And it was considered," says he, again,
" that they who made it their business to deceive,
with a view of promoting the cause of truth, were
deserving rather of commendation than censure! / "
Honorable men ! Exemplary Christians I Holy
Fathers !

Listen to the French Protestant, Casaubon : — " It
mightily affects me to see how many there were in
the earliest times of the church who considered it a
capital exploit to lend to heavenly truth the help of
their own inventions in order that the new doctrine
might be received by the wise among the Gentiles.
These officious lies, they said, were devised for a
good end." Le Clerc, assenting to the opinions of
Casaubon, observes, " That dissemblers of truth are
no where to be met with in such abundance as among
the writers of church history."

44 CHARACTER OF THE

Simon, in his Critical History, vol. 1, page 20, also
remarks that "We ought not easily to give credit to
the first originals of churches, (meaning the fathers,)
every one strives to advance their antiquity as much
as possible, and they make no scruple on such occa-
sions to counterfeit acts when they have none that
are true."

Dr. Conyers Middleton, a distinguished Professor
at Cambridge, in his able work entitled " A Free En-
quiry into the Miraculous Powers of the Christian
Church in the First Three Centuries," has given a
most elaborate and unanswerable expose of the tricks
of these " Fathers in God." I refer you to the work
itself, as it is easily to be obtained. M. Daille, a man
whose learning and impartiality has never been im-
peached, in his celebrated work on the " Use of the
Fathers," plainly says, "We find them (the fathers)
saying things which they did not themselves believe.
They are mutually witnesses against each other, that
they are not to be believed absolutely on their own
bare ivord" In book 1, chap. 6, he observes, upon
the authority of St. Jerome, — " Origen, Methodius,
Eusebius, Apollinaris, have written largely against
Celsus and Porphyry. Do but observe their manner
of arguing, and what slippery problems they used. —
They alleged against the Gentiles not what they be-
lieved, but what they thought necessary. Jerome
adds, I forbear mentioning the Latin writers, as Ter-
tullian, Cyprian, Minutius, Victorinus, Lactantius,
Hiliary, lest I should rather seem to accuse others,
than defend myself." Daille says the fathers "made
no scruple to forge whole books ! " His work on the
11 Use of the Fathers," was published in 1G28, and
translated by T. Smith, of Cambridge ; the translation
from which these extracts are taken.

M. Blondell, another learned French Protestant, in
his Epistle to Arnold, 1701, states that there was more
aversion to lying, more simplicity in adhering to truth,
and more fidelity, among profane than Christian au-

CHRISTIAN FATHERS AND APOSTLES. 45

fhors. See also Scaliger, Epistle and Casaubon. —
Bishop Stillingfieet, Irenerch, page, 296. — Bishop
Fell, Oypriani, page 53. — Dr. Bennett, Directions for
Studying the Thirty-nine Articles, page 66. — Bishop
Burnett, on the same, Article 8, page 106. — Selden,
Notes on Fleta, chap. 5. — Pezron, defence of his book,
L'Antiquite, des Tern?, page 224.— Dr. Jortin's Re-
marks on Ecclesiastical History. — Dod well's Disser-
tation on Ireneus. — Dr. Chapman, Miscellaneous
Tracts, pages 191,207; and Dr. Priestley, Disquisi-
tion on Matter and Spirit, 2nd edition, vol. 1, p. 393,
Note. 1 could refer to a host of other authorities, all
of the highest character, showing the utter dishonesty
and deception of these " men of God." The following,
however, must suffice. It is from a periodical accessi-
ble to all. In the Eclectic Review, of 1814, p. 479,
is this passage : — " When we consider the number of
gospels, acts, epistles, revelations, traditions, and con-
stitutions which were put in circulation during the
first three centuries, and which are unquestionably
spurious, we find sufficient reason for examining with
care, and receiving with extreme caution, productions
attributed to eminent men in the primitive church. —
Some of the early Christians do not appear to have
possessed, in some points, a very nice sense of moral
obligation. The writing of books under false names,
and the circulating of fables, were not accounted vio-
lations of duty, or if the impropriety of such conduct
was felt, the end proposed* — the promotion of the
Christian cause — was thought to justify the means
employed for its, accomplishment." A divine religion,
truly, that could require, or would il justify,'1 such
ignoble and dishonest practices! Ohi protect mc
from such " religion ! "

We will now speak of individual cases of deceit
and imposture. The preceding quotations are only in
general terms. First, of the Holy Father Origen.
This man had immense influeuce among the Chris-
tians of his time. He lived in the third century. It

46 CHARACTER OF THE

was Origen who collected our present canon of the
New Testament, and upon whose ipse dixit the Coun-
cil of Laodicea adopted it as the " Word of God."
What, then, was the character of this person, from
whom we receive our present Scriptures ? Bishop
Horsley, in his reply to Priestly, states that Origen
M was not incapable of asserting in argument what
he believed not, and that a strict regard to truth in
disputation was not one of the virtues of his charac-
ter.7' The Bishop further remarks, " Time was when
the practice of using unjustifiable means to serve a
good cause was openly avowed, and Origen himself
%oas among its defenders." A fine character this, to
be one of those upon whose "authority " we receive
the Divine Word !

Now of Eusebius, the Bishop of Csesarea. Few of
the ancient fathers are more celebrated than this indi-
vidual. He is considered a very eminent authority
among Christians. Tellimont declares, in his Eccle-
siastical History, a work of 16 volumes, that "With-
out Eusebius we should scarce have had any knowl-
edge of the history of the first ages of Christianity,
or of the authors who wrote at that time. All the
Greek authors of the fourth century, who. undertook
to write the history of the church, have began where
Eusebius ended, as having nothing considerable to
add to his labors.77 What is the character of this man,
upon whom such dependence is placed ? Why, it is
as honorable as his predecessor's. He was one of those
honest meii who thought falsehood such a convenience
and such a virtue. In the 12th Book of his " Evan-
gelical Preparation,77 he devotes a whole chapter to
proving that falsehood ought to be used whenever it
is required; and he heads the 31st chapter with the
following question — "How far it may be proper to
use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those
who require to be deceived" Strange medicine, this !
An admirable bolus, truly, for purging men of their
virtue and integrity ! In another place Eusebius says

CHRISTIAN FATHERS AND APOSTLES. 47

of himself — " I have related whatever might redound
to the glory , and I have suppressed all that could tend
to the disgrace of our religion. ;;

I am sure the Christian world ought to be much
obliged to his Reverence, though the justice and hon-
esty of his conduct is another question. But what
says another Christian of the character of this virtu-
ous priest? Baronius, who was a sincere advocate
of the Christian faith, calls him " the great falsifier
of Ecclesiastical History — a wily sycophant — a con-
summate hypocrite — a time-serving persecutor, who
had nothing in his known life, or writings, to support
the belief that he himself believed in the Christian
system." So much for the character of this main
pillar of the church, without whom we should know
nothing of the early doings of the " faithful."

Another eminent Christian father was Ireneus, of
whom I spoke at length in my last discourse, when
showing he was the first who mentions the four Gos-
pels. 1 then quoted Dr. Whitby where he accuses
him and father Papias " as having scandalously de-
luded the world with fables and lying narrations."

Of the celebrated Justin Martyr, Mosheim distinctly
says, that, " much of what Justin says is wholly un-
deserving of credit."

Of the fathers Clement, Alexandria and Lactantius,
the Rev. Mr. Jones, jn his " New and Full Method of
Settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testa-
ment," part 2nd, page 34, observes that it was the
practice with them " to make use of testimonies out
of forgeries and spurious books ) to prove the very
foundation of the Christian revelation.

St. Jerome, a man who stands very high among
the early fathers, and author of the Vulgate, or Latin
Translation of the Bible, — the translation now adopt-
ed by the Catholics, — very positively declares that — ■
" I do not find fault with an error which proceeds
from a hatred towards the Jews, and a pious zeal for
the Christian faith." (Oper.; torn. 4, page 113.) Ac-

48 CHARACTER OF THE

cording to this honest priest, if it is only for the benefit
of religion, an individual may utter as many false-
hoods as he thinks proper ! The Bishop of Constan-
tinople, Gregory Nazianzen, surnamed the ''-Divine,"
candidly admits to father Jerome, that "a little jargon
is all that is necessary to impose upon the people. —
The less they comprehend, the more they admire !
Our forefathers and doctors of the church have often
said, not what they thought, but what circumstances
and necessity dictated to them." Bishop Heliodorous,
in his Romance of Theagnes and Charieles, modestly
says, " a falsehood is a good thing when it aids the
speaker, and does no injury to the hearers." And St.
Synesius, early in the fifth century, declared that
" the people were desirous of being deceived. We
cannot act otherwise respecting them."

Indeed, Synesius ! then what are we to think of
your religion, whose moral influence is so weak and
flexible that wThen people are immoral, the only way it
can adopt to reclaim them, is to make them more im-
moral? Truly, these are wonderful " saints," strange
" ambassadors of God ! " But Synesius has not done.
He further declares, and, I must say, very frankly —
u For my own part, to myself I shall always be a
philosopher, but in dealing with the mass of man-
kind, I shall be a. priest." There is no doubt of it,
holy Synesius !

As a specimen of the veracity of a very popular
Christian father, St. Augustine, I need but state that
he declares, in his 33rd sermon, and stakes his eternal
salvation on the truth of the "fact," which he said
was as true as the gospel, that while he was Bishop
of Hippo Regius, he preached the gospel of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, to a whole nation of men
and women who had no heads, but had their eyes in
their bosoms ; and in countries still more southerly,
he preached to a nation amongst whom each individ-
ual had but one eye, and that situate in the middle of
the forehead- What next? How strange we can
find none of the progeny of this singular race !

CHRISTIAN FATHERS AND APOSTLES. 49

Now for the case of the apostolic father St. Her-
mas> one of the fellow-laborers of St. Paul. This
honest man wrote a gospel, from which the following
passage is taken. St. Hernias exclaims — " Q Lord, /
never spake a true word in my life ; but I have al-
ways lived in dissimulation, and affirmed a lie for
truth to all men, and no man contradicted me, but all
gave credit to my words." To which exclamation
the holy angel to whom Hermas was addressing him-
self replied, "As the lie was up now, he had better
keep it up, and, as in time it would come to be be-
lieved, it looidd answer as well as truth ! ! "

Such are the men upon whose veracity the authen-
ticity and genuineness of our Bible depends !

Were I a Christian, I should be ashamed to ac-
knowledge a production with which such characters
had any connexion. Well do I know with what ex-
ultation and contempt the Christian world would
denounce a book issued by the Sceptics, which rested
its evidence upon the testimony of such unblushing
impostors. Soon would they exclaim, with all the
bitter scorn so peculiar to them, "away with such a
book !" "it is a disgrace to the age! " "an insult to
religion ! " "a libel upon God ! " And why will they
not do the same with their own book, when they find
its evidence resting upon such infamous testimony ?
O ! but I presume their book is for the " promotion
of religion IP That alters the case. Being for a
"good" object, such conduct is deserving rather "of
commendation than of censure." Being for the '-ben-
efit of the church," it is an " act of virtue to deceive
and lie."

My friends, while such morality finds currency
amongst mankind, well may falsehood and dissimu-
lation abound. While those are to be found, who can
assert that a book, resting its evidence upon the testi-
mony of men who deemed it a " virtue" to indulge
in such vile artifices, is "divine," the "Word of
Cod," the "revealed will" of an omniscient and
5

50 CHARACTER OF THE

munificent Deity — every impostor may find his au-
thority, and every rogue his apology.

Not only, however, were the Christian fathers a
race of deceivers and impostors, but we learn from
Burton's " Expositor," thatihe practice of unnatural
crimes had been so common among the dignitaries of
the church, that St. Bernard, in a sermon preached
before the clergy, affirmed sodomy to be so common
in his time, that bishops with bishops, lived in it. At
the head of this phalanx of " holy men," stood the
Emperor Constantine, — a man under whose fostering
care, Christianity first rose to power and dominion.
And who was he 'I A monster in human form. He
drowned his wife in boiling water ; put to death his
son Crispus ; murdered the two husbands of his sis-
ters, Constantia and Anastasia ; murdered his own
father-in-law, Maximinian Hercules, and his nephew,
son of his sister Constantia, a boy of only twelve
years of age ! And this man was the first royal pat-
ron of Christianity!

This grand system of dissimulation and delusion
was not confined to the Christian fathers. The apos-
tles themselves, indulged in the same pious freaks.
Nay, Christ himself was infected with this corrupt
principle. From the highest to the lowest, prevari-
cation and deception seem to have been their "modus
operandi" What says the New Testament itself of
these notorious personages? We will see — I will
take Paul and Peter as specimens of the Apostles.
They were the leaders — the two men without whom
Christianity would have died in its infancy.

First, of Paul. — In the 2nd Corinthians, c. 12, v. 16,
he says, u But be it so, I did not burden you, never-
theless being crafty, I caught you with guile : " and
in the 3rd c. of Romans, v. 7, he remarks, " For if
the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie
unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sin-
ner 7 " St. Jerome, the learned Christian father, says
of this Apostle, in his apology, — u I will produce the

CHRISTIAN FATHERS AND APOSTLES. 51

example of this Apostle Paul, whom I never peruse
without thinking that I hear his thundering rather
than read his words. Consult his epistles, particu-
larly to the Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians,
where he disputes continually. You will see in the
proofs he borrows from the Old Testament, with what
address, what dissimulation, he manages his subject.
Let us charge this upon him as a crime, and say to
him, the testimonies you have used against the Jews,
and other heretics, have one signification in their
original, and another in your writings. We see here
examples forcibly pressed into the service which aid
you in gaining a victory, but have no force in the
books from which you have taken them." In 1st
Corinthians, c. 9, v. 19 to 22, Paul admits of having
resorted to the most wholesale system of deception
and hypocrisy. '' For though,'7 says he, "I be free
from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto
all. that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews,
I became as a Jew, to them that are under the law,
as under the law, that I might gain them that are
under the law. To them that are without law, as
without law, (being not without law to God, but
under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that
are without law. To the weak, became I as weak,
that I might gain the weak ; I am made all things
to all men, that I might by all means save some."
Indeed ! mighty honest, truly ! In Acts, 9, there is a
long and particular account of Paul's visit to Jerusa-
lem, and his stay among the disciples; while in
Galatians, c. 1, v. 17, he solemnly swears that he
did not go! In the account of his conversion, as
given in Acts, c. 22, v. 9, Paul says, the men who
were with him, heard not the voice of him who
spake to him, while in c. 9, v. 7, he says they did. In
c. 23, v. 3, he abuses the High Priest for sitting in
judgment over him, while in v. 5. (only two verses
afterwards,) he pretends not to know him. In c. 22,
v. 27, he says, he is a Roman, but in c. 23, v. 6,

52 CHARACTER OF THE

he declares he is a Pharisee, as his parents before
him ! Such was honest Paul. Now for honest Peter.
In Luke, c. 22, v. 54 to 58, I find this virtuous man
solemnly denying all connexion with the u divine "
personage of whom he was the senior apostle, and
with whom he had been in company only a short
time before ! The passage runs — " Then took they
him (Christ) and led him, and brought him into the
High Priest's house. And Peter followed afar off.
And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the
hall, and were sat down together, Peter sat down
among them. But a certain maid beheld him as
he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him,
and said, This man was also with him. And he
denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not. And
after a little while another saw him, and said, thou
art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.1'
An admirable character for a Christian apostle ! !

My friends, if I am not to be esteemed a Christian
until I believe such prevaricating priests, I shall only
become one when I cease to love truth, and, like the
Christian fathers, consider it a virtue to deceive and
he.

Jesus Christ— -I have said that he, also, was guilty
of the unblushing dissimulation which characterizes
his principal apostles, and the most eminent of their
successors — the u fathers. ;J In Mark, c. 4, v. 11 and
12, Christ says, "unto you it is given to know the
mysteries of the kingdom of God, but unto them that
are without, all these things are done in parables, that
seeing, they may see, and not perceive, and hearing,
they may hear, and not understand, lest at any time
they should be converted, and their sins should be for-
given them." How charitable ! These words, we are
told, were uttered by the " Redeemer" of the world
— he who was sent to lead the human race from the
error of their ways, into the fold of truth and ever-
lasting bliss ! Strange mode to convince mankind of
their errors, to allow them to hear and yet not under-

CHRISTIAN FATHERS AND APOSTLES. 53

stand ; and most convenient method certainly to lead
them to truth by permitting them to see, and yet not
perceive ! Well might St. Jerome say, in his Apol.,
"our Saviour proposed questions to the Pharisees,
but he resolved none. The crowd hear our parables
—the disciples our truth ! "

In John, c. 7, v. 8, we read of Christ resorting to
a prevarication, so nearly approaching a lie, that I
should esteem it a favor if you could show me the
difference. " Go ye up unto this feast,7' says he, " 1
go not lip yet unto this feast, for my time is not yet
fully come. When he had said these words unto
them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his breth-
ren were gone up, then went he also up unto the
feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.'7 The
priesthood, aware of the direct falsehood that would
otherwise be manifest, have taken eare to foist in the
word oupo, instead of ouk. The true reading is, I
shall not go up unto this feast. Griesbach, the latest
and the most approved of the editors of the New Tes-
tament, has settled this question beyond controversy.
He has ascertained the authenticity of ouk, and
adopted it. Thus Christ says to his disciples, I shall
not go, and yet, when they are out of sight, he does
go, and that, too, by stealth! What disgusting and
puerile deception! No wonder the "holy fathers"
were such admirable " disciples ! "

I have now carefully reviewed the character of the
Christian Fathers and Apostles. I will ask you, as
impartial persons, if I have not triumphantly estab-
lished the truth of my allegations, and that, too, on
Christian authority ?

It is now necessary I should proceed to the latter
portion of my address. 1 purpose to show that even
supposing our remarks in reference to the fathers, from
whom we receive the Scriptures, were incorrect, we
are still not justified in accepting the Bible, as they
offer it to us, as the true iC Word of God." And why I
Because they have so altered it to suit their conven-
5*

54 CHARACTER OF THE

ience — to promote party or sectarian purposes, that
there is no possibility of detecting the genuine from
the spurious. And hence the Bible, as we now read
it, is as likely to lead us from, as to the truth, and
therefore altogether inoperative for the great purpose
for which it is designed — the salvation of mankind.

The first authority I shall adduce in corfirmation
of this opinion, is Professor Michaelis. He considers
that " no one will deny that the early Christians, who
differed from the ruling church, have altered the New
Testament in numerous examples, according to their
peculiar tenets," and u so much so," says the Rev.
Mr. Nolan, in his Inquiry, page 460, "that little con-
fidence could be placed in any edition." The Rev.
T. H. Home, admits in the 2nd vol. of his Introduc-
tion to the Scriptures, second edition, that all M.S.S.,
the most ancient not excepted, have erasures and
corrections ; nor was this practice confined to a single
letter or word. The Rev. Mr. Pope, in his treatise on
the i: Miraculous Conception," affirms that " the Cam-
bridge and the Alexandrian M.S.S. sioarm with cor-
ruptions and inter potations." Celsus, says Or i gen,
charges the early fathers with having three or four
different readings for the same text, or as he express-
es it, " they altered the Gospel three or four different
times, as if they were drunk, and when pressed by
their adversaries, recurred to that reading which best
suited their purpose ! " Origen himself admits, says
Du Pin, " there is a great discrepancy between the
copies, which must be attributed either to the negli-
gence of the scribes, or to the audacious perversions
of others, or to those who correct the text by arbitrary
additions or omissions, who oftentimes have put in
and left out as they thought it most convenient." —
Here we are told by one of the fathers themselves,
that matters were " put in or left out" of the Bible,
just "as it was most convenient." This shows how
much we have to depend upon the fathers for the cor-
rectness of 'the Word of God. Du Pin remarks, and

CHRISTIAN FATHERS AND APOSTLES. 5^

he is a very high authority, as I observed on a former
occasion : — " It cannot be said that no fault has crept
into the Scriptures by the negligence or inadvertency
of the transcribers, or even by the boldness of those
who have ventured to strike out, add or change some
words which they thought necessary to be omitted,
added, or changed." Necessary, indeed! Then we
must believe that God had said that which he ought
not to have said, and omitted saying that which he
ought to have done, or in other words, priests know
better than God, what should be in the Bible ! What
next ?

But, my friends, listen, I entreat you, to the words
of James, the Librarian of the University of Oxford,
a warm partisan of Protestantism. In his work on
the " Corruption of the Scriptures," page 272, he says,
" let us pass a step or two further, and inquire wheth-
er they have not corrupted the Bible in like sort, or
worse rather, if it be possible, a degree of impiety
beyond the degrees of comparison, and yet so plainly
to be proved against the Papists, as he that hath but
one eye to see, shall plainly discover it, and thence be
induced to suspect the abomination of desolation spok-
en of by Daniel the prophet, sitting in the holy place,
and admiring himself as it were above the Holy of
Holies. He shall observe infinite varieties, contrarie-
ties, and contradictio?is, and oppositions between two
Bibles set forth by two Popes, within two years ; both
commanded to be read and followed upon such forms
as are mentioned in the briefs. You shall see the
Popes breathe hot and cold, say and unsay the same
thing tivice, and, in fine, they have truly verified the
Bible to be a nose of wax ! plied and wrought into
fashion for their own advantage. A shame it is that
any Christian should presume to add, or take away
aught from the Word of God ; yet, O ! intolerable
fraud, not any simple Christian or layman, but the
Bishop of Rome, chief pastor of the church, sole judge
of all controversies, whose lips should preserve knowl-

56 CHARACTER OF THE

edge, and his tongue speak no deceit, hath audacious-
ly presumed to add and take whole sentences, to change
the words of the holy writ, into a clear contrary mean-
ing, to make as it were white black, and black ivhite ! "

This practice of altering the Bible to suit party
purposes, is by no means confined to ancient times, —
to the first four centuries of the Christian era. It has
been adopted by the learned of every sect to the pres-
ent day. They have well followed the example of
the holy fathers, though, unfortunately for them, the
printing press now tends to curb such audacious pro-
pensities.

The Rev. Mr. Cooper, in his Tracts, page 521, says
distinctly, — u Were a Socinian to make a new trans-
lation, he would translate under the guidance of his
Socinian opinions, and properly." This is actually
saying, when a person translates the Bible, he need
not adhere to the real text, but give what interpreta-
tion he thinks proper. Oh ! ye pious translators, how
we must admire your honesty !

This is the charge which the Christian sects bring
against one another — that they have altered the word
of God to suit their peculiar opinions, and not adhered
to the original. If so, we must concur with the Rev.
Mr. Nolan, that we cannot depend upon any one of
them.

To preclude the possibility of your supposing that
I am desirous of giving you mere assertion without
proof, I shall here quote from some of the leading
sects. Hitherto, during the whole of this course, 1
have given you my authorities for every affirmation I
have made. I shall continue to do so to the close.

Dr. Jones, in the Monthly Repository for 1826, (the
Unitarian organ) says that u Trinitarians never have
referred, nor never tvill refer to a single place through-
out the whole Testament which could ever suggest the
idea of the doctrine of three persons in one essence be-
sides the controverted verse, the 7th of 1st John, c. 5."

We are told, in the celebrated Unitarian Reply to

CHRISTIAN FATHERS AND APOSTLES. 57

Magee, published in 1813, that this text is u an impi-
ous forgery/7 and, " it appears to be little less than
blasphemy to retain it in a book which is represented
to be inspired." Similar charges are made by the
Unitarians against all the verses in the first chap, of
Luke after the 4th. The whole of the second chap,
is denounced as " spurious/7 and only u to serve the
purposes of certain sects.77 The same with the first
of Matthew, after the 17th verse; and the whole of
the second. These passages inculcate the doctrine of
miraculous conception, which is denied by the Unita-
rians.

The Rev. Dr. Campbell, in the introduction to his
translation of the Scriptures, makes some strong re-
marks upon Beza, who published the edition of the
Greek Testament from which our modern English
version is taken : — " Here we have a man,77 says he,
"who, in effect, acknowledges that he would not have
translated some things in the way he has done, if it
were not that he could thereby strike a severer blow
against his adversaries, or ward off a blow which an
adversary might aim against him ! 77 How conven-
ient this Bible is, truly !

The celebrated Methodist, Dr. Adam Clarke, in his
Commentary on the Bible, protests against those pas-
sages in the third chapter of Genesis, which declare
that Eve was tempted by a serpent. He asserts it
was a monkey, and not a serpent that tempted her. —
A monkey, indeed ! a most bewitching animal to tempt
any one !

Mr. Bellamy declares that the story in the Old
Testament about Balaam and his ass is a complete
misinterpretation, and ought to be " immediately re-
vised.'7 He concludes his remarks upon this subject
as follows : — " Really, it is time you should get rid of
such childish notions. To say any more on such ab-
surd conclusions would be a waste of time. Depend
upon it, that, whatever they may do noio, asses never
spoke in the days of Balaam.7'

58 CHARACTER OF THE

I could detain you, my friends, for hours, showing
that alterations have been, or to believe some theolo-
gians, ought to be, made in the Word of God, but suf-
fice it to say, as time is now far advanced, that
according to the Unitarian verison, there are no less
than 150,000 readings of the Scriptures, all of which
are more or less different. And this book, about
which such innumerable and serious differences exist,
and that, too, against the most learned of our race, is
the only book which is to guide us to everlasting
truth and joy ! I am apprehensive it Avill prove a
blind guide, for if there are so many contradictory
readings as declared by the Unitarians, it will be 149,-
999 to 1 if we have the right one. Who will run the
risk of eternal salvation or damnation at such odds ?
, But it may be said, people can exert their own in-
tellect upon the matter, and judge for themselves.
The Bible, they say, is so self-evident that none but
an abandoned Infidel could mistake it. It is so pal-
pable that " any one who runs may read, and so
reading, fully comprehend." Not so, my friends.
Michaelis says, in his Introduction to the New Testa-
ment, " No man is capable of understanding the New
Testament, unless, to an acquaintance with the
Greek he joins a knowledge of at least Hebrew,
Syriac, and Rabbinic." Professor Campbell asserts,
" that the Hebrew and Greek are absolutely neces-
sary to him who is desirous of ascertaining the
genuine meaning of the sacred volume." He further
remarks, " To understand the Scriptures we should
get acquainted with each writer's style. 2nd. In-
quire carefully into their character, office, and situ-
ation, and the time, place, and occasion of their
writing, and the people for whose use they wrote.
3rd. Consider the scope, &c, of the book. 4th.
Where the phrase is obscure, consult the context :
this will not always answer. 5th. If not, consider
if it be any of the writer's peculiarities, if so, inquire
what is the acceptation of it in other places. 6th.

CHRISTIAN FATHERS AND APOSTLES. 59

If this fail, have recourse to parallel passages. 7th,
If this fail, consult the Old Testament and Septua-
gint, where the word may be used : 8th, and the
classic writers : 9th, and the Fathers : 10th, and the
ancient version, modern scholiasts, annotators, and
translators : 11th, the analogy of faith, and the ety-
mology of words, which must be used with caution."
In addition to these, or similar general rules, the Rev.
Mr. Home, in his Introduction to the Scriptures, fur-
nishes us with ten rules for investigating the original
meaning of Scripture words, five for that of emphasis,
with which the Scripture abounds, and eight for par-
allelisms, of which three kinds are specified; then
seven rules for discovering the sense by the subject
matter, and by the context, and seven more for
discovering it by historical circumstances, including
ten particulars, such as the order, title, date, author,
place where written, chronology, occasion, scope, an-
alysis, biblical antiquities, &c. ! Then for investigat-
ing the scope itself, six rules, and for the analogy of
faith, eight ! Then again for the historical interpre-
tation, seven rules: for the interpreting of figurative
language, twelve ; one of which rules is, that " the
literal meaning of the words is to be given up, if it
be improper, or involve an impossibility, or is con-
trary to common sense ! "

Then, in addition to all these rules, numerous
others are given for interpreting the four kinds of
metonymies occurring in Scripture; others for the
metaphors ; others for the allegories, the parables, the
proverbs, the figures, and the spiritual interpretations.
Then comes a great variety for interpreting the
prophecies, the types, legal^ prophetical, and histori-
cal, and no fewer than twenty-two for the interpret-
ing of doctrines ! ! And yet we are told that the
Bible is self-evident ! Very ; for a man may live a
life-time before he can understand it, and then, after
all, may be mistaken ! Well may they say, that
" narrow is the way that leadeth to everlasting life,
and few there be that find it ! "

LECTURE FOURTH.

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

Friends —

I appear this evening to deliver our fourth address
on the Divinity of the Bible. In our first two dis-
courses I gave a brief history of the Old and New
Testament, tracing the subject from the earliest to the
most recent times. In our last, I considered a ques-
tion intimately and inseparably connected with that
history — the Character of the Christian Fathers in
whose hands the Bible originally reposed, and upon

hose ipse dixit we receive it as the "Word of
jod." We now proceed to discuss other portions of
this interesting and extensive subject.

Modern theologians divide Christian evidences into
two parts — External and Internal. We shall only
deal with the former on this occasion. The external
evidence in favor of the Scriptures is a favorite theme
with the generality of Christians. They usually re-
sort to this topic when forced to debate the question.

Not wishing to be drawn into the internal evidence,
or. at least, those portions which refer to the obscen-
ities, the immoralities, discrepancies, and absurdities,
they endeavor to conceal their weakness, and delude
the multitude, by an ostentatious display of learning.
They tell them this " memorable'" historian, that
"immortal" author, this "great man," contempora-
neous with, or immediately subsequent to, the early
Christians, made "honorable mention" of Christ,
6

62 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE,

and Christianity, and thence infer the Christian
scheme is divine.

Popular though this mode of determining the divin-
ity of Scripture undoubtedly is, its unsatisfactory and
fallacious character is apparent. Such evidence is
manifestly incompetent to decide the truth of any
doctrine or system. Before testimony of this nature
can be received as conclusive it must be shown, in the
first place, that these writers were "inspired" or
infallible. If they were in the least degree liable to
err, their testimony, on a question of this kind, must
be received with consummate circumspection, if it be
not altogether rejected. Were the whole of the ex-
ternal evidence usually adduced by the Christian
world unquestionably true, I still maintain they have
not established the divinity of their book. If it can
be proved that the Bible contains absolute falsehoods,
contradictions, and immoralities, (as will be shown
in subsequent lectures,} all the external evidence in
the world is of no avail. No external evidence can
make that true which is palpably false — that consist-
ent which is grossly inconsistent, or that moral which
is manifestly immoral. The insufficiency, therefore,
of this evidence to decide the question at issue, is
obvious. Dr. Middleton, a distinguished divine of
the last century, though an eminent exponent of
Christianity, admirably remarks, — " Examining the
external evidence is certainly losing- time, and begin-
ning at the wrong end, since it is allowed on all
hands that if any narration can be shown to be false,
any doctrine irrational and immoral, 'tis not all the
external evidence in the world that can, or ought to
convince us that such a doctrine comes from God."
The celebrated Dr. Vescimus Knox also confesses, in
his Christian Philosophy, that u It is certain that the
argumentative mode of addressing unbelievers, and a
reliance upon external evidence, has hitherto failed,
and will never convince them. Notwithstanding the
stupendous labors of the writers of evidences, con-

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE* 63

tinned with little intermission, the great cause which
they maintain is on the decline. Many Oi? the most
learned and able men of modern times, who were
capable of understanding the historical, logical, and
metaphysical defences of Christianity, have read
them without conviction, and laughed at their labo-
rious imbecility ! " John Wesley, the founder of
Methodism, is also obliged to admit that " traditional
evidence for Christianity is of an extremely compli-
cated nature, necessarily including so many and so
various considerations, that only men of strong and
clear understanding can be sensible of its full force."
(Letter to Warburton, p. 108.) Such is the uncer-
tain, dubious, and unsatisfactory nature of external
evidence, as admitted by Christians themselves.

I now proceed to show, however, that the external
evidence which they do adduce, is, in many instan-
ces, completely spurious, in some so questionable as
to be utterly inadmissible, and in others tells against
rather than for the Christian system.

Before I enter upon the subject. I deem it advisable
to name the profane authors who flourished during
the first two centuries of the Christian era. Those
who are said to have mentioned Christianity are the
following: Josephus, a. d. 40, (see Jewish Antiqui-
ties) ; Pliny, a. d. 107, (see letter to Trajan) ; Seuto-
nius, a. d. 110, (see Lives of Nero and Claudius) ;
Tacitus, a. d. 110, (see Annals) ; Adrian, a. d. 138,
(see Epistle to Scrvianus) ; Lucianus, a. d. 176, (see
Dialogue on the Death of Peregrinus) ; Cclsus, a. d.
17G, (see Essay on the True Word, as quoted by
Origen.) Those who are supposed only to have al-
luded to Christians are — Dio Pruseus, a. d. 98 ;
Martialis, a. d. 100; Juvenalis, a. d. 100; Epictetus,
a. d. 109; Arrianus, a. p. 140; Lucius Apuleius, a. d.
164; Aristides, a. d. 176.

Those writers who would be likely to refer to the
Christians, but who have not done so, are — Philo, a. d.
40 ; Pliny, the elder, a. d. 79 ; Seneca, a. d. 79; Diog-

64 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

enes Laertius, a. d. 79 ; Pausanias, a. d. 79 ; Pompon
Mela, a. d. 79 ; Appianus, a. d. 123 ; Justinius, a. d.
140 ; and Elianus, a. d. 141. Those who were less
likely to allude to the Christians, and did not do so,
are— Lucanus, a. d. 63 ; Petronius Arbiter, a. d. 64 ;
Italicus, a. d. 64 ; M. Lucanus, a. d. 65 ; Flaccus, a. d.
65; Papinus Statius, a. d. 90 ; and Ptolemseus, a. d.
130.

In this discussion we have only to consider those
writers who are actually said to have mentioned Chris-
tianity. In reference to the rest, I may just remark
that it is a very suspicious circumstance they should
remain silent upon the subject. Some of them were
the greatest writers of antiquity, and could not possi-
bly have omitted noticing all extraordinary events. —
If Christ and his disciples, therefore, performed such
wonders as asserted by their modern followers, why
are they not noticed, favorably or unfavorably, by
these distinguished historians ? Philo, the most emi-
nent historian of the first century, and contemporary
with Christ, gives an elaborate account of the state of
the Jews, and their afflictions under Augustus, Tibe-
rius, and Caius Caligula, — the very period embracing
the whole extent of Christ's life, but makes not the
slightest allusion to Christianity, either in contempt
or otherwise. This " great fact" is more remarkable
when we remember that Philo was sent by the Jews
as ambassador to Rome, only eight years after the
death of Christ. Nay, there is every reason to believe
if such a person as Christ was crucified, it must have
been at the very time Philo was at Jerusalem. The
silence of this great historian, living, as he did, at the
very time of Christ, and in the very place in which
his miracles are said to have been performed, together
with the taciturnity of other eminent writers, is con-
clusive proof that the pretensions of Christians to the
divine influence of their master, are perfectly gratui-
tous.

With respect to those writers who are said to have

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 65

mentioned Christ and his disciples, the first in order
is that of the famous Jewish historian, Josephus. —
This great man was born in the year 37, and died
during that of 93. The passage in which he is rep-
resented as alluding to Christ, will be found in his
" Jewish Antiquities.7' It is as follows: — "At that
time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a
man ; for he performed many wonderful works. He
was the teacher of such men as received the truth
with pleasure. He drew over to him many Jews and
Gentiles. This was the Christ. And when Pilate,
at the instigation of the chief men amongst us, had
condemned him to the cross, they, who before had
conceived an affection for him, did not cease to adhere
to him. For on the third day he appeared to them
alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these
and many wonderful things respecting him : and the
sect of the Christians, so-called from him, subsists to
this day." This passage, so strikingly in favor of the
Christian system, and so highly and so exultingly
prized by Christians, is beyond all question the most
impudent interpolation ever foisted into the writings
of any author. It is an absolute and unqualified for-
gery. It is supposed to have been introduced into the
writings of Josephus about the fourth century, as it is
not mentioned before that time. The man who was
the first to disseminate such an infamous imposition
was the Christian Father and historian Eusebius. —
This conduct is quite in consonance with the charac-
ter I gave of him in my last discourse. Tranquil
Faber, a distinguished Christian critic, was the first
to accuse that pious rogue of this forgery. The fol-
lowing quotation from the second book, chapter 12, of
Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, will give you an
idea of the singular integrity of this " Holy Father,"
and the deliberate, unblushing audacity with which
he refers to this passage, which he himself wrote, and
not Josephus : — u Now, when, as this historiographer,
(meaning Josephus) by blood an Hebrew born, hath
6*

66 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

of old delivered in writing these, and the like things
concerning John the Baptist, and our Saviour Christ,
what refuge or shift now have they, but that they be
condemned as impudent persons^ which of their own
brain have fained commentaries contrary to these al-
legations $." It is evident Eusehius practiced this
forgery, thinking that Josephus's great name might
have its influence in silencing the enemies of Christi-
anity. Well might he inquire " how far falsehood
might be used as a medicine ! " Dr. Lardner, admit-
ting the anxiety of the Christians to obtain the testi-
mony of this learned Jew, says, vol. 1, page 166, of
his Jewish and Heathen testimonies, — •" They (the
Fathers) were fond of having his testimony, whether
there was ground for it or not." Modest and honest
Christians, truly! We find that immediately after
the period of Eusebius, this notorious forgery was
adduced as a " glorious " proof of the divinity of
Christianity ! The fathers Jerome, Isedorus, Zozo-
men, and Calistus were remarkably ambitious of
holding it up as a silencer to all sceptics and unbeliev-
ers. No one could doubt the divinity of Christ after
it had been admitted by so great an historian as Jose-
phus ! I am happy to say, however, the more enlight-
ened of the clergy of modern times are ashamed of
the tricks of their pious predecessors, and silently
abandon the evidence of Josephus, Faber, as before
stated, repudiated it long ago, Bishop Warburton
disowns it with contempt. He shrewdly observes, as
quoted by Dr. Lardner, vol. 1, page 163,—-" If a Jew
owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace
it. We, therefore, certainly conclude, that the para-
graph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as
the religion of Moses could make him, is made to ac*
knowledge Jesus as the Christ, in as strong terms as
words could do it, is a rank forgery \ and a very stupid
one too" Le Clerc, Du Pin, Blondel, Vandale, and
Lardner, have also repudiated this passage ; and Gib-
bon, in his " Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,"

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE- . 67

denounces it as " no vulgar forgery." Dr. Lardner,
indeed, has entered into an elaborate and laborious
refutation of this reputed testimony of Josephus. His
reasoning is most masterly and unanswerah e, and
completely settles the question. I give you a brief
extract. In. vol. 1, chap. 4, and page 150, of his well
known and voluminous work, he remarks,— " This
passage is received by many learned men as genuine.
By others, it is rejected as an interpolation. It is
allowed on all hands that it is in all the copies of Jo-
sephus's works, now extant, both printed and manu-
script. Nevertheless, it may be, for several reasons,
called in question. They are such as these : — This
paragraph is not quoted nor referred to by any Chris-
tian writer before fiusebius, who flourished at the
beginning of the fourth century. If it had been orig-
inally in the works of Josephus, it would have been
highly proper to produce it in their disputes with Jews
and Gentiles. But it is never quoted by Justin Mar-
tyr, or Clement, of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian, or
Origen, men of great learning, and well acquainted
with the works of Josephus. It was certainly very
proper to urge it against the Jews. It might also have
been fitly alleged against the Gentiles. A testimony
so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who
lived so soon after our Saviour, who was so well ac-
quainted with the transactions of his own country,
whp had received so many favors from Vcspassian
and Titus, would not bo overlooked or neglected by
v,ny Christian apologist Tins passage was wanting
in the copies of Josephus which were seen by Photius
in the ninth century — I make a distinct article of this
writer because he read and revised the works of Jose-
phus as a critic. — He has, in his Bibliothcque, no less
than three articles concerning Josephus, but takes no
notice of this passage. Whence it may be concluded
that it was wanting in his copies, or that he did not
think it genuine. But the former is more likely. — •
This paragraph concerning Jesus interrupts the course

63 ' EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

of the narrative, and, therefore, is not genuine, but an
interpolation. In the preceding paragraph, Josephus
gives an account of an attempt of Pilate to bring
water from a distant place to Jerusalem, with the
sacred money, which occasioned a disturbance, in
which many of the Jews were killed, and many
others were wounded. The paragraph next follow-
ing this about which we are now speaking, begins
thus — ' And about the same time, another sad calam-
ity gave the Jews great uneasiness. That calamity
was no less than banishing the Jews from Rome, by
order of the Emperor Tiberius, occasioned, as he
says, by the misconduct of some Jews in that city/
This paragraph, therefore, was not originally in Jo-
sephus ; it does not come from him, but is an interpo-
lation inserted by somebody afterwards." Such is
the powerful and irrefutable reasoning of that learned
Christian, whose arguments to this day remain un-
in validated. Some Christian writers have maintained
that Josephus must have noticed Christ; but the
Jews had suppressed all such passages, which spoke
favorably of him. This, however, is an inadmissible
supposition, since it is well known that Josephus
published his works out of the reach of his country-
men, while residing at Rome, and living under the
special protection of the Roman Emperors. If he
did speak of Christ, we may reasonably suppose it
would be in contempt, as Josephus remained all his
life-time sincerely attached to the Jewish religion,
and shows himself, in the whole course of his work,
a zealous follower of the law of Moses. But there is
no passage in the earlier copies of Josephus, favora-
ble or unfavorable, in reference to Christ, as stated
by Bigen and other ancient Christian writers, who,
having attentively perused all the works of Josephus,
express their surprise at not having found the slight-
est mention made of Jesus Christ. If, then, the
testimony of Josephus is to be given up, the main
prop to Christian evidence is annihilated. The

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 69

Christian world have no authority in confirmation of
their pretensions during the first century — the very
time when authority is toanting.

This universal silence, therefore, at a time so pe-
culiarly and pre-eminently important, incontestably
proves that the Christian system has no more author-
ity to be divine, than the rest of the religions of the
world.

We now come to remark upon the next writer who
is alleged to have mentioned Christianity, viz., Pliny
the younger, a distinguished Roman Author and
proconsulate. The reference which this celebrated
character is stated to have made to this system, will
be found in his letter to Trajan, Emperor of Rome,
written during the year a. d. 110. It commences —

" Pliny, to the Emperor Trajan, wisheth health
and happiness : —

"Sir — It is my constant method to apply myself to
you for the resolution of all my doubts ; for who can
better govern my dilatory way, or instruct my igno-
rance 1 1 have never been present at the examina-
tion of Christians, (by others,) on which account I
am unacquainted with what usages to be inquired
into, and what and how far they used to be pun-
ished ; nor are my doubts small, whether there be not
a distinction to be made between the ages of the
accused, and whether tender youth ought to have the
same punishment with strong men ? whether there be
not room for pardon on repentance I or whether it
may not be an advantage to one that had been a
Christian, that he has forsaken Christianity? whether
the bare name without any crimes besides, or the
crime adhering to that name, be to be punished ?
In the meantime I have taken this course about
those who have been brought before me as Christ-
ians : I asked them whether they were Christians
or not. If they confessed that they were Christians,
I asked them again, and a third time, intermixing
threatnings with the questions; if they persevered in

70 EXTEUNAL EVIDENCE.

their confession, I ordered them to be executed, for I
did not doubt, let their confession be of any sort
whatsoever, this positiveness and inflexible obstinacy
deserved to be punished. There have been some of
this mad sect that I took notice of in particular as
Roman citizens, that they might be sent to that city.
After some time, as is usual on such examinations,
the crime spread itself, and many more cases came
before me. A libel was sent, though without an
author, containing many names (of persons accused.)
These denied that they were Christians now, or
ever had been. They called upon the Gods, and
supplicated to your image, which 1 caused to be
brought to me for that purpose, with frankincense
and wine; they also cursed Christ, none of which
things, as it is said, can any of those who are really
Christians be compelled to do ; so I thought fit to let
them go. Others of them that were named in the
libel, said they were Christians, but had ceased to be
some three years, some many more ; and one there
was that said he had not been so these twenty years.
All these worshipped your image, and the image of
our Gods; these also cursed Christ. However, they
assured me that the main of their fault, or of their
mistake, was this,— that they were wont, on a stated
day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing
a hymn to Christ, as to a God, alternately ; and to
oblige themselves by a sacrament, (or oath.) not to
do anything that was ill, that they would commit no
theft, or pilfering, or adultery ; that they would not
break their promises, or deny what was deposited
with them when it was required back again ; after
which it was their custom to depart, and to meet
again at a common but innocent meal, which yet
they had left off upon that edict which I published
at your command, and wherein I had forbidden any
such conventicles. These examinations made me
think it necessary to inquire by torments what the
truth was, which I did of two servant maids, which

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 71

were called deaconesses, but still I discovered no more
than that they icere addicted to a bad and an extrava-
gant superstition. Hereupon. I have put off any-
further examination and have recourse to you, for
the affair seems to be well worth consultation, es-
pecially on account of the number of those that are
in danger; for there are many of every age and
every rank, and of both sexes, which are now and
hereafter likely to be called to account, and to be in
danger : for this superstition is spread like a conta-
gion, not only into the cities and towns, but into
country villages also, which yet there is reason to
hope may be stopped and corrected. To be sure, the
temples, which are almost forsaken, begin already to
be frequented ; and the holy solemnities, which were
long intermitted, begin to be revived. The sacrifices
begin to sell well everywhere, of which very few
purchasers had of late appeared; whereby it is easy
to suppose how great a multitude of men may be
amended, if place for repentance be admitted."

I have given the whole of this letter, though
tediously long, in order that no parties may presume
I am anxious to suppress the real facts of the case.
The Christian champions are much elated when
adducing Pliny's evidence. They think it conclusive.
But what say the more enlightened? The German
literati have long been of opinion that this letter is a
forgery. They maintain it is found in one ancient
copy only, and not in the rest.

Dr. J. S. Sender, of Leipsic, one of the most learned
of the German professors, adduces nine arguments
against the authenticity of this letter. His celebrated
work appeared in 1788. It is entitled " Ncue Ver-
suche die Kircheuhist.or.ie der ersten Jahrunderte mehr
aufzuklaren." His arguments upon this subjept will
be found, vol. 1, page 119 to 246. Semler was strong-
ly supported by Corrodi, in his treatise entitled,
" Beytrage zur Beforderung des vernunftigen Den?
kens m der Religion.'1 The main argument the

72 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

Christians allege in favor of the authenticity of this
letter is, that it is cited by Tertullian and Eusebius,
and that Aldin considers the MS. containing it,
nearly as old as Pliny. Now Tertullian and Eusebi-
us were both guilty of pious frauds, especially the
latter, and, moreover, books at that time were not
printed, but written. Every copy was a new edition,
in which the transcriber might make what alterations
he thought fit, few people, comparatively, possessing
them. The age of Tertullian, or a little before it,
was notoriously the age of Christian forgery. Nor
was there any more difficulty in the interpolation of
this letter than in the interpolations in Josephus and
Longinus, which, till within this last century, have
been successfully palmed upon the Christian world,
xlt present, indeed, when the character of the fathers
of the church, and their propensity to lying and
forgery is universally known and acknowledged, no
clergyman of eminence will venture to defend these
passages. During the century intervening between
Pliny the younger and Tertullian — that is, between
113 and 216, a. d.? — there was time enough, and
opportunity enough, to propagate the forged copies of
Pliny, and we well know there existed the disposi-
tion, it being esteemed "a virtue to deceive and lie/7
The circumstances, then, which lead an enlightened
and unprejudiced inquirer to reject the boasted testi-
mony of this celebrated scholar, are — the undeniable
fact that the first Christians were the greatest forgers
that ever existed — that it was not the ignorant and
vulgar, but the best scholars who practiced these
forgeries — that religious persecution was inconsistent
with the just and philosophic character of the Roman
government — that so moral and amiable a people as
the primitive Christians are represented by their fol-
lowers, could not have been the first to provoke the
Roman government to depart from its universal max-
im of toleration and indifference, — that such persecu-
tion was nuite inconsistent with the humane and

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE, 73

dignified character of Pliny — that it is unreasonable
to suppose Christians were found in so remote a
province as Bithynia, ere they had acquired any
notoriety in Rome — the singular fact that the passage
in question was found in cne ancient copy only, and
not in the rest — the declaration of the German liter-
ati, the most learned men in the world, that this
epistle is not genuine — the unquestionable fact that
Tertullian and Eusebius, the authorities in favor of
its genuineness, Avere notoriously liars and impos-
tors! The following, however, is the main objection
to the genuineness of this letter. I hold it to be
conclusive. Pliny is made to say to Trajan, that the
Christians were accustomed to meet very early in the
morning, and ■" sing a hymn to Christ, as to God^
Now this would have been a custom of which no
Christian in Pliny's or Trajan's time, would have
been guilty. They would have regarded it with
horror, as blasphemy. The earliest Christians, were
Jeioish Christians — the Ebionites and JNazarenes. —
Their gospel, seen by Epiphanius and Jerome, as
they themselves relate, did not contain the two first
chapters of Matthew. The early Christians among
the Jews, did not believe that Jesus Christ was any-
thing more than a mere man. They rejected with
abhorrence his equality with God. The first Gentile
Gnostics, the Corinthians, Marcienites, &c., did not
advance the notion that Christ wras God, or equal
with God. Their gospel was the same as the Ebion-
ites in this respect. The many — the multitude, were,
during three centuries, in full persuasion of the modern
Unitarian doctrine, in this respect. The belief of the
Divinity of Christ, was not established till the coun-
cil of Nice, in 325.

About all this, 1 have no fear of contradiction from
any really learned ecclesiastic. 1 state these points
as settled since the great controversy between Priest-
ley and Horsely. No one, in the present day, will
venture hib reputation on a position so utterly untcri-
7

74 EXTERNAL EVIPENCE.

able as that the Christians of Pliny's time, ever
considered Christ as God, or ever spoke of him as on
an equality with God. The passage, therefore, in
question, representing the early Christians as wor-
shipping Christ as a GW,,is, oil the very face of it, a
post- Nicene forgery — that is, written after the Nicene
council — more than 200 years subsequent to the days
of Pliny. It must consequently be set down amongst
the other pious frauds of that period.

I now come to the third authority cited by Christ-
ians— Seutonius, a contemporary of Pliny. We will
allow the Christians to make the best of this writer,
for if the passage be genuine, it tells very strongly
against the divine character of Christianity. If the
early Christians really were such as he describes
them, it is quite evident they had no more right to
call their system inspired, than the followers of
Courtenay or Joe Smith. In his Life of Nero, Seuto-
nius thus speaks of them: — " The Christians — a race
of men of a ncio and v Marions — ivicked or magical
superstition, were visited with punishment. " May I
ask the Christians if they clccm this the true charac-
ter of their predecessors l If they do, I trust they
will not boast either of the "wisdom " or the " vir-
tue of their ancestors/' Seutonius has another pas-
sage in his Life of Claudius, which is quoted by
Christian evidence-manufacturers. Alluding to the
Emperor Claudius, he remarks, " he drove the Jews
from Rome, who were constantly rioting, Crestus
being theif leader." The priesthood strain this into
an allusion to Christ and the Christians. Orosius, a
Christian writer of the 5th century, who quotes this
passage, does not pretend, however, to know whether
it was the Christians or Jews who were thus ex-
pelled; and Dr. Lardncr says, that ': learned men are
not satisfied that this relates to the Christians."—
However, let the Christians of our time have the
" benefit of the doubt," and what a compliment to
their leader and their system ! ! ! Here is Christ, the

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 75

son of, and yet co-partner with, God5 kicked out of
Rome as the poor rioters of Staffordshire and Lan-
cashire were driven from their localities a short time
ago. Are we to believe that their founder was such
a riotous and disorderly personage ? It is not to be
wondered at, so many of his more ignorant followers
exhibited similar propensities. Had Christ appeared
in Britain in 1842, it is by no means improbable that
he would have been incarcerated with the oppressed
and .starving operatives of the north.

We must now hasten to remark upon the favorite
testimony of the Christian evidence-makers — the ele-
gant and classical historian Tacitus. Few writers of
ancient Rome have enjoyed more just celebrity than
this distinguished and accomplished author, and,
therefore, his evidence is highly esteemed by the
Christians. It is considered a triumphant answer to
all " unbelievers." Certainly, when you have dis-
posed of Josephus and Pliny, Tacitus is the only
great author whom Christians will venture to quote
as evidence. And what is his evidence 1 Listen. In
his "Annals," 15th book, chap. 44, after describing
the great fire at Rome, during the reign of Nero, he
observes, — u But neither all the human help, nor the
liberality of the Emperor, nor all the atonements pre-
sented to the gods, availed to abate the infamy he
Jay under of having ordered the city to be set on fire.
To suppress, therefore, this common rumor, Nero
procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite
punishments upon the people, who were held in abhor-
rence for their crimes, and were commonly known by
the name of Christians. They had their denomina-
tion from Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius,
was put to death as a criminal, by the Procurator
Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, though
checked for awhile, broke out again, and spread not
only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached
the city also, whither flow from all quarters all things
that are vilQ and shameful, and where they find

76 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

shelter and encouragement. At' first, they only were
apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect;
afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all
of which were condemned, not so much for their
crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to
mankind. Their execution was so contrived as to
expose them to derision and contempt. Some were
covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and
torn to pieces by dogs. Some were crucified ; others,
haying been daubed with combustible materials, were
set up as lights in the night time, and thus burned to
death. Nero made use of his own garden as a thea-
tre upon the occasion, and also exhibited the diver-
sions of the circus, sometimes standing in the crowd
as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer, at other
times, driving a chariot himself. Till, at length, these
men, though really criminal, and deserving exem-
plary punishment, began to be commiserated as peo-
ple who were destroyed, not out of regard to the
public welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one
man."

Such is the celebrated passage of which we have
heard so much — a passage which we are told furnish-
es a u beautiful confirmation of Christianity." I deny,
however, that it confirms the Christian system : on
the contrary, it does the very reverse. If we are to
believe Tacitus, so far from Christianity being " di-
vine," it is a " pernicious superstition;" so far from
its early teachers and disciples being inspired, u they
were held in abhorrence for their crimes;" so far from
the early Christians endeavoring to do good, they
were abhorred for their " enmity to mankind ;" and
so far from being unjustly punished, " they were really
criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment." If
this passage proves anything, it proves that for which
I am contending, and, therefore, cannot be taken as a
confirmation of the divinity of Christianity. There
are strong, exceedingly strong, reasons for believing
that this memorable passage, like that of Josephus, is

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE: 77

an interpolation. These reasons I shall now lay be-
fore you, and solicit your kind attention. The 1st is,
that this passage is not quoted by any of the Christian
Fathers. It is next to certain, if such a passage had
been in the early copies of Tacitus, that they would
have quoted it, and especially if it be such a "beauti-
ful" confirmation of Christianity, as they were ever
anxious to obtain all the evidence possible. So very
desirous were they for the testimony of Pagans, that
they had no objections to manufacture such evidence
when " convenient." The 2nd objection is, that it is
not quoted by Tertullian, though he read and largely
quoted the works of Tacitus, and his argument imme-
diately called for the use of this quotation with so
loud a voice, that his omission of it, if it had really
existed, amounts to an extraordinary improbability. —
This father has spoken of Tacitus, m a way that he
could not have done if his writings had contained such
a passage. The 3rd objection is, that it is not quoted
by Clement Alexandrinus, who set himself entirely to
the* work of adducing and bringing together all the
admissions and recognitions which Pagan authors had
made of the existence of Christ, or Christians before
his time. The 4th objection is, that it has been no-
where stumbled on by the laborious and all-seeking
Eusebius, who could by no possibility have missed it,
and whom it would have saved from the labor and
infamy of forging the passage of Josephus, of adduc-
ing the correspondence of Christ and Abgarus, and
the Sibyline verses, and innumerable others of his
pious and holy cheats. 5th, (and this is a most
important fact,) that there is no vestige or trace of its
existence anywhere in the roorld before the 15th cen-
tury, when it was published in a copy of the Annals
of Tacitus, in the year 1468, by one Johannes de
Spire, of Venice, who took his imprint of it, from a
single manuscript in his own power and possession,
and purporting to be written in the 8th century ; that
is, more than 700 years after the time of Tacitus!
7*

78 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

The 6th objection, then, is, that it rests entirely upon
the fidelity of this one individual, who would have
every opportunity and inducement to insert such an
interpolation, knowing the high character of Tacitus,
and how desirous the priesthood were to procure such
evidence. The 7th objection consists in the fact that
the style of the passage is not consistent with the
usually mild and classic language of Tacitus. The
8th and last, that Tacitus, in no other part of his
writings , makes any allusion to Christ and Chris-
tianity.

These objections to the testimony of Tacitus, I
hold, are unanswerable. I challenge the Christians
to meet them. If they cannot be refuted, the Christ-
ian world have no evidence to adduce worth naming.
Josephus and Pliny, we have proved to be forgeries ;
Seutonius, if genuine, tells against Christianity ; and
Tacitus, not only invalidates the divine character of
the Christian scheme, but in all probability — so
probable as to amount to a certainty — is as great a
forgery as the rest. While Philo— Me ivriter who,
above all others, ought to have noticed in detail,
favorably or unfavorably, the doings of Christ and
his dupes, he being a contemporary, resident in the
very seat of their movement, and having devoted
three of his five volumes to the history of the state
and sufferings of the Jews, at the very time Christ is
stated to have worked supernatural wonders, — makes
no mention of the matter at all !

We have, therefore, I submit, given a fatal blow to
the fabric of external evidence. In our next address,
it shall be razed to the ground.

LECTTJEE FIFTH.

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

Friends —

The discourse* I rise to deliver, is the fifth of
series upon the Bible. Few questions are more
important or more interesting, and yet upon no sub-
ject does there exist such irreconcilable antipathy to
examination. It is deemed impious, not laudable —
dangerous, not beneficial, to test the truth of the.
Scriptures. You are called upon to concede every-
thing— question nothing. la no case is the argument
"made easy,'* — "it is so, because it is so" more
legitimate. The Bible is the Word of God — because
it is the Word of God. This is the summary way
in which the dogmatic Christians wish to silence the
inquisitive sceptic. We are resolved, however, no
longer to tolerate such antiquated conceit, but to
examine with as much freedom and indifference the
pretensions of the Bible as we would any other book.
Nay, more; fox its pretensions are greater, and, there-
fore, the investigation should be more searching.

In our last address, we entered upon that portion
of our inquiry denominated External Evidence. We
proved, at the outset, that such evidence, if true, is
utterly incompetent to decide the question at issue,
for if it could be shown, (as we shall show in subse-
quent Lectures,) that the internal evidence is false,
the external is of no avail. In corroboration of that
view, we cited the authority of Dr. Con vers Middle-

80 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

ton, Dr. Yescimus Knox, and the Rev. John Wesley.
We then proceeded to demonstrate that the external
evidence, which the Christians did adduce, was by-
no means conclusive. On the contrary, much of that
evidence was completely spurious, some so question-
able as to be utterly inadmissible, and others told
against, rather than in favor of the Christian scheme.
The testimony of Josephus we proved, in the caustic
language of Bishop Warburton, was "a rank forgery,
and a very stupid one, too." Pliny, the same. ^The
evidence of Seutonius, we remarked, distinctly im-
pugned the divine origin of Christianity. So did
Tacitus, though there were insurmountable objections
to the genuineness of his evidence.

We now proceed to meet the next testimony ad-
duced by Christians — Pontius Pilate. For many
centuries, the testimony of Pilate was held in high
repute among the most learned Christians, being es-
teemed so conclusive, that it placed all doubt beyond
the range of possibility. It was first quoted by Justin
Martyr, in the second century, nearly one hundred
years after the death of Christ. It was afterwards
adduced by Tertullian, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Chry-
sostom, and others, — all " Holy Fathers," and, there-
fore, "all honorable men." Eusebius, of all the
manufacturers of "pious frauds," the most extensive
and successful, seems perfectly enraptured with the
testimony of Pilate, esteeming it the grand strong-
hold of Christian evidence. Certainly, if the testimony
of Pilate could have been relied on, it might have
had some weight, as he, above all others, having sat
in judgment on the case, ought to be familiar with
the real facts of the matter. Unfortunately, however,
for the Christian world, the testimony of Pilate,- — the
most direct and valuable that could have been of-
fered, takes its place among the category of " pious
frauds."

The supposed testimony of this memorable charac-
ter; is contained in some letters— (Fabricus, in his

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 81

Coclex Apocryphus, says five) — which it is stated
Pilate, in his official capacity of Governor, addressed
to Tiberius, Emperor of Rome. In those epistles,
Pilate is represented as speaking very favorably of
the Divinity of Christ, his miracles, and his resurrec-
tion. The language in which these communications
are expressed, and the statements therein affirmed,
are so hyperbolical and absurd, and entirely unsup-
ported by any other writer or historian of the time,
that it is quite manifest they are the mere composi-
tions of those fanatical and unprincipled priests who
deemed it " a virtue to deceive and lie." Permit me
to supply you with an extract or two from these rare
productions. Who, I ask, who was not too pious to
think — too religious to examine for himself, would
believe that a Roman Governor, who despised the
Christians, would write a passage like the following? —
" There was,'7 says he, alluding to the crucifixion,
u darkness over the whole earth, the sun in the mid-
dle of the day being darkened, and the stars appear-
ing, among whose lights the moon appeared not, but
as if turned to blood, it left off shining." He proceeds
to say, referring to the resurrection, '•' early in the
morning of the first of the Sabbath, the resurrection of
Christ was announced by a display of the most asto-
nishing feats of Divine omnipotence ever performed ;
at the third hour of the night, the sun broke forth with
such splendor as was never before seen, and the
heavens became enlightened seven times more than
any other day." As a climax to this rhapsody, he is
represented as exclaiming that "an instantaneous
chasm took place, and the earth opened and swallowed
up all the unbelieving Jews, their temples and their
synagogues : all vanished away, and the next morning
there was not so much as one of them left in all Jeru-
salem, and the Roman soldiers went stark staring
mad." Such an extraordinary and unparalleled con-
vulsion is only mentioned in these contemptible epis-
tles. No historian, great or small, who lived at the

82 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

time, makes the least reference to it. Josephus, who
flourished at this period, and who, as a Jeta, took pe-
culiar interest in the welfare of his countrymen, is per-
fectly silent upon the subject, which would have been
next to impossible if such events really transpired.
The elder Pliny, who, about the year 75, wrote the
u History of his own time," in thirty-one books, and
was the most celebrated historian of that period, is
quite silent upon this wonderful occurrence, which had
it really happened, could not have escaped his obser-
vation. The younger Seneca, too, a voluminous wri-
ter, who was then about thirty-nine years of age, and
must have been at Rome at the time, makes no men-
tion of this wonderful phenomenon. Gibbon ex-
presses the greatest contempt and indignation at these
statements, and denounces them as alike false and
preposterous. It is clear, therefore, that those epistles
of Pilate, so highly prized by that distinguished
forgery manufacturer, Eusebius, is nothing but a
" cunningly devised fable" of the Holy Fathers, de-
signed for the purpose of deluding those whom they
thought were too ignorant tordiscover their impostures.
I am happy to say that the more enlightened Christian
evidence-makers, are now ashamed of the audacious
impositions of their " Holy" predecessors, and as far
as decency will permit, discard them. Some of the
most eminent Ecclesiastical historians of modern times,
Du Pin, of Prance, and Lardner, of England, have
already repudiated these memorable epistles. Du Pin
says, in the 2nd vol., c. 7, of his elaborate work on
the " Scripture Canon," — " We have in the Orthodox-
ographa next to the epistle of Lentulus, a letter at-
tributed to Pilate, as written to Tiebrius, which con-
tains the same things ; but it is difficidt to determi?ie
whether this letter was extant in Eusebius' ]s time, or
whether it was not forged from his narration. Let
this be how it will, there are several learned men who
question the genuineness of this history, which has
very little probability at the bottom of it. For how is

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

&

it likely that Pilate should write such things to Tibe-
rius of a man, whom he himself had condemned to
death ? and though he might have done so, yet is it
probable that Tiberius should have proposed to the
Senate, the placing of such a man among the number
of the Gods, upon the bare relation of a governor ?
And if he had proposed any such thing, who can im-
agine that the Senate would have submitted to it ?
Wherefore, though we cannot absolutely charge this
narration with falsehood, yet it may, at least, pass for
a doubtful piece." Yes, very doubtful^ Dr. Du Pin !
But his brother Christian and historian, Dr. Lardner,
does much more than doubt; he declares that "the
acts of Pontius Pilate and his letter to Tiberius, which
we now have, are not genuine, but manifestly spuri-r
ous /" (Vol. 1, c. 2, p. 316, Jewish and Heathen Testi-
monies.) So much then, for this " glorious" evidence
in favor of Christianity.

Now for another piece of evidence equally "glori-
ous I" It is that of Publius Lentulus, Roman Govern-
or— the predecessor of Pilate, as procurator of Judea.
The testimony of this individual, was, at one time,
the peculiar favorite of the orthodox Christians.
Living, as he did, during the early career of Christ,
and officiating as governor of the very locality in which
his movements are said to have occurred, his evidence,
of course, was deemed pre-eminently important. It
will be found in the History of Christ, as originally
written by Zavier. It is in the form of a letter, ad-
dressed as follows : " Lentulus, Prefect of Jerusalem,
to the Senate and people of Rome, greeting." 'i he
letter proceeds to furnish us with a most glowing de-
scription of the person of Christ, which, if correct,
would lead us to believe that he was really a hand-
some fellow. The letter commences; "At this time
there hath appeared, and still lives, a man endowed
with great powers, whose name is Jesus Christ. Men
say that he js a mighty prophet — his disciples call him
the Son of God. He restores the dead to life, and

84 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

heals the sick from all sorts of ailments and diseases.
He is a man of stature, proportionally tall, and his
cast of countenance has a certain severity in it, so full
of effect, as to induce beholders to love, and still yet to
fear him. His hair is of the color of wine, as far as
to the botto?n of his ears, without radiation and
straight, and from the lower part of his ears it is
curled down to his shoulders, and bright, and hangs
downwards from his shoulders, [how precise !] At the
top of his head it is parted after the fashion of the
Nazarenes : his forehead is smooth and clear, and his
face without a pimple, adorned with a certain tem-
perate redness, his countenance gentlemanlike and
agreeable, his nose and month nothing amiss, his beard
thick, and divided into two bunches, of the same color
as his hair, his eyes blue and uncommonly bright. In
reproving and rebuking, he is formidable ; in teaching
and exhorting, of a bland and agreeable tongue. He
has a wonderful grace of person, united with serious-
ness. No one hath ever seen him smile; but weeping,
indeed they have. He hath a lengthened stature of
body, his hands are straight and turned up, his arms
are delectable. In speaking, deliberate and slow, and
sparing of his conversation — the Qnost beautiftd of
countenance among the sons of men ^

Who after this will not be enamored of Christiani-
ty ? I am sure it must be a matter of unspeakable
lamentation that some of the leading Christian evi-
dence-manufacturers of our day, are growing dissatis-
fied with this flattering testimony of Lentulus, and
endeavor, very ungraciously, to throw it overboard.
The French ecclesiastical historian, Dti Pin, regard-
less of the admiration of his forefathers, disposes of
this celebrated letter in the following slashing and
unceremonious style: — " There is no need of showing
the falsity of a letter attributed to Lentulus, written
to the Senate and people of Rome, concerning the ac-
tions of Jesus Christ, since the forgery of it is self-
evident." In what an off-hand manner these reverend

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 85

historians speak of the forgeries of their pious Christian
forefathers ! It appears to be nothing to commit a
forgery — and especially a pious one — designed for the
purpose of promoting religion. Well might Mosheim
say that the holy Fathers deemed such individuals
"deserving rather of commendation than censure."
But Du Pin continues, " They make Lentulus to write
in the character of governor of Jerusalem, though he
never had that employ. It is directed to the Senate
and people of Rome, whereas after the Commonwealth
was changed into a monarchy, the Governors usually
wrote to the Emperors. That which is contained in
that letter is ridiculous : therein is a mean and con-
temptible description of the person of Jesus Christ,
[not very contemptible, I presume] therein it is said
that our Saviour had light colored hair, long and loose
after the mode of the Nazarenes. The style wherein
it is written does not suit with the purity and polite-
ness of Augustus's time ; in a word, not one of the
ancie?its hath made mention of that letter." (Vol. 2,
c. 7, sec. 3, Complete History of the Canon, &c.)—
Then I presume, Dr. Du Pin, it must go with the rest
of the " pious frauds ! " This really beautiful descrip-
tion of the " Saviour of the world," which so bewitch-
ed our progenitors, must really sink into oblivion. —
What a pity ! O! cruel Dr. Du Pin !

We will now briefly remark upon the testimony of
the Roman historian, Phlegon. I need say but little
respecting his evidence, as the more learned Christians
now acknowledge it to be a stupid forgery. But even
if true, it is of little moment, the following brief pas-
sage being all that is said upon the subject : — " In the
fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad,
there was an eclipse of the sun, greater than any ever
known before, and it was night at the sixth hour of
the day, so that even the stars appeared, and there
was a great earthquake in Bithynia that overthrew
several houses in Nice." Gibbon has sarcastically
observed — " The celebrated passage in Phlegon. is
8

88 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

now toisely abandoned/' Yery wisely, indeed ! and I
doubt not the Christian priesthood will find it equally
"wise'; to abandon the rest.

I now come to consider the testimony of the cele-
brated opponent of Christianity , Celsus. He flour-
ished towards the middle of the second century. He
was one of the most distinguished philosophers of his
day, and combatted the pretensions of the early Chris-
tians with consummate ability. He wrote a very
elaborate work, entitled, "The True Word," as an
expose of Christianity, which was answered by the
Christian Father Origen. We are informed by Chris-
tian evidence-manufacturers that in this work Celsus
argues as if all the events recorded in the Scriptures
had really transpired, but denies that they were
brought about through divine interposition. He be-
lieved they were produced by magic, as the tricks of
the Egyptian priesthood, from whom, he affirms,
Christ learned the secret art of imposture. Origen
tells us that Celsus admitted Christ to have lived
only a few years before, — was born of a virgin,— that
angels appeared to Joseph, — that the Holy Ghost de-
scended on Jesus like a dove when he was baptized
by John, and that a voice appeared declaring him to
be the Son of God. Now 1 ask upon what authority
are we to believe that Celsus admits that such things
were mentioned in his time] Have we the works of
Celsus to consult % Confessedly not. We have only
those portions which Origen, his antagonist, thought
fit to furnish. The works of Celsus were destroyed
by the Christians, publicly burnt, a fact which will
ever remain an indelible stigma upon the early pro-
pounders of Christianity. The testimony, therefore,
of Celsus rests solely upon the ipse dixit of Origen. —
And who is he 7 An honest man? one upon whom
we can place reliance? one who would not feel in-
terested in falsifying the writings of Celsus ? who
would not give us an ex-parte statement, but just the
bare facts and no more? By no means. On the con-

EXTERNAL EViDEl\UE. 0,

trary, he was one of those men who u deemed it a
virtue to deceive and lie.7; And. moreover, he was
the acknowledged adversary of Celsus ; which fact
alone would induce him to take every unfair advan-
tage, and to represent his opponent's meaning as
would best suit his purpose.

Allow me, my friends, to remind you of the real
character of Origen, as given in my third, discourse,
when developing the conduct of the early Christian
Fathers. Bishop Ilorsely, in his celebrated reply to
Priestley, says that Origen " was not incapable of as-
serting in argument tohat he believed not, and that a
strict regard to truth in disputation teas not one of the
virtues of his character" and that " the time was,
when the practice of using unjustifiable means to
serve a good cause was openly avowed, and Origen
himself was amongst its defenders." ] spurn, then,
with scorn and contempt the authority of such a man.
I denounce him as an impostor — though he was a
Christian ; a rogue — though he was a saint.

Further. Looking at the subject apart from the
dishonesty of Origen, the testimony of Celsus, accord-
ing to all legitimate ratiocination, is altogether inad-
missible. It is based upon what logicians term a
petltio principii — a begging of the question — proving
a position by that which is denied. In this case it is
establishing Christian statements, by Christian state-
ments— a 'modus operandi which cannot be tolerated
in an examination like the present.

It may not be uninteresting to lay before you a few
of the objections which Origen says Celsus alleged
against the Christian system. Apostrophising Christ,
Origen represents Celsus as asking — " What need was
there for carrying thee, while an infant, into Egypt,
that thou mightest not be slain, for it did not become
Cod to be afraid 7 And now an angel comes from
heaven to direct you and your relations to flee into
Egypt, lest you should be taken up and put to death,
as if the great God who had already sent two angels

88 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

upon your account, could not have preserved you, his
oion son, in safety at home ! " Alluding to the flight
of Christ from his pursuers, he says, " Christ was
caught basely lurking and flymg, being betrayed by
those whom he called his disciples." Speaking of his
crucifixion, he observes, "If not before, why did he
not nozv, at least, exert his divinity, and deliver him-
self from this ignominy, and treat those as they de-
served, who behaved ignommiously both towards
himself and his father 1 " He further remarks, " You
say that when you was washed by John, there light-
ed upon you the appearance of a bird. What credit-
able witness has said that he saw this, or heard the
voice from heaven declare you to be the Son of God,
except yourself ? " Again he observes, "Well, then,
let us grant that all these things were done b}r you ;
similar impostures were done by the Egyptians, and
because they do such things, must we therefore esteem
them to be God's sons ? or must we not rather say
that they were the artifices of wicked and miserable
men ? Celsus also objected that " no wise and learned
men were admitted to the mysteries of their religion :
let: no man come that is learned, wise, or prudent, (for
these things they accounted evil and unlawful.) but if
any be unlearned — an infant or an idiot, let him ap-
pear and welcome ; thus openly declaring that none
but fools, or such as are devoid of sense and reason,
slaves, silly women, and little children, are fit disci-
ples for the God they worship. We may see these
trifling and mountebank impostors bragging great
things to the vulgar, not in the presence and company
of wise men, (for that they dare not,) but wherever
they espy a flock of boys, slaves, and weak silly peo-
ple, there they crowd in and boast themselves."

Celsus, says Origen, further observes, and, I must
say, it appears much like the truth — " The mother of
Jesus being great with child, was put away by the
carpenter who had espoused her, he having convict-
ed her of adultery with a soldier named Pantharas.

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 89

Then, having been put out of doors by her husband,
she wandered about in a shameful manner, till she
brought forth Jesus, in an obscure place ; and that he,
being in want, served in Egypt for a livelihood, and
having there learned some charms, such as the Egyp-
tians are fond of, he returned home, and then, valu-
ing himself upon those charms, he set himself up for
a god."

I could give you more of Celsus's objections, which
display no little ability and acumen, but my time will
not permit; and, moreover, it would be somewhat
irrelevant to the immediate question in debate. I
hasten to expose the alleged testimony of another ce-
lebrated opponent of Christianity — Porphyry, who
flourished about a century after Celsus. He was a
philosopher of the Platonic school, and a man of ex-
traordinary talent, learning, and virtue. He was em-
inent in all the departments of knowledge— literary,
historical, and philosophical. As a writer his style
was singularly elegant, dignified, and chaste — a very
pleasing contrast to that of his pious adversaries. So
renowned was he for his probity and morality, that
he was surnamed " The Virtuous " — an appellation
which few of the Christian fathers could justly claim.

Dr. Lardner, a Christian, says of Porphyry, the
Infidel, Vol. 3, page 124, of his Jewish and Heathen
Testimonies, and this is one of thje mosjt glorious in-
stances of disinterested humanity on record — "Por-
phyry, as Eunapius assures us, had a wife named
Marcella, a widow, with five children, to whom he
ascribed one of his books, in which he says he mar-
ried her not for the sake of having children by her
himself, but that he might educate the children which
she had by a former husband, who was his friend.
Which showed, (says the Dr.) a virtuous and gener-
ous disposition. Nor, indeed, (continues the Dr.) do
we meet with any reflection made upon his conduct.
Cyrill, of Alexandria, in his answer to Julian, makes
honorable mention of Marcella, as a woman of a phi-
8*

90 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

losophical turn of mind, and for that reason esteemed
by Porphyry." Such was the great opponent of Chris-
tianity. How different to the Bible-heroes and Bible-
defenders ! Let me not hear again that impudent as-
sumption of the priesthood — that no Infidel can be a
good man.

About the year 250, Porphyry published a very vo-
luminous work, (30 vols.) in refutation and exposure
of the Christian system. It produced, as might be
presumed from the high character and attainments of
the writer, a strong sensation, so much so, that the
poor holy fathers were quite frightened from their
propriety. Answer it they could not. What. theny
must they do ? O ! the priesthood were not long in
devising a scheme which should refute the writings of
Porphyry most effectively. Having, by this time, in-
gratiated themselves into the good graces of the Em-
peror Theodosius, whom they were in the habit of
addressing in the fulsome language of "Theodosius
the great !"— " Theodosius the wise!'7 — Theodosius
the impartial I" &c., they prevailed upon that fanati-
cal despot to issue a decree against the writings of
this enlightened and good man ; and, wrhile they were
doing, they deemed it advisable to complete the busi-
ness, by including the writings of every individual who
had had, the "audacity" and "impiety" to oppose
Christianity. The works of Porphyry, and all other
heretics, were thus publicly burnt in the market-place.
The following is an extract from the decree, as given
by Dr. Lardner, Vol. 3, page 111: — "We decree,
therefore, that all writings whatever, which Porphy-
ry, or any one else, hath written against the Christian
religion, in the possession of whomsoever they shall
be found, shall be committed to the fire ! for we would
not suffer any of these things so much as to come to
men's ears, which tend to provoke God to wrath, and
to offend the minds of the pious.71 O ! kind and
generous Christians ! To cap the climax, the same
decree proceeds to enforce a belief in that silly doc-

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 9i

trine, the Trinity, and declares that if any person will
not believe it, "that besides the condemnation of
divine justice, they must expect to suffer the severe
penalties which our authorities, guided by heavenly
wisdom, may think proper to inflict upon them." O !
those were glorious days for the priesthood ! What a
pity we cannot have a " revival !" How lamentable
that the writings of an Owen, a Volney, a Voltaire, a
Paine, a Gibbon, and a Hume, should be allowed "to
come to men's ears, provoke God to wrath, and offend
the minds of the pious !" Why are they not burnt
publicly in our market-places? Would it not be a
" glorious" sight to behold your Carlton Hill, or Ar-
thur's Seat, blazing with the writings of these great
and good men? But, alas! those days are gone by.
A new era has dawned upon us. Thanks to the glo-
rious advancement of mind and civilization. Thanks
to the progress of knowledge as diffused by our Me-
chanic's Institutions, our Lyceums, our Halls of Sci-
ence. Thanks to the mighty power of the printing
press. O ! it arose, and priestcraft trembled. The
rusty chains of mental bondage fell from their hands,
and the bright spirit of free inquiry flew from their iron
grasp, arousing the intellect of the world from its de-
basing slumbers ! Dr. Jortin, in his Ecclesiastical
History, openly charges the fathers with the common
practice of perverting, defacing, and destroying the
works of their adversaries, and even those of each
other.

To show the tact displayed by Porphyry, in his
opposition to the Christian fathers, I will give you a
few specimens of his style. "If," says he, "Christ
be the way of salvation, the truth, and the life, and
they only who believe in him can be saved, what he-
come of the men who lived before his coming I " A
rather awkward question, and it is not to be wondered
at that the priesthood found it easier to burn it, than
to ansioer it. " Some," says Porphyry, alluding to
the Christian fathers, more especially Origen, "deter-

92 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

mined not to see the depravity of the Jewish scriptures,
but to find out a solution of objections that may be
brought against them, have adopted forced interpreta-
tions, inconsistent in themselves, and unsuitable to
those writings, and such as should not only be a vin-
dication of these absurdities, but afford likewise a
recommendation of their own particular opinions." — ■
He says, " Origen, who was a Greek, and educated
in Greek sentiments, learned from the Grecians the
allegorical method of explaining the Greek mysteries,
which he cunningly applied to Jewish Scriptures."
The 12th book of Porphyry's, was written against
the book of Daniel, which he states was not written
by him whose name it bears, but by another who
lived in Judea in the time of Antiochus, surnamed
Epiphanius, and that the book of Daniel does not
foretell things to come, but relates what- had already
happened ! A curious way of prophecy 'ing, certainly !
Porphyry again observes, "The Christians find fault
with sacred rights and sacrifices, and incense, and
other things in which the worship of temples consists.
And yet they allow that this kind of worship began
in ancient times by the appointment of God, who is
also represented as wanting first fruits." He refers
to Genesis, c. 4, v. 3, as proof. " Christ," says he,
" threatens everlasting punishment to those who do
not believe in him, and yet in another place he says,
' W ith what measure you meet, it shall be meeted to
you again/ which is absurd and contradictory."

1 will now remark upon what is called the evidence
of Porphyry in favor of Christianity. The " Holy
Fathers," having so admirably disposed of the genuine
writings of that powerful author, thought it would be
a capital hit if they were to get up a work in Porphy-
ry's name, containing something favorable to Chris-
tianity. The idea was no sooner suggested than
realized. To manufacture a "pious fraud" was a
"virtue," and, therefore, during the days of that re-
spectable forgery-maker, Eusebius, a work appeared,

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 93

entitled the " Philosophy of Oracles," purporting to
be written by Porphyry. This work contained many
expressions highly complimentary to Christians, a few
of which were the following : — " What we are going
to say, may perhaps appear to some a paradox, for
the Gods (meaning the heathen Gods) declared Christ
to be a person most pious, and became immortal —
moreover they speak of him honorably." Again the
Oracle says, "He (Christ) was, therefore, a pious per-
son, and went to heaven, as pious persons doy for
which cause you ought not to speak evil of him." —
These passages were seized upon by the Christian
Fathers with the most exquisite exultation, and adduc-
ed as a triumphant evidence in favor of their system.
Eusebius, as usual, was in exstacies upon the subject,
and refers to the passage in the following terms: " We
will not insist upon the testimony of friends, which
might be of little value, [certainly not, if they were
like him,] but those of strangers, not of our body. And
of all the Greek historians and philosophers that ever
were, none can be more fitly alleged than the very
friend of demons, (Porphyry,) who in our time has
gained so much reputation by the falsehoods he has
published against us. In the work which he has writ
of the philosophy, from Oracles, he has made a col-
lection of the Oracles of Apollo and the other Gods,
and good demons." Fabricus, Dr. Gregory Sharpe,
Dr. Chapman, and Dr. Macknight, triumphantly refer
as evidence to this unblushing forgery. This " Phil-
osophy of Oracles," however, like the rest of the
" pious frauds," cannot stand the scrutiny of honest
criticism, The Christian historian, Da Pin, is ashamed
of it, though he endeavored to palliate the conduct of
Eusebius. But Dr. Lardner is the Christian who ef-
fectually disposes of this infamous fraud. In his
" Jewish and Heathen Testimonies," he discusses the
subject at great length, and in page 219 and 220, con-
cludes his arguments as follows: — "The conclusion
to be made from the whole is, that it is not a work

94 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

of Porphyry's, a heathen philosopher, and an enemy
to Christianity, but a Christian, and a Patron of
Christianity ! ! ! " " It is the ^artifice or forgery of
some Christian, designed and contrived, to save the
interests of Christianity in general, and possibly like-
wise of some particular notion of the author itself.'7
Alluding to the priest who forged it, the Dr. observes,
page 221, " having formed a design to exhibit a cor-
rect testimony in behalf of Christianity, in the name
of some learned Heathen, and to bring into it oracular
answers of Heathen deities, he supposed that no fitter
name could be taken than that of Porphyry, who was
in great repute for learning, and who had published
the bitterest invectives against Jews and Christianity,
and the strongest arguments that have ever been al-
leged against the Scriptures, and he hoped by this
work, to overthrow Porphyry's long work against the
Christians, which had done so much mischief."

Such, my friends, is the history of this audacious
piece of imposture so often boasted as a triumphant
admission of the divinity of the Christian scheme. —
It is quite equal to the rest of the pious forgeries which
I have exhibited in my last three addresses.

We have now reviewed, at length, the external evi-
dence usually adduced by Christians in confirmation
of their system. I observed, at the close of my last
discourse, that the facts 1 had then submitted, gave a
fatal shock to the fabric of Christian evidences, and
that, on this occasion, I should endeavor to raze it to
the ground. 1 ask, respectfully, is it not fairly demol-
ished 1 Where is the person who will attempt to prop
it up 2 What is the whole of this evidence but a mass
of perversion and fraud ? Were it necessary I could
tell you of other forgeries, of the forgery of the cor-
respondence between King Abgarus and Christ — the
forgery of the Sibyline verses — the forgery of the
works of Hystaspes and Trismigistus — the forgery of
the correspondence between Paul and Seneca, &c,
&c. But I forbear, as the Christian priesthood them-

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 95

selves are now ashamed of them. My friends, was
such evidence adduced in favor of the divinity of any
other book, it would excite unspeakable disgust and
derision in the mind of every enlightened and philo-
sophic inquirer. I make not these statements to irri-
tate my Christian opponents, but to induce them to
open their eyes to the scene of delusion and imposture
in which they haye been so long confined. Let them
look beyond the boundaries of their narrow prejudices,
and contemplate the illimitable field of inquiry. Let
them look for truth, not merely within the little con-
fines of their own dark creeds, and inexplicable dog-
mas, but " wherever it can be found," for as Moore
exclaims —

u When from the lips of truth, one mighty breath,
Shall, like a whirlwind, scatter in its breeze,
The whole dark pile of human mockeries ;
Then shall the reign of mind commence on earth,
And starting fresh as from a second birth,
Man, in the sunshine of the world's new spring,
Shall walk transparent like some holy thing. ;7

For the information of the reader, I should wish to
state that the best works to consult in discussing the
External Evidence of Christianity, are the following:
The Bibliotheca of Fabricus, the small work of Bishop
Casius on the Canon, in quarto, the translation of
Lewis Ellis Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History, the Ec-
clesiastical History of Tillemont, the work of Basnage
on the. Jews, the Ecclesiastical Histories of Mosheim
and Jortin, and the Dissertations of the former, but
especially, the learned works of those really able
divines, the Rev. Jeremiah Jones, — "New and full
method of settling the canonical authority of the New
Testament," printed at the Clarendon press, Oxford,
1798, in three vols, octavo; and the great work of
Dr. Nathaniel Lardner, on the credibility of the Gos-
pel History, &c, in eleven vols, octavo, 1798. The
works of Dr. Priestley, in his controversy with Hors-
ley, may also be consulted with advantage.

LECTURE SIXTH.

k

THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES.

Friends —

We purpose this evening to discuss the genuineness
of the Scriptures. This will necessarily lead us to
consider, more particularly, the internal evidence ad-
duced by Christians in support of their " inspired 7?
text-book. This is unquestionably the most important
portion ©f the discussion, for, as I formerly observed,
if the internal evidence be false, all the external is of
no avail. If we can prove from the book itself that it
cannot be of divine origin, the dispute is fairly set at
rest.

We affirm, then, in the first place, that the principal
books of the Old and New Testament were not writ-
ten by those whose names they bare, and, consequently,
on the very face of the subject, do ice find imposture !
We will consider the genuineness of the books seri-
atim, as given in the Bible, beginning with the books
of Moses, viz., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy. These constitute the principal
division of the Jewish Scriptures, and merit, there-
fore, especial consideration.

My first objection to their genuineness is, that there
is no affirmative evidence that Moses wrote them, that
is, he himself does not declare he is the author of
them. It is the Jewish priesthood, and not Moses,
who affixed his name to those precious compositions.
There is not the least particle of direct evidence to
9

98 THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES.

prove that he is the writer of them. I challenge both
Jews and Christians to adduce it. If he were the au-
thor of these books, why not plainly and honestly statt?
the facts? But Moses has not done so. On the con-
trary, the whole of them are written in the style of a
neutral writer — a third person. They are written as
if some historian was narrating events long gone by.

It is always, when his name is mentioned, "And
the Lord said unto Moses," and " Moses said unto the
Lord," or, "the people said unto Moses," or, "Moses
said unto the people" — the style invariably adopted
by neutral writers.

Supposing that any one of you, giving yourself
some name, say Jackson, was writing your own life,
and recording an interview with an individual, would
you not express it as, " I said unto him," or " he said
unto me," and not as " Jackson said unto Johnson,"
and "Johnson said unto Jackson?" Such is the
natural language under such circumstances, and any
other would be absurd.

There is no further reason for believing that Moses
is the author of the Pentateuch, than that his name
occurs very frequently — that he is the hero of the tale
— a reason that will apply to any memoir. Just as
well, upon that ground, might you affirm that John-
son wrote Boswell's life, Byron that of Moore's, or
Napoleon that of Scott's.

To say that Moses might write in that style, is only
to beg the question — to rest the argument upon a
doubt. We have just as much right to suppose that
he might not. Both prove the same thing — nothing.
If Moses were the author of these books, what are we
to think of the following queer passage '! —

In Numb. chap. xii. ver. 3, it states, "Now, the
man Moses, was very meek above all the men that
were on the face of the earth."

Think, my friends, of a meek man declaring to the
world that there is no person upon earth as meek as
himself! The idea is paradoxically preposterous.

THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES. 99

If Moses did write that passage, it proves he was the
very opposite character to what he there assumes ;
and hence, in writing, such an expression must have
been violating the convictions of his own mind.
; I have often heard phrenologists speak of the organs
of benevolence, wonder, veneration, &c, being dis-
eased, but if Moses was the author of such language,
I should say his organ of modesty was deranged.

In Deuteronomy, the style strikingly proves the im-
possibility of Moses being the writer. The manner is
essentially dramatic. The writer opens the subject
with an introductory discourse, and then introduces
Moses as in the act of speaking; and when he has
made Moses finish his harangue, he resumes his own
part, and speaks till he brings Moses forward again,
and at last closes the scene with an account of the
death and burial of Moses.

This interchange of speakers occurs no less than
four times in this book : from ver. 1 of chap. i. to the
end of ver. 5, it is the writer who speaks ; he then in-
troduces Moses as in the act of delivering his oration,
and this continues to the end of ver. 40, of chap. iv.
Here the writer drops Moses, and speaks historically
of what was done in consequence of what Moses,
when living, is supposed to have said, and which the
writer has dramatically rehearsed.

This style continues to the end of chap, xxxiii.,
when the writer, having now finished the rehearsal
on the part of Moses, comes forward and speaks
through the whole of the last chapter. He begins by
telling the reader that Moses went up to the top of
Pisgah, &c, and died in the land of Moab, and that
the Lord buried him in a valley, and that no man
knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day, that is, unto
the time at which the writer lived who wrote the
book of Deuteronomy. It is as clear as language can
possibly be, that Moses is not the writer of these
books.

Who, that is in his right reason, would believe that

100 THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES,

Moses composed the following lines: " So Moses, the
servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab,
according to the word of the Lord. And he buried
him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against
Beth-Peer, but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto
this day? " Are we to believe that Moses wrote an
account of his own death and burial? and that, too,
as is evident from the last line, many years subse-
quent to his dissolution ? The man who would swal-
low such an absurdity, must indeed possess a most
capacious appetite for the wonderful.

Paine quaintly remarks, when alluding to the con-
cluding portion of the verses just quoted, which states,
" That no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this
day " — " To make Moses the speaker, would be an
improvement on the play of a child that hides him-
self, and cries, nobody can find me — nobody can find
Moses. "

I proceed to propound other objections to the po-
sition that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch.
I hold that these books were written centuries after
his time. The concluding sentence of the verses just
read is my first proof: —

"No man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this da}?-."

What does this mean? Does it not imply the lapse
of a long interval between the day of Moses's death
and the period when this passage was written?

My next argument is based upon Genesis, chap,
xxxvi. ver. 31 : —

"And these are the kings that reigned in Edom
before there reigned any king over the children of
Israel.''

It is evident this passage could not have been writ-
ten until after the first king began to reign over Israel,
nay, until several had reigned; for the term uany"
as here used, refers to a 'plurality. The father of
modern Infidelity explains this argument with admi-
rable force and clearness : —

" Now, were any dateless writings to be found, in

THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES. 101

which, speaking of any past events, the writer should
say, these things happened before there was any Con-
gress in America, or before there was any Convention
in France ; it would be evidence that such writings
could not have been written before, and could only
have been written after there was a Congress in Ame-
rica, or a Convention in France, as the case might be ;
and, consequently, that it could not be written by any
person who died before there was a Congress in the
one country or a Convention in the other."

This case is precisely parallel to the passage in
question ; and it must be palpable, to any person
of ordinary comprehension, that the words therein
contained, could not have been composed until, at the
very earliest, the days of Saul, the first king of Israel,
that is, 357 years after the death of Moses — the former
event occurring, according to the Biblical Chronology,
1095 b. c, and the latter 1452 b. c. To affirm, there-
fore, that Moses was the author of a book, referring to
events which did not happen until nearly four centu-
ries after he was snugly reposing in the " valley of
Moab," is to affirm something more than an absurdity.

Again — In Genesis, chap. xiv. ver. 14, we are told
that Abram pursued his enemies unto Dan. Now
there was no place named Dan until after the death
of Samson — that is, more than 300 years subsequent
to the days of Moses. Moses, therefore, could not
have written this passage. The place called Dan in
the Bible, was originally a town of the Gentiles, called
Laish ; and when the tribe of Dan seized upon this
town, they changed its name to Dan, in commemora-
tion of Dan, who was the father of that tribe. In
proof of this statement, I will refer you to Judges,
chap, xviii. verses 27, 28, and 29 : —

" And they took the things which Micah had made,
and the priest which he had, and came unto Laish,
unto a people that were quiet and secure ; and they
smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt
the city with fire. And there was no deliverer, be-

102 THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES.

cause it was far from Zidon, and they had no busi-
ness with any man ; and it was in the valley that
lieth by Beth-rehob. And they built a city and dwelt
therein. And they called the name of the city, Dan,
after the name of Dan their father, who was born
unto Israel : howbeit, the name of the city was Laish
at the first.7' This account of the Danites taking pos-
session of Laish, and changing it to Dan, is placed in
the book of Judges immediatehj after the death of
Samson. The death of Samson occurred 1120, b. c,
and that of Moses 1452, b. c., and, therefore, accord-
ing to historical arrangement, the place was not called
Dan until 332 pears after the decease of Moses. It is
manifest, then, that he could have nothing to do with
the authorship. Again — Could Moses have written
the 8th verse of the 38th chap, of Exodus, which
speaks of u looking-glasses" when glass was only
invented by Benedict, an English monk, in the seventh
century — (the year 674) more than 2000 years after
Moses was dead 7

It is clear, my friends, that no historian is worthy
of credit, whose history contains gross anachronisms
—allusions to facts of subsequent date, or to customs
of subsequent date, or who employs words, expres-
sions; and phrases, not conformable with the time of
which he speaks. Such anachronisms furnish irrefu-
table objections to the genuineness of any ancient
book, and the Pentateuch abounds in such discrepan-
cies. Suppose a play published as Shakspear.e's, con-
tained allusions to the Battle of Waterloo, is not that
enough to destroy all claim to genuineness? Would
it not prove that Shakspeare did not write it? I could
refer you to other anachronisms as gross as any I have
just pointed out. Dr. Francis has noticed several. —
uIn the book of the Old Testament/' says he, "we
find abundant proofs that they have been written in
an age greatly posterior to that of Moses. In Genesis,
chap. xii. v. 6, we find these words — 'And the Ca-
naanite was then in the land,' which we learn from

THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES. 103

the Bible, did not happen till after David, and could
not, therefore, be written by Moses. The beginning
of Deuteronomy is certainly not written by him, for
he never passed the Jordan. He died upon Mount
Nebor, to the eastward of it. In Deut. chap, xxxiii,
we find this expression — ■ There never was, in Judea,
so great a prophet as Moses ; ' and such could be point-
ed out in many places. There needs no comment to
show that such passages could only be written in a
posterior age, and when there had been several proph-
ets after Moses."

What, however, may be considered as more conclu-
sive than all the rest, that the Pentateuch could not
have been written by Moses, comprising, as it does, a
large volume, is, that there were only two modes of
writing known to Moses : one by cutting the words
in stone, and the other by tracing them on soft mortar
or plaster, which last method he expressly recom-
mends to the Jews, Deut. chap, xxvii. verses 4 and 8.
Perhaps the tables of stone used on the mount were
also plastered, for Moses wrote thereon the command-
ments in one morning. To have written all the di-
dactic part of the Pentateuch, either in one way or
the other, would have been next to impossible ; and,
when written, what building could contain this heap
of stones ■, or how were they to be transported? Why,
it would have required as much stone to write out the
five long books of the Pentateuch as would have built
the finest street in Europe. When, therefore, the au-
thor of this collection, makes Moses ivrite the law in a
book, he conforms himself to the language and ideas
of his own day, not of the days of Moses. The au-
thor, therefore, wrote or compiled it when books were
in common use. There is no evidence of the papyrus
being used for writing in the time of Moses, nor for a
long time after. A writer in Walsh's American Re-
view, states that the Egyptian papyrus was not in
common use till the time of the Ptolemies, and that
Herodotus was the first historian who could have

104 THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES.

made use of it. I scarcely need state that no long
word, such as the Pentateuch, could have been writ-
ten till the invention of that material, about one thou-
sand years after Moses ! You will remember in my
first Lecture, I informed you that the first time the
Ci law of Moses" was ever mentioned, was by the
priest Hilkiah, 800 years after Moses, who says he
found it. Found it ! indeed ! Why. if Moses wrote
it, it must have been upon stone or plaster, and how
in the name of common sense could such a prodigious
mass. of materials have been lost, and that for 800
years 'I It is a farce to talk of an elaborate history
written on such materials — none but a Bible-reader
could swallow such nonsense. . With respect to the
book of Genesis in particular, it is quite evident it
must have been written by two different historians,
at least, and therefore could not be the work of Moses,
even supposing all our former objections were invalid.
I principally refer to the first four chapters, detailing
the creation. There are two different stories of this
event, so opposite to each other, in style and fact, that
no individual excepting a lunatic, without memory,
could write them. The first story begins with chap,
i. and ends at chap. ii. v. 3. The second begins chap,
ii. v. 4, and ends with that chapter. Dr. Eichorn is
of opinion that these books must have been composed
by different writers. One story speaks of God, the
other of Lord God — one concludes, chap. i. v. 27,
with telling us 'man and woman were created, the
other begins, with telling us they were not, (chap. ii.
v. 5.) One says man and woman were created to-
gether, vchap. i. v. 27,) the other that the woman was
made sometime after the man, (chap. ii. v. 18.) Ac-
cording to the first story there was no name given to
the first man and woman. According to the second
they have names given them — one says they were to
have dominion over the whole earth — the other that
their dominion was limited, to a garden. One narra-
tive gives six days of creation — the other (chap. ii.

THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES. 105

v. 4,) relates the story as if there were only one day.
The first account makes no mention of any particular
countries, while the second appears to have been writ-
ten many years later, after countries and places had
acquired names, as the writer mentions Havilah,
Ethiopia, Assyria, the Euphrates, the land of Nod,
and other places.

My friends, it is a curious fact, if Moses was the
author of the Pentateuch, or if these books had been
in existence at all, at so early a period as alleged, that
not the slightest mention should be made of them in
any of the subsequent books of the Old Testament,
until the return of the Jews from the Babylonish cap-
tivity. From Joshua to the second book of Kings,
(which was written after the captivity, as it gives an
account of that event,) there is not the most remote
allusion to any writings answering the Pentateuch,
and even the name of Moses rarely occurs ! From
all these considerations, therefore, we are warranted
in affirming that the Pentateuch could not have been
written until after the Babylonish captivity, at least
— that is, nearly one thousand years subsequent to
Moses. It is higlhy probable Ezra was the real au-
thor of these books, and he lived only four hundred
years before Christ. The Talmudists, and the Jewish
writers generally ascribe the Pentateuch to Ezra. In
Nehemiah, we are told, as mentioned on a former oc-
casion, that he was " inspired to re- write " the Jewish
Scriptures, as they had been absolutely lost during the
captivity. It was then, the Pentateuch was manufac-
tured, and, therefore, we must esteem them as com-
paratively modern. Of this we are certain — no writer
can be cited as referring to them, until the collection
made by the Ptolemies for the Alexandrian school,
and of these, the Greek version, resting on no autho-
rity, is the only one. This occurred only 300 years
before Christ. 1 defy the priesthood to overturn this
fact. The opinions I have thus given upon these wri-
tings, is strongly confirmed by the fact, that many of

106 THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES.

the mysteries and dogmas recorded therein, are exact
fac-similes of the mysteries of the Babylonians. The
creation in six days, is a perfect copy of the Gahans
of Zoroaster, the founder of the Babylonish philoso-
phy, and what is still more singular, the particulars
of each day's work, are also precisely similar, in every
respect. The story of the serpent and the fall, was
long famous among that people. The mythological
deluge of Oxyges is just the same as Noah 's flood ', and
the story of Adam and Eve in Paradise, is a mere
copy of Zoroaster's first pair. The Talmud expressly
declares that the Jews borrowed the names of the
angels, and even their months, from the Babylonians.

The book of Genesis, has evidently been taken from
that people, which could not have been done until
after the captivity. Moses, therefore, could not have
written that book.

It is a vulgar belief among Christians, that Genesis
is the oldest book in the world. A more egregious
mistake, however, could not be entertained. Sancho-
niatho, the Phoenician historian, and the Hindoo and
Chinese annals, are of much higher antiquity than
Moses. The astronomical records of the Chinese,
prove that there were men and astronomers in that
country at the very time, the stupid Jews would per-
suade us, all the inhabitants of the world, except Noah
and his family, were drowned by the deluge ! Souceit
mentions an eclipse of the sun, recorded in the Chi-
nese history, which happened 2155 years before
Christ, which is but 256 years after the deluge, at a
time when the Bible informs us the earth was only in-
habited by the progeny of Noah ! while Egypt, at the
very time, was then so peopled, that many cities could
not contain the inhabitants, and China was not less
populous.

The Hindoo astronomical observations, as far as
they have been examined by the most learned astro-
nomers of the age, Bailhe, Le Gen til, and others,
carry their antiquity between four and five thousand

THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES. 107

j

years beyond our era, as may be seen in a paper writ-
ten by the late Professor Playfair, of Edinburgh, and
recorded in the second volume of the Philosophical
Transactions.

In leaving this subject, I shall adduce the authority
of some of the most distinguished Jewish and Chris-
tian writers, in corroboration of the position I have
been maintaining.

Eben Ezra, a celebrated Jewish author of the
twelfth century, wrote a work to prove that Moses
could not be the author of the book of Genesis, or of
any of the five books attributed to him; and the fa-
mous Jewish philosopher, Spinoza, who flourished in
the sixteenth century, after quoting the opinions of
Eben Ezra, shows that the Bible did not exist as a
book until the time of the Maccabees, which was more
than one hundred years after the return of the Jews
from the Babylonian captivity. The distinguished
Christian father> St. Jerome, confesses that he " dares "
not affirm that Moses was the author of the Penta-
teuch, and admits that Ezra wrote those books. Sir
Isaac Newton and Lord Barrington affirm that it was
neither Moses nor Ezra who wrote them, but Samuel.
Dr. Geddes, declares that it was none of the three, but
Solomon, who composed them. The Rev. W. Fox,
in his sermons published in 1819, remarks " that the
early part of Genesis is a compilation of ancient docu-
ments, and not the writing of Moses, has been the
opinion of some of the most able divines and sincere
believers." A writer in the " Penny Cyclopaedia,"
article Hebrew, expresses a similar opinion. " The
language in which the Pentateuch is written," says
he, " differs so little from that of David, Solomon, and
Isaiah, who lived many centuries after the time of
Moses, that many critics, supposing it impossible that
a language should have remained stationary for so
many centuries, have maintained that none of the
books of the Old Testament were written previous
to the time of David and Solomon. It is not very
easy to disprove this position." So say I.

108 THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES.

The distinguished Christian Professor, Dupin, posi-
tively asserts, that " we are not certainly assured of
the true authors of most of the books of the Old Tes-
tament.7' Le Clerc, also, as quoted by Dupin, inti-
mates that the Pentateuch was a great deal more
modern than Moses, and it may be conjectured to
have been composed by some Jewish Priests, sent
from Babylon to instruct the new inhabitants of
Palestine.

i must now hasten to review the remaining books
of the Scriptures. Having devoted so much of our
time to the Pentateuch, we shall, necessarily, be some-
what brief with the rest

Joshua — The objections urged against the books of
Moses, will apply, in a great degree, to Joshua. It i
written in the same neutral style. The historian, and
not Joshua, speaks. The death and burial of Joshua
is recorded, though we are to believe he himself wrote
it ! In chap, xxiv., 29th and 30th verses, it states,
" And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua,
the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died, being
one hundred and ten years old ; and they buried him
in the border of his inheritance, in Timnath-serah,
which is Mount Ephraim, on the north side of the hill
of Gaash."

The Christian priesthood declare, that Joshua is
the author of a book containing this passage. How
matchless is the impudence and stupidity of these
men ! In the following verse, (the 31st,) we read,
" And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua,
and all the da3^s of the elders that overlived Joshua. "
In the name of reason could it be Joshua who here re-
lates what people had done ages alter he was in
heaven ?

In the 27th ver. of the 6th chap., there occurs a
passage which shows, if Joshua wrote it, that his
modesty was in the same condition as that of his pre-
decessor, Moses. It is given in the following classic
language: "So the Lord was with Joshua, and his

THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCBIPTURES. 109

fame was. noised throughout all the country." There
are many passages in Joshua which prove that that
book could not have been written until many centu-
ries after the time alleged by the Christian world. One
of these is the following. Time will not admit of my
giving more. It states, in the 15th chap, of Joshua,
ver. 63, that " the Jebusites dwell with the children
of Judah at Jerusalem, unto this day.75 Now the Is-
raelites did not dwell in Jerusalem, until after the time
of David. Jerusalem did not come into the hands of
the Jews, until subdued by David, as mentioned in
the 2d Book of Samuel, chap, v., ver. 4; and in the
Chronicles. This passage, therefore, could not be
written until subsequent to the reign of David, that
is, 370 years after the death of Joshua. When we
take into account the expression, "(into this day,"
the book could not be composed until long after even
David's time, as those words imply a considerable in-
terval between the period of writing, and the event
referred to.

We now come to Judges. We need say little of
this book. It must take the fate of Joshua, being, in
all probability, from the identity of the style, and
other circumstances, the work of the same pen. In
the 1st chap., ver. 85 there is a similar reference to Je-
rusalem, as in Joshua, "Now the children of Judah,
had fought against Jerusalem, and taken it." This
clearly evinces that the book could not have been writ-
ten until after David's time, and my remarks upon
this point, will be as valid in relation to Judges as
Joshua.

I pass, therefore, to Samuel^ not deeming the silly
and indecent story of Ruth, worthy of notice. The
books of Samuel are evidently not written by him,
unless he was as clever as Moses and Joshua ; for in
the 1st Book, chap, xxv., ver. 1, there is an elaborate
account of his death and funeral 1 This event trans-
pired, according to the Bible chronology, in the year
1060 b. c. ; yet the history of the very book; in which
10

110 THE CtENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES.

his death is recorded, is brought down to the year
1056, to the death of Saul, which occurred four years
after that of Samuel. The 2nd Book begins with the
reign of David, who succeeded Saul, and continues
the history until David's decrepitude, which did not
occur until 43 years after the decease of Samuel.
These books, therefore, are, in themselves, conclusive
evidence that they were not written by that proud
and brutal priest.

As to Kings and Chronicles — the four following
books — they are acknowledged to be anonymous. I
need not, therefore, notice them, only to remark, that
they must have been composed after the Babylonish
captivity, as the 2nd Book of Kings gives an account
of that event. This proves them to be comparatively
modern.

Ezra — This book may be genuine. Ezra probably
wrote it at the time he forged other books of the Old
Testament, under the peculiarly priestly presumption,
that he was " inspired" to "re-write" them.

Nehemiah- — The next book, could not be written by
that holy personage ; for in chap, xii., ver. 22, Jaddua,
the priest, and Darius, the Persian king, are men-
tioned, who did not live until 100 years after Nehe-
miah was in his grave. Some one wrote this book
who lived at least a century after Nehemiah's time.

Esther — The following book, is confessedly anony-
mous.

The remaining books of the Old Testament are not
so much historical, as a compound of proverbs, songs,
and prophecies.

Of the latter, I shall speak at length when I discuss
the question of prophecy ; of the former, I may soon
dispose.

Job is evidently not a Jewish composition ; it has
no affinity with any other book in the Bible ; it stands
" alone in its glory." This was the opinion of some
of the most learned Jews. Eben Ezra and Spinoza
have declared there is no evidence to prove that it is

THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES. Ill

a Jewish book. They maintain that it has been trans-
lated from another language into Hebrew ; that the
genius of the composition, and the drama of the piece
is not Hebrew, and that some Gentile must be the au-
thor. Nevertheless, this is the only decent book in the
Old Testament, with the exception of the Proverbs,
of which I shall speak presently. St. Gregory, in the
Preface to his Commentary on the Book of Job, after
stating that its author is unknoivn, observes, "'Tis
needless to inquire who composed the book of Job,
since none of the faithful question that the Holy
Ghost was the author of it." Now, if the authorship
of Job is unknown, how could the u faithful " know
that the Holy Ghost wrote it ? If it be a fact that
this strange writer was the " inspired" penman, the
author is known — Holy Ghost ! ! Where did he
live? Where did he come from? But we are grow-
ing " blasphemus." We must proceed with our sub-
ject.

The book of Proverbs is ascribed to Solomon.
There is every reason, however, to induce 'the belief
that those proverbs are nothing but a collection of
sayings, taken from other nations, besides the Jewish,
and Solomon's name added to give them authority. —
This opinion is confirmed by the 1st verse of the 25th
chapter, which asserts that, " these are also proverbs
of Solomon, which the men gf Hezekiah, king of Ju-
dah, copied out." Now, Hezekiah did not live until
250 years after Solomon. How then could they cer-
tainly know, at that distance of time, with no press
to transmit them, that they were Solomon's ? What
authority do they give for their genuineness ? Abso-
lutely none.

Psalms — These pious songs, in point of order,
should have been noticed after Job. The mass of
Bible-reading Christians ascribe them to David.—
Hence, the general title in the Prayer Books, &c.,
':The Psalms of David." I wonder if David wrote
the 137th Psalm, which refers to an event which did

112 THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES

not happen until 400 years after he was defunct ! I
mean the Babylonish captivity. " By the rivers of
Babylo?i we sat down, yea, we wept when we remem-
bered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows,
in the midst thereof, for there they who carried us
away captive, required of us a song, saying, Sing us
one of the songs of Zion." The more learned men
admit that David composed only about a third of the
Psalms. Some are ascribed to Moses and other godly
penmen, no less than fifty being anonymous. It is
an error or imposition, therefore, to speak of them as
" the Psalms of David."

We will now briefly notice the books of the New
Testament. First, of the Gospels. To disprove their
genuineness, I must remind you, in the first place, of
the important fact, as explained in my Second Dis-
course, that the fast time these books were mentioned
was in the year 182, some learned men say 192. —
There is no conclusive or satisfactory evidence they
were in existence before that date. Not one of the
apostolic fathers allude to them, which they certainly
would have done, had they been current. They refer
to other gospels, but not in the most remote degree, do
they allude to either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

If, therefore, these gospels were not extant earlier
than the days of Ireneus, (182) it is morally impossi-
ble for them to have beeu composed by the four apos-
tles just named, Ireneus not living until nearly a
century after their time. The Christian father, Fauste,
in his controversy with Augustine, about the year
400, distinctly affirms, that the gospels are not genu-
hie. He observes, " The books called the evangelists
have been composed long after the times of the apos-
tles, by some obscure men, who, fearing that the world
would not give credit to their relation of matters, of
which they could not be informed, have published them
under the name of the apostles ; and which are so full
of sottishness and discordant relations that there is
neither agreement nor connexion between them." He

THE OENtttNENESS OF TKE SCEIPTURES. 113

further remarks, " It is thus that your predecessors
have inserted in the Scriptures of our Lord many
things, which, though they carry his name, agree not
with his doctrine. This is not surprising, since that
we have often proved these things have not been writ-
ten by himself, nor by his apostles, but, that for the
greatest part, they are founded upon tales, upon vague
reports, and put together, but I know not what, half
Jews, with but little agreement between them, and
which they have, nevertheless, published under the
name of the apostles of our Lord, and have thus at-
tributed to them their own errors and lies ! " Very
polite, certainly, for a Christian Bishop ! Those who
wish to verify these important extracts may refer to
Boulangef's Life of Paul, who states that he has taken
them from the writings of Augustine against Fauste.
Boulanger also makes another astounding statement
in the 2nd chapter of his work. "The Manicheans,
who formed a very numerous sect at the commence-
ment of Christianity, rejected as false all the books
of the New Testament, and showed other writings
quite different, which they gave as authentic.'7

M. Simon, the learned French theologian, in his
" Critical History of the text of the New Testament/'
assures us, that, " We have no solid proof in antiqui-
ty to make it appear to us, that the names set at the
head of every gospel were thereunto prefixed by those
who are the authors of them."

Du Pin, the Christian historian, expresses a similar
opinion, and asserts, confidently, that we have only
the testimony of the Fathers for the genuineness of
the gospels.

Those who heard my Third Address will know
what weight to give to their testimony. M. Simon,
himself, from whom I have just quoted, alluding to
the Fathers at this time, says, "We ought not too ea-
sily to give credit to the first originals of churches,
(the Fathers) every one strives to advance their anti-
quity as much as possible, aud they make no scruple
10*

114 THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES.'

on such occasions, to counterfeit acts, when they
have none that are true" To rest, therefore, your be-
lief in the genuineness of the gospel, upon the veracity
of such men, is truly preposterous.

Let me, however, give you internal proof that the
gospels are not genuine, which is worth., a volume of
external evidence. Matthew, chap, xviii., ver. 17,
says, " If he neglect to hear the church, let him be
unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." Now
there was no church in the time of Jesus or Matthew.
• Church is a Greek word. The assembly of the peo-
ple of Athens, styled itself ecclesia. This expression
was only adopted by the Christians, in process of
time, when they had obtained a kind of government.
A book containing such a passage, could not have
been written by Matthew.

Acts and the Epistles — Many of these writings
have been repudiated as not genuine, by some one or
other of the Christian sects. Eusebius, in his third
book, informs us, that the epistles " which are gain-
said, though well known to many, are, the Epistle of
James, the Epistle of Jude, the latter of Peter, and
the Second and Third of John." He also mentions
that the Acts of Paul, and several others, were re-
jected as spurious. Dr. Du Pin affirms that the Epis-
tle to the Hebrews, "has no certain name as the real
author." Boulanger, in his " Life of Paul," states,
that the Marcionists, and other early Christian sects,
rejected the Acts as forged, and that the sect called
the Sevenians, adopted neither the Acts nor the Epis-
tles of Paul. Chrysostom, in a homily which he
made upon the Acts of the Apostles, says, that in his
time, about the year 400, many people knew nothing
either of the author or the book. The Ehronites, in-
deed, who were the first Christians, rejected all the
Epistles of Paul, and regarded him as an impostor —
—a very sensible opinion.

Revelations — The last book in the Bible, if we are
to accredit many learned. Christians, is like the rest

THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES. 115

— a pious fraud. One of these learned Christians is
no less a person than Dionysius, Bishop of Alexan-
dria, who flourished in the third century. His testi-
mony has been repeatedly cited by modern Christians ;
amongst whom is the Christian professor, Du Pin.
The bishop broadly affirms that " Divers of our prede-
cessors have wholly refused and rejected this book,
and by discussing the several chapters thereof, have
found it obscure, and void of reasons, and the title
forged! ! ! Again, they said it was not John's, nay,
it was no revelation at all; which was covered with
so gross a veil of ignorance, and that there was none,
either of the apostles, or of the saints, or of them
which belonged to the church, the author of this book,
but Corinthus, the author of the Corinthian heresy,
instituting this as a figment in the name of John, for
further credit and authority.7' We have internal evi-
dence that this book could not have been written by
John ; for the writer refers to the church of Laodicea,
and its sloth and corruptions, consequent upon its
great riches and power. Now, this church was not
established until the middle of the second century,
nearly 100 years after the time of John. A very
clever man John must have been truly, to have men-
tioned events which did not happen until upwards of
a century after he had gone to " another and a better
world ! "

We have tested the genuineness of the respective
books of the Old and New Testament, and in relation
to the last — Revelations — the grand finale of the Bible,
we are actually told by a Christian bishop, not only
that it was not written by John, but is merely the
composition of a heretic.

O ! how long will the people support such im-
posture 1 Will they never outgrow the credulity of
their ignorant and superstitious ancestors ? Will they
never aspire to mental manhood ? Yes — rapidly are
the masses disencumbering themselves from their in-
tellectual trammels. The shackles of priestcraft al-

THE GENUINENESS OF THE SCRIPTURES. 116

ready sit loosely around them. A few short years of
dauntless and unremitting effort on the part of the
friends of mental liberty, and the dismal temple of su-
perstition and delusion will totter and fall, and on its
ruins will be seen the glorious edifice of reason and
enlightenment. The day will then really have ar-
rived, when, as Shelley observes, " falsehood's trade
will be as hateful and unprofitablej as that of truth is
now."

LECTURE SEVENTH.

PROPHECY.

Friends—

I shall address you this evening on the subject of
Prophecy. In the estimation of many Christians, this
is, indubitably, the most important, interesting, and
triumphant evidence in favor of the divinity of the
Bible. Others, however, and they include some of the
most learned, consider that considerable doubt and
difficulty surround the question. Among the latter
class, are divines of no less renown than Bishop Wat-
son, Belsham, and Bishop Sherlock.

Watson admits, that "no subject requires greater
intellectual energy than the elucidation of prophecy.
It is a boisterous sea of controversy -." — [Life of Wat-
son, vol. hi., p. 385.

Belsham observes, in his Evidences, pages 76 and
112, "I find it difficult to satisfy myself, that I fully
comprehend the true meaning and extent of the pro-
phetic language. To understand it satisfactorily, it
must be proved — First, that the Jews were favored
with a revelation from God; Secondly, That their
sacred books contain a series of prophecies, which re-
ceived their proper accomplishment in the person and
character of Jesus of Nazareth ; and to the validity of
this argument, there must be — First, sufficient evi-
dence that the prophecy was delivered prior to the
event. Secondly, That the event was beyond the

118 PROPHECY.

reach of human sagacity to foresee or calculate ; and,
Thirdly, the clear and palpable fulfilment of the pro-
phecy in the event."

In subsequent observations, I shall show, that the
Scripture prophecies do not conform to the rules of the
learned gentleman, and therefore, according to his ar-
gument, cannot be received.

Bishop Sherlock declares, in his Discourse, page 31,
" that many of the latter prophecies are still dark and
obscure, and so far from evidently belonging to Christ,
and Christ only, that it requires much learning and
sagacity to show, even now, the connection between
some prophecies and the events."

These few extracts, from Christians of no mean
celebrity, clearly evince the great difficulty the, priest-
hood experience in attempting to establish the divinity
of their Scriptures upon prophecy.

Hence we find that some of the most laborious and
voluminous writings ever published, have been upon
this vague and speculative topic. Dr. Keith has
waded through an immense mass of useless learning
and idle display, in order to prove the fulfilment of the
prophecies. The Rev. Mr. Ketts, too, though he pro-
fesses to have compressed his arguments, fills a
volume of 816 pages, with a Dissertation upon the
subject; and Bishop Newton has presented the world
with a production of 1200 pages on the same question,
and yet informs his readers that he has studied
brevity !

I probably may be considered ungrateful, after the
exercise of such patience and research, by so many
learned men, when I say that I deem such works a
complete waste of time and paper — a mass of religious
rubbish.

Were the whole of the arguments they adduce, in
these ponderous volumes, irrefragably demonstrated,
I still maintain they have done nothing to decide the
question at issue. Were we to concede all that these
learned gentlemen require — were we to allow that

PROPHECY. 119

every one of the prophecies from Genesis to the Reve-
lations were fulfilled to the very letter, I nevertheless
aver they have done absolutely nothing to decide that
the Bible is the word of God. This may be deemed
a somewhat bold and unwarrantable assumption on
my part, but I reiterate it.

My reasons for making an assertion so unqualified,
are, first, because I hold that prophecy does not neces-
sarily imply divine inspiration. Prophecies may be
made, and may be fulfilled without divine interposi-
tion. See the prophecies of the oracles of Greece, par-
ticularly those of Diana and Delphos, the prophecies
of Lactantius, St. Cesaire, Virgil, Seneca, Dr. John-
son, Napoleon, Lord Chesterfield, and the Cornish
prophecies, recorded by Polewell, in his history of
Cornwall, and Sir John Davis, in his Discoveries,
page 77, the former being in relation to the destruc-
tion of Paul's Church, Penzance, and New Lynn, long
before they were in existence ; and the latter, relative
to the subversion of Ireland. Secondly, prophecies
are not peculiar to the Christian religion. They may
be found in the " sacred " writings of other religions,
and are as well attested as the Bible prophecies. The
celebrated Hindoo prophecy, mentioned by Col. Wilkes,
in his Hindoo sketches, a prophecy singularly fulfilled
in the person of Sevajee, the conqueror and deliverer
of that people, is a case in point. Therefore, if pro-
phecy necessarily implies divine inspiration, these
books are inspired ; and hence there must be a multi-
plicity of " divine revelations" — "words of God" —
an idea at once incongruous and absurd. The argu-
ment of prophecy leads to a reductio ad absnrdum,
and therefore cannot be considered conclusive.

What is a Prophecy ? Dr. Johnson says that it is
sl prediction," and to predict is to "foretell" Now, 1
affirm that the power of foretelling or prognostication
is in the possession of every human being, according
to the capacity of his intellect, and the extent of his
knowledge and experience. There is scarcely a day

i20 PROPHECY.

passes but every individual prophecies more or less.
I will appeal to your every day experience, whether
you have not repeatedly affirmed that such and such
circumstances will take place, and whether in some
instances, at least, you have not found yourself cor-
rect ?

So far as your prediction was verified, so far, ac-
cording to the logic ot the orthodox, were you inspired.
Prophecy, therefore, under such circumstances, be-
comes an ordinary rather than extraordinary event —
a human rather than a super-huma?z attainment ; and,
consequently, not one by which you can legitimately
determine the divinity of Scripture.

But I may be told that the " pious" mean only
those predictions which extend to hundreds of years,
and not to mere local and passing events. Granting
this, it still does not improve their position, for precise-
ly the same arguments will bear against this view of
the subject as the other. I can cite cases, if it be ne-
cessary, where prophecies have been made by men
who had no pretensions at all to divine inspiration,
which have evidently related to events which hap-
pened centuries subsequent to the time of prediction,
and which did happen. See the case of St. Cesaire,
Bishop of Aries, page 542, given in a book, entitled,
Liber Mirabilis, which has been verified at the King's
Library, at Paris, where there is an original. His
prophecy is in relation to the French Revolution, and
is quite as remarkable as any in the Bible. It is as.
follows : — " The administration of France shall, at a
future and distant period, be so blinded that they shall
leave it without defenders ; the hand of God shall ex-
tend itself over them, and likewise over all the rich ;
all the nobles shall be deprived of their estates and
dignities — division shall spring up in the church of
God, and there shall be two husbands, the one true
and the other adulterous — the former shall be put to
flight. There shall be a great carnage, and as great
an effusion of blood as in the time of the Gentiles. —

PROPHECY. 121

The universal church, and the whole ivorld shall de-
plore the ruin of a celebrated city, the capital and the
mistress of France. The altars of the temple shall
be destroyed ; the holy virgins razed out, shall fly
from their convents, and the church shall be stripped
of her temporal goods ; but, at length, the black eagle
and the lion shall appear, arriving from other coun-
tries. Then, misery be to thee, oppressed city of
opulence ! Thou shalt, at first, rejoice, but thy end
shall come. Misery be to thee, O city of philosophy !
Thou shalt be subjected — a captive king, humbled
even to the dust, shall, at last, recover his crown, and
shall destroy the city of impiety. ?; Such is the extra-
ordinary prophecy of St. Cesaire. Those acquainted
with the history of the French Revolution, will per-
ceive its applicability to that memorable event. The
editor of the work, from which this prophecy is taken,
shows its application to that catastrophe, in the fol-
lowing lucid manner: " The vassal, who looked not
on the noble as his natural protector and guardian,
but as an oppressor, arose against him, the soldier
against the officer, the officer against the general, and
the servant against, his master. Chaos was again re-
stored, the holy altars were overturned, the convents
defiled and pillaged, nobles reduced to the rank of
private citizens, to save even life itself. The hum-
blest of citizens and menials arose to power and des-
potism— so dreadfully was this prophecy fidfilled. At
length, even the black eagle, the ensign of the north-
ern power, and the lion, that of Britain, gained pos-
session of Paris, the self-dignified city of philosophy,
stripped her of her ill-gotten spoil, and, as a punish-
ment of her abuse of power over other States, caused
again to reign over her a king, that may have been
truly said to have been humbled even to the dust"

This prophecy is worth all the Bible-prophecies put

together. Not one of them are fulfilled so literally. —

And yet it is made by one who had no pretensions to

divine inspiration ; made too, more than 1200 years

11

122 PROPHECY.

before the circumstances referred to, occurred! Taking,
then, the word prophecy, either in a limited or extend-
ed signification, the arguments of the orthodox, based
upon that kind of evidence, are neutralized and in-
validated.

Having shown that the testimony of prophecy is
inadmissible in deciding the divinity of the Bible, we
shall proceed to prove that, even granting that this
evidence is conclusive, the Scripture prophecies are
not of a nature to demonstrate that the book is divine.
I have four distinct objections to these prophecies : —

1. That many of them were not written until after
the events prophecied had occurred, which I conceive
to be a very good objection.

2. Their vague and indefinite character, proving
that they could not be given by inspiration from om-
niscience.

3. That those prophecies which are clear and dis-
tinct have not been fulfilled.

4. The lying character of the Bible prophets.

In reference to this last objection, ample evidence
will be found in its support, in Hosea, chap, ix., .verses
7, 8, where the prophet is denounced as a fool and a
snare ; Micah, chap, iii., verses 5 and 11, where it is
said the prophets only divine for money and deceive
the people ; Lamentations of Jeremiah, chap, ii., v. 14,
they told vain and foolish things ; Isaiah, chap, ix.,
verses 15 and 28, verse 7, it is said they teach lies
and are drunken. (This quite agrees with the Chris-
tian Dodwell's statement, that they prepared them-
selves to prophecy by drinking wine. They might
well get drunk. They were indeed " spiritualists."}
Zachariah, chap, xiii., verses 2 and 4, gives the pleas-
ing intelligence that the "Lord" will root them all
out of the land, and make them ashamed of them-
selves ; 1 Kings, chap, xxii., verses 22, 23; Ezekiel,
chap, xiv., v. 9 ; Jeremiah, chap, xx., v. 7, God himself
is represented not only as deceiving the prophets, and
causing them to err} but instructing them in the art

PROPHECY. 123

and mystery of lying! What confidence can be
placed in such a gang of liars and impostors, who
were always squabbling among themselves and ac-
cusing each other of lying and deceiving? They
were like our modern quacks, who cry " Take my
pills and beware of counterfeits"

With respect to the remaining three objections, they
will be substantiated in the course of my remarks on
the respective predictions. 1 shall, of course, only
notice the more important. Jf these be invalidated,
the minor fall with them.

The dispersion of the Jews is the first prophecy I
shall notice. It is given in Dent, chap! xxviii. This
prophecy the Christians affirm is the most remarkable
on record. I can only say that had it been given so
early as stated, it would have been worthy of notice.
But such was not the fact. Moses did not write Deu-
teronomy. We have proved, in previous addresses,
that the Pentateuch was not mentioned until after the
Babylonian captivity, and that Ezra must have been
the writer of these books. Now, Ezra flourished only
400 years before Christ, after the Jews had been dis-
membered, and lived in slavery for years. It was no
difficult task, therefore, at that time, to predict their
dispersion. The wonder, in fact, would have been if
it had been predicted that they would not have been
dispersed. But even supposing Moses had been the
writer, there is nothing in the prophecy so singularly
remarkable — nothing beyond the grasp of human fore-
sight. The Jews, from time immemorial, were ex-
ceedingly rebellious, cruel, insolent, and pragmatical ;
and Moses, therefore, might easily have anticipated
that the first great nation which arose would attempt
their subjection, in which they would easily succeed,
the Jews, with all their audacity and brutality, being
naturally cowards. It required no divine inspiration
to foretell such events. As striking prognostications
have been given in relation to other nations, by wri-
ters not presuming to miraculous agency, and which

124 PROPHECY.

have proved true. This prophecy, therefore, If ful-
filled to the very letter, by no means establishes the
divinity of Scripture.

Unfortunately, however, there are parts of this pre-
diction, and they are the most explicit, which have
not been fulfilled. In verse 64, it states that the Jews
when scattered shall worship other gods, which neith-
er they nor their fathers had known, "even wood and
stone.77 But is such the case ? Do they worship such
gods now that they are scattered ? On the contrary,
is it not proverbial, that the Jews are the most tena-
cious of the religion of their forefathers of any people
upon earth ?

And, again, in verse 15, we are told that the Jews
shall experience this misery and subjection for their
disobedience of his (Moses's) ritual. Is such the real
reason of their present dispersion? Confessedly not.
It is owing to the power of the Egyptians in the first
instance, then the Chaldeans, and thence down to the
Romans. It was these causes, combined with their
national character, that led to their present condition.
Apart, however, from these considerations, this proph-
ecy cannot be fulfilled until the Jews are restored. —
We are told, chap, xxx., that the Lord " will gather
them from all nations, whereunto he hath scattered
them." Has he done so? Are the Jews restored?
True, there has been an idle rumor abroad of late,
that some parties were going to purchase Jerusalem,
in which the Jews might assemble, and thus verify
the prediction. But " don't they wish they may get
it," as the somewhat vulgar adage has it ? If they
do , it only shows that prophecies are marketable com-
modities— things that may be bought and sold. Such
prognostications depend for fulfilment, not upon "their
spiritual, but money value — not upon their "divine
inspiration." but upon what they will sell for — no
more.

In chap, xlix., v. 10, of Genesis, there is the follow-
ing passage which has been twisted by our priests

PROPHECY. 125

into a prophecy of the coming of Christ: — "The
sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver
from between his feet, until Shiloh come, and unto
him shall the gathering of the people be." It remains
to be proved that the word Shiloh signifies Christ, and
could apply to no one else. Besides, it is not true that
the sceptre was wielded by the tribe of Judah at the
time Jesus is said to have appeared, for long before
that period the Jews had submitted to the Romans. — -
They had, also, before that, been in captivity to the
Assyrians for seventy years, during which it cannot
be pretended that a vestige of royalty remained in
Judah, or in any other of the tribes. This prediction,
therefore, cannot apply to Christ ; or, if it does, the
prophecy is an utter failure. Moreover, whether the
prediction be true or false, it could not have been giv-
en by Jacob, as stated iu this chapter, for he could not
know that the Jews were ever ruled by a sceptre, as
Saul, the first Jewish king, did not live until hundreds
of years after Jacob.

We must now notice the famous passage in Isaiah,
chap, vii., v. 14, another prophecy of the coming of
Christ. It begins, " Behold a virgin shall conceive
and bear a son," &c. If this has any reference to the
appearance of Christ, it is exceedingly strange that it
should be so vague and indefinite in all the details. —
It is utterly destitne of all the properties of perspicu-
ous prediction — a fact which proves that it could have
no relation to such an important event as the birth of
the "Son of God." The only thing definite in this
memorable prophecy is the name of the child to be
born, which is not Christ. The name of the mother
of the child is not stated, nor any of the circumstances
said to be connected with the birth of " our Saviour."

Several more enlightened Christians are now aban-
doning this once pet prophecy as untenable. Michael-
is, the learned Christian professor, says (p. 212,) he
"cannot be persuaded that the famous prophecy in
Isaiah, chap, vii., v. 14, has the least reference to the
11*

126 PROPHECY.

Messiah." The Jews, themselves, who ought to un-
derstand the meaning of their own book, most solemn-
ly deny that this prophecy refers to Jesus Christ. —
" These prophecies," say they, in " Israel vindicated,"
1823, " have repeatedly been shown by our Rabbis to
have a different meaning from that given them by the
Christians, which it is impossible for any one to mis-
take whose mind is not predisposed to shut out the
light of truth." They charge the Christians, in Sol.
Bennett's Reply, 1809, with having " changed, in the
original, nouns, verbs, tenses and meanings ! "

The real nature of this celebrated passage will be
seen on reading the context. You will perceive that
it has not the slightest reference to the coming of a
Messiah some 700 years subsequent to the time of
Isaiah, but only to mere local and immediate events.
The plain meaning is simply this : — The King of
Syria, and the King of Israel, (for, at this period, the
Jews were divided under two kings) made war/om%
against Ahaz, King of Judah, and marched their ar-
mies towards Jerusalem, the capital of Ahaz. The
latter, with his people, were alarmed ; and, according
to verse 2, " Their hearts were moved, as trees of
Wood are moved with the wind." At this moment
the prophet Isaiah addressed himself to Ahaz, in the
usual cant parlance, " The name of the Lord," as-
suring him that these two kings should not succeed
against him. To convince Ahaz that this should be
the case, Isaiah requested him, as was the practice of
the prophets at that period, to ask a sign. He declined,
however, stating, as a reason, that he would not
" tempt the Lord." Isaiah then said, as given in
verse 14, " Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you
a sign, behold a virgin shall conceive and bare a son,"
and verse 16 states, " And before this child shall
know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land
which thou abhorrest (meaning Syria and the king-
dom of Israel), shall be forsaken of both her kings ;
and it shall come to pass, that the Lord shall hiss

PROPHECY. 127

(why not whistle ?) for the flies that are in the brooks
of Egypt, and for the bees that are in the land of Sy-
ria." A pity but the " Lord " could have found some-
thing better to do ! But the story continues, " In the
same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is
hired, viz., by them that is beyond the river, by the
King of Assyria, the head and the hair of the feet,
and it shall also consume the beard."

Here, then, was the sign, and the time limited for
the performance of the prophecy ; viz., before the
child could distinguish the good from the evil. It
was necessary for the prophet to see to the fulfilment
of his prediction; and, accordingly, we are told, in
the next chap., verses 2 and 3, that Isaiah got the
prophetess with child, whicji, when born, was to be
called (by command of the Lord, of course?) by the
strange name of Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Thus was
this absurd and obscene prediction verified.

The evangelist, Matthew, and the Christian priest-
hood after him, pretend to found the theory of what
they call the gospel, upon this silly and indecent tale.
They pretend to apply it to the birth of a person who
lived 700 years subsequent to this period. Is not such
gross perversion calculated to sicken every enlighten-
ed mind with Christianity 1

It is only necessary to read Book 2, of Chronicles,
chap, xxviii., where the rest of this story is given, to
find the imposition which Isaiah practised upon poor
Ahaz. Instead of these two kings falling, as he as-
sured Ahaz they would, Ahaz himself was beaten,
and his army destroyed.

To say that this prophecy refers to Christ, is as
much as to assert, that Isaiah would tell Ahaz that
these two kings should not prevail against him until
a child was born, 700 years after he was in his " final
resting-place."

The Jewish priesthood maintain, that the sign al-
luded to, in this passage, was only the wife of Isaiah,
as the Hebrew word for virgin, alma, was applied,
not unfrequently, to married women.

128 PROPHECY.

We shall now remark upon that favorite prophecy
of the Christians, relative to the birth-place of Christ.
It is said to have been made by the prophet, Micah,
as recorded in chap, v., ver. 2, of the Book having his
name. "But thou, Bethlehem Ephrata, though thou
be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee
shall he come forth unto me, that is to be ruler in Is-
rael ; whose goings forth have been from of old, from
everlasting." The evangelist, Matthew, pretends to
quote this passage in chap, i., though he quotes it in
a very incorrect and bungling manner, and applies it
to the birth of Christ in Bethlehem. It is easy to be
seen, however, by any one who will use his own in-
tellect, and not pay other men for thinking for him,
that this passage can have no reference to such a per-
son as Jesus Christ ; for it is stated in ver. 5, of the
same chapter, that, "This man, (meaning he who
was to be ruler in Israel,) shall be at peace when the
Assyrian shall come into our land ; and when he shall
tread in our palaces, then shall we raise up against
him, (that is, against the Assyrian,) seven shepherds
and eight principal men." And in ver. 6, it states,
" And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the
sword, and the land" of Nimrod, on the entrance there-
of; thus shall he, (the person spoken of,) deliver us
from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and
when he treadeth within our borders." These pas-
sages evidently refer to a military chief, and cannot
mean Christ. The circumstances of the times spoken
of, and those in which Christ lived, are in contradic-
tion to each other. Strange to say, it was the Romans,
and not the Assyrians, (a very different people,) who
were in the land of Judea, and utrod in their pala-
ces," at the period Christ is said to have been born
and died ; and, so far from he driving them out, it
was under them that he suffered death. They drove
him out pretty effectually, and held possession of the
land long afterwards. These facts, therefore, abso-
lutely falsify the prophecy that it applies to Christ —

PROPHECY. 129

proves, that like the other prophecies of this book of
absurdities— it is no prophecy at all.

We will briefly remark upon the prophecy of the
destruction of Babylon, in Isaiah, chap. xiii. Chris-
tians are particularly fond of this prediction. Dr.
Keith devotes nearly 100 pages to this subject. We
hold, notwithstanding the dogmatism of the Doctor,
that this prognostication was not given until after the
event had really occurred, or about the time; and,
therefore, could be no prediction at all. I affirm this
upon the fact that the Book of Isaiah, in which this
prophecy is recorded, was not written until that pe-
riod. We are taught by the Christian priesthood, to
believe that the Book of Isaiah was composed some
739 years before Christ, while, in reality, it could not
have been in existence until two centuries subsequent
to that date, which will bring us to the period of
Babylon's downfall. In the latter part of chap, xliv.,
and beginning of xlv., reference is made to Cyrus, al-
lowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem. This event
did not take place until the year 536, b. c, about 170
years after Isaiah's death. I, therefore, deduce three
circumstances from this fact. First, that the book called
Isaiah, was not written by him. Secondly, that it could
not have been written until nearly 200 years after his
time. And, thirdly, being composed at that period,
the prophecy of the demolition of the famous city in
question, could not have been given until either du-
ring the catastrophe, or subsequent to it ; and conse-
quently, can be no prediction at all. How the Chris-
tian clergy can have the audacity to present such a
passage as an evidence of divine inspiration, I know
not, except that upon these points, the points of re-
ligion, they are destitute of all shame !

In reference to the prophecy of Daniel, chap, ix.,
ver. 24 — 27, about the seventy weeks, and its appli-
cation to Christ — of which Christian priests have
talked so exultingly — little need be said to show its
untenability. Dr. Francis has set this question at
rest. My time, I am sorry to say, will not admit of

130 PROPHECY.

my giving the Doctor's remarks, as they are very
elaborate. I may simply observe, that it cannot ap-
ply to Jesus Christ ; for, if from the going forth of the
commandment in the "time of Artaxerxes Longimanus,
until the coming of the Messiah, there were to be
seven weeks, or forty-nine years, (the seventy weeks
are supposed to mean seven years each,) how does
this agree with what follows, ver. 26, " After threescore
and two weeks, (or more than 400 years,) shall Mes-
siah be cut off? ,; And, again- — " He shall confirm the
covenant with many for a week^ ver. 27. Did, then,
Jesus Christ live more than 400 years 7 Or, did he
confirm any covenant with many for seven years ? —
Most certainly not. Christ's ministry did not continue
longer than three-and-a-half years ; or, according to
some learned divines, not longer than a twelve-month ;
and his lifetime, altogether, only extended to thirty-
three years. Dr. Francis shows that it is Judas Mac-
cabees, the deliverer of the Jews — and not of Christ,
that the prophet speaks. Clement Alexandrinus, Cal-
met and other Christian writers flatly deny the appli-
cation of the weeks of Daniel to Jesus. Those who
maintain the affirmative, lose sight of the context, for-
get chronology, and evince to what a pitch of delu-
sion their minds have arrived.

The favorite Christian prophecy is that given by
Christ, in Matthew, chap. xxiv. He foretells the de-
struction of Jerusalem. There is nothing, we con-
ceive, at all remarkable in this prediction. Any man,
of ordinary foresight, might have anticipated such an
event, taking into consideration the character of the
Jews, and the position of surrounding nations. Rome
was then the mistress of the world. She had deluged
Europe with blood — darkened it with desolation — and
was still disposed to crush every empire that might
deny her supremacy. Knowing this, and being aware
of the insolent and rebellious character of the Jews,
it was quite natural that Christ, or any other person
might have predicted the demolition of Jerusalem. It
would have been a miracle had it not been destroyed.

PROPHECY. 131

What was the fact ? The Jews rebelled against the
Roman authority ; the consequence being, their city
was destroyed, and they were scattered. Is there
anything extraordinary in this? Is there anything
requiring divine inspiration to foresee ? Evidently
not. But what proof have we that this prophecy was
given before the event? I challenge the Christians to
produce it. We know that Matthew, in which this
prediction is recorded, as well as the other gospels,
were not mentioned as having existence earlier than
the year 182, or, as some divines held, 192, a. d., as
shown at length in my second and last address. This
would be more than a century after the destruction of
Jerusalem, that event occurring a. d., 70. How mod-
est to state that a prophecy is given in a book which
was not known till more than 100 years after the
event predicted had actually happened ! How easy
to manufacture a good prophecy under such circum-
stances ! I may be told, Matthew is supposed to have
been written a. d., 64. Yes — supposed, and a very
necessary supposition, I should think, for the safety
of the prophecy. But is mere conjecture to be taken
as proof? Of course, when it suits the interests of
priests. However, we will suppose as they desire in
this instance — and what then ? Why, it brings the
book to have been written only six years before the
event prophecied took place ! What wonderfid sagaci-
ty—what a large dose of inspiration it would require
to foresee such an event at such an immense distance
of time! What a pity the priests had supposed the date
of its composition to be a little earlier ! but even they
had not the impudence even to suppose such as thing.
But whether this prophecy was given before or after
the event, it was not fulfilled ; and, therefore, can be
no evidence in favor of the divinity of the Bible. We
must take into account the whole of the prophecy, and
we shall discover it is a most miserable failure. In
verses 29, 30, and 34, it states, " Immediately after
the tribulation of those days (that is, the destruction
of Jerusalem), shall the sun be darkened, and the

132 PROPHECY.

moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall
from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be
shaken ; and then there shall appear the sign of the
son of man in heaven ; and then shall all the tribes
of the earth mourn, and they shall see the son of
man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and
great glory, and he shall send his angels with a great
sound of the trumpet ; and they shall gather together
the elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven
to the other. Verily, I say unto you, this generation
shall not pass away till ALL these things are ful-
filled" Here is a prophecy so clear and distinct that
there is no mistaking its meaning. But was it ful-
filled ? Is the world destroyed ? Your presence here
this moment is a living denial. Not only has that
generation " passed away," but many, and still the
world is not at an end. The sun has not been dark-
ened, nor has the moon ceased to give her light, and
the stars still shine in brilliant splendor, as if in mock-
ery of such a monstrous prediction. They still ride
in triumph through the fields of space, spreading light
and warmth to an admiring world. O ! Christians,
where is your modesty — your honesty in declaring
such passages as a divine prognostication, when every
moment of your lives belies the prediction ? O ! when
will you blush at your unparalleled impudence ? But
what say you of the Second Advent? Did Christ
appear again immediately after the siege of Jerusalem,
as predicted in this prophecy? Was he seen " com-
ing in the clouds of heaven with power and great
glory?" gathering together " the elect" from the
four winds, from one end of heaven to the other ? —
No ! He never appeared. No such phenomena were
exhibited. And yet " all these things" were to hap-
pen before that generation had passed away ! How
monstrous to affirm such a prediction to be fulfilled !
None but priests or their dupes could commit such an
audacious outrage upon experience and common sense.
One more prophecy, and I have done. In Mark,
chap, xvi., Christ is represented assaying, "Go ye

PROPHECY. 133

unto all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature. He that belie veth, and is baptized, shall be
saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned.—
And these signs shall follow them that believe : in my
name they shall cast out devils, (a very respectable
trade, truly !) they shall speak with new tongues ; they
shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly
poison, it shall not hurt them ; they shall lay hands
on the sick and they shall recover."

Do such things attend those who believe m Christ 1
Can Christians cast out devils ? If they could, there
would be less need of the parsons. Can they take
poison with impunity ? Doctors, I have no doubt,
would then be at a discount. Can they play with
serpents with impunity ? ' Can they lay their hands
on the sick and they will recover ? Can they do any
of these things ? It is a mockery to ask the question.
Here, then, is the plainest prophecy in the whole of
the Bible, and given by Christ himself, proved to be
an absolute, unqualified, downright failure !

To expose more of these prophecies in one discourse,
would be impossible ; and, if possible, would be un-
necessary. The rest are more or less dependent upon
these, and must stand or fall with them. They dis-
play the most impudent perversion of language and
sense, and amusingly exhibit the marvellous ability
of our theologians in prophecy-making. To show
their inveterate propensity to prediction- mongering, I
need but mention, that John Hawkins, Esq. proves
that Britain is the kingdom which Daniel declares
God will set up ! Captain John Maitland illustrates
the prophecies of Daniel by Revelations ! J. H. Prere,
Esq. proves that Daniel, Esdras, and St. John, have
been accomplished in the life of Bonaparte ; and the
ex-King of Sweden pronounces Bonaparte to be the
beast in Revelations ! Dr. Whiston, a celebrated pro-
fessor, of Cambridge, considered that Mary Tofts
having, according to popular belief, brought forth rab-
bits, was an accomplishment of a prophecy in Esdras !
12

134 PROPHECY.

Mr. Faber engages in wholesale discoveries of this
kind, while his friend, Mr. Burt, helps him in the re-
tail trade, saying, " that appearances give considera-
ble weight to Dr. Faber's supposition of the battle of
Armageddon, in the holy land; and thus an Irish
legislator, (when deranged,) insisted that Armaged-
don meant Armagh, because, in the Apocalyptic ver-
sion, something is incidentally said of fine linen ! ??

I shall conclude this discourse, by a brief quotation
from a man who has done most in uprooting the in-
iquitous dominion of priestcraft and superstition. —
Thomas Paine, that immortal writer, shrewdly ob-
serves : " According to the modern meaning of the
word prophecy, and prophecying, it signifies fore-
telling events to a great distance of time, and it be-
came necessary to the inventors of the gospel, to give
it this latitude of meaning, in order to apply, or to
stretch what they call the prophecies of the Old Tes-
tament to those of the New. But, according to the
Old Testament, the prophecying of the seer, and after-
wards of the prophet, so far as the word seer was in-
corporated into that of the prophet, had reference only
to the things then passing, or very closely connected
with it; such as the event of a battle they were going
to engage in, or of a journey, or of an enterprise they
were going to undertake, or of any circumstance then
pending, or of any difficulty they were then in, all of
which had immediate reference to themselves, (as in
the case already mentioned, of Ahaz and Isaiah, with
respect to the expression, ' Behold, a virgin shall con-
ceive, and bear a son,' &c.,) and not to any distant
future time. It was that kind of prophecying, that
corresponds to what we call fortune-telling ; such as
casting nativities, predicting riches, fortunate or un-
fortunate marriages, conjuring for lost goods, &c, and
it is the priest of the Christian church, not that of the
Jews, and the ignorance and superstition of modern^
not that of ancient times, that elevated these poetical,
musical, conjuring, dreaming, strolling gentry, into
the rank they have since held."

LECTURE EIGHTH.

MIRACLES.

Friends —

The subject upon which I propose to address you
this evening, is Miracles. The mass of Christians,
especially the ignorant and credulous, attach supreme
importance to this testimony, while a few of the more
advanced are disposed to rest their faith entirely upon
other evidence. In this class, we find Bishop New-
ton, Foster, Desvaeux, Cardinal de Retz, Dr. Middle-
ton, and Bishop Fleetwood. These gentlemen recom-
mend Christians to u reject miracles, — nay, 10,000
miracles, let them be ever so well attested, if they
sanction any doctrine contrary to truth, reason and
morality." " For, otherwise," says Mr. Desvaeux,
in his Treatise on Miracles, " we should never have
done examining miracles." The Cardinal de Retz re-
marks, when rejecting a celebrated Catholic miracle,
" it was not necessary, in order to reject a fact of this
kind, to be able accurately to disprove the testimony,
and to trace its falsehood through all the circumstan-
ces of knavery and credulity which produced it. He
knew that this was commonly altogether impossible
at any small distance of time and place, so it was ex-
tremely difficult, even were one present on the spot,
on account of the bigotry, ignorance, cunning, and
roguery of a great part of mankind." He, therefore,
concluded that such evidence carried falsehood on the

136 MIRACLES,

very face of it, and that a miracle, supported by any
human testimony, was more properly a subject of de-
rision than argument." In this sentiment I most cor-
dially concur, my decided opinion being, that the evi-
dence of miracles is utterly incompetent to decide the
question. The same distinguished writer, when re-
ferring to the credulity of the ignorant, very admira-
bly remarks, " Nothing convinces multitudes so much,
as that which they cannot comprehend."

The Christian father, St. Chrysostom, positively de-
cles, that " miracles are proper only to excite sluggish
and vulgar minds ; that men of sense have no occa-
sion for them ; and that they frequently carry some
outward suspicion along with them." The great
Mosheim, in his Eccles. History, speaking of the early
ages of Christianity, and the miracles pretended to be
wrought in those days, observes, "The simplicity and
ignorance of the generality in those times, furnished
the most favorable occasions for the exercise of fraud ;
and the impudence of impostors in contriving false
miracles, was artfully proportioned to the credulity of
the vulgar ; whilst the sagacity of the wise, who per-
ceived these cheats, were overawed into silence by the
dangers that threatened their lives and fortunes, if
they should expose the artifice." Thus, does it gene-
rally happen in human life, that when danger attends
the discovery of truth, and the profession thereof, the
prudent are silent ; the multitude believe, and impos-
tors triumph. The ingenious arid learned Christian,
Dr. Middleton, in his famous "Free Inquiry," when
quoting the authority of St. Cyprian, as to the frauds
of the Christians in the third century, observes, as fol-
lows : — " From all these considerations taken together,
it must, I think, be allowed that the forged miracles of
the fourth century, give us just reason to suspect the
pretensions of every other age, both before and after
it." This is a most important admission for a Chris-
tian Doctor.
\ Miracles, I hold, if true — if possible, not only con-

MIRACLES. 137

clusively disprove the divinity of the Bible, but divi-
nity itself ; and therefore, the Christians, in adducing
this kind of evidence, so far from establishing their
position, most signally and incontrovertibly invalidate
it. This may appear a somewhat strange averment,
but it is one by no means difficult of elucidation. —
They declare that the Deity is infinite in all his per-
fections, and that the laws of nature are an effect of
these divine and infinite attributes, and must, there-
fore, have been arranged, at the first, in the best pos-
sible manner, and for the best possible purposes. Now,
to alter these laws, so absolutely perfect, (as the per-
formance of a miracle necessarily implies,) would be
to make these laws imperfect, as no alteration could
take place in that which was as perfect as it could be,
unless for the worse. To work a miracle, therefore,
could answer no really good purpose, and must, in its
nature, be derogatory to the powers of the God by
whom it is supposed to be performed.

To establish a system of religion by evidence drawn
from miracles, is to establish it upon the ruin of the
consistent harmony of the divine attributes by anni-
hilating his perfection, divesting him of that which
could alone constitute him a God — either the Deity
did things at the first as they ought to be done, or he
did not. If he did them as they ought to be done,
there could be no need of alteration, and, consequent-
ly, there could have been no such thing as a miracle ;
but if he did not, then he must have been either imper-
fect or have acted inconsistently with good principle ;
in either of which cases his character as God would
be destroyed. It is manifest, that a won der-ivor king
God, who violates his own laws, and acts inconsistent-
ly with the principles which he himself has establish-
ee, is no God at all, but a puerile, vacillating creature,
possessing all the weaknesses of an ignorant humani-
ty, and none of the perfections of an omniscient
Divinity.

" To suppose that God can alter the settled laws of
12*

138 MIRACLES.

nature which he himself had formed (which he must
do to perform a miracle,) is to suppose," says Palmer,
"his will and wisdom mutable, and that they are not
the best laws of the most perfect being ; for if he is
the author of them, they must be as immutable as he
is, so that he cannot alter them to make them better,
and will not alter them to make them worse. Neither
of those can be agreeable to his attributes. If the
course of nature is not the best, the onty best and fit-
test that could be, it is not the offspring of perfect
wisdom, nor was it settled by divine will ; and if so,
God is not the author of nature, if the laws thereof
can be altered, for if the laws of nature are God's
laws, he cannot alter them in any degree, without
being in some measure changeable. If all nature is
under the direction of an immutable mind, what can
make a change in that direction? "

God must be allowed to be eternal ; therefore, he
necessarily exists, and is, necessarily, whatever he is ;
therefore, it is not in his own power to change himself
— it is his perfection to be immutable. For if his na-
ture could possibly change, it might err, for whosoever
is changeable is not perfect.

Besides, an eternal and perfect nature must necessa-
rily be unchangeable ; and so long as the first moving
cause is the same, all subsequent and secondary causes
can never vary." s

Voltaire observes, " For what purpose would God
perform a miracle ? " To accomplish some particular
design upon living beings. He would then, in reality,
be supposed to say, — I have not been able to effect by
my construction of the universe — by my divine de-
crees— by my eternal laws, a particular object ; I am
now going to change my eternal ideas, and immutable
laws, to endeavor to accomplish what I have not been
able to do by means of them.

" This would be an avowal of his weakness, not of
his power ; it would appear, indeed, in such a being
an inconceivable contradiction"

MIRACLES. 139

From this reasoning, the validity of which cannot
be controverted, it is obvious the orthodox in main-
taining that miracles are an evidence of the divinity
of their book, a^e only exploding their own preten-
sions. The argument of miracles is indeed suicidal.
I repeat, therefore, miracles are not admissible as
proof of the point at issue.

Conceding, however, for the sake of argument, that
miracles are a proof of divine interposition, the ortho-
dox are by no means relieved from their embarrass-
ments— they are only involved in still more distressing
difficulties, as the founders of all the great religions in
the world, and their more immediate apostles, are
said, by their disciples, to have performed miracles,
many of which are of an infinitely more wonderful
character than any recorded either in the Old or New
Testament ; and upon authority equally as satisfac-
tory.

If miracles are a proof of the divinity of one reli-
gion, they are of another, and, hence, the heathen
religions are just as likely to be genuine as the Chris-
tian ; nay, more so, because their miracles are much
more extraordinary. The value of a miracle is to be
estimated not by its probability, but improbability. —
The more improbable, therefore, a miracle may be, the
better miracle it is, and the more likely the religion for
the advancement of which it was performed, is divine.
Of course, a more astounding miracle would require
the administration of a stronger dose of divine inspir-
ation ; and, therefore, if I can show that the miracles
of the heathen are more remarkable than those of the
Christian, — I prove that they are more divine — more
worthy the acceptance of miracle-mongers and mira-
cle-believers.

Permit me to adduce, in the first place, a few Hin-
doo miracles. I shall quote from a very pious French
Christian Missionary, Abbe Dubois, who lived among
the Hindoos for many years, and had every opportu-
nity of becoming acquainted with their opinions, hab-

140 MIRACLES.

its, and superstitions. He remarks, " The miracles
of the Christian religion, however extraordinary they
must appear to a common understanding, are by no
means so to the Hindoos. Upon them they have no
effect. The exploits of Joshua and his army, and the
prodigies they effected by the interpositions of God,
in the conquest of the land of Canaan, seem to them
unworthy of notice, when compared with the achieve-
ments of their own Kama, and of the miracles which
attended his progress when he subjected Ceylon to his
yoke. Tte mighty strength of Samson dwindles into
nothing when opposed to the overwhelming energy of
Bali, of Ravana, and the giants. The resurrection of
Lazarus itself, is, in their eyes, an ordinary event, of
which they see frequent examples in the Vishnu cere-
monies of Pahvahdam. I particularize these examples
because they have been actually opposed to me more
than once by Brahmins in my disputations with them
on religion.'5

From this extract it is evident that the Christian
miracle-dealers must "hide their diminished heads,"
and never more attempt to Christianize that portion of
the globe until they can manufacture a superior stock
of " divine wonders."

We will now mention the famous Grecian miracle,
said to have been performed by the priests of Apollo,
before the temple of Delphos.

Bishop War burton, alluding to this memorable phe-
nomenon, remarks, " The prediction of this desolation,
by the priests of Apollo, with the faith due to the best
human testimony, which strangely concurred to sup-
port the fact, were, I presume, the reasons which
inclined the excellent Dean Prideaux, to esteem it
miraculous" He says, " Brennus went on with his
army towards Delphos, to plunder the temple ; but he
there met with a ivonderful defeat — a terrible storm of
thunder, lightning, and hail, destroyed great numbers
of his men ; and, at the same time, an earthquake,
rending the mountains asunder, threw down whole
rocks upon them."

MIRACLES. 141

Here is a heathen miracle admitted to be such by
Dean Prideaux. Bishop Warburton himself confesses
that the testimony in favor of it, " strangely con-
curred to support the fact." The miracles of Mah-
omet are the most remarkable. They are worthy of
of the name. We are solemnly assured by Mahome-
dans that their prophet travelled through ninety hea-
vens in one night, returning to Mecca before the next
morning. This surpasses the railway or any other
species of " locomotion." While in the celestial
regions, we are told Mahomet saw God Almighty
himself, and held with him a friendly personal con-
versation. He saw many other marvellous phenom-
ena. For instance, in the first heaven he saw a cock,
whose head was so large that it reached to the second
heaven, which was at the distance of 500 days' jour-
ney, according to the common rule of travelling on
earth.

In another " heaven " he beheld an angel so large
that the distance between his eyes was equal to the
length of seventy thousand days1 journey I ! !

In one of the heavenly apartments, he beheld a
cherub with seventy thousand heads, and every head
had seventy thousand mouths, and in every mouth
there were seventy thousand voices, with which the
angel was incessantly praising.

These are really " miraculous wonders," and, if we
are to accredit miracles, that of Mahomet's visit to
heaven, is something tvorthy of our credulity. Did
time permit, I could amuse you with the details of an
immense number of other miracles, from various par-
ties and religions, most of which are much more sat-
isfactorily attested than any of the Bible- wonders, and
which, therefore, we have as much right to believe.

1 could tell you of the Egyptian miracles. I could
tell you of the miracles wrought by the sorcerers of
Pharaoh, and the priests of Baal, as declared in the
Bible itself — by men who did not teach the "true re-
ligion." I could tell, too, of the miracles of Appolo-

142 MIRACLES.

nius — the Roman miracle, as recorded by Livy, thg
celebrated historian— of the miracles of Vespasian,
who, we are told, cured a blind man, and gave anoth-
er the use of his arm ; and who, in consequence, was
honored by many as a god.

I could tell you of the miracles said to have been
performed by the kings of England and Scotland, so
lately as the 12th century, when they professed to
cure the scrofula by the sign of the cross. I could
tell you of the thousand and one miracles said to have
been performed by the holy fathers during the dark
ages— of the " miraculous performances " recorded in
the Methodist magazines, and other superstitious pub-
lications— miracles, many of which, says Wesley
himself, in his letter to the Bishop of Gloucester, are
beyond all suspicion, as the li witnesses could not be
deceived themselves, or deceive others/5

I could tell you, also, of the miracles of Prince
Hohenlohe, who is said to have cured thousands who
were afflicted with the most desperate diseases, by
simply praying for them. The miracle of the with-
ered elm-tree, mentioned by the Rev. Mr. Forsyth,
and said to have been attested by many most respect-
able " eye-witnesses.5'

Likewise, I could inform you of the celebrated mira-
acle performed upon the inhabitants of New England,
(America,) when afflicted by demons, spectres, and
other supernatural agencies, narrated by Dr. Cotton
Mather, who declares the phenomena he there records
can be attested by the " oaths of a multitude of re-
spectable witnesses.55 I could tell you of these, and
other pious wonders, but shall be constrained to con-
tent myself with the two following :— The first is the
memorable miracle said to have been performed dur-
ing the Italian war, in 1797. The French being
supposed to have entered Italy to overthrow Papal
Christianity, we are informed that numerous pictures
of the Virgin Mary opened and shut their eyes in dif-
ferent parts of that country, during an interval of six

MIRACLES. 143

or seven months, and this was attested "by at least
60,000 persons, who voluntarily deposed that they re-
peatedly beheld the prodigy with their own eyes."

The Rev. edilor of the " Official Memoirs," declares
that these miracles have more "moral certainty in
their favor than any { fact ' whatever in the annals
of the world." We are seriously told that no less
than 600,000 people actually saw paintings of the
semi-goddess, Virgin Mary — pieces of mere inanimate
matter, oil, paint, and canvass — open and shut their
"eyes, " continually, during the space of six or seven
months ! O ! man, how far will thy credulity lead
thee ? This beats any miracle in the Bible, and is
incomparably better attested — yet who believes it?

The miracles of William Huntingdon, are the cream
of the whole. They are, what I should denominate,
practical miracles — miracles founded, I should pre-
sume, upon the doctrine of utility.

We are told that when he prayed for leather breech-
es, he had them ; and when he was hungry, fishes
came out of the water, and larks from heaven, to feed
him, in abundance. What a pity we cannot have
such miracles now-a-days ! How unfortunate that
the impoverished portion of the community — those
who are now reduced to insult and starvation, cannot
receive a sufficient quantum of "divine grace" to
work such miraculous performances !

There would be no necessity for " the Queen's beg-
ging letters," " relief committees," "benevolent socie-
ties," " poor-houses," or "charity" sermons.

But let us pause for a moment, to inquire what in-
ference is to be deduced from these "facts." What
but this — that miracles have been said to be wrought
and attested in favor of all the great religions and sec-
tions of religions in the world, and that each of these
parties declare that their respective miracles prove
their respective tenets to be divine? Inasmuch, how-
ever, as this is impossible — inasmuch, as Bishop Fleet-
wood says, " miracles are no conclusive proof of any
religion being true."

144 MIRACLES.

The argument of miracles, like that of prophecy,
proves too much for the convenience of the Christian.

It affords the supporters of other religions an oppor-
tunity of proving, upon the same ground, that their
religion is divine. The Christian public, therefore,
must abandon the argument of miracles, or neutralize
their own position, either of which will establish the
point for which I am contending — at least so far as
this argument is concerned.

Moore, in his u Veiled Prophet/7 when alluding to
the anxiety displayed by all impostors to establish
their religion by miracles, exclaims —

** Yo, too, believers of incredible creeds,

Whose faith enshrines the monster which it breeds,
Who, bolder e'en than Nimrod, think to rise
By nonsense heaped on nonsense to the skies;
Ye shall have miracles, aye, sound ones too,
Seen, heard, attested, everything but true."

It is alleged, however, that the prodigies recorded
in the Bible, are better attested than any other mira-
cles. The evidence is more conclusive — so conclusive
that no rational mind can reject it. T ask, where is
this evidence ? I repeat, where is this evidence 7

Do we find it in the Old Testament ? The only
evidence in favor of these miracles, is, that they are
recorded in a book, composed by the priests of the
most ignorant and credulous people in the world.

What sensible man will accept such testimony ? —
Are we to believe that the evidence in support of the
wonderful repast of the angels with Abraham, the
marvellous tale of Jonah's three days7 residence in the
whale's belly — the sudden conversion of Lot's wife
into a pillar of salt — the raining of fire and brimstone
upon Sodom and Gomorrah — the passing of the Isra-
elites through the Red Sea — the Herculean achieve-
ments of Samson-— the stopping of the sun by Joshua,
and a multitude of other monstrous fables — is better
attested than the numerous Indian, Chinese, Grecian,
and Popish miracles, when many of the latter are con-

MIRACLES. 145

firmed by the solemn attestation of magistrates, di-
vines, physicians, and other respectable persons ? and,
if we reject these miracles, though confirmed by such
evidence, why should we receive the Jewish miracles,
which have not a particle of evidence in their favor ?
I defy both Jews and Christians to cite any collateral
testimony. No writer or historian, however ancient,
makes allusion to the extraordinary occurrences nar-
rated in the Jewish " Book of Wonders," some of
which, had they really happened, could, not have es-
caped the notice of mankind. These stories are only
mentioned in a book which was not heard of until
about 300 years before Christ ! — a book belonging to
a race of priests, notorious for their impostures, their
credulity, and their ignorance. The enlightened and
thinking minds of the nineteenth century, are really
called upon to acknowledge the stupid fables of such
a heard of impostors, who only invented these " pious
frauds" to excite the fear and wonder of a people,
barbarous, superstitious, and illiterate ! In the ab-
sense of all collateral testimony, I deem it unneces-
sary to pursue the subject.

What of the New Testament miracles ? Is the evi-
dence more satisfactory ? Not at all. The Christians,
of course, affirm, that it is clear and incontrovertible ;
but mere assumption is not argument. It generally
happens, when there is less proof, that the asserter of
a proposition is more dogmatic. So it is in this in-
stance. With all the exultation of the Christians, it
is incontestable that the evidence in support of their
divine prodigies is entirely ex-parte. I challenge them
to name any contemporary authority, confirming their
statements. Not one of the numerous writers and
historians of those times can be quoted in support of
their pretensions. Seneca, and the elder Pliny, the
great natural philosophers of that age, do not refer,
in the most remote degree, to the preternatural dark-
ness— the rising of the saints from their graves, and
their walking through the streets of Jerusalem, men-

13

146 MIRACLES.

tioned in Matt, xxvii., or any of the wonders said to
have been performed before thousands of spectators.
Pliny devotes a whole chapter to extraordinary eclip-
ses, but notices not this astonishing phenomenon,
which, had it occurred, must have been known to
him.

It is to the Christian converts alone we are indebted
for the only accounts we have of such amazing pro-
digies, and their isolated and unsupported testimony
cannot be admitted as sufficient to establish their own
veracity. Were this to be allowed them, on the same
ground must we admit the miracles of the heathen
lawgivers and founders of sects, as they were credited
by millions of followers, and are so to this day.

The only collateral evidence which Christians them-
selves have ventured to adduce, is that of Josephus,
Pontius Pilate, and Publius Lentulus, and this evi-
dence we proved, on a former occasion, on the author-
ity of Dr. Lardner, Dr. Du Pin, Bishop Warburton,
and other distinguished Christians, was forged.

We know that at the time these miracles are said
to have been accomplished, the people were predis-
posed to accredit them. All classes and nations, ex-
cept a few philosophers, were believers in supernatural
events. The Christian author Le Moine, in his Essay
on Miracles, is obliged to admit that there " never was
a greater corruption, more fraud in point of miracles,
and a more general propensity to tamper with, or be-
lieve anything of the kind, than in the period which
elapsed from the death of Christ to the destruction of
Jerusalem. ;? The credulity of the early Christians
was unbounded ; so much so indeed, that the Chris-
tian professor, Mosheim, who is esteemed by the pious
as the beau ideal of an ecclesiastical historian, denoun-
ces them in his Eccles. Hist. v. i. p. 102, as "a gross
and ignorant multitude."

Yet, it is upon the veracity of such a multitude,
we have to rely for the credibility of the New Testa-
ment miracles !

MIRACLES. 147

The pretensions of Christ to supernatural powers
were similar to those of Minos, Lycurgus, Pythagoras,
and other lawgivers. They considered it necessary ',
in order to secure obedience to their laws, and inspire
veneration, to deceive the vulgar. This maxim was
adopted, too, by the Egyptians, the Jews, and the
early fathers of the Christian church.

Indeed, Christ himself, as shown in our third lec-
ture, positively advocated that doctrine.

He professed to teach, " That seeing they may see,
and not perceive, and hearing they may hear, and not
understand" (Mark iv. 12.)

We must reiterate that it is a fact as singular as it
is fatal to the credibility of these miracles, that not
one of them is confirmed by contemporary historians,
not even such momentous events as the slaughter of
the children by Herod — the opening of the heavens at
the baptism of Jesus — the beheading of John the Bap-
tist, after he had baptized all Judea and Jerusalem — -
the purchase of the field of blood, which, it is said,
was known to all the people of Jerusalem — the total
darkness at the crucifixion of Jesus previously alluded
to — and the wonderful pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem,
wherein an angel came to heal the sick.

In fact, most of the miracles of Christ, are said to
have been done in comparative secrecy. His own
resurrection is admitted by Christians to be only a
" private miracle." I should say very private, for no
one ever saw him rise from the tomb, not even his
own disciples.

We have not the testimony of a single individual
upon this strange event, and why a matter of so much
importance was accomplished in so obscure a place,
and not before as many witnesses as were present at
his death, is sufficient to prove that those things are
related by men, who, instead of being inspired by
wisdom, seem to be remarkable only for ignorance and
superstition.

With respect to the ascension, it appears that Mark

148 MIRACLES*

and Luke, who were not disciples at the time, and
consequently, not present, are the only writers who
pretend to give an account of the circumstance, and
this, too, in a very contradictory manner ; while Mat-
thew and John, who are said to have been present, do
not make the slightest allusion to it, nor inform us
that it ever occurred ! The declaration that Jesus
would rise from the dead, after three days, was made
in public : why, then, was the pretended performance
made in private? The declaration was made before
persons who required their doubts to be removed: —
why, then, did he only appear before women and his
disciples, who were ready to believe or to assert any-
thing tending to the credit of their sect ? The best
evidence of which the nature of the case would ad-
mit, was his public appearance in Jerusalem ; — why
did not this take place? There is but one answer to
be given — the whole story is an imposture, devoid of
all truth or probability.

When Christ was " transfigured," he takes with
him only his three favorites ! When he turns water
into wine, he selects the time when his witnesses were
"merry!" When he raises the daughter of Jairus,
he puts away all her friends from witnessing the re-
suscitating process. When he cures the blind man,
he takes him aside from public observation. When he
cleanses the leper, he "straightly charged him, see
thou say nothing to any man, but show thyself to the
priest ! " (Mark i., 44 ;) an expression which indicates
Christ's wish to conceal his trick from the people— a
practice aways observed by impostors. Even the
very corner stone of the divinity of Christ, his " mi-
raculous conception," rests entirely upon the assertion
of Mary, who declares that she had been told by an
" angel," that she was with child by a ghost! — a
" holy ghost," and of Joseph, who, also affirms that
an " angel" had told him so in a dream! A queer
dream, truly — perhaps a mesmeric trance! How
laughable, that the whole ground-work of the divi-

MIRACLES. 149

nity of Christianity depends upon a dream — a thing,
upon which all intelligent persons, in any other case,
place no reliance ! Sensible people, even amongst
Christians, in this age, esteem a person as imbecile
who regards dreams, and yet the whole of the Chris-
tian world place such faith in them, as actually to
found their religious belief upon them ! What glori-
ous consistency and rationality ! ! I am quite persuaded
had Joseph and Mary lived in our day, and produced
such evidence before any court in Europe, the sitting
magistrate would have ordered them, in pure com-
miseration, to have been " taken care of." In legal
parlance, they would have been pronounced non
compos mentis.

My friends, it is worthy of observation, that amongst
the numerous inventions of priests to dupe mankind,
one of the clearest was the miraculous conceptions
and births of antiquity. They have been found ex-
tremely useful to priests in all ages, particularly when
celibacy was the order of the day among them, and
vestals were kept in the temples. These fables, palm-
ed upon the ignorant, were convenient means of con-
cealing all sacerdotal seductions and amours, by
means of which "Sons of God" were "begotten."
When the fruits of these holy indulgencies could no
longer be concealed, there was always at hand some
good natured, accommodating god, willing to take
upon himself the "fraternity;" the lady, of course,
remaining in spotless virginity. The institution of
the virgin votaries of Vesta, could not have been en-
tirely unconnected with the private devotions of the
priests, since these ladies were allowed to retire from
the temples at the age of thirty. By such divine tricks
the Hindo virgini, Rohini, conceived and brought forth
a "Son of God," one of the Brahmin Trinity. The
Chinese had a virgin impregnated with the, ray of the
sun — the mother of the God, Foe. The mother of So-
monocodum, who, according to the Scriptures of the
Talapians of Siam, was the God expected to save the
13* - ""

150 MIRACLES. ,

universe, was likewise a "virgin." The followers of
Leatze declare that his mother became pregnant by a
junction of heaven and earth, and was pregnant with
him for eighty years ! The followers of Plato, even
two hundred and fifty years after his death, and only
100 before Christ, said that he was born of a " virgin."
His father, Aristo, on his marriage, was warned in a
dream, by Apollo, not to have commerce with his
wife, because she was with child by him, (Apollo.)
Aristo, like Joseph, obeyed, and Plato was added to
the " Sons of God." Such are the delusions of im-
posture and superstition ! The story of Christ's con-
ception, is equally as preposterous as that of Plato's.
If you believe one, you may believe the other.

It is a very suspicious fact, my friends, that Christ's
own family and relations — those who knew him most
intimately, longest, and best, gave no credit to his pre-
tensions to miraculous power, as seen in Mark vi.,
ver. 1, 2, 5; and John iv., ver. 44. It is a curious
fact, too, that he refused to work his miracles before
men of sense and intelligence, always preferring,
when he did come before the public, to perform them
in the presence of the ig?iorant and credulous mid-
titude.

But there appears to have been a singular con-
trariety of opinions among the early Christians, in
respect to many matters involving the miraculous
character of Christ. His own Jewish converts re-
garded him as a mere man, while some of his
heathen followers, according to the Rev. Mr. Jones,
" Canen," p. 12, believed him to be " a certain pow-
er, sixty-six miles high, and twenty-four broad — so
tall, that his head reached the clouds / " Another very
prevalent opinion at this primitive period, says Mo-
sheim, vol. 1, p. 136, was, that Christ had existed
only in appearance, and not in reality. Dr. Priest-
ley states, in his Church History, vol. 1, p. 97, that
this was the opinion of " all persons who pretended
to philosophy, or more knowledge than the vulgar,

&

MIRACLES. 151

and continued down to the period of the establish-
ment of Popery." The Christian apostle Barnabas,
in his gospel, translated by Archbishop Wake, in his
" Apostolic Fathers," expressly asserts that Jesus
was not crucified, but that Judas was crucified in
his stead. Bassillides, another primitive teacher of
Christianity, declares that it was neither Christ nor
Judas who was crucified, but Symoji of Sirene!
The Ebonites, saj^s Dr. Hug, in his Introduction to the
New Testament, (a numerous body of early Christians)
" denied the miraculous conception of Christ, and with
the Nazarenes, looked upon him only as an ordinary
man." They also denied that he suffered on the cross.
and asserted that he had flown away to heaven ! ! an
achievement certainly more worthy of a "God," than
that of allowing himself to be murdered between two
felons.

Before I retire, I cannot deny myself the pleasure
of quoting some passages from the celebrated dis-
courses of Woolston, on miracles. Those who would
wish to be amused for a few hours, would do well
to read these admirable predilections.

Alluding to the story of Christ telling the woman
of Samaria that she had five hundreds, &c., he re-
marks : — "Christ here makes himself a wandering
gipsy, or Bohemian fortune-teller, and I much won-
der that our gipsies don't account themselves the
genuine disciples of Jesus, being endowed with the
like gifts, and exercising no worse arts than he him*
self practised." He compares Jesus when tempted
by the devil, to St. Dunstan, who seized the devil by
the nose, and he gives the preference to the Saint,
for instead of parleying with him, he remarks, M If
Jesus had taken him by the collar, and thrust him
into his dungeon, and there chained him, and closed
hell's gates upon him, I appeal to honest Christians
whether such a Herculean labor would not have
pleased them well?"

In the story of the fig-tree, he remarks, " Jesus

152 MIRACLES*

conducted himself like a mendicant friar on that oc-
casion, who, before he turned fie Id-preacher, was no
better than a journeyman carpenter." "It is," says
he, " very surprising that the court of Rome has not,
among all its relics, some little fancy box, or three-
foot-stool, of his workmanship."

On the story of the conversion of tvater into wine,
he has some very facetious comments. He observes,
"John expressly says that the guests were already
intoxicated, ' methiitosej and God comes down to
earth, and performs his first miracle, to enable them
to drink still more ! Whether Jesus and his mother
were as excited, as were others of the company, is not
certain. The familiarity of the lady with a soldier
implies she was fond of her bottle, and her son was
somewhat affected by the wine from his answering
his mother so waspishly and snappishly as he did,
when he said, ' Woman, what have I to do with
thee?J It may be inferred from these words that
Mary was not a virgin, and that Jesus was not her
son. Had it been otherwise, he would not thus have
insulted his father and mother, in violation of one
of the most sacred commandments of the law." He
concludes, " however, he (Christ) complied with his
mother's request; he fills eighteen jars with water,
and makes punch of it." The story of the resurrec-
tion of Lazarus he treats with ineffable derision, and
denounces as "so brimful of absurdity, that St. John
when he wrote it must have outlived his senses ! "

Woolston directs especial attention to the dead said
to be raised again by Christ. He contends, and very
justly, that " a dead man restored to life would have
been an object of attention and astonishment to the
universe ; that all the Jewish magistrates, and more
especially Pilate, would have made the most minute
investigation, and obtained the most authentic depo-
sitions ; that Tiberius enjoined all pro-consuls and
governors to inform him, with exactness, of every
event that took place. But so far from these wonders

MIRACLES. 153

being mentioned, the world knew nothing about them
till more than 100 years had rolled away from the
date of the events, when some obscure individuals
show one another the writings recording them. Nei-
ther Josephus, nor the learned Philo, nor any Greek
or Roman historian, at all notices these prodigies,
which, had they really occurred, must have held all
nations in amazement ! "

But enough of these pious monstrosities — these
"wonders,"

" Too heavenly to be understood."

The day is approaching when they will be read as
we now peruse Swift's Gulliver's Travels. The ma-
tured and enlightened mind has outgrown them —
aspires after the real — the practical — the rational. —
The spirit of the age is pre-eminently scientific, and
once let the glorious luminary of science shed its
rays placidly and freely upon mankind, and the
mysteries, delusions, and impostures of the world
will melt away —

" Like the baseless fabric of a vision."

LECTURE NINTH.

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE.

Friends —

I again appear before you to resume our important,
and, I trust, not altogether uninteresting inquiry, into
the divinity of the Christian Scriptures. On this oc-
casion we propose to consider more of the details of
the subject than it was our province to do in our
previous address.

We shall proceed to inquire into the consistency of
the Bible. I hold that any book emanating from an
omniscient Deity must, of necessity, be perfectly con-
sistent in itself in every possible particular.

To suppose such a production as containing dis-
crepancies and incongruities, is virtually to admit
that it is liable to error, and, therefore, cannot be
our inspired, and certainly not our infallible guide
to salvation.

To imagine, for a moment, that a revelation from
omniscience could contain contradictions, is itself a
contradictio?i. If, then, 1 can show the Bible con-
tains inconsistencies, I prove, beyond the possibility
of refutation, that it cannot be divine. It will be a
proof, as Dr. Wardlow remarks, in his Discourses,
" sufficiently convincing that the Bible is not from
God." Presuming, therefore, that all my previous
reasonings were invalid, if I succeed in this argu-
ment, I irrefragably establish my position — that the
Bible is an imposture.

156 THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE.

Professor Campbell, in his Preface to the Transla-
tion of the Gospels, confesses, that, " If anything
were affirmed that is self-contradictory, or anything
enjoined that is immoral, we have sufficient internal
evidence that such thing cannot proceed from the
Father of light, which all the external proofs that
could be produced on the other side, would never be
able to surmount."

The Rev. S. Home, in his Introduction to the
Scriptures, 2d edit. vol. i. p. 581, also observes, "If
real contradictions exist in the Bible, it is sufficient
proof that it is not divinely inspired, whatever pre-
tences it may make to such inspiration."

I unhesitatingly aver, my friends, that there is no
book extant — no production, ancient or modern, more
replete with contradictions — contradictions, naked,
palpable, and absolute, than the book under discus-
sion. It is one tissue of incongruity from Genesis to
Revelations. Had its alleged authors wrote solely
to contradict themselves, they could not have been
more successful.

Considered as a book of contradictions, the Bible
is a most admirable and masterly performance. It
is, indeed, unrivalled in this respect.

Looking at the Scriptures, either in a doctrinal or
historical point of view, instances of the grossest in-
congruity present themselves in almost every chapter
— if not in every verse.

The fact is, anything may be proved from this
"book of riddles," good, bad, or indifferent. It is,
emphatically, " all things to all men." It is one of
the most cameleon-like productions ever composed.
Its color varies, just according to the chapter you are
perusing. Were it possible to read two verses only
from this book to any two individuals who had never
heard of the Bible before, I could pledge my reputa-
tion they would at once declare they could not have
been taken from the same composition.

Certain I am that, in the whole course of my read-

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE. 157

ing, I never met with a work more self -contradictory,
or more unworthy of being taken as an authority or
standard.

It must be admitted, I presume, that any book
which is to be esteemed an authority, and especially
a divine authority, ought, at least, to possess the at-
tribute of congruity. Destitute of that excellence, no
honest or consistent man can esteem it a satisfactory
reference. Now the Bible does not possess that at-
tribute. It is so utterly devoid of it, indeed, that
to talk of the Bible and consistency appears to me
to be as paradoxical and absurd as to talk of George
the Fourth and morality, or of Bishop Philpot and
charity.

This, I doubt not, may be pronounced an unqual-
ified and sweeping declaration. I intend it to be so.
I wish it to be as unqualified as language will admit,
as I am assured I am only affirming that which I
can incontrovertibly substantiate. By your permis-
sion, we will proceed to this demonstration at once,
and waive any further prefatory comment, except it
be to promise that I shall give chapter and verse for
every quotation or reference I make on this occasion,
and I distinctly challenge any person to show that I
have cited unfairly.

I may observe, that though I have an hour allowed
me to treat this subject, I have matter in my posses-
sion, the delivery of which, would take me from now
until midnight. This discourse, therefore, will neces-
sarily contain only a portion of that which I could
adduce did time permit. Nevertheless, I shall en-
deavor to introduce as much as possible, looking to
condensation rather than amplification.

We shall consider the Bible, in the first instance,
'more in a doctrinal than historical sense, and com-
mence by showing the incongruous doctrines it* in-
culcates as to the nature of Deity.

In John, c. iv., v. 24, we are told, "God is a spirit"
immaterial, while in Exodus, c, xxxiii., v. 22, 23, we
14

158 THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE.

are told, he exhibited to Moses a portion of his body,
which shows, if that passage is correct, he is some-
thing more than a spirit. I refrain from reading the
passage. It is too obscene for any respectable audi-
tory. In Prov., c. xv., v. 3, he is represented as hav-
ing eyes. In Isaiah, c. lv., v. 11, a mouth; c. lxv.,
v. 5, a nose; c. xxx., v. 27, lips. 2 Kings, c. xix., v.
16, ears. Ezekiel, c. xliii., v. 7, feet- Jeremiah, c.
xxi., v. 5, arms. Psalms, viii., v. 3, fingers. Eze-
kiel, c. i,, v. 27, loins. Genesis, c. vi., v. 6, a heart.
Numbers, c. xxv., v. 16, a voice. Genesis, c. ii., v. 7,
lungs. Exodus, c. xv., v. 8, nostrils. Jeremiah, c.
iv., v. 19, bowels. Isaiah, c. lxix., v. 17, a head.
Daniel, c. vii., v. 9, hair. Exodus, c xxxiii., v. 11,
a face. Isaiah, c. xxx., v. 27, a tongue. Acts, c. ii.,
v. 28, blood. And in John, c. hi., v. 16, organs of
generation.

In Ephesians, c. iv., v. 6j we are informed, God
is omnipresent, everyiohere. " He is above you all,
through you all, and in you all." But in Habak-
kuk, c. hi., v. 3, it is said. u God came from Teman,"
which implies that he had come to a place where he
previously was not. Now if he was everywhere, he
would have no occasion to come from Teman, as he
must have been at the place already. For similar
passages, see Exodus, c. xix., v. 20. Numbers, c.
xi., v. 25; c. xii. v. 5. Isaiah, c. lxvi., v. 18. Ex-
od., c. xxiv., v. 12. Genesis, c. xvii., v. 22. Luke,
c. hi., v. 22, and a multitude of others.

In Matthew, c. xix., v. 26, we are made acquaint-
ed with the doctrine of God's omnipotence. " With
God all things are possible : ;? and yet we are told, in
Judges, c. i., v. 19, that he " could not drive out the
inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots
of iron."

For parallel passages, see 1 Corin., c. i., v. 25 ;
Exod., c. xxxiv., v. 14; and Gen., c. xxxii., v. 24-30.

In Acts, c. i., v. 24, we are told, God is omniscient,
all-wise; "he knoweth the hearts of all men; " yet

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE. 159

we read in the 1 Corin., c. i., v. 25, of the "foolish-
ness of God; " and in Malachi, c. iii., v. 16, that he
is obliged to keep "a book of remembrance "

For other passages, proving his finite knowledge,
see Gen., c. iii., v. 9, 11; JNum., c. xxii., v. 9; 2
Chron., c. xviii., v. 19 ; and Prov.. c. xxvi., v. 10.

In the 1st of John, c. iv., v. 2, it is said, " God is
love," while in Deut., c. iv., v. 24, it is stated, he is
" a consuming fire." If so, I am afraid his love will
be of rather too warm a nature; but, in Exod., c. xv.,
v. 3, we are told, " he is a man of war; " and in
Nahum, c. i., v. 22, he is "furious?'' In Hosea, c.
xiii., v. 16, he is represented as displaying his "love"
in the following manner: — "Samaria shall become
desolate, for she hath rebelled against her God ; they
shall fall by the sword — their infants shall be dashed
to pieces, and their women with child shall be ript
up." I could supply you with a thousand passages
of a like barbarous nature, but I forbear. I advise
you to read Exodus, c. xxxii., v. 27, 28 ; Deut., c.
xxxii., v. 22-26; 1 Sam., c. xv., v. 3 ; 2 Kings, c. xvii.,
v. 26; Jer., c. xi., v. 11 ; and Ezek., c. v., v. 10, 11.

In Romans, c. ii., v. 11, we learn <|hat God is "im-
partial^ has "no respect of persons," notwithstand-
ing in the very same book, c^ ix., v. 13, we are as-
sured that God loved Jacob, but hated Esau ; and in
1 Sam., c. ii., v. 7, that he was so very " impartial"
as to make some ?Hch, and others poor. For passages
of a similar nature, see 2 Tim., c. ii., v. 16 ; Deut.,
c. vii. v. 6; 1 Kings, c. iii., v. 12; Daniel, c. i., v. 9.

In Malachi, c. iii., v. 6, we are told God is immuta-
ble. "For I am the Lord, 1 change ?iot." In Num.,
c. xxiii., v. 19, we are informed that "God is not a
man that he should lie, neither the son of man that
he should repent ;" yet in Exocl., c. xxxii., v. 14, I
read, "And the Lord repented of the evil which he
had thought to do unto his people."

And in Jer., c. xv., v. 6, he exclaims, "I am weary
with repenting"

160 THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE.

Other passages, equally incompatible with the doc-
trine of immutability, will be found in Gen., c. vi., v.
7 ; 1 Sam. c. xv., v. 11 ; 2 Sam., c. xxiv., v. 16; Jer.,
c. xviii., v. 8, and 10.

We now come to his incomprehensibility, of which
we read in Colos., c. i., v. 15; Rom., c. xi., v. 33;
and Isaiah, c. lv., v. 8. In Colossians it calls him
the invisible God; and still, in Exod., c. xxiv., v. 9,
and 10, it states, that the seventy elders of Israel
"saw the God of Israel." Amos, c. ix., v. 1, of his
book, declares, " I saw the Lord standing upon the
altar." In Exod., c. xxxiii. v. 11, we are informed
that Moses saw the Lord " face to face; " and we
read of several pious impostors who pretend to have
enjoyed a similar " honor." See Gen., c. xxxii., v.
30 ; c. xxvi., v. 2 ; also, Deut., c. xxxi., v. 15.

We will now speak of the dogmas of Trinity and
Unity, In the 1st John, c. v., v. 7, we read, " For
there are three that bear record in heaven, — the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost," While we
discover, in 1 Tim.; c. ii., v. 5, that " there is one
God, and one Mediator between God and man — the
man, Christ Jesus; ;; and in Isaiah, c. xlvi., v. 9, the
Lord is represented as saying, distinctly, " I am God,
aud there is none else." The Trinitarians quote the
first of these extracts; the Unitarians, the two last. —
Both sects, however, pretend to cite numerous other
passages in favor of their respective dogmas. The fa-
mous Trinitarian Pastel, as given by Dr. Jortin, vol.
iii., p. 100, declares, that there are 11,000 proofs in
favor of the Trinity, in the Old Testament alone,
when interpreted rightly ; that is, etymologico-mys-
tico-cabalisticallyP The Unitarians, as stated by
Lindsey, affirm that there are more than " two thou-
sand texts in the Old. and one thousand in the New,
supporting Unitarianism ; " thus demonstrating, that
upon this point, alone, there are thousands of incon-
gruities in the Scriptures.

I shall refer you to a few more passages in reference

THE CONSISTENCY OP THE BIBLE. 161

to the person of a Deity. In Isaiah, c. xl., v. 11, he is
said to be like a shepherd ; in Lament., c. iii., v. 10,
he is compared to a bear. In Isaiah, c. xlii., v. 13, to
a mighty man. In Psalms, Ixxviii., v, 65, and 66, a
sleepy man. In Hosea, c. v., v. 12, he is compared to
a moth ; in c. xiii., v. 7, to a leopard.

We find, that in Gen., c. ii., v. 8, he is declared to
be a gardener ; in Gen., c. iii., v. 21, a tailor ; Gen.,
c. xxix., v. 31, a midwife. Exod., c. i., v. 21, a, house-
builder. Joel, c. iii., v. 8, a slave dealer. 1 Corin., c.
i., v. 25, a fool. Isaiah, c. xxxiv., v. 6, a butcher.
Isaiah, c. liv., v. 13, a schoolmaster. Dent., c. xxxiv.,
v. 6, a sexton. Exod., xxxii., v. 16, a stonemason.
Ezek., c. xvi., v. 10, a shoemaker. Isaiah, c. lxiv., v.
8, spotter. Jer.? c: xxx., v. 17, a doctor. Isaiah, c.
vii., v. 20, a barber. Acts, c. x., v. 15, a cook ; and
Ex. c. xxxi., v. 6 — 8, a candlestick maker. It is said,
again, in Psalms, cxlv., v. 8, that he is " stoic to an-
ger,'1 while in 1 Sam., c. vi., v. 19, we are informed,
he slew 50,070 persons, all in an instant, in a fit of
rage. In Psalms, xxx., v. 5,. we are assured, that his
anger endureth but for a moment, while in Numb., c.
xxxii., v. 13, he made the Israelites wander in the
wilderness, forty years — a rather long moment, I ap-
prehend. In Micah, c. 7, v. 18, we are informed that
he "delighteth in mercy," and yet in Deut., c. vii., v.
2 and 16, we are instructed "neither to show mercy
nor pity." In James, c. i., ver. 13, we are told, that
God cannot be tempted, " neither tempteth he any
man;" and yet in Gen., c. xxii., v. 1, we read that
H God did tempt Abraham ;" and in Matt., c. vi., v. 13,
we are taught to cry out in our prayers, " and lead us
not into temptation." In Micah, c. vii., v. 18, God
"pardoneth iniquity." In Nahum, c. i., v. 3, "he
will not at all acquit the wicked."

In 2 Peter, c. iii., v. 9, God is "not willing that any
should perish," and still in Prov., c. xvi., v. 4, he made
the wicked in order that they might perish. " The
Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, even the
wicked for the day of evil. " 14*

162 THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE.

In Prov., c. xii., v. 22, it is said, " Lying lips are
an abomination to the Lord; " and yet in ] Kings, c.
xxii., v. 23, we are actually told that "the Lord hath
put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these thy
prophets."

John, c. i., v. 3., when speaking of God, says, " All
things were made by him," but Solomon, in his " wis-
dom," c. i., v. 13, intimates that " God made not
death; " and Paul, in his 1st Epistle toCorin., c. xiv.,
v. 33, avers that " God is not the author of con-
fusion."

In Prov., c. xvi., v. 3, we read that the eyes of the
Lord are "in every place"

In Gen., c. iii., v. 9, God could not find Adam in
Paradise, and had to ask, " where art thou?" In
1st Kings, c. viii., v. 12, we are informed that the
Lord dwelleth in " thick darkness ;" but Paul, in his
1st Epist. Tim., c. vi., v. 16, says, that no one can
approach him on account of his "great light."

I have occupied sufficient of your time with incon-
gruities connected with Deity ; I will now enumerate
a few in relation to his Son. In Matt. c. v., v. 22,
Christ says, " Whosoever shall say, thou fool \ shall be
in danger of hell fire ; " and yet, in identically the
same gospel, c. xxiii., v. 17 — 19, he exclaims, "Ye
fools and blind." In John, c. iii., v. 15, he says, " Who-
soever hateth his brother, is a murderer ; " and still we
are told by the same personage, Luke, c. xiv., v. 26,
that we cannot be his disciples, unless we " hate" our
" brethren," and not only our brethren, but our " wives,
children, parents, nay, our own life also ; " glorious
consistency ! humane philosophy ! In Matt., c. xxvi.,
v. 52, it is stated, "Then said Jesus unto them, put
up again thy sword into his place, for all they that
take the sword, shall perish with the sword."

In Luke, c. xxii., v. 36, it states, "Then said he,
(Christ,) unto them, but now he that hath a purse let
him take it, and likewise his scrip, and he that hath
no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

In Luke, c. xii., v. 4, the following language is at-

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE. 163

tributed to Christ, "And I say unto you, my friends,
be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that
have no more that they can do ; " and still, in John,
c. x., v. 39, we read, " Therefore, they sought again
to take him, (Christ,) but he escaped out of their
hands?"* And c. vii., v. 1, " And after these things
Jesus walked in Galilee, for he would not walk in
Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him" In John,
c. x., v. 30, Jie says, "I and my father are one." In
c. xiv., v. 28, he says, "My father is greater than I."

He observes again, in Matt., c. v., v. 39, " But I
say unto you, that ye resist not evil, but whosoever
shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the
other also" In Luke, c. xvii., v. 1, he declares "it is
impossible but that offences will come, but woe unto
him through whom they come." We are told in John,
c. iii., v. 17, that " God sent not his Son into the
world to condemn the world, but that the world
through him might be saved; " and yet Christ him-
self declares, " Think not that I come to send peace
on earth, I come not to send peace, but a sword"
A strange mode of saving the world, truly ! Save me
from such " salvation " — " save me from my friends."

Having developed a few, and only a few, of the in-
consistencies in the character of God and Christ, con-
tained in this "infallible" and "inspired" volume, I
purpose, prior to entering into the historical part, to
point out a few incongruities in its alleged facts and
doctrines.

We will begin with the Ten Commandments, Ex-
odus, c. xx., v. 1 — 17.

These laws comprise the pith of the moral doctrines
of the Jews. The first commandment says, v. 3,
"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me; and yet
God declares, in the same book, Exod., c. vii, v. 1, u I
have made thee a God to Pharaoh" And in Gen.,
c. i, v. 26, we read, u Let us make man in our image ; "
implying, that there must be a plurality of Gods.

In the second commandment, the Israelites were

164 THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE.

strictly enjoined not to make any " graven images, or
any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or
that is in the earth beneath, or in the ivater under the
earth"

Singularly enough, they are told by God, only a
chapter or two afterwards, (c. xxv., v. 18,) to make
two "cherubims of gold"' — to make a likeness of one
of the celestial animals — something that is in the
" heavens above ! "

The same commandment informs us, " I, the Lord
thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of
the father upon the children, unto the third and fourth
generation of them that hate me."

But we read in Ezek., c. xviii., v. 20, that "the son
shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall
the father bear the iniquity of the son."

The third injunction states, v. 7, that " the Lord
will not hold him guiltless, that taketh his name in
vain ; " and yet in Na.hu m, c. L, v. 3, we are told, that
the Lord "pardoneth iniquity." And Jer., c. xxxi.,
v. 34, says, that he " will remember their sins no
more."

The fourth commandment insists that tlie Sabbath
day should be kept "holy." We must do no manner
of work ; but Christ himself demurred to that doc-
trine, in Mark, c. hi., v. 5. He held that it was law-
ful to do what work we conceived good, on the Sab-
bath day.

In Matt., c. xiL, v. 5, he remarks, in justification of
this, " Now have ye not read in the law, how that on
the Sabbath days, the priests of the temple profane the
Sabbath, and are blameless ? "

The fifth law, v. 12, commands us to "honor thy
father and thy mother; " while we are told by Christ,
in Luke, c. xiv., v. 26, that if we "hate not our father
and our mother " we "cannot be his disciples."

In the sixth, it is said, "Thou shalt not kill;"
while in Exocl^, c. xxxii., v. 27, of the very same
book, we are told to "put every man his sword by

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE. 165

his side, and go in and out from gate to gate, and slay
every man his brother, and every man his companion,
and every man his neighbor."

But in 2 Kings, c. x., v. PO, the "Lord" actually
declares that murder is u right" and rewards Jehu
for committing it. " His children," says he, " to the
third and fourth generation shall sit on the throne of
Israel."

, The seventh law states, " Thou shalt not commit
adultery" But, in Isaiah, c. xiii., v. 16, the Lord says of
the Babylonians, that " their children shall be dashed
to pieces before their eyes, their houses shall be spoiled,
and their wives ravished" There are many other
passages, but they are too obscene and revolting to
quote.

I could cite one instance in particular, mentioned
in Matt., c. i., v. 18, but I presume it is blasphemy,
even to allude to it.

The eighth law declares, " Thou shalt not steal."—
But the Lord commands the Israelites, in Exod., c. iii.
v. 22, to " spoil the Egyptians," to rob them of their
" jewels of gold, silver, and raiment." Strange mo-
rality, this ! Consistent book — infallible and immacu-
late oracle of truth and goodness !

We will now briefly refer to the doctrine of immor-
tality. Christians pretend to quote many passages in
favor of this dogma, such as, John, c. v., v. 28, and
29; John, c. xx., v. 11 — 1G ; v. 24—27; c. xxi., v.
12 — 14 ; Acts, c. i., v. 9—11 ; and Matt. c. xxvii.,v.52.

The last apostle tells us that u the graves were
opened and many bodies of saints which slept arose."
Now, it is said, in Job, c. vii., v. 9, " As the cloud is
consumed and vanisheth away, so he that goeth down
to the grave shall come up no more! " In Eccles., c.
iii., v. 19-22, "For that which befalleth the sons of
man befalleth beasts, even one thing befalleth them.
As one dieth, so dieth the other ; yea, they have all
one breath, so that m,an hath no pre-eminence over a
beast. All go unto one place, all are of the dust, and

166 THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE.

all turn to dust again" A pretty prospect this for
the soul-mongers ! In Psalms, however, cxlvi., v. 4,
it distinctly says, that man's " breath goeth forth, he
returneth to the earth ; in that very day his thoughts
perish "

In reference to the duration of the world, we find
very opposite doctrines promulgated. Eccles., c. i.,
v. 4, says, that " one generation passeth away, and
another generation cometh, but the earth abidelh for-
ever." But Matt., c. xiii., v. 49, talks of the " end
of the world,77 and about the angels coming forth, &c.
And Peter, in his second Epistle, c. iii., v. 10, states,
that " the earth also and the works that are therein
shall be burnt tip ! "

In Romans, c. iii., v. 28, it is said, " a man is justi-
fied by faith, xoithout the deeds of the law." But,
in James, c. ii., v. 24, it is remarked, " Ye see, then,
how that by works a man is justified, and not by
faith only," In Ephes., c. ii., v. 8, it says, " For by
grace are ye saved, through faith." But it is affirm-
ed in James, c. xi., v. 20, "that faith without works
is dead" Respecting the Sabbath, we are told in
Exod., c. xx., v. 10, that it is the seventh day in the
week ; while in John, c. xx., v. 1, we are told it is
the 'first day. Which are we to believe?

The following exhibits a few other glaring discre-
pancies. In Micha, c. iv., v. 3, we read that "they
shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their
spears into pruning hooks, nation shall not lift up a
sword against nation, neither shall they learn war
any more" And yet we are ordered to do diametri-
cally the reverse of this in Joel, c. iii., v. 10, "Beat
your ploughshares into sivords, and your pruning
hooks into spears, let the weak say I am strong."
In 1 Tim., c. ii., v. 4, we are assured that the Lord
is solicitous that all should "come unto the know-
ledge of the truth" But, in 2 Thes., c. ii., v. 11, it
is said, "God should send them strong delusion that
they should believe a lie I" In Prov., c. iv., v. 7,

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE. 167

we are advised to "get wisdom" and "get under-
standing; " and yet we are assured in Eccles., c. i.,
v. 18, that "in much wisdom is much grief, and he
that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow."

In Matt, c. x., v. 16, Christ says, " Be ye wise as
serpents;" and still in 1 Corin., c. i., v. 19, we are
told that the Lord " will destroy the wisdom of the
wise." In Psalms, c. xcii., v. 12, we read, "the right-
eous shall flourish like the palm tree." But in Isaiah,
c. lvii., v. 1, it is stated, that the "righteous perish-
eth." In Romans, c. hi., v. 10, it is affirmed, that
" There is none righteous — no, not one."

But we are told in Gen., c. vi., v. 9, that Noah was
a "righteous man," and in the Epistle of James, c.
v.. v. 16, it says, " The prayers of a righteous man
availeth much." Why should James make such an
observation, if there were no righteous men ? " Pray
without ceasing" says Paul, 1 Thess., c. v., v. 17.

But if we do, says the Lord in Isaiah, c. i., v. 15,
"I will not hear." John observes, c. hi., v. 13, " No
man hath ascended up into heaven." But in 2 Kings,
c. ii., v. 11, we learn that Elijah "ascended up into
heaven " by a " whirlwind ! "

" No man hath seen God at any time" says John,
c. i., v. 18; yet in Exod., c. xxxiii., v. 11, we are
told Moses saw him " face to face ; " and in c. xxiv.,
v. 9-11. that the seventy elders of Israel, saw him
and dined with him.

In Exod., c. xxxiii., v. 20, we are assured that no
man shall see the Lord "and live;" and yet we are
informed in Gen., c. xxxii., v. 30, that Jacob saw
the Lord, and fought with him and his life was
" preserved."

Further inconsistencies will be found in the fol-
lowing references. In Gen., c. i., v. 1, it states that
heaven was created on the first day, while in v. 6-8,
it says it was created on the second. In Gen., c. i.,
v. 27, it is said, God created man in his own image.
But in Psalms, c. lxxxix., v. 6, it is asked, "Who is

168 THE CONSISTENCY OP THE BIBLE.

like the Lord?" In Gen., c. i., v. 28, God blesses
those who are fruitful and multiply. In Luke, c.
xxiii., v. 29, the barren, not the fruitful, are blessed.
In Gen., c. i., v. 31, it says, " All that God created
was good." Yet in Isa., c. xlv., v. 7, the Lord says,
u T create evil" In Gen., c. ii., v. 8, we are told,
it is not good for man to be alone, while in 1 Corin.,
c. vii., v. 1, we read that it is " good not to touch a
woman" In Gen., c. hi., v. 6, it is said the woman
saw before she ate of the fruit, while in the very next
verse it says, her eyes were opened after eating. In
Gen., c. iv., v. 15, Cain was marked that he should
not be killed, while in c. ix., v. 6, it says the " blood
shedder" must " die." In Gen., c. iv., v. 16, we are
told Cain went from the presence of the Lord, while
in Psalms, cxxxix., v. 7, we are told ive cannot go
from his presence. In Gen., c. vi., v. 5-7, we are
informed the earth was to be destroyed because it was
evil, while in c. viii., v. 21, it is stated that was the
very reason it was not to be destroyed, and in Gen.,
c. viii., v. 22, we read, "Seed time and harvest shall
never cease," while in c. xlv., v. 6, it is said, the
earth should be five years without either u eating or
harvest!" In Gen., c. x., v. 5, we are told each
man was divided after his tongue, while in the very
next chapter, v. 11, we are informed that the whole
earth was one tongue. In Exod., c. iv., v. 21, it
states, that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but in c.
viii., v. 15, we read that Pharaoh hardened his own
heart. In Exod., c. xxv., v. 8, God says, "Make
me a sancturay to dwell in." Yet, in Acts, c. vii.,
v. 48, we are told God dwelleth not in temples made
with hands. In Deut., c. xii., v. 20, it says, " Eat
flesh whenever thy soul lusteth." And yet in Rom.
c. xiv., v. 21, we are warned that it is not good to
eat flesh. In 2 Sam., c. vi., v. 23, it says, Michal, the
daughter of Saul, had no children; but in c. xxi., v.
8, of the same book, it states she had five ! ! ! In 2
Sam.; c. xxiv., v. 1, it states that God moved David

THE CONSISTENCY OP THE BIBLE. 169

to number Israel : and yet in 1 Chron., c xxi., v. 1,
that Satan provoked him to number them. Perhaps,
God and the Devil were one and the same in those
days. In 2 Sam., c. ii., v. 1-5, we read that David
went to Hebron, and was made king of Judah only,
while in 1 Chron., c. xi.. v. 1-3, it says, he went to
Hebron, and was made king over all Israel. In
Matt., c. v., v. 39, we are commanded to " Resist not
evil ; " but in James, c. iv., v. 7, it bids us to " resist
the Devil; " but, perhaps, the Devil is not an evil —
certainly not the parsons1 — for if he was to make his
exit, their "occupation would be gone." In Gen., c.
iv., v. 13-14, we are told that when the Lord cursed
Cain, and sent him as a vagabond through the earth,
Cain said that every one who found him would slay
him. Now, who could " every one77 be, when, ac-
cording to the Bible, there was no one then in exist-
ence, Abel being murdered, but his own father and
mother ? In v. 16, 17, it says Cain went to the land
of Nod, and got a wife. Where did he get her?
There was no female then in existence but Eve— his
own mother. The same verse, 17, says that Cain
built a city. Bat, who was to inhabit it, pray ?
There were only himself and his wife, and his in-
fant son Enoch living — a very numerous population
to require a city for their home ! I hope they had
room enough. But did Cain build the city himself?
That he could not do. Where then did he find the
workmen ] Such are the discrepancies and contra-
dictions which crowd this infallible book. A pretty
production to be called God's word ! I do not know
whether God is ashamed to own it, but I should be.

The historical incongruities are singularly glaring
and manifold. So multitudinous are they, indeed,
that they would fill a volume of themselves. I must
confine my animadversions to the New Testament ,
and to one portion only — the Gospels. These books
record the Pedigree, Miraculous Conception, Birth,
Career, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension of
15

170 THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE.

Christ They afford one of the most extraordinary-
instances of incongruous and contradictory history
extant Le Clerc, in his Sant, p. 285, might well
observe, that " theologians have labored more than
1000 years to reconcile them, but ivithout success."

Bishop Marsh, too, a most learned English divine
and professor, confesses, in his celebrated lectures,
that after all his attempts to reconcile the contradic-
tion of St. John's account of the resurrection with
that of Mark and Luke, he has not been able to do
it in a manner satisfactory either to himself, or to any
impartial inquirer into truth ! No less than 200 har-
monies or attempts to reconcile the gospels are al-
ready in print.

In respect to the pedigree or genealogy of Christ —
in the first place, Luke's account is quite inconsistent
with Matthew's, as well as with the Old Testament.
Matthew says, c. i., v. 17, that from Abraham to
David are fourteen generations, but according to his
own list of names there can be only thirteen. He
also affirms that from David to the captivity were
fourteen generations, but according to the pedigree, in
the Old Testament, 1 Chron., c. v., v. 10 to 15, there
were eighteen. Total number of generations from
Abraham to Christ, he estimates at forty-two, while
his own list gives .only forty ! A pretty calculator,
truly ! not consistent with himself, much less with
cither inspired historians. Luke's genealogy, c. hi., v.
23 to 38, records forty-three generations, and strange
to say, these infallible men, Matthew and Luke, only
agree in two names out of the forty-three, viz., David
and Joseph — and even in relation to the progenitor of
Joseph they do not agree. Luke says, v. 23, he was
the son of Heli, but Matthew says, v. 16, he was the
son of Jacob.

One of these infallible gentlemen must have made
a mistake. If Matthew spoke the truth, Luke must
have spoken a falsehood, and vice versa. Falsehood,
then, in the case, there must be — nay, it is a false-

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE. 171

hood altogether, if we are to believe Matthew, c. i., v.
18. These evangelical historians quote these gene-
alogies to prove that Jesus is of the family of David.
We trace the pedigree of Joseph up to David, and
infer that Christ being the son of Joseph, he descend-
ed from the man after God's own heart. Now, in
the verse just referred to, we are told that Christ was
not the son of Joseph — but the son of a ghost ! What
a blunder ! What accurate genealogists ! These gen-
tlemen should have given us the pedigree of the wily-
ghost, not that of simple Joseph. What a pity it is the
world has not been supplied with such a curiosity !

Let us speak of the miraculous conception ; and mi-
raculous, indeed, it is ! Matthew says, c. i., v. 20,
the angel appeared unto Joseph, in a dream, and told
him of his good fortune — but Luke says, c. i., v. 30
to 35, the angel did not appear unto the old gentle-
man, but unto Mary herself. Which story is correct?
I am afraid it is all a dream, and a very stupid one
too!

In the account of the birth of Christ there are many
contradictory statements. Matthew tells us, c. ii., v.
1, that on his nativity in Bethlehem, there came wise
men of the east to worship him ; while Luke states,
c. ii., v. 8, that it was only a number of ignoraht
shepherds who came, and who, instead of coming
from the east, only came from the immediate neigh-
borhood. Matthew observes, c. ii., v. 2, that these
strangers were directed to Bethlehem by a star ;
Luke, however, states, c. ii., v. 9 that it was an
angel who led them.

I have affirmed that the career of Christ, from his
birth to his death, is given by these inspired men
very inconsistently. I will give you a few cases : —
First, of the story of Joseph escaping with Christ and
his mother to Egypt, immediately after his birth, to
avoid Herod's persecution. Matthew is the only one
who mentions this very important event, c. ii., v. 13 ;
Luke states, on the contrary, c. ii., v. 21, that they

172 THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE.

did not go, but remained where they were until after
Christ was circumcised, and that they went up with
him to Jerusalem, to present him in the temple, the
most public place in the kingdom, and almost into
Herod's presence ! ! 1 What consistency !

Calling the apostles. Matthew, c. iv., v. 18, tells
us that Christ was walking by the sea of Galilee, and
Peter and Andrew were in their ships fishing, when
he called them ; but Luke affirms, c. v., v. 5, that
Christ himself was sitting in their ships teaching the
people on shore, and the fishermen were out washing
their nets. John's story, however, c. i., v. 35 to 42,
is different from both. He says nothing about these
men being fishermen, nor is there the least allusion
to fishing. He informs us that they were merely
followers of John the Baptist.

Another case is the calling of an apostle, whose
name Matthew says, c. ix., v. 9, was Matthew ; but
Mark declares, c. ii., v. 14, his name was Levi — and
yet, according to their own list, there was not an
apostle of that name !

Christ's sermon on the Mount is mentioned in Mat-
thew, c. i., v. 17, that he delivered this famous sermon
while standing in a plain. Matthew's statement,
therefore, of his delivering it while sitting on a hill, is
inconsistent with Luke's. When he had concluded
this memorable discourse, Matthew remarks, c. viii.,
v. 2, that he cleansed a leper ; but Mark records, c.
i., v. 40, that he performed this cure when he was
preaching in the synagogues throughout Galilee.

In Matthew, c. viii., v. 5, we are informed, that
when Christ arrived at Capernaum, a centurion came
to him and begged of him to come and heal his ser-
vant ; but Luke says, g. vii., v. 3 — 7, that the centu-
rion only sent for him. Which was the fact?

Similar inconsistencies will be found in the story of
his curing Peter's wife — casting out of devils, and
sending them into the herd of swine, and other tales
too contemptible tp mention.

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE. 173

We will proceed to the meeting of John the Baptist
and Christ. By referring to Matthew, c. x., and xi.,
we learn that it was after Christ had sent out his
apostles, that John sent his message to Christ; but by
reading Luke, c. vii., and ix., we find that it was be-
fore he sent out his apostles, that John sent to him.

The story of feeding the multitude, is replete with
contradictions. Matthew says, c. xiv., v. 21, that
there were 5000, besides women and children ; but in
Luke, c. ix., v. 14, no women and children are men-
tioned. In Matthew, c. xv.. v. 34, we are told they
had seven loaves and a few little fishes ; Luke says,
(to improve upon the miracle,) that they had only
five loaves and two fishes, and that there were 12
baskets full of fragments left.

The account of Christ's anointment, also, affords an
instance of the irreconcileable disagreement of the
evangelical history. Matthew, c. xxvi., v. 2, and
Mark, c. xiv., v. 1, tell us, this was done two days
before the last Passover; but John, c. xii., v. 1, says
it was six days ; Luke, however, c. vii., v. 36, de-
clares that it was more than two years before that pe-
riod. The place wherein it was performed, Matthew
and Mark say, was the house of Simon the Leper ;
but Luke states, it was in the house of a Pharisee;
while John records it as occurring in the house of
Lazarus ! Matthew and Mark say the woman poured
the ointment on his head ; but, according to Luke
and John, it was on his feet — a pretty concordance,
truly !

Did time permit, I could edify you with some sin-
gular and amusing discrepancies in the stories of the
transfiguration of Christ, his restoring the blind, his
taking the ass, the last supper, his denial by Peter,
his betrayment by Judas, &c, — but having almost oc-
cupied my time, I must hasten to the account of his
crucifixion.

Matthew relates, c. xxvii., v. 34, that when they had
brought Christ to the place of execution, they gave
15*

174 THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE.

him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall ; but Mark
records, c. xv., v. 25, that it was wine mingled with
myrrh. Which was it? "Which of these " infallible"
men speak the truth 1 Mark states, c. xv., v. 25, that
he was crucified at the third hour ; but John says it
was the sixth. Matthew informs us that both the
thieves, who were executed with Christ, reviled him ;
but Luke says it was only one of them who reviled
him, and the other rebuked his companion for so
doing! Which account is true?

Similar inconsistencies will also be detected in the
accounts given of the superscription placed over the
head of Christ, and also in many other matters, but
I have not time to enumerate them.

I must speak of the resurrection. First, of those
who came to the sepulchre. Matthew, c. xxviii., v. 1,
states, that it was Mary Magdalene, and another Ma-
ry who came ; Luke says, c. xxiv., v. 10, it was the
two Marys, and Johanna and other women, who
came; while, according to John, c. xx., v. 1, Mary
Magdalene came alone ! ! Well may there be a ne-
cessity for priests to write "harmonies to the gospels."

Matthew, c. xxviii., v. 2, observes, that an " angel
descended from heaven, and rolled back the stone
from the door, and sat upon it ; n while Mark, c. xvi.,
v. 4, mentions, that he was not sitting outside, but
inside the sepulchre, on the right side. We learn from
Matthew, that the visitants went away from the sepul-
chre somewhat abruptly ; but Mark says, they went
into it. When they entered, Mark declares that they
saw one young man, clothed in a long white garment,
(whether it was a shirt or surplice, we do not learn.)
sitting at the right side ; but Luke gives an opposite
statement — he says, there were two young men, and
they were standing, and had on shinifig garments. —
Matthew records, c. xxviii., v. 5, 6, that the angel
told the women of Christ's rising from the dead ; but
John says, c. xx., v. 14 — 17, that Christ told them
himself; according to Luke, c. xxiv., v. 12, when Peter

THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE. 175

came to the sepulchre, he only looked into it, and did
not go in ; but John affirms, c. xx., v. 5, 6, that he did
go in, and another disciple with him ; Matthew relates,
c. xxviii., v. 9, that when they saw him, they wor-
shipped him, and held him by the feet ; but John de-
clares, c. xx., y. 17, that Christ would not let them
touch him ! What consistency ! What infallibility !

We now approach the last scene of this amusing
farce — the Ascension. In Matthew, c. xxviii., v.
7 — 17, it is intimated, that the disciples went to Gali-
lee to meet Jesus, according to appointment ; but Luke
tells us, c. xxiv., v. 33 — 36, he appeared to them un-
expectedly at Jerusalem ; Luke says, also, that when
they did meet him, the disciples were terrified; but
John says, c. xx., v. 20, they were glad to meet him !

According to Luke, v. 35, the whole of the eleven,
apostles were there ; but John states, that the apostle
Thomas was absent, and when told of it, he would not
believe it. Incredulous man ! Mark says, c. xvi., v.
19, that Christ ascended into heaven, from the place
lohere the apostles were sat at meat ; but Luke affirms,
c. xxiv., v. 50, that he first led them out to Bethany,
and that there his ascension took place.

In Luke, c. xxiv., v. 13, we read, that Christ's as-
cension took place on the same day as his resurrection
— in the evening ; while we understand from John, c.
xx., v. 26, that he appeared to his disciples several
times, and remained upon the earth 'many days ;
(some say forty,) performing so many " wonders,5'
that John says, if they were written, the WORLD
would not be large enough to contain all the books ! ! !
With this marvellous statement, John closes his gos-
pel, and verily it is a closer !

Consistent evangelists — " inspired " and {C infalli-
ble " historians, indeed, scarcely to agree in any one
particular, on any subject ! Were the same number
of incongruities, equally gross and palpable, exhibited
by four witnesses, in the meanest court in the land,
upon the most frivolous case imaginable, their testi-

176 THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BIBLE.

mony would be scouted with indignation and con-
tempt. Why then should such evidence be admitted
in relation to matters which are solemnly proclaimed
to be, of all others, the most sacred and momentous,
involving the welfare of humanity, both now and
u through life everlasting" 1 Strange infatuation ! —
Blind credulity ! Monstrous perversion of common
sense, and moral principle !

My friends, I have reviewed a few, and but a few,
of the inconsistencies observable in this precious pro-
duction. Though I have only presented a modicum of
what could be adduced^ I flatter myself I have offered
sufficient to invalidate the credibility of any book,
much less one which is alleged to be divinely inspired.
That man who would venture to uphold the infallibi-
lity of the Bible, in the face of this prodigious mass of
incongruity, is one who would set at naught all ac-
knowledged criterion of truth, and all established prin-
ciples of rational evidence, and the best advice I can
render him is to " get wisdom, and with all thy get-
ting, get understanding."

LECTURE TENTH.

THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE.

Friends —

This evening we shall discuss the morality of the
Bible. Believers in this book are remarkably fond
of exhibiting its excellencies in this respect. When
driven from every other position, they generally take
refuge behind what they term the divine "morals"
of the "Word of God." However discomfitted they
may have been upon other questions connected with
the divinity of the Scriptures, on resorting to this
" strong-hold," their courage is revived, and, like the
omnipotent Deity after resting on the seventh day,
they return to the encounter quite "refreshed." I
must say, it is somewhat astonishing, such bravado
and exultation should be exhibited upon a point, in
which I conceive, the Scriptures are more vulnerable
than any other. I cannot account for such a para-
dox, except that the Christian world, knowing their
weakness upon this head, are desirous to supply the
deficiency, by assumption and dogmatism. Things
generally make the greatest noise when they are most
empty.

My friends, if there is one thing connected with this
controversy clearer than another, it is that the Bible
is an immoral publication. I will allow, before I
proceed, that there are a few redeeming qualities — a
sprinkling of good passages, (and in what book is

178 THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE.

there not something good ? ) but these passages are
so rare, that "like angels' visits," they are "few and
far between." But, even the unexceptionable parts,
limited though they be, are by no means original.
Most of them are merely borrowed from other produc-
tions, as it is incontestable that moral precepts, equal-
ly admirable, were taught by the sages of Greece, the
philosophers of Rome, the Brahmins of India, and the
Reformer of China, long anterior to the introduction
of Christianity — before either the Old or New Testa-
ment were written.

I shall comment at length upon this subject in a
subsequent lecture. I will only remark, at this mo-
ment, that Thales, Pittacus, and Confucius, wise and
good men, whose ethics, in many respects, were iden-
tical with those of the Scriptures, flourished at a
much earlier period than Christianity. Thales lived
600 years before Christ; Pittacus, 570; and Confu-
cius, 500. These three distinguished men taught the
very doctrine of which Christians are so proud, and
affirm is so eminently peculiar to their system, viz.,
" Do unto others as you would wish others to do-
unto you."

Thales says, "Avoid doing what you would blame
others for doing." Pittacus enjoins, " Avoid doing
that to your neighbor which you would take amiss
if he Avere to do to you." And Confucius taught,
" Do to another what you would they should do unto
you, and do not unto another what you would should
not be done unto you ; thou only needest this law
alone ; it is the foundation and principle of all the
rest."— Moral 24.

These sentiments are exactly the same as those en-
forced by Christ 500 years afterwards.

Mr. Dunlap, in his justly celebrated defence of Ab-
ner Kneeland, the American Freethinker, indignantly
asks, " Was there no morality in the days of Homer,
Pythagoras, Solon, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Virgil?
Was there no morality in the vast, populous, and

THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE. 179

civilized empire of China in the time of Confucius?
Was there no morality in the kingdom of Egypt,
where, before even the commandments were given,
'mid the thunders of Mount Sinai, Benjamin was
accused of an offence against morality, because of
the cup of Joseph which was found in his sack?
Was there no morality among the immense nations
of the American continent, stretching almost from
pole to pole, till the lofty and daring genius of Co-
lumbus impelled him to the discovery of the New
World ? Has there been no morality from the ear-
liest times in those seats of innocence and contem-
plation, the dwellings of the Brahmins ?" Granting,
then, that there may be a few moral precepts in the
Bible, they are but borrowed — second-hand; and,
therefore, if we are indebted to any one for these
morals, it is not to Christianity, but to men greater
than any recorded in the " Holy Word.7'

Not only, however, are these precepts not original,
but many of them are utterly impracticable, and,
therefore, useless ; nay, some, if they were to be
literally followed, would be actually pernicious^ in-
asmuch as they would destroy the physical and
mental industry of man, and inevitably lead to fam-
ine, ignorance, and misery. For instance, in Matt,
c. vi., v. 25, 26, we are told to "take no thought for
your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink,
nor yet for your body what ye shall put on. Is not
the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither
do they reap, nor gather into barns, yet your heavenly
father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than
they?" What would follow the practice of such a
doctrine as this ? Utter confusion, want, and degra-
dation. Supposing the people were to adopt it —
supposing the working classes were to begin to ex-
hibit such pious indifference to things carnal, and, in
pursuance of that virtuous resolve, were to acquaint
his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury that they

180 THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE.

were truly penitent for having so long committed so
grievous a sin as to earn their bread (and his bread.)
by the " sweat of their brow," and that now they
were really determined upon being good Christians,
in " caring not as to what they should eat, or what
they should drink,7' but that they and he, and the
rest of the idle drones of the community, should de-
pend for their subsistence, "like the fowls of the air,"
upon their " heavenly father,1' how queer he would
look, and how he would laugh at them for adopting
the very system he is paid to teach ! Heaven knows
it would be a fortunate thing for the starving millions
if this doctrine could be really practised ! Many are
they who are now precluded from producing food
either to "eat," or to "drink." I would advise them,
therefore, " to shirt their eyes, open their mouth, and
see what God will send them," and never more be so
wicked and irreligious as to wish to work to provide
for themselves and families !

Again, in Mark, c. v., v. 44, it is said, " Love your
enemies." But who can do this? It is morally im-
possible. You may pity your enemies — -forgive them,
but so long as they are your enemies, you cannot
love them. It is inherent in human nature that
man should like that which imparts pleasure, and
dislike that which produces pain. You might as
well, therefore, have been commanded to love the
viper that would destroy you, as the enemy who
would ruin you.

From these instances, it is obvious, that what little
morality the Bible contains is stolen, impracticable,
or absurd.

Considering this notorious oracle, therefore, in the
most favorable point of view, it is but a miserable
production.

We will now glance at the dark side of the picture,
and dark indeed it is I What scenes of crime, butch-
ery, and obscenity open to our view ! My blood
grows cold with horror when I think of the atrocities
which it details.

THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE. 181

If, my friends, there be no other argument against
the divinity of the Bible but its immorality and o5-
scenity^ that alone is sufficient to condemn it. A
book emanating from a Being of purity, wisdom, and
love, would of necessity have been presented free
from all moral impurity, and clothed in language
beautiful and chaste. To assert, therefore, that a
book like the Bible is a revelation from such a Being,
is to aver that which is truly monstrous. Talk of
blasphemy and blasphemers — if there be such a thing
as "blasphemy," and such men as " blasphemers " —
they are certainly those who maintain the divinity of
the Bible! Its pages ought to make any virtuous
and enlightened man blush.

Apprehend not, that I intend to wound your feel-
ings, or offend propriety, by quoting these obscenities.
I would not pollute my lips with them. However
Christians may admire them, I should feel for the
individual who would attempt to read them publicly.
I shall, therefore, abstain from quoting the impurities
of the Bible. Those who wish to become acquainted
with that portion of the subject, would perhaps do
well to possess themselves of a small work of mine,
entitled "The Holy Scriptures Analyzed, or Extracts
from the Bible; showing its contradictions, absur-
dities, and immoralities."

I find on reading the celebrated discussion between
the Rev. Mr. Greg and the Rev. Mr. Maguire, at
Dublin, (the former a Protestant minister, and the
latter a Catholic priest,) Mr. Maguire made the fol-
lowing observations upon this point : — "I beg of you
not to continue such a practice; it is disreputable.
I will ask Mr. Greg a question, and I beg of you my
brethren of the Protestant Church to bear this in
mind, I will ask him, if he dare to take up the 'Bible
and read from the book of Genesis the fact of Onan —
I ask him will he read that ? Will he read the fact
relative to Lot and his two daughters ? Will he read
these and many other passages which I could point
16

182 THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE.

out to him in tho Holy Bible, which I would not
take one thousand guineas, nay, all the money in the
world, and read it here to-day." A significant cir-
cumstance that a priest should be ashamed to read
from a book which he believes was inspired by God !
Listen to the extraordinary declaration of Richard
Lalor Shiel, Esq., M. P., member of the Whig ad-
ministration, and one of the privy councillors to the
Queen. In the Church of Ireland Magazine for 1825,
the following language is ascribed to that brilliant
orator: — " Many passages in Scripture were written
with such force, and he might say, with nakedness
of diction, as rendered them unfit for indiscriminate
perusal. There were parts of the Old Testament in
which images of voluptuousness were presented to
the mind on which the imagination of a youthful fe-
male ought not to be permitted to repose. He would
venture to assert that the Odes of Anacreon did not
display more luxury of imagination, or combine more
sensual associations than parts of the Old Testament.
The Bible contained details of atrocity at which hu-
man nature shuddered. Part of the holy writings
consisted of history, and of the narration of facts of
a kind that could not be mentioned in the presence of
a virtuous woman without exciting horror. * Should
a woman be permitted to read in her chamber, what
she would tremble to hear at her domestic board ?
Shall she con over and revolve what she would rather
die than utter? "

What kind of a book, my friends, imn that be, at
the perusal of which, a virtuous mind must shudder ?
Can it be the word of a God ? Ah ! let the Christian
world blush at their effrontery, and cease to exclaim
against u blasphemy and impiety.7'

Having explained myself upon this subject, I shall
proceed to consider some of those passages which in-
culcate or connive at immorality. I shall begin, by
describing the leading characters of the Bible — the
heroes of this improbable tale, the favorites of the

THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE. 183

Bible God ! These personages, we might have pre-
sumed, were paragons of perfection, the beau ideal of
intellectual and moral beauty, but instead of such pre-
sumption being realized, I boldly assert that the ma-
jority of them were the most cunning, cruel, and des-
picable characters on record.

The first of these Scripture paragons I shall name,
is Noah' — the only individual, with his family, who
was considered worthy of being saved at the Deluge.
Surely, he was a moral man. Very moral ! for we
read in Gen., c. ix., v. 21, 22, that he was found in
such a state of obscene drunkenness, that I forbear
quoting the passage. If there were many Noahs in
the world, teetotalism, I apprehend, would be at a dis-
count. I will ask, was it a moral act upon the part
of Noah, to curse his own son ? See Gen., c. ix., v. 25.
If all fathers were to take Noah as a pattern, paternal
affection would be unknown.

Abraham, the patriarch, we read in Gen., c. 20, v.
1 — 5, uttered the most barefaced falsehood to Abime-
lech, King of Gerar. He unblushingly told him that
his wife was not his wife, but only his sister; and in
Gen., c. xxi., v. 9, 10 — 14, we learn, that he put out
one of his wives, the Egyptian Hagar, and left her
and he'r child to wander in the " wilderness of Beer-
sheba." The unfeeling brute !

Isaac, the son of Abraham, another very prominent
character in the early history of the Bible, followed
the virtuous example of his father. In Gen. c. xxvi.,
v. 7 — 9, it states that he, also, denied his wife. The
story is truly obscene.

Jacob, the favored son of Isaac, and the person
whom, we read in Malachi, c. i., v. 2, 3, the Lord
loved so much, endeavored to deceive his own father,
Gen. c. xxvii., v. 19. He, also, robbed his own bro-
ther, Esau, as stated in v. 36 ; and in c. xxix., and
xxx., we read of his perpetrating three of the greatest
crimes that a man: could commit — incest, polygamy,
and adultery.

184 THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE.

Moses, the "meekest man" in history, and private
secretary to the Bible-God, was a deliberate murderer
— a wretch, who, in this country, would be deemed
unfit to live. In Exodus, c. il, v. 11, 12, we read,
" And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was
grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked
on their burdens, and he spied an Egyptian smiting
an Hebrew, one of his brethren. And he looked this
way, and that way, and when he saw that there was
no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the
sand." This is absolute, unqualified homicide. But
Moses was, also, an instigator to murder, on a large
scale, as seen particularly in Numbers, c. xxxi. He
was, likewise, an inciter to prostitution, as evidenced
in v. 17, and 18, of that chapter. The butcheries, in-
deed, committed at the instance of that divine favor-
ite, are unparalleled.

Joshua was well worthy of his meek predecessor.
The atrocities perpetrated by him, " in the name of
the Lord," are truly frightful— I decline quoting them.
You may refer to the book of Joshua, c. x., v. 17 — 26,
if you are disposed to gratify your curiosity.

Samuel, the next Bible hero, was the beau ideal of
a priest. To reason with his opponents, he consider-
ed a loss of time. He could best dispose of their ob-
jections, by cutting off their heads ! We are told, in
the 1st Samuel, c. xv., v. 33, that he "hewed Agag in
pieces before the Lord, in Gilgal ; " and in v. 3, of the
same chapter, we observe his priestly hatred so im-
placable, that it extended itself to the very brutes. He
orders Saul to go and " smite Amalek, and utterly de-
stroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay
both man and woman, infant and suckling, camel and
ass ! 8 A pretty command to be given by one of a
body of men who ought to be examples to their fel-
low creatures !

We read, in 2 Kings, c. ii., v. 23, 24, that Elisha,
another Bible hero, and "man of God," cursed some
little children " in the name of the Lord," for simply

THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE. 185

exclaiming, in. their childish frolic, " bald-head ; 5? and
that the Lord very kindly listened to his curses, and
instantly there appeared two she bears, who devoured
forty-two of the youngsters ! Such an old " inspired "
brute was highly deserving of Biblical distinction.

David, who is called "the man after God's own
heart, 1; and, therefore, the person, who, above all
others, ought to have afforded the finest specimen of
humanity, was the very embodiment of depravity
and brutality. In the 2d Samuel, c. xi., v. 2-6, we
are told of his committing adultery under the most
revolting circumstances. In the 1st Samuel, c. xxi.,
v. 12, 13, we learn of his descending to the most
disgusting dissimulation before Acish, the King of
Gath. In 2d Samuel, c. xii., v. 29-31, a scene of the
most horrible butchery is presented to us, occasioned
by this prototype of the Bible Deity. He put the
people of Rabbah " under saios and under harrows of
iron, and axes of iro^and made them pass through
the brick-kilns ; and thus did he unto all the cities of
the children of Aramon." Cruelty like this could not
be surpassed. David exhibited his natural ferocity
of character even upon his very death-bed. Speak-
ing of the son of Gera, a Benjamite, he enjoins his
son Solomon, almost in his last breath, " Now, there-
fore, hold him not guiltless, for thou art a wise man,
and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him;
but his hoary head bring thou down to the grave
with blood ! " 1 Kings, c. ii., v. 8, 9. Did ever mor-
tal man die with such a curse on his lips ? Did any
father, at such a moment, exhort a child to the com-
mission of such crimes ! Oh ! what an example to
the world ! What morality ! What humanity !

Solomon's career, though he is proclaimed to be the
" wisest man" that ever lived, was only that of a
voluptuary and debauchee. Were the human race to
follow his bright example, virtue and chastity would
be mere names. To convince you of the justness of
my remarks, I need but remind you that in 1 Kings,
16*

186 • THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE.

c. xi., v. 3, it states, "And he (Solomon) had seven
hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred con-
cubines, and his wives turned away his heart ! "
His songs, which from his "wisdom" ought to have
been the perfection of purity and correctness of style,
are so lascivious, that many of them would disgust
the most depraved bacchanalian. I will not quote
them. You may read them for yourselves, particu-
larly c. vii., v. 1-4.

The characters here reviewed constitute the "great
lights" of the Old Testament,, and pretty lights they
are ! Those of the New are Jesus Christ — and his
three principal apostles, Paul, Peter, and John. In
my third address, I had occasion to speak at length
of Christ and the two former apostles, as illustrative
of the system of imposture pursued by the early
Christians, to which observations I beg to refer you.
I need not, therefore, on this occasion, occupy much
, of your time with remarks upon these passages.

I may ask, however, what morality is there in the
following account of the genealogy of Jesus Christ,
the " Saviour " of the world — one whose origin,
above all other beings, should have been honorable
and illustrious? I will quote the language of Dr.
Alexander Walker, in his work on "Woman," p.
330, — a writer eminent as a Christian, not an Infidel.
Had such an observation been made by one of my
class, it would have been denounced "blasphemous."
"It is remarkable," says he, "that, in the genealogy,
of Christ, only four wompn have been named! Tha-
mar, who seduced the father of her late husband;
Rachel, a common prostitute; Ruth, who, instead of
marrying one of her cousins, went to bed with another
of them • and Bethsheba an adulteress, who espoused
David, the murderer of her first husband! " What
a pedigree! — and for the "Son of God," too! 1
should be ashamed of such an origin. No wonder
that our virtuous aristocracy are so indifferent about
their "illustrious" ancestors ! In Luke, c. xxii., v.

THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE. 187

36, Christ gives the following command to his peace-
able dupes — a command which may suit the taste of
the " Iron Duke/7 — "But now he that hath a purse,
let him take it ; and he that hath no sword, let him
sell his garment and buy one ! 7J In John, c. xv., v.
6, he charitably exclaims, "If a man abide not in me,
he is cast forth as a branch and is withered, and men
gather them, and cast them into the^re, and they are
burned" Again, in Luke, c. xiv., v. 26, "If a man
come to me and hate not his father and mother, and
wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, his
own life also, he cannot be my disciple.57 If this
absurd and inhuman doctrine was followed, all do-
mestic comfort and affection would be annihilated.
For other passages relative to Christ ; see Luke, c.
xii.. v. 49-51 ; Matt, c. x., v. 34, 35 ; Mark, c. xvi.;
v. 16; Mark, c. iv., v. 11, 12; Mark, c. xi., v. 1-3,
which detail the affair of the colt — an act for which
a man would now be transported, and twenty years
ago hanged; Mark, c. ii., v. 23-26, which informs us
of the depredations the disciples of Christ committed
amongst the farmers7 corn, as they were passing by
the way-side — (an act for which an individual would
now be condemned for larceny) but which Christ; in
opposition to the dicta of the learned judges of this
age, pronounced innocent and commendable. Also
Mark, c. v., v. 11, 12, and c. xi., v. 12-21. In these
four latter references, Christ is represented either as
taking or destroying other people7 s property himself,
or allowing his followers to do it ; which, of course,
coming from him, is eminently moral, and a fine pre-
cedent to the light-fingered gentry of this Christian
land !

Paul, who, after the death of Christ, was the main
champion of Christianity, unblushingly declares in
his 2d Epistle to Cor., c. xi., v. 8, "I robbed other
churches to do ye service.77 In Rom., c. hi., v. 7, he
exclaims, " For if the truth of God hath more abound-
ed through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also

188 THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE.

judged as a sinner?" In 2d Cor., c. xii., v. 16, he
says, " Being crafty ? I caught you with guile." How
honest! How honorable! In Gal., c. i., v. 9, he pro-
pounds the following monstrous doctrine :— " As we
said before, so say I now again, if any men preach
any other doctrine unto you, than that ye have re-
ceived, let him be accursed." Excellent morality ! —
so excellent, that were it generally practised, the
world would become a scene of moral strife and
enmit}^

Peter's denial of his Master, Luke, c. xxii., v. 54-
58, is of a like character to Abraham's and Isaac's
denial of their wives; and were their example fol-
lowed, all truth and sincerity would be destroyed. I
shall say little at this moment of Peter, deliberately
drawing the sword, and cutting off the right ear of
the priest's servant; John, c. xviii., v. 10. The act
is so flagrantly cruel and unjust, that were it defend-
ed for a moment, no one's life would be safe in a
Christian country. Every desperado might indulge
in his atrocities with impunity. Nor need I enlarge
on the blackguardism of Peter — his " cursing and
swearing" recorded in Matt., c. xxvi., v. 74. Blas-
phemy in a Christian apostle is passed over in silence.

John, in his second Epistle, c. i., v. 10, gives the
following truly Christian injunction : — "If there come
any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive
him not into your house ; neither bid him God speed."
Were John's admonitions strictly obeyed, the world
would become an arena of the most relentless intole-
rance and inhumanity. All the most delightful ties
which bind civilized society, hospitality, courtesy, per-
sonal respect, social intercourse, would be dissevered,
and man would be left to grovel in bigotry and dog-
matism. Yet the men who enunciate such doctrines,
are those whom we are trained to admire, revere, and
almost deify. How infamous ! Were we to take the
Bible prodigies as our models, instead of our advanc-
ing in toleration, humanity, and enlightenment, we

THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE. 189

should soon retrograde to a state of brutality and bar-
barism.

Those names upon whom I have been expatiating,
are the " elite'' of the Bible, the " literati," the " fa-
vored few" with whom the Deity would alone have
any association.

What a contrast to the character of those illustrious
men of ancient times, who knew not the " blessings of
the Divine Word "— to our Socrates, Thales, Zeno-
phon, Plato, Zeno, Epicurus, Aristides, Phocian, Cice-
ro, Pliny, Seneca, and a phalanx of other wise and
good men, compared with whom the Scriptural heroes
shrivel into nothingness ! O ! talk not to me of the
morality of the Bible, in the presence of such glorious
names !

We will, therefore, proceed with our subject. We
have still a great task to perform, and little time left
to complete it. My remarks will, necessarily, be very
summary. I hasten to refer you to passages which
incite to the commission of various crimes.

Drunkenness. In Jeremiah, c. xxv., v. 27, it says,
u Therefore, thou shalt say unto them, drink ye, and
be drunken, and spue, and fall down, and rise no more,
because of the sword which I will send amongst you."
In Deut., c. xiv., v. 26, we are presented with a speci-
men of latitndinarianism, highly palatable to an anti-
teetotaller — " And thou shalt bestow that money for
whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for
sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or whatsover
thy soul desire th."

Robbery. See the case of Paul, as previously quoted ;
also, Exod., c. iii., v. 21, 22, where the Lord states,
" And I will give this people favor in the sight of the
Egyptians : and it shall come to pass, that, when you
go away, ye shall not go empty. But every woman
shall borrow of her neighbor, and of her that sojourn-
eth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold,
and raiment ; and ye shall put them upon your sons,
and upon your daughters, and ye shall spoil the

190 THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE*

Egyptians. " What a virtuous scene society would
become if that example was followed ! If every En-
glishman and Irishman in the "land o' cakes," on
leaving the country, were to adopt this practice, the
"cannie Scotchman" would both look and feel most
" unutterable things." For other examples, see 1 Cor.,
c. x., v. 24

Vagabondism. In Psalms, cix., v. 10, it says, " Let
his children be continually vagabonds, and beg;" in-
dividuals, who, in this Christian country, are now
treated as criminals.

Bigamy. See Deut., c. xxi., v. 15 — 17. The pas-
sage is not fit to quote. See, also, the "illustrious"
instance of Solomon, 1 Kings, c. xi., v. 3. A more un-
blushing case of bigamy cannot be cited than this ad-
mired Bible-hero. Seven hundred wives ! But he
had three hundred concubines to boot ! And this is
the "wisest man" of whom the Bible-readers can
boast. I admire their taste.1 "

Prostitution. See Hosea, c. i., v. 2, and Judges,
c. xxi., v. 12. These passages are only fit for a
Chirstian to quote. I will read you, however, the
following example from Numb., c. xxi., v. 17, 18: —
"Now, therefore, (says Moses) kill every male among
the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known
man by lying with him. But all the women children,
that have not known a man, by lying with him, keep
alive for yourselves ! " What generous prudence !

Adultery. This crime the " Lord " threatened the
Babylonians their wives should suffer. " Their chil-
dren (says he, in Isaiah, c. xiii., v. 16,) shall be dash-
ed to pieces, their houses shall be spoiled, and their
wives ravished." What a threat ! See also Matt., c.
i.. v. 18.

I find some curious doctrines upon the subject of
Marriage, which I will here introduce. I commend
them to the consideration of Dr. Wardlaw. I advise
him to issue an appendix to his new work on Prosti-
tution, and amongst writings which he mentions as

THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE. 191

inculcating lax notions upon this subject, to include
" the Holy Bible." I will refer you in the first place
to Deut., c. xxi., v. 10-14. The language is too ob-
jectionable to quote. I may state that if we were to
practice the license therein granted, a man might
change his wife every month. I will next refer you
to Deut., c. xxiv., v. 1, 2. We are there told that
" When a man hath taken a wife, and married her,
and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes,
because he hath found some uncleanness in her ; then
let him (the man himself) write her a bill of divorce-
ment, and give it into her hand, and send her out of
his house : and when she hath departed out of his
house, she may go and be another man's wife ! "
This extract needs no comment.

Degradation and E?islavement of Women. The Bi-
ble, and more especially the New Testament, abounds
in passages in contempt of the gentler sex. Paul
says, in 1 Tim., c. ii., v. 11, "Let the women learn
in silence with all subjection ; }' and in 1 Cor., c. xiv.,
v. 34, 35, he exclaims, 4CLet your women keep si-
lence in the churches : for it is not permitted unto
them, to speak ; but they are commanded to be under
obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will
learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home,
for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
See also 1 Tim. c. ii., v. 12 ; and Eph., c. v., v. 22, 23.

Slavery and the Slave Trade. In support of that
monstrous system, I could quote many passages from
this book. In Lev., c. xxv., v. 44-46, I read, "Both
thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt
have, shall be of the heathen that are round about
you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do
sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their
families that are with you, which they begat in your
land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall
take them as an inheritance for your children after
you — to inherit them for a possession, they shall be

192 THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE.

your bondmen forever!" What an iniquitous traffic
in human life! See also Joshua, c. ix., v. 21, and
Joel, c. hi., v. 8, where the " Lord " exclaims, uAnd
1 will sell your sons and your daughters, into the
hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell
them to the Sabeans to a people afar off; for the
Lord hath spoken it." The American parsons may
well say that the Bible sanctions slavery!

Apology for tyranny and oppression. In Heb., c.
xih., v. 17, we are told, explicitly, to "obey them
that rule over you, and submit yourselves ; " and in
1 Peter, c. ii., v. 13, we are commanded to u Submit
yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's
sake." A most convenient doctrine to all tyrants
and usurpers ! The same audacious priest thus com-
mands us in v. 18, "Servants, be subject to your
masters, with all fear, not only to the good and the
gentle, but to the froward ! " But these are modest,
compared with the following language of Paul: " Let
every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for
there is no power but of God — the powers that be are
ordained of God; whosoever, therefore, resisteth the
power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that
resist shall receive damnation I" Rom., c. xiii., v,
1-3. What a doctrine ! How like the Bible ! For
other passages, see Titus, c. ii., v. 9, and Hosea, c.
xii., v. 7.

Discouragement of virtue. u Be not righteous over-
much, neither make thyself over wise, why shouldst
thou destroy thyself?" Eccles., c. vii., v. 16. In
Rev., c. xxii., v. 11, it is stated, " He that is unjust
let him be unjust still, and he that is filthy let him be
filthy still." That is the doctrine of finality with a
vengeance.

Encouragement of ignorance and error. Paul, in
1 Cor., c. xiv., v. 38, writes, " But if any man be ig-
norant, let him be ignorant." And in c. i., v. 27, he
says, " But God hath chosen the foolish things of the
world to confound the wise" In Isa., c. vi.? v. 10,

THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE. 193

it is ordered, " Make the heart of this people fat,
and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest
they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears,
and understand with their heart, and convert, arid
be healed." See also c. lxiii., v. 17: and Exod., c.
xix., v. 12, 13.

Encouragement to Lying and Falsehood. In 2
Thess. c. ii., v. 11, we are told, "And for this cause,
God shall send them strong delusions, that they should
believe a lie." And in 2d Chron., c. xviii., v. 21, the
Lord is represented as saying, " I will go out and be
a lying~s\>\x\t in the mouth of all his prophets." Ezek.,
c. xx., v. 25, informs us that the Lord set a very good
example to the world, for we are told that he "gave
them statutes that were not good, and judgments
whereby they should not live." See, likewise, Gen.,
c. xxvii., v. 19 ; c. xxviii., v. 13 — 15 ; c. xxvi, v. 7 — 12 ;
Jer., c. xx., v. 17 ; and Ezek., xiv., v. 9.

Encouragement to Hypocrisy, and an exquisite spe-
cimen of morality it is. In 1 Sam., c. xvi., v. 1, 2, we
read, "And the Lord said unto Samuel, How long
wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him
from reigning over Israel ? Fill thine horn with oil,
and go. I will send thee to Jesse, the Bethlemite, for
1 have provided me a king from among his sons. And
Samuel said, how can I go? If Saul hear me, he will
kill me. And the Lord said, take an heifer with thee,
and say, I am come to sacrifice to the Lord."

Breach of Faith. In Num., c. xiv., v. 30 — 34, the
Lord observes, " Doubtless, ye shall not come into the
land, concerning which I swore to make you dwell
therein, save Caleb, the son of Jephannah, and Joshua,
the son of Nun, after the number of the days, in which
ye searched the land, and forty days, each day for a
year, shall be your iniquities, even forty years, and ye
shall know my breach of promise !! " What a glori-
ous-specimen of honesty and good faith !

Primogeniture. This most unjust and pernicious
law is strictly enforced, in Deut., c. xxi., v. 17, "But
17

194 THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE,

he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first-
born, by giving him a double portion of all that he
hath, for he is the beginning of his strength, the right
of the first-born is his.;J For other instances, see Gen.,
e. xvii., v. 14; 1. Sam., c. vi., v. 1 — 21 ; 2 Sam., c. xxi.,
v. 1 — 14; and Gen., c. iv., v. 15. v

Persecution. If there be one thing more unjust or
more immoral than another, it is persecuting a fellow
being, because he may differ with you in opinion. To
invade the precincts of conscience, is a most brutal
act, and yet how often is it recommended in the Bible !
In Deut., c. xiii., v. 6 — 9, one of the most diabolical
commands ever given, is in reference to persecution
for opinion. We are told, " If thy brother, the son of
thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife
of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own
soul, entice thee, secretly, saying, Let us go and serve
other gods, which thou hast not known, thou nor thy
father, Thou shall not consent unto him, nor hearken
unto him, neither shall thine eye pity him, neither
shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him, but
thou shalt kill him, thine hand shall be first upon
him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of
all the people ! ! ! " Here we are actually commanded
to murder our own so?ts, wives, and daughters, if they
will not believe as we believe ! I tremble with horror.
Christians! can you read such a passage, and not
blush ? Josh., c. xxiv., v. 20, protests, that if the Is-
raelites dared to worship other gods than were pro-
posed to them, the Lord would " consume^ them ! O !
what " liberty of conscience,71 what " right of private
judgment ! " Many horrible passages, highly charac-
teristic, might be quoted from Deufc, c. xvii., v. 2. ;
Exod., c. xxxii., v. 10; 2Chron., c. xxviii., v. 6 ; c. xv.,
v. 13; Deut., c. xiii., v. 6 — 13; 2 Kings, c. x., v. 29;
and Deut., c. xvii., v. 12. In the New Testament,
there are many passages, some of which I have read
when speaking of Christ, Paul, and John, as given in
Luke, c. xix., v. 27; Gal., c. i., v. 9; and 2 John, c.

THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE. 195

i., v. 10. See, also, Mark, c. xvi., v. 16 ; 1 Cor., c.
xvi., v. 22 ; Titus, c. iii., v. 10 ; Acts, c. xiii., v. 8 — 11 ;
Gal, c. v., v. 12; Matt., c. xii., v. 30; Acts, c. iii., v.
23; and Luke, xiv., v. 23. The following passages,
Matthew, c. x., v. 14, is the essence of intolerance ; —
" And whosoever," says Christ, " shall not receive
you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of tjhat
house or city, shake oif the dust of your feet. Verily,
I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land
of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than
for that city ! " How horrible ! In Acts, c. iii., v. 23,
we are told, " and it shall come to pass, that every
soul which shall not hear that prophet, shall be de-
stroyed from among the people." What Christian
charity !

Suicide recommended. In Prov., c. xxiii., v. 1, 2,
we read, " When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, con-
sider diligently what is before thee. And put a knife
to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite.''

Assassination countenanced. In Judges, c. iii., v. 15
— 23, a most revolting story is told of the assassina-
tion of Eglon, king of Moab, by Ehud, the deliverer
of the Israelites; and this " deliverer" we are inform-
ed, was selected and appointed by the " Lord " him-
self. I forbear quoting the passage. In c. iv., v. 21,
a similar crime is committed by the woman, Jael,
upon Sisera, the captain of the army of the king of
Canaan. While asleep, says the story, she " took a
nail of the tent, and took a hammer in her hand, and
went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his tem-
ples, and fastened it into the ground ! "

After this, we are assured " the land of the chil-
dren of Israel " prospered ! "

Murder, This is the most heinous of crimes, but
nevertheless it is defended in the Bible. Listen, I en-
treat you, to the following astounding passage, 2
Kings, c. x., v. 11 — 30: " So Jehu slew all that re-
mained of the house of Ahab, in Jezreel, and all his
great men and his kinsfolks, and his priests, until he

196 THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE.

left him none remaining. And the Lord said unto
Jehu, because thou hast done well in executing thai;
which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the
house of Ahab, according to all that was in mine
heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit
.on the throne of Israel ! " A murderer made a king,
because he was a murderer— because r>uch an act was
"right." O! could crime be more aggravated, or de-
fended more unblushingly ? Aye, even so, for in Jer.,
c. xlvni., v. 10, a man is not merely rewarded for com-
mitting murder, as in the above instance, but he is
actually cursed if he will not do it. " Cursed be he,"
says the passage, " that keepeth back his sword from
blood." O! wh at humanity ! what morality !

I will here draw a veil over this frightful picture.
To expose it further, would be painful both to you
and to me. Unpleasant, indeed, has been my task
on this occasion. Never was it my misfortune to
wade through such a mass of crime, obscenity, and
butchery, as I was constrained to do in compiling
this address. To call a book divine, which contains
such atrocities, and which countenances and encour-
ages them too: is to afford an apology for all that is
iniquitous, cruel, and demoralizing, and, were its in-
junctions strictly practised, the world would become
obscured in moral and intellectual darkness — the
glorious tide of human amelioration would be cor-
rupted, and everything that was virtuous and good
Would wither and die !

To confirm the statements made in the preceding
lecture, I beg to supply the reader with a few speci-
mens of the obscenities of the Bible. For more par-
ticulars, see "The Holy Scriptures Analysed," pre-
viously referred to.

"My wounds stink, and are corrupt, because of
my foolishness. For my loins are filled with a loath-
some disease, and there is no soundness in my flesh.
My lovers and my friends, stand aloof from my sore,

THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE. 197

and my kinsmen stand afar off." So says the virtu-
ous David, Psalms, c. xxxviii., v. 5-11.

" Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the
sixth part of an hm ; from time to time thou shalt
drink. And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and
thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man
in their sight," Ezek, c. iv., v. 11.

" So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of
the house, and Absalom went in unto his father's
concubine in the sight of all Israel," 2 Sarn., c.
xvi., v. 22.

"And Judah said unto On an, Go in unto thy
brother's wife, and raise up seed to thy brother.
And Onan knew that the seed should not be his,
and it came to pass, when he went in unto his broth-
er's wife that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he
should give seed unto his brother," Gen., c. xxxviii.,
v. 9. " He moveth his tail like a cedar, the sinews
of his stones are wrapped together, Job., c. xl., v. 17.
"But Rahshaketh said unto them, hath my master
sent me to thy master and to thee, to speak these
words ; hath he not sent me to the men which sit on
the wall, that they may eat their own *.**.* and
drink their own **** ? " 2 Kings, c. xviii., v. 27.

" We have been with child, we have been in pain,
we have, as it were, brought forth wind," Isa., c.
xxvi., v. 18.

"And Ehud put forth his right hand, and took
the dagger from his right side, and thrust it into his
belly, and the haft also went after the blade and the
fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw
the dagger out of his belly, and the dirt came out,"
Judges, c. hi., v. 21, 22.

" He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his
privy member cut off, shall not enter into the con-
gregation of the Lord," Deut., c. xxiii., v. 1.

"And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon,
and it shall be when thou wilt ease thyself, thou

17*

198 . THE MORALITY OF THE BIBLE.

shalt dig, and cover that which cometh from thee,"
Deut., c. xxiii., v. 13.

"Then shall his brother's wife come unto him, in
the presence of the elders, and loose his shoes from off
his feet, and spit in his face," Deut., c. xxv., v. 9.

"Then shall the father of the damsel, and her
mother, take and bring forth the token of the dam-
sel's virginity, unto the elders of the city in the gate,"
Deut., c. xxii., v. 15.

"And if any man's seed of copulation go out from
him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and
be unclean until the even," Lev., c. xv. v. 16.

" Neither shall he go into any dead body, nor de-
file himself for his father or for his mother," Lev., c.
xxi., v. 11.

Can such language (and it is only a sample,) be
written by inspiration of God? It is truly monstrous
that the sons and daughters of a civilized country
should be trained to revere a book in which such
beastialities are found. When will the Christian learn
good-breeding, if not good sense?

LECTURE ELEVENTH,

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE.

Friends —

I announced that this evening we should consider
the Philosophy of the Bible. I candidly acknowl-
edge I apply the term philosophy, in relation to this
book, derisively, I cannot use it otherwise.

To talk of the Philosophy of the Bible, in a serious
tone, and in earnest, would be truly comical.

The Bible is a book of mysteries, incongruities,
obscenities, absurdities, and atrocities, but not of
science and philosophy. For its bulk (and, if that
be an argument in favor of its divinity, it is rather a
solid one,) there is no book extant which has less to
do with the latter kind of questions. Recording and
detailing all degrees of crimes and vices-— butcheries
and machinations — intrigues and impostures — is the
forte of the Bible. In that it quite excels ; but when
it attempts the scientific, the philosophic, or the ra-
tional, it seems like a fish out of water — quite away
from its natural element. Some theologians in the
plenitude of their simplicity have ventured to boast
of the learning of the Bible, and pompously pro-
nounced it to be the most "learned" book in the
world. If it be, I apprehend it is only in the sense
in which some of our professors are learned — "learn-
edly ignorant." However, if it can justly claim so
distinguished an appellation, then the works of Jack

200 THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE.

and the Giant Killer, Tom Thumb, Mother Bunch3
The Seven Champions of Christendom, Cinderella
and the Glass Slipper, Baron Munchausen, Little Red
Riding Hood, Babes in the Woods, and other nursery
stories, may take their place among the scientific pro-
ductions of the age, and the writings of a Lawrence,
an Arago, and a Herschell may be put upon the shelf
as fit only to amuse infants ; for certainly, the stories
of Jacob's Ladder, Baal am and his Ass, Joshua and
the Sun, Elijah and his Journey to Heaven, Lot's
Wife and the Pillar of Salt, Aaron and his Rod,
Samson and his Jaw-hone of an Ass, David and his
Achievements upon the " light fantastic toe," and
Jonah and the Fish, are much more learned pro-
ductions than any detailed in the works here enume-
rated, and exhibit, I doubt not, a more intimate ac-
quaintance with the scientific and the philosophical !

Of course, the Bible being the most learned book in
our literature, those individuals, who are alleged to
have written it, must have been very learned men.
There is no doubt of it. Moses, for instance, who is
the first erudite author of the Bible, was such a very
enlightened man that he thought nothing of com-
manding a few thousands of men, women, and chil-
dren to be massacred in cold blood; and, so modest
was he in his enlightenment, that he even conde-
scended to murder a fellow being -with his own hand.
Joshua, the next writer in the Bible, was a man
of such extraordinary attainments, especially in the
science of astronomy, that he even commanded the
sun to stand still, when it did stand still. Samuel,
another inspired author, was a man of such science,
more particularly in practical anatomy, that we are
told he " hewed Agag to pieces before the Lord in
Gilgal," in the most skilful style. David, another
Bible author, so grave and rigid a philosopher was
he, that we read of his " dancing before the Lord
with all his might." Solomon's wisdom was so
transcendental, that we are informed, he maintained

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE. 201

a retinue of seven hundred wives and three hundred
concubines, and at last, declared, as a proof of the
advantages of philosophy, that all was " vanity."
Daniel, another very distinguished writer, was so well
acquainted with natural history, that he could live
among lions, with as much impunity, as we do
among butterflies. Jonah, who was also an inspired
penman, and a prophet to boot, was so thoroughly
familiar with the rationale of animal physiology, that
he could get down a fish's throat, with as much ease
and safety, as an animacule would down that of
our own. Paul, the leading author of the doctrinal
portion of the New Testament, had such a great
thirst for knowledge, that he exclaims, " if a man be
ignorant, let him be ignorant," and so intense an
anxiety for the progress of science and philosophy
generally, that he wisely remarks, " Beware, lest any
man spoil you through philosophy"

There is no question all these eminent authors are
very -'learned" men, and great promoters of the
" arts and sciences." The world is highly indebted
to them in that respect !

But, my friends, lest any one may imagine that I
intend on this occasion to indulge merely in sarcastic
ridicule, or idle banter, we will endeavor to be some-
what serious upon this subject. We will ask, then,
where is the learning of the Bible ? Where the use-
ful scientific principles it has elaborated and estab-
lished ? Where the great truths of philosophy, which
it may have developed and demonstrated ? What
little, indeed, is advanced upon these questions, in-
volves errors and absurdities, which modern science
has completely exploded. I am not aware that there
is any other volume in existence, in which more
blunders could be detected than in the Bible, and to
designate its authors inspired and infallible ^ is to re-
verse our ideas of truth and falsehood, fallibility and
infallibility. It shall be our province on the present
occasion to expose a few of these blunders, and to

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE.

show how utterly unworthy is the Bible of being
esteemed a learned or philosophical production.

We will " begin with the beginning" — The Crea-
tion of the World.

Christians maintain that according to the Philoso-
phy of the Bible, this event transpired only some
6000 years ago. There are, however, a multitude of
circumstances, which tend to invalidate that position.
I cannot pretend, in one brief address, to comment
upon them all. I shall be under the necessity of
cursorily reviewing a few only of the more remarka-
ble. First, then, of the records of other nations.
The Old Testament, you are aware, is put forth as
the record of the Jews, and it is upon this record,
that the Christian world base their cosmogony. Now,
if the records of one nation are competent authority
upon th6 question at issue, the records of another are
equally legitimate. We have just as much right to
believe them as the Jews : nay, more, for the Jews
were the most ignorant and barbarous of all the great
nations of antiquity, and, therefore, the least likely
to be familiar with the subject before us. The Chi-
nese, than whom few of the ancient empires of the
world were more enlightened or civilized, have a
collection of books, consisting of 150 volumes, called
the " Great Annals," which pretend to give a history
from the creation of the world, comprising a period
of above 49,000 years, after which thirty-five im-
perial families reigned successively for ages, without
any interruption. Some writers have ventured to
doubt the authenticity of these productions, but upon
much less reasonable ground than we may doubt the
authenticity of the Jewish annals. Certain we are,
that the Chinese invented a cycle or computation of
time which begins two thousand six hundred years
before ours.

Sir R. Phillips informs us, in his " Million of
Facts," that the Hindoo priesthood (and their testi-
mony is as good as the Jewish priesthood,) "claims

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE. 203

a theological time of nearly two thousand millions
of years since the beginning, and they state that
Brahma — the Hindoo God — was seventeen millions
of years creating." He further remarks, " The Hin-
doos begin the creation as a mere astronomical epoch,
when all the planets were in Aries, or nearly two
millions of years since, and, taking in the nodes and
apsides, they extend it to four thousand three hun-
dred and twenty millions, which they call a Calpha,
or day of Brahma."

Pomponius Mela, the great Egyptian historian, in-
forms us that the Egyptians in their annals, reckoned
three hundred and thirty kings extending through
a period of thirteen thousand years, and Herodotus
gives a statement of the Egyptians, which carries
the antiquity of the world still further. Herodotus
states that the reign of their kings extended through
a period of seventeen thousand years. Sir R. Phil-
lips observes that " the Egyptians reckoned fourteen
thousand years to the age of their original Vulcan,
and ten thousand years before Menas and Sethen."
Sir Richard, indeed, expressly declares, that " the
Chinese, Japanese, Hindoos and Chaldeans claim an
infinite antiquity." So also did the Greek schools
more than two thousand five hundred years ago.
Plato, who wrote two thousand two hundred years
since, states that the great island of Atalantis, filled
with cities, <fcc, was absorbed by the ocean nine
thousand years before his time. Calisthenes, a Gre-
cian philosopher of high renown, says he was told
by Berosus, the historian of Babylon, who was in
that city when Alexander visited it, that fotir htm-
dred and two thousand years before his time " the axis
of the earth was parallel to the plane of the ecliptic."

But, we will take our stand on higher ground than
records and traditions. We will base our objections
to the Bible cosmogony, upon something more palpa-
ble and demonstrable than the pretensions of priests.
We will take our arguments from the incontestable
evidences of science.

204 THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE*

The discoveries effected during this last century in
geology, chemistry, and astronomy, prove most un-
answerably, not only that the creation did not take
place at so comparatively recent a period, but that
there never could have been such a creation at all, as
the one detailed in the writings attributed to Moses;
that, in fact, such a thing as absolute creation or ab-
solute destruction is an impossibility and an absurdi-
ty. The fundamental principles of geological science,
as developed by Lyell, Mantell, Phillips, and others,
show, that this globe, so far from being only some
six thousand years old, is of incalculable antiquity.
It must have taken millions of years to have accom-
plished the various changes which the earth has
undergone. Sir R. Phillips remarks, " thousands of
years must have elapsed between each of the numer-
ous formations which it discovers." " Geology, then/7
says Dr. Mantell, in his Wonders of Geology, u does
not affect to disclose the first creation of animated
nature ; it does not venture to assume that we have
evidence of a BEGINNING, but it unfolds to us a
succession of events, each so vast as to be beyond
our finite comprehension." An idea may be formed
of the time required to bring about the various revo-
lutions which have occurred in the strata of the
earth, from the fact that the sea shoals but about an
inch in a century.

The science of chemistry teaches that there is not
a single atom of matter which can be either created
or destroyed; that it can only experience a change,
and that the whole substance of the universe is con-
tinually and gradually undergoing composition, de-
composition, and re-composition, and that, therefore,
the idea of the world having been created — created
out of nothing, too, as taught in the Bible, is absurd
and impossible. We are told, in this learned book,
that the universe was at one time " without form
and void," oiyin other words, a non-entity, for that
which is "without form and void," must necessarily

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE. 205

be non-existent. Science, however, has utterly ex-
ploded* such a preposterous notion. Chemistry has
triumphantly established the indestructibility and
consequent eternity of matter. An able American,
author observes, "The eternal duration of the earth
in some form or other is rendered certain, by the
essential properties of matter; whatever does exist,
must have existed from all eternity, and from its
very nature, continue to exist forever/7 Sir John
Herschell, unquestionably the. greatest natural phi-
losopher of the age, in his Discourses on Natural Phi-
losophy, has most beautifully, and clearly, demon-
strated the fundamental truth of chemical science.
He says, "The researches of chemists have shown
that what the vulgar call corruption, destruction, &c.,
is nothing but a change of arrangement of the same
ingredient elements' — the disposition of the same ma-
terials into other forms, witlwut the loss or actual de-
struction of a single atom, and thus any doubts on
the permanence of the natural laws are discounten-
anced, and the whole weight of appearances thrown
into the opposite scale.;; Sir John continues, "One
of the most obvious cases of apparent destruction, is,
when anything is ground to dust and scattered, as
they may be, they must fall somewhere and continue,
if only as ingredients of the soil, to perform their
humble, but useful part in the economy of nature.
The destruction produced by fire is more striking in
many cases, as in the burning of a piece of charcoal
or a taper, there is no smoke, nothing visibly dissi-
pated or carried away, the burning body wastes and
disappears, while nothing seems to be produced but
warmth and light, which we are not in the habit of
considering as substances; and, when all has disap-
peared, except, perhaps, some trifling ashes, we natu-
rally enough suppose that it is gone, lost, destroyed.
But, when the question is examined more exactly,
we detect in the invisible stream of heated air, which
ascends from the glowing coal cr heated wax, the
18

206 THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE.

whole ponderable matter only united in a new com-
bination with the air, and dissolved in it. Yet, so
far from being thereby destroyed, it is only become
again what it was before it existed in the form of
charcoal or wax, an active agent in the business of
the world, and a main support of animal and vegeta-
ble life, and is still susceptible of running again and
again the same round, as circumstances may deter-
mine, so that, for aught we can see to the contrary,
the same identical atom may lay concealed for thous-
ands of centuries in a limestone rock — may, at length,
be quarried, set free in the lime kiln, mix with the
air, be absorbed from it by plants, and, in succession,
becomes a part of the frames of myriads of living
beings, till some occurrence of events consigns it once
more to a long repose, which, however, no way unfits
it for again resuming its former activity.'7

The science of astronomy affords the most indubi-
table evidence against the Mosaic Cosmogony. This
science propounds that the solar system, said to have
been manufactured on the fourth day of the Bible
creation, has existed for a period extending infinitely
beyond the calculation, or even conception of man. i

Its formation too, so far from being instantaneous,
as stated in Genesis, must have been imperceptibly
slow and gradual. Dr. Nicholl, one of the leading
astronomers of the day, in his " Phenomena of the
Solar System" remarks, that " astronomy explains
that the solar system onCe existed, as a. diffused nebu-
losity, which, passing through various states of con-
densation, formed a central luminary, and its attend-
ant planets." Sir John Herschell has discovered that
the various constellations arc surrounded by nebulous
stars in various stages of progress, from thin, shape-
less masses of highly transparent matter, to stars
almost opaque. From these evidences he infers that
all the stars have gone through this progress, growing
more opaque as they become older ; and, that, at last,
having attained a certain opacity, they will decay,

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE. 207

and slowly and gradually be resolved into chaotic
matter, similar to the former state, when they will
again, in the same sloio and gradual manner, assume
a planetary being. These facts, I hold, resting upon
such high authority, completely demolish the philoso-
phy of the Bible.

Again: According to the Genesis creation, Ave
must believe that this earth is the principal body in
the universe — that the sun, moon, and stars, were
just hung up in space as a chandelier, to throw
light upon the inhabitants of this contemptible speck.
Now, astronomy elucidates, that this earth is second-
ary to, and dependent upon the sun, and that Jupiter,
Saturn, and Uranus, are much more powerful planets
than our own — Jupiter being eleven times larger, Sa-
turn ten, and Uranus four and a half.

As to the stars, of which the Bible story speaks so
contemptuously, as if they were only so many tiny
rushlights to direct us during the night, astronomy
shows that they are themselves suns — centres of
other systems — luminaries of other worlds.

In this learned book we detect similar blunders con-
nected with the creation, but time will not admit of
my alluding to them all. I may just observe, that we
are informed the Lord divided light from darkness,
three days before there could be any light, if the sci-
ences of optics and astronomy are to be accredited. —
It is said that the sun, from -which our light proceeds,
was not created until the fourth day, yet the Lord
divided light from the darkness on the first day. This,
at once, proves the utter ignorance of the Bible editors
of science or philosophy. But the idea of dividing
light from darkness, adds still further to the absurdity.
They cannot be divided, as darkness is only the pri-
vation of light. Again : Astronomy teaches that it
is by the sun and moon we measure time — days,
months, years, &c. ; and yet, as above stated, there
were three days before either of these celestial bodies
were created !

208 THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE.

A most learned book this, indeed ! We are also in-
formed, that on the second day the Lord divided the
universe into two parts, the " firmament/' and that
this above partition was called heaven, and beneath,
earth. Astronomy, however, has also upset this ab-
surdity. That science demonstrates that there can be
no such partition dividing space, but the universe is
an endless series of worlds, all revolving in their re-
spective spheres; and that such a thing as absolute
above and below, as applied to the universe, is a mere
illusion.

But is it not a strange circumstance, that the Bible
God should require five days to manufacture a small
speck like our globe, and then create millions of other
worlds, each of them so immeasurably larger than our
own, and all in 'one day ? This fact alone shows the
utter absurdity of the Bible story. Some individuals,
the most distinguished of whom is Dr. Buckland, see-
ing the utter inconsistency of modern science with the
Mosaic account of the creation, have endeavored to
give a different interpretation to that silly story, than
the one hitherto promulgated.

They say, a day in the creation Avas not one of oar
days, but a period involving thousands of years.

My friends, such gross perversion of language as
this interpretation implies, is only "worthy of a priest.
Not only does the language itself not admit of such
interpretation, but other Collateral circumstances con-
nected with the Bible, conclusively proves its utter ab-
surdity. The Jews themselves, from whom the book
emanates, evidently used the word in the ordinary
sense ; hence, their institution of the Sabbath. The
Lord says, they rested on the seventh day ; therefore,
we ought to rest on that day. He kept it holy, there-
fore we must. If, however, the Jewish and Christian
world, up to the present period, have been in error
upon this subject — if it be a fact that the institution
of the Sabbath is based upon an illusion, then our
"houses of God J; may be closed not only on the sixth.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE, 209

^ ,« IT"- V

but on the seventh day of the week, and " the gentle-
men of the cloth" may earn their "bread" by the
" sweat of their brow." O ! what an awkward mis-
take, Dr. Buckland ! How unfortunate that you did
not discover in the depth of your sagacity, that if the
Christian world were to become Bucklandites, and
act consistently with their "philosophy," that, like
Othello, your "occupation would be gone ! " To clear
yourself from one dilemma, you have fallen into an-
other infinitely worse. What does tho pious Sir An-
drew Agnew say upon this point ? His labors will be
superseded if you speak the truth. In respect to the
learned story of the creation and fall of man, I deem
i-t almost too contemptible to refer to. The idea of
man having been made out of the dust of the ground,
rolled together like a snow-ball, and then inflated with
the breath of life, as Mr. Green would inflate his bal-
loon— and of women being subsequently manufac-
tured out of one of the man's ribs, is fit only for an
age of barbarism. The individual who could ac-
knowledge a story so exquisitely ridiculous, must be
endowed with a most inordinate relish for the " mar-
vellous." He would believe that the moon was made
of green cheese, if the Bible only said so.

A question, however, arises out of this tale, which is
of some moment. Its consideration will enable me to
show the ignorance of the Bible writers upon two
other leading sciences, physiology and comparative
anatomy. According to this account., we ought to be-
lieve that the whole of the human species originated
from Adam and Eve. Science, however, commands
us to believe otherwise. It has been discovered,
through the observations and researches of Buflbn,
Blumenbach, Cuvier, Fleuren, and other physiologists
and naturalists, that the human species arc divided
into different races, which Blumenbach classifies as fol-
lows : — The Oaucassian, Mongolian, Ethiopic, Ameri-
can, and Malay varieties. M. Fleuren, a most dis-
tinguished naturalist, maintains that the difference of
18*

210 THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE.

structure between the white and colored races, is suffi-
cient to prove that they are of different stocks, or, as
he expresses it, of " essentially distinct races." This
difference lies principally in the structure of the skin,
which be shows is not the same in the white as in
the colored man. In the case of Europeans, tinged
by exposure to the sun's rays, the mucous web is
what is affected, becoming, as it were, slightly color-
ed. No degree of exposure can, he thinks, confer the
coloring layers of the Negro and other dark races. —
He remarks, that the "African Moors who have lived
beside the Negroes for centuries, have never acquired
the coloring apparatus of that race ; and it has been
observed by travellers, (Captain Lyon among others.)
that the Isuricks, a race of African Caucassians. of a
dark brown complexion, are nearly as white on these
parts of their bodies covered up from the sun, as most
Europeans. It is also well known, that the progeny
of an European, however much he might have been
tinged by the sun, is, invariably, as white as he him-
self was at first. The black races are localized in the
warmest regions of the globe, and their skin and gene-
ral constitution, seem adapted for their allotment. A
black man can lie naked, exposed to the hottest sun,
without injury, while the skin of the white man, if
exposed to similar heat, breaks out in blisters. The
black man can labor under a burning sun with impu-
nity, but the white man sinks under exertion made in.
such circumstances." From these and many other
facts, which I have not time to enumerate, M. Fleuren
infers that there is a constitutional and distinct differ-
ence between the various races of mankind, which
prove that they must have originally sprung from per-
fectly separate stocks ; and if so, the story of Adam
and Eve being the parent of the human race, is like
the rest of the Bible philosophy — nonsense. Cham-
bers observes, upon this subject: "In former times,
when only two varieties, the white and the black,
were recognized or thought of, it was supposed that

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE. 211

complexion was simply a result of the actions of the
sun's rays. This idea would naturally arise from its
being observed that exposure to the sun, darkened a
white person, while seclusion tended to bleach or
whiten him, and that the black nations were chiefly
those who occupied tropical countries, while the whites
were placed in the temperate zone. The Greeks, who
never doubted that they were the perfection and stand-
ard of human nature, and who entertained exaggerated
notions of the heat of the African sun, were strongly
impressed with the idea, that the Negro nations had
been originally white, and had been changed into
black by the action of the solar rays. This notion
continued to be set forward, undoubtedly, by uatural-
ists, down to the time of Bufifon, and is still the belief
of the ignorant in most countries."

In the story of the fall of man, it is stated that the
Serpent was afflicted with the curse of going upon
its belly. This evinces the grossest ignorance of the
nature of that unfortunate reptile. It is evidently
constructed by nature, so as to move in that position,
and to call it a curse to make it go in that manner,
is a misnomer. But, pray, if it did not always go on
its belly, how might it exert locomotion, before it in-
curred the " divine displeasure?" Upon its head or
its tail ? Truly, there must have been some natural
curiosities in the antideJuvian world !

I must now remark upon the next evidence of the
great learning of the Bible — the Deluge. My obser-
vations must necessarily be brief, as I have other
matters to consider ere I retire. In Genesis, c. vi.,
and vii., we read that a few thousand years ago,
there was a universal deluge, every living thing, ex-
cept Noah and his family, and a pair of each race of
animated existences ; they being saved in a wooden
box, called an ark, which floated upon the waters,
and which were so deep, that they covered the high-
est mountains. This absurd story is inconsistent in
the first place with the fundamental principles of

212 THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE.

natural philosophy. According to the law of fluids
it would have been physically impossible for the
whole globe to be inundated at one and the same time.
Such an idea, indeed, exhibits little acquaintance
"with the principles of attraction and gravitation. But
if this could occur, we learn from the philosophy of
the tides, that through the influence of the moon
upon the surface of this planet, there is a continued
ebbing and flowing of the ocean, to the extent of
twelve or fifteen feet every twelve hours. Now, if
the whole earth was under water, and to the depth
of the highest mountains, the agitation of that im-
mense ocean must be so tremendous, that it would be
impossible for any body to float upon its surface.
Everything would be engulphed in the foaming bil-
lows. Nothing could resist it. The ark, had it been
a thousand times the size, would have been dashed
to pieces, and its inmates annihilated.

But, where was the immense supply of water to
come frosm necessary to deluge the icorld, and to
u cover the highest mountains'?'7 The Andes are
stated to be 20,000 feet above the level of the sea,
and it has been calculated, that the weight of the
atmosphere, with all its vapors, is equal to no more
than a hollow sphere of about thirty feet of thickness,
environing the whole globe ; and, consequently, the
whole of its contents, if condensed into water, could
not deluge the earth to the height of an ordinary
house.

Let us now speak of the Ark itself. According to
the Bible description, it was only 300 cubits long, or
about 525 feet ; 50 cubits, or 87 1-2 feet broad ; and
30 cubits, or 52 1-2 feet high. It is manifest that a
vessel, of snch limited dimensions, could not contain
a thousandth part of what must have been stowed
into it to include Noah and his children, and a male
and female of all living things, together with the food
necessary to serve them for so long a period as five
months. The writer of this marvellous story, ex-

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE. 213

hibits the deepest ignorance of the sciences of orni-
thology, entymology, natural history, chemistry, phy-
siology, zoology, and natural philosophy. He could
not have known that there are some millions of
species of birds, beasts, and insects; and, as to the
fishes, how could they be " drowned?" How could
a "deluge77 destroy them? A universal flood, in-
stead of being a curse to that part of " living beings,"
would be a " god-send 77 — a universal feast. O!
what sport for the sharks and the dolphins !

This learned writer was not aware that it would
have been, quite impossible for such an immense
number of animals to exist for so long a period, with-
out light or fresh air. - We are told there was only
one window to the Ark, and that was shut for the
whole of the 150 days. He must have been ignorant,
too, of another physiological fact — that different de-
grees of temperature were necessary to support the
various animals for any time. The climate which
would suit one, would destroy another. But there is
no mention of such an indispensable provision.

The fact is, the whole of this story, from the begin-
ning to the end, is only a tissue of the most barbarous
ignorance and stupidity.

Christians, themselves, are growing ashamed of it.
Dr. Pye Smith, one of the most intelligent divines of
the present day, admits, that " the flood could not be
universal,'7 nor could it have " resulted in the de-
struction of all animal life; 7; and, he further remarks,
"connecting the question with physical causes, it
appeared to him that unless we resorted to miracu-
lous agency (against the gratuitous assumption of
which he protested, as both unphilosophical and pre-
sumptuous) it was impossible to imagine the Ark
capable of containing parts of all the animals whose
existence must entirely depend on their exemption
from inundation.77

The learned doctor then proceeds to detail the
great variety of species in the animal creation, and

214 THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE,

to show the impossibility of stowing away in a wood-
en box, such an immense number of living beings.

Dr. Burnet, in the Archeologise Philosophise, c. iv.,
p. 40, says that the quantity of water it would take
to cover the tops of the highest mountains, as stated
in this story, " must at least exceed the magnitude
of eight oceans." He further admits, " so great a
quantity of water can no where be found, though we
exhaust all the treasures of water in heaven or earth,
and add besides the subterraneous water,'7 and that,
" howsoever, or from what place soever, this prodi-
gious mass of water was brought upon the earth,
there could be no means of removing it, or any possi-
ble method found out of taking away such a mighty
heap of water." From these premises the learned
Doctor concludes, " that our present earth was not
subject to a deluge, nor is it capable of it by its shape
or elevation."

The discoveries, however, of modern geologists, set
the question of a universal deluge completely at rest.
They incontrovertibly prove that the changes of the
earth's surface have not been produced by a general
flood, but by the gradual operation of water and heat.
The marine shells found on the tops of mountains,
and other elevated situations, have been forced there
by igneous agency, and are not, as conjectured by
theologians, the remains of Noah's flood. Time will
not admit of my giving you any facts from that in-
teresting science. I must leave the subject, by quot-
ing the following words from the poet Coleridge. " I
think it absurd," says he, in his "Table Talk," " to
attribute so much to the deluge. An inundation,
which left an olive-tree standing, and bore up the
Ark peacefully on its bosom, could scarcely have
been the sole cause of the rents and dislocations ob-
servable on the face of the earth."

We have reviewed that portion of this learned-
book which contains the cream of its " philosophy."
-There are numerous other passages, however, which

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE. 215

display the same lack of scientific information. I
will refer you to a few of them. In 1 Kings, c. viii.,
v. 35, we read of "heaven being shut up/' in order
that there should be no rain. From this, and many
similar passages, it is clear that the learned men who
composed that eminently scientific production were
perfectly unacquainted with the fact, that rain was
produced by evaporation and condensation, but im-
agined that it came from some place above, the bot-
tom of which, I suppose, was like a huge watering
can, and whenever it suited the "Lord" he sprinkled
us with a refreshing shower as a gardener would his
flowers.

In Gen., c. i., v. 12, it is said, "Let the earth bring
forth grass," &c. Now it would, at least, have been
a little more rational, as well as "philosophical," to
have made the earth produce " grass" after the crea-
tion of the sun instead of before it. In Gen., c. ix.,
v. 12, 13, we read, that the Lord, for the first time,
hung a rainbow in the clouds as a sign of his cove-
nant with the people after the deluge. The science
of optics proves that the rainbow is but a natural
phenomenon. It is merely the result of the refrangi-
bility and reflexibility of the rays of light. It could
not have been the first time a rainbow was produced,
for so long as light and vapor existed such a phenome-
non must have been produced. Either, therefore, this
story is false, or else prior to the deluge there could
have been no light or no vapor — in either of which
cases, animal life would have been impossible.

In Genesis, c. xi., we are told of the building of the
Tower of Babel, and the confusion of tongues. The
Bible chronology places the building of this tower only
115 years after the destruction of mankind by the
flood, and even while Noah was yet alive. How can
these two stories be reconciled ? It is said that there
were only Noah and his family who survived the
deluge. Could they have multiplied so rapidly, in
that short time, as to populate a city} and erect such

216 THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE.

an enormous tower ! It would have required an im-
mense number of persons, with great scientific know-
ledge, (the result of long research^) to raise so lofty a
pile. Its height was estimated at 81,000 feet, and it
had a road- way on its outside, which went eight times
around its ascent, so as to give the whole the appear-
ance of eight towers one above another. It is per-
fectly ridiculous to suppose that such a prodigious
work could have been entered upon, much less carried
forward to the extent stated, at so early a date after
the period we are told that there was only one family
of human beings in existence ! Such a story is only
worthy of the Bible. The greatest absurdity, how-
ever, is in supposing that God should be afraid that
the people would accomplish their design of building
a tower whose top should reach heaven ! Pray, to
what point in the heavens did the builders of this tower
intend going ? and how did they purpose to reach
there? If to the moon, as that is the nearest object in
the heavens, it wonld have taken a builder, going at
the rate of four miles an hour, night and day, without
either sleep or refreshment, seven years to reach the
destined point, with one single load of building mate-
rials ! If to the sun, at the same rate, it would take
him 3,000 years to carry one load of lime. But if they
were ambitious of going to the first fixed star, it would
have taken, at that rate, 48 millions of years to reach
it ! ! Why, if they had made the foundation of Babel
one fourth of a square mile in circumference, and
made all the earth into bricks and lime, they would
have been little more than half way to the first fixed
star, and the next fixed star is supposed to be as far
behind the first as the first is from the earth ! But
suppose all these difficulties surmounted, a new one
would arise, when the builders approached so near the
heavenly bodies as to feel more forcibly, than from the
earth, the power of attraction. In this case, men,
bricks, and mortar, with all their tools, and other ma-
terials, would fly off in a direct line to the moon, and

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE. 217

for ever prevent the completion of this wonderful pro-
ject ! The folly and impossibility of the thing stamp
the whole story with a character which ought to make
Christians ashamed of calling such nonsense the word
of an "intelligent God."

The enlightened editors of this divine story must
have known little of moral philosophy. To read the
Bible, it would appear that the heart was the seat of
volition and sensation. Esdras says, c. xiv., v. 40,
" my heart uttered understanding.77 Innumerable other
passages might be quoted. The discoveries, however,
of Lawrence and Gall, in the sciences of Anatomy,
Physiology, and Phrenology, establish that the brain
is the seat of thought and sensation. None of the great
naturalists of the last 100 years, Cuvier, Blumenbach,
or Buffon, have taught such a notion as the one pro-
pounded in the Bible. It is deemed too absurd to
notice.

In Genesis, c. vi., v. 4, we are informed that there
were " giants in the earth in those days.77 Modern
science has completely exploded that absurdity also.

The "philosophers" of the Bible diifer very mate-
rially with the philosophers of this age, upon that
most important of all sciences — Education. We are
told, in Prov., c. x, v. 13, that a "rod is for the back of
him that is void of understanding" It has been dis-
covered, however, by Pestalozzi and other enlightened
educationalists, that to follow the Bible philosophy
would not only be inhuman but impolitic, and that
mild and persuasive means are to be preferred to co-
ercion or punishment. It is none but bigots who
know nothing of the science of education, who resort
to that absurd and severe treatment.

I shall here speak of that fatal absurdity, Witch-
craft. In Exodus, c. xxii., v. 18, it is enjoined, "Thou
shalt not suffer a witch to live,77 and in 1 Samuel, c.
xxiii, v. 7, we read of that savage and cunning priest
consulting the Witch of Endor. My friends, if there
be one thing more than another which exposes the ig-
19

218 THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE.

norance of the Bible writers, it is the institution of the
law prohibiting witchcraft There never was such a
thing as a witch, no more than there have been ghosts
or hobgoblins. All enlightened men now repudiate
the idea as a mere imposition. Even the "vulgar"
begin to laugh at it. Well had it been for mankind,
if the delusion had ended in mere belief, but unfortu-
nately, in consequence of the foolish and brutal in-
junction just read, thousands of our fellow beings have
been murdered — murdered too, under the most humili-
ating and revolting circumstances. The follies and
cruelties, indeed, committed through the influence of
such writers as the Bible authors, are incalculable,
and never will humanity become enlightened and
good until the productions of such men are perma-
nently and absolutely discarded.

It would be a pity to omit noticing the precious tale
of Jonah and the whale, in this list of " inspired " ab-
surdities. It is such a glorious specimen of the learn-
ing of the Bible, that it ought to receive honorable
mention, and especially when we remember that the
hero of the story was a prophet. In Jonah, c. i., v. 17,
we are informed that this prophet-monger met with a
singular misfortune. The account states that "the
Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah,
and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and
three nights." This fish, Christ tells us, in Matt., c.
xii., v. 40, (and I presume he will be a competent au-
thority,) was a whale ! Why this fish should have
been selected more than any other for the domicile of
the prophet, I know not, except it be, that because the
whale is the largest fish, it was presumed that it
would have the largest throat, and consequently the
most convenient of access. Unluckily, however,
modern anatomists have discovered, that though the
animal is enormously large, its throat is exceedingly
small — so small that it is not an inch and a half in
diameter ! How, therefore, the prophet Jonah, who
might, probably, have been like some of our modern
country rectors, of tolerable plumpness and rotundity,

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE. 219

succeeded in making his way through such a capa-
cious aperture, would require a miracle to explain,
and how he managed to live for three days in the
whale's belly, when he did get in, would require a
still greater miracle to elucidate ! It is evident, that
the author of this story labored under the vulgar mis-
take that the gullet of the whale would be commen-
surate with its general bulk — a mistake quite natural
to a Bible editor.

Having proceeded thus far with our observations,
we must draw to a close. Had time allowed, I should
have been happy to have amused you with a critique
upon the stories of Joshua and the Sun — Ezekiel and
his dinner — there being no rain on the earth for three
years and six months — stars falling from heaven —
Christ and the fig-tree— and his visit with his " Sa-
tanic majesty " to the top of the mountain, whence he
saw all the kingdoms of the world, which the science
of astronomy shows, from the spherical form of the
earth, to be impossible — Ezekiel and his being lifted
up by a lock of his hair into the midst of the heavens
— the angel receiving wages Tor his advice to the man
Tobias — the ass and the lion talking with the "marts
voice" — the " glorious times" mentioned in Exodus,
when the Lord " rained bread from heaven," and
many other Biblical wonders. I will give you, how-
ever, one more specimen ere I conclude. It is Ezekiel's
visit to the valley of bones. That learned prophet
says, c. xxx vii., v. 1 — 10, " The hand of the Lord was
upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the Lord,
and set me down in the midst of the valley, which
was full of bones, and caused me to pass by them
round about; and, behold, there were very many in
the open valley ; and lo, they were very dry. And he
said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live ? And
I answered, O Lord God, thou knowest. And again
he said unto me, Prophesy unto these bones, and say
unto them, O ! ye dry bones, hear the word of the
Lord ! Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones,
Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and ye shall

220 THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE.

live, and I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring
up fiesn upon you, and cover you with skin, and put
breath into you, and ye shall live, and know that I
am the Lord. So I prophesied as I was commanded ;
and, as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a
shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his
bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the
flesh came upon them, and the skin covered them,
above ; but there was no breath in them. Then said
he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, Son of
man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord God,
Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon
these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied, as
he commanded me, and the breath came into them,
and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceed-
ing great army ! ! ?J This is something like a story.
The lovers of the wonderful need not consult Baron
Munchausen.

My friends, if such puerile rhapsodies, (and the
Bible abounds in such passages,) are to be esteemed
as philosophy, science, learning, then are the outpour-
ings of fanaticism to be considered the only criteria
of human enlightenment, and the deep, patient, and
elaborate researches of the great and the wise, must
be scouted as mere hallucinations.

In former lectures I felt it my duty to repudiate the
Bible as a standard of consistency and morality.

I now deem it incumbent upon me to discard it as a
standard of philosophy.

In this decision I am supported by evidence too
incontrovertible to be refuted — too palpable to be
denied. The science of Astronomy warrants me in re-
pudiating it— Geology, Chemistry, Anatomy, Physiolo-
gy, Natural History, Phrenology, Natural Philosophy,
all the various arts and sciences with which man is
acquainted, warrant me in condemning it. Before such
authority, this "learned" book must, erelong, hide
its diminished head — sink to its own native littleness
and absurdity, and never more involve humanity in
error, mystery, crime, and delusion !

LECTURE TWELFTH.

INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY.

Friends —

Pursuant to the intimation given last Sunday eve-
ning, I purpose, in this address to consider the Influ-
ence of the Bible on Society. Having fully and con-
clusively disproved its divinity, we will trace the
consequences which have followed a mistake so
egregious and fatal.

We will commence our review with the Christian
era. I should deem it a task alike unnecessary and
melancholy to enter into the Jewish history. No
enlightened and philanthropic mind can peruse its
crimson pages without horror and disgust. Blood !
blood ! blood ! is recorded on every leaf. The most
obdurate and depraved heart must t>e sickened on
reading the atrocities therein detailed — atrocities, said
to have been performed in the " name of the Lord,"
by his own "chosen people." O! while the youth
of our country are trained to ponder over such scenes
of blood and carnage, society will always be cruel
and demoralized. The spirit of love and virtue can
never flourish amongst us, while that production
sways the opinions and actions of mankind.

Had the priesthood of Christendom, assisted by his
Satanic Majesty himself, endeavored to compose a
book for the purpose of keeping the human race ig-
norant, credulous, superstitious, brutal, and wicked,
'19*

222 INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY.

they could not have produced one better adapted for
the purpose than the Old Testament.

It is, as I formerly observed, an immoral pub-
lication.

It has served to support the most revolting and
despicable purposes. It has been the apologist of
the tyrant in his oppressions — the conqueror in his
butcheries — the inquisitor in his tortures — the slave-
holder in his cruelties — the debauchee in his revelries
— and the priest in his impostures !

Were it possible, by some magic power, to bury in
oblivion th&t ponderous volume, and blot out from
the memory of man the dark and cruel scenes which
it depicts, more would be accomplished for the imme-
diate enlightenment and morality of mankind, than
has been done by the efforts of the boldest and
mightiest reformers.

But I forbear proceeding with this portion of the
subject, and shall, therefore, commence at once with
the Influence of the Bible during the Christian era.
This will refer, more particularly, to the New Tes-
mament.

Solemnly and distinctly, then, do I aver, that that
influence has been most pernicious. It has occasion-
ed more division, strife, and sectarianism among men,
and, as a consequence, more enmity, intolerance, and
bloodshed, than any other single cause during the
same period. This is a bold and unqualified asser-
tion, and requires strong and distinct evidence in its
confirmation. This I shall render, by taking a re-
view of the progress of Christianity from the time of
Christ to the present age.

We find in the New Testament itself, that so early
as during the lifetime of Christ, " envyings and jeal-
ousies " were growing up amongst his disciples; nay,
even amongst the apostles. In Mark, c. ix., and
Luke, c. xxii., we are told that they " disputed
among themselves who should be the greatest ; " and
in Matt., c. xx., that they were ambitious, and

INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY. 223

expressed their resentment against each other. In
Mark, c. x., we read that James and John were
anxious of being distinguished, by having the privi-
lege to sit on the right and left hand, of Christ in his
glory ; and that the remaining ten, when they heard
it, " began to be much displeased with James and
John."

Soon after the death of Jesus, we are informed by
Paul, in 1 Cor., c. i., v. 11, 12, that hitter contentions
had sprung up among the Christians. He says,
" For it hath been declared to me, my brethren, by
them who are in the house of Chloe, that there are
contentions amongst you. Now, this I say, that
every one of you saith I am of Paul, and I of Ap-
pollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ ; " and in c.
lii., v. 3, he remarks, " For ye are yet carnal, for
whereas there is among you envying and strife, and
divisions; are ye not carnal and walk as men?"
In c. vi., v. 6, 8, he again observes, " Brother goeth
to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers ; "
"nay, you do wrong, and defraud, that your breth-
ren.'''' But Paul entirely forgot to tell them of his
own squabbles. He could preach charity and for-
bearance pretty eloquently, but like many other
Christians, forgot to practice it. In Acts, c. xv., v.
36-40, a very edifying quarrel is reported between
him and his brother apostle, Barnabas. u The con-
tention between them," says the story, " was so
sharp, that they departed asunder one from the oth-
er." It is supposed that the real cause of this mem-
orable rupture was a difference of opinion between
Paul and Barnabas, as to the crucifixion of Christ.
Paul maintained that Christ was crucified, and Bar-
nabas that it was Judas, and not Christ.

Those acquainted with ecclesiastical history will
be aware that so early as during the first century,
the Christians were split up into many petty sects,
all of which spit eternal damnation at each other
with the most Christian malignity. One party as-

224 INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY.

serted that Christ was a mere man, another that he
was a divine character ; some admitting his resurrec-
tion, others denying it ; some supporting the story of
the " miraculous conception/' and others repudiating
it. Paul, the champion of the divinity of Christ, was
regarded as an impostor by the Nazarenes and the
Ebionites, and his Epistles were esteemed as " idle
tales and uninspired reveries." " The Corinthians,"
also says Epiphanius, "had the Acts of the Apos-
tles with various additions, in which Paul is accused
of the artifices of a false prophet." Bishop Marsh, in
his famous Lectures, alluding to the division amongst
the early disciples, says, " So numerous were heretics
(meaning Christians of different opinions,) in the
first and second ages, that all the primitive Christians
seem to have been included under one, or other de-
nomination of heresy," showing that at that primitive
period, division, sectarianism, and intolerance, had
followed from the dissemination of the dark, incon-
gruous dogmas of the Christian Scriptures.

In the second century, a violent dispute arose
among the Christian churches, as to the time when
Easter was to be observed. One division of the
church — the eastern — alleged that it should be held
on one day ; the other — the western — on another
day ; the former quoting their authority John and
Philip, the latter Peter and Paul. This celebrated
dispute occasioned much cruel persecution. Victor,
the Roman prelate, excommunicated all the eastern
churches — cursed them as heretics, and denounced
all intercourse with them. Thus, by the anathema
of this "man of God," were the people of the eastern
entirely dissevered from those of the western world,
each party looking upon the other as enemies, and
fostering the most implacable animosity — and all
through a silly story recorded in the New Testament!

Early in the third century, a most puerile, though
inveterate controversy, was started among Christians
as to the nature of Christ. This controversy, which

INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY. 225

lasted for several centuries, raged occasionally with
the most bitter, and brutal animosity, and did not
terminate until the lives of, at least, 300,000 human
beings had been sacrificed in the contention. Euse-
bius informs us that Theodorit, Sabellius, Paulns,
Samasatemus, Bishop of Antioch, and other eminent
" Christians/' were excommunicated by the dominant
faction for their heterodox notions upon this subject.
Well might the Rev. Mr. Brown, in his Defence of
Revelation, declare, that " To heretricate, schisma-
ticate and damn one another, it must be owned, is in
a manner, peculiar to Christians. Heathens had too
imperfect and uncertain notions of a future state, to
show, in this manner, mutual hatred.7'

It was, not, however, till the fourth century, when
Christians had acquired political power, that the ani-
mus of this religious scheme was manifested in its
genuine purity. No sooner was Constantine, the Em-
peror of Rome, converted to Christianity, and fairly
imbued with the Christian spirit, than he was pre-
vailed upon by the Christian hierarchy, to institute the
most shameful and inhuman persecutions, not only
against the heathens, but the heterodox of their own
religion. Milner, the pious author of the " Church
History," cannot but admit, that " the Christian world
was now the scene of animosity and contention."

At the time of Constantine' s ascension to the throne
of Rome, there was a violent contention among the
Christians upon the subject of the Godhead. The
substance of this famous controversy, out of which
sprang the doctrine of the Trinity, was briefly this. —
One party, headed by Alexander, Bishop of Alexan-
dria, maintained that uGod is always, and the Son
always, the same time the Father, the same time the
Son. The Son co-exists with God, unbegottenly, be-
ing ever begotten, being unbegottenly begotten ! ;' The
other party, headed by Arian, the presbyter of Alex-
ander, asserted, that " there was a time when there
was no Son of God} and that he, who before was not,

226 INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY.

afterwards existed, being made, whenever he was
made, just as any man whatever ^

This silly dispute gave rise to the most unseemly
squabbles in the church. Dr. Chandler, in his His-
tory of Persecution, edited by Atmore, states that
"the bishops of each side had already interested the
people in their quarrel, and heated them into such a
rage, they attacked and fought with, wounded and
destroyed each other, and acted with such madness
as to commit the greatest impieties for the sake of or-
thodoxy, and arrived at that pitch of insolence, as to
oifer great indignities to the imperial images." He
concludes, by remarking, that their " animosities were
too furious to be appeased." The learned Dr. Mo-
sheim himself admits that "it would be difficult to
determine which of the two exceeded most the bounds
of probity, charity, and moderation." At last, in the
year 325, Constantine convened a council of the Chris-
tian functionaries, distinguished in ecclesiastical his-
tory, as the Council of Nice, for the purpose of settling
this disgraceful schism. Such was the humility and
forbearance displayed by these " Christians" on this
memorable occasion, that the riot and uproar which
existed during the whole of their sittings, would have
disgraced a pot-house. Theodorit says, " Those of
' the Arian party were subtle and crafty, and, like
shelves under water, concealed their wickedness. — «
Amongst the orthodox party, some were of a quarrel-
ling, malicious temper, and accused several of the
bishops, and then presented their accusatory libels to
the emperor." Tindal states, in his "Rights of the
Church," p. 195, "that if those accusations and libels
which the bishops, at the council of Nice, gave in of
one another to the Emperor, were now extant, in all
probability we should have rolls of scandal, that few
would have much reason to boast of the first GEccu-
menical council, where with such heat, passion, and
fury, the bishops fell foul of one another." A rich
scene for bishops ! How characteristic of the system !

INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY. 227

The issue of this disorderly assembly was, that the
Arians were defeated. The Emperor, in order to estab-
lish the doctrine of the opposite party, issued an edict
against the Arians, as well as heretics and infidels
of all kinds. The edict declar^ as given in Socra-
tes's Ecclesiastical History, Book 1, c. vii., " More-
over, we thought good, that if there can be found, ex-
tant, any work or book compiled by Arius, the same
should be burnt to ashes, so that not only his damna-
ble doctrines may thereby be rooted out, but, also,
that no relique* thereof may remain unto posterity. —
This, also, we straightly command and charge, that
if any man be found to hide or conceal any book made
by Arius, and not immediately bring forth the same
book, and deliver it up to be burned, that the said
offender, for so doing, shall die the death. For as
soon as he is taken, our pleasure is, that his head be
stricken off from his shoulders. God keep you in his
tuition ! " Indeed, I think so. What a sample of
Christian charity ! How honorable to Constantine,
and his priestly advisers !

O ! what good man does not tremble with horror at
such monstrous intolerance, and regret the day that a
book should have come into existence, about the dog-
mas of which, such atrocities have been perpetrated ?
Well might the Emperor Julian declare, (who was at
one time a Christian, though he subsequently became
a Pagan, and one of the best Emperors that ever
reigned in Rome,) that "he found by experience, that
even beasts were not so cruel to men, as the generality
of Christians were to one another." The Rev. Dr.
Chandler, in his History, exclaims, " What confu-
sions and calamities — what ruins and desolations —
what rapines and murders — have been introduced
into the world, under the pretended authority of Christ,
and of supporting and propagating Christianity! "

Following this religion through succeeding periods,
scenes of intolerance, violence, and cruelty, present
themselves to our view, so unspeakably horrible, that

228 INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY.

it sickens me to record „them. In the fifth century,
the church was distracted by a schism occasioned by
the heresy of Nestorius. It consisted in his declaring
that the Virgin Mary was not the mother of God; that
she was " only a wqjpan, and, therefore, God could
not be born of her." "I cannot," says he, "call him
God, who once was not above two or three months
old." He, therefore, would only consent to call her
the " mother of Christ." This doctrine was consider-
ed so frightfully heretical, that a council was called
at Ephesus, in Greece, to suppress it. This meeting
proved such a boisterous one, that Mr. Tindal informs
us, in his work before quoted, that " Dioscorus, Bishop
of Alexander, cuffed and kicked Flavius, Patriarch of
Constantinople, with that fury, that three days after
he died.*" Mild bishops, truly !

The decision of this Synod was against Nestorius,
which was " the occasion of irreconcilable hatreds
amongst the bishops and people, who were so enraged
against each other, that there was no passing, with
any safety, from one province or city to another, be-
cause every one pursued his neighbor as his enemy,
and revenged themselves upon one another, under a
pretence of ecclesiastical zeal ! " Mosheim tells us
that "the Greeks called this council l a band or as-
sembly of robbers,' to signify that everything was
carried in it by fraud or violence ; and many councils,
indeed, both in this and the following ages, are equally
entitled to the same dishonorable appellation."

Towards the close of this century, another Synod
was called at Chalcedon, to consider the heresy of
Dioscorus, who had asserted that "Jesus Christ con-
sisted of two natures, before his union or incarnation,
but that after this he had one nature only." The
discussion of this truly momentous question was so
violent and obstreporous, that the holy fathers could
no longer c mtain themselves, aud cried out in fury,
"Damn Dioscorus — banish Dioscorus — Christ hath
deposed Dioscorus ! " Choice language for a pious

INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY. 229

assembly, an assembly called together to decide upon
"heavenly truths!''7 John, in the Rev., c. vii., tells
us that there was silence in heaven just for the space
of half an hour, but had there been quietness in these
noisy conventions for only five minutes, I apprehend,
it would have been a phenomenon.

Continuing our history, we learn from Mosheim,
Du Pin, Tindal, and other Christian writers, that
during the sixth, seventh, and eighth century, more^
councils were called to discuss various scriptural to-
pics, all of which were of the same tumultuous cha-
racter, and terminated in the bitter persecution of the
discomfitted faction. At the first council, held at
Constantinople, to decide upon the heresies of Origen,
the first point discussed was, "Whether those who
were dead, (meaning the heretics,) were to be anathe-
matised or accursed? ,; And, such was the religious
haired to all heretics, that they not only excommuni-
cated and cursed all the living, but they actually
wanted to dig into the very graves of the dead, and
curse the bones that were rotting in them ! One of
the priests, named Eutychius, " looked with contempt
on the fathers for their hesitation in so plain a matter,
and told them that there needed no deliberation on the
subject, for that King Josias, formerly did not only
destroy the idolatrous priests who were living, but
dug also those who had been dead long before, out of
their graves.'7 This settled the dispute at once, and
Eutychius was made a bishop for .this, his skill in
Scripture and casuistry.

Towards the end of the eighth century, (the year
787,) a council was convened to decide, whether
images should be set up in churches ; and, after it
was decided in the affirmative, they added, as was
their usual custom, u damnation to all heretics — dam-
nation on the council that warred against venerable
images — the Holy Trinity hath deposed them.7'

The disputes, among Christians, upon this con-
temptible question, was the cause of a civil war in
20

230 INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY.

the islands of the Archipelago, under Leo TV., and oc-
casioned throughout Christendom, before its termina-
tion, the death of at least 50,000 human beings.

We have now arrived at the tenth century. We
shall hastily pass from this period to the sixteenth, in
order that we may show, that after the Reformation,
under the Reformed church, among Protestants as
well as Catholics, the Bible was the cause of the same
dreadful evils, as characterized the dark ages. I may
remark, that from the tenth to the sixteenth century,
the Christian world was one frightful scene of intole-
rance and blood. Europe was a moral wilderness,
resounding with the savage bowlings of the bigot and
persecutor. Yes, —

" Earth groaned beneath religion's iron age,

And priests dared babble of a God of peace,

E'en while their hands were red with guiltless blood,

Murdering the while, uprooting every germ

Of truth, exterminating, spoiling all,

Making the earth a slaughter-house."

During this interval were enacted the bloody trage-
dies of the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the massacre of
the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and other butcheries,
too horrible to enumerate ; and all for the " glory of
God,7' and the vindication of his blessed Word ! " We
now approach the glorious Reformation. Calvin, one
of the principal actors upon the Christian stage at this
period, no sooner obtained power and influence, than
he began, like the Catholics, to persecute those whom
he deemed heretical. He caused Michael Servetus to
be burned in Geneva. He wrote a Declaration to
maintain the u true faith/7 in which he states, "it was
lawful to punish heretics, and that this wretch, (mean-
ing Servetus,) was justly executed.77 He also perse-
cuted Castello, in a manner so rude and brutal, that
he calls him "a blasphemer, reviler. malicious, bark-
ing dog, full of ignorance, beastiality, and impudence,
an impostor, a base corrupter of the sacred writings,
a mocker of God, a contemner of all religion, an im-

INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY. 231

pudent fellow, a filthy dog, a knave, an impious,
lewd, crooked-minded, vagabond, beggarly rogue."
Charitable John Calvin ! Glorious Reformer, indeed !
'But, listen to the furious rage and vindictive intole-
rance of the worthy follower and coadjutor of Calvin,
John Knox, the Reformer of Scotland. I take the fol-
lowing from the "Edinburgh Magazine and Review,"
for July, 1771. It is an extract from one of John's
prayers against the Catholics. Addressing himself to
God against his enemies, he charitably exclaims,
" Repress the pride of these blood-thirsty tyrants, con-
sume them in thine anger, according to the reproach
which they have laid against thy holy name ; pour
forth thy vengeance upon them, and let our eyes be-
hold the blood of the saints required at their hands. —
Delay not thy vengeance, O Lord, but let death devour
them in haste. Let the earth swallow them up, and
let them go down quick to hell, for there is *no hope of
their amendment. The fear and reverence of thy
holy name is quite banished from their hearts ; and,
therefore, yet, again, O Lord, consume them — consume
them in thine anger ! " O ! what a Christian ! — what
a " Reformer ! " What is the language of Luther,
the great father of the " Glorious Reformation," when
speaking of the Catholics ? Listen — " The Papists
are all asses, put them in whatever form you please,
boiled, roasted, baked, fried, skinned, beat, hashed,
they are always the same — asses. The Pope was
born out of the deviPs posteriors, full of devils, lies,
blasphemies, and idolatries ; he is Anti-Christ, the
robber of churches, the ravisher of virgins, the great-
est of pimps, the governor of Sodom."

What blackguardism for a Christian, and a u Re-
former ! " When the Protestant priesthood had eman-
cipated themselves from the iron yoke of Popery,
it was not long ere they established a despotism
equally brutal and iniquitous. All Dissenters were
persecuted with as much inveteracy, as under the
Catholic hierarchy. During the bloody reign of
Henry VIII., an act was passed, "abolishing diversity

232 INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON "SOCIETY,

of opinion in certain articles concerning the Christian
religion." By this enactment, it was enforced that
all Dissenters, for the first offence, were to be impris-
oned during the king's pleasure; and, for the second,
to suffer death, (NeaPs History of the Puritans, vol.
i. p. 2.) Under this law, many dissenting sects were
persecuted in the most inhuman maimer — the Ana-
baptists, the Brownists, the Puritans, the Quakers,
and other sectaries experienced the displeasure of the
Orthodox, and, of course, were subjected to all kinds
of pains and penalties.

The following was the form of abjuration put to
the Anabaptists, which they were obliged to make,
or be burnt: — " Whereas we, being seduced by the
devil, the spirit of error, and false teacher, have fallen
into these most damnable and detestable heresies, that
Christ took not flesh of the Virgin Mary, that the in-
fants of the faithful should not be baptized ; and that
a Christian man may not be a magistrate, or bear
the sword and office of authority ; and that it is not
lawful for a Christian man to take an oath ; now, by
the grace of God, and by the assistance of good and
learned ministers of Christ's Church, I understand
the same to be most damnable and detestable here-
sies, and do ask God, before his church, mercy for
my said former errors, and do forsake, recant, and
renounce them; and I abjure them from the bottom
of my heart, protesting I certainly believe the con-
trary. And, further, I confess the whole doctrine
established and published in the Church of England,
and also that which is received in the Dutch Church,
in London, is found true, and according to God's
Word, whereunto in all things I submit myself, and
will be most gladly a member of the Dutch Church,
and henceforth utterly abominating and forsaking
all and every Anabaptiscal errors." — Crosby, vol. i.
p. 68.

Neal states (vol. i. p. 540,) that one Leighton, for
writing a book, in which prelacy was denounced
as " Anti-Scriptural," was condemned by the High

INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY. 233

Commissioner to pay a heavy fine, and then to be
set upon the pillory a convenient time, and have one
of his ears cut off, one side of his nose slit, and be
branded in the face with a double S, and then to be
carried back to prison ; and, after a few days, be
pilloried again in Cheapside, and be then likewise
whipped, and the other side of his nose slit, and be
then shut up in close confinement for the remainder
of his life ! " Bishop Laud, on hearing this decision,
pulled off his cap, and-returned God thanks.

The celebrated Richard Baxter was treated in the
most infamous manner so lately as James II. At
his trial, Judge" Jeffries addressed him as follows : —
" Richard! Richard! dost thou think we will hear
thee poison the Court ? Richard, thou art an old fel-
low, and an old knave — thou hast written books
enow to load a cart, every one as full of sedition, I
might say, of treason, as an egg is full of meat ; hadst
thou been whipt out of thy writing-trade forty years
ago, it had been happy. Thou pretendest to be a
preacher of the gospel of peace; as thou hast one
foot in the grave, it is time for thee to begin to think
what account thou intendest to give, but, leave thee
to thyself, and I see thou wilt go on as thou hast
began; but, by the grace of God, I will look after
thee. I know thou hast a mighty party, and I see
a great many of the brotherhood in corners, awaiting
to see what will become of their mighty don, and a
doctor of the party at thy elbow; but, by the grace
of Almighty God, I will crush you all."

The Rev. Mr. Robinson, in his lectures on Noncon-
formity, calculates that " Clarendon, and the bishops
in the reign of Charles II. alone, imprisoned and
murdered 8000 Dissenters, ruined thousands of fami-
lies, drove multitudes abroad, and robbed them of
from twelve to fourteen millions of property."

But the Dissenters themselves were persecutors
when they acquired power.

The Puritans, during the Commonwealth, having
20*

234 INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY.

obtained predominance, expelled from their livings no
less than 10,000 Church of England clergymen, and
treated many most barbarously. Their holy spleen
extended to all sects who did not believe as they be-
lieved. Crosby informs us, (vol. i. p. 184-190,) that
on the 26th of May, 1645, the Lord Mayor, Court of
Aldermen, and Common Council of London, present-
ed a petition to Parliament, commonly called the
" City Remonstrance,'7 in which they desired, "that
some strict and speedy cause might be taken for the
suppressing all private and separate congregations;
that all Anabaptists, Brownists, heretics, schismatics,
blasphemers, and all other sectaries, who conformed
not to the public discipline, established, or to be
established by Parliament, might be fully declared
against, and some effectual course settled for proceed-
ing against such persons, and that no person disaf-
fected to Presbyterian government might be employed
in anyplace of trust." This "remonstrance7' was
supported by the whole Scottish nation, who beseech-
ed the English Puritans to proceed boldly, and cease
not their "labor of love,7' till the three kingdoms
should be united in one faith and worship. The
General Assembly of "divines 7; at Westminster, for-
getting how they had formerly smarted under the
lash of persecution, declared, that " granting tolera-
tion would be opening a gap to all sects, and make
a perpetual division in the church." In a work,
published by this " Assembly,77 we find the following
choice morsel of priestly liberality, " Whatsoever doc-
trine is contrary to godliness, and opens a door to
liberalism and profaneness, you must reject as a soul
poison, such is the doctrine of an universal toleration
in religion.77 These enlightened sentiments were
reciprocated in a publication issued in Lancashire,
about the same period, called the " Harmonious As-
sent of the Lancashire ministers with their brethren
in London.77 The authors of this precious work
affirm, unblushingly, that " A toleration would be

INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY. 235

putting a sword in a madman's hand; a cup of
poison into the hand of a child; a letting loose of
madmen with firebrands in their hands, and appoint-
ing a city of refuge in men's souls for the Devil to
fly to ; a laying a stumbling block before the blind ;
a proclaiming liberty to the wolves to come into
Christ's fold to prey upon the lambs; neither would
it be to provide for tender conscience, but take all
conscience." Such were the sentiments of Dissenters,
when in power. How characteristic of Presbyterian
consistency ! Liberty of conscience, when they could
not enjoy it, was a glorious thing ; but when they
had obtained that liberty, and others wished to enjoy
it, " a toleration would be putting a sword in a mad-
man's hand," " appointing a city of refuge in men's
souls for the Devil to fly to" It was in America,
however, that the Puritans exhibited their purity to
the greatest advantage. Robinson, Howitt, and other
historians inform us, that they instituted the most
brutal enactments, against the Quakers in particular.
The colonies of Massachusetts passed a law, prohibit-
ing Quakers coming into the colony, imposing the
penalty of banishment for the first offence, and of
death upon such as should return after banishment.
A succession of most sanguinary laws were enacted
against them, such as imprisonment, cutting off the
ears, bo?%ing the tongue with red-hot irons, fyc. Four
Quakers were actually executed for returning after
banishment If we consider the effects resulting from
the introduction of our Bible religion into our colonies
generally, we shall find it has produced the same
strife, sectarianism, and bloodshed as at home. Did
time permit, I could refer you to many most horrible
and revolting facts. I must content myself with only
one or two examples. Mr. Garrison, t\\o distinguish-
ed abolitionist, in a speech delivered at the Anti-
Slavery Convention, held in London some time ago,
mentions the following horrible specimen of " Chris-
tian civilization." He gives an extract from a letter,

236 INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY.

written by Mr. J. Brown, a missionary at Liberia,
giving an account of a recent attack of 300 natives
upon the Methodist Missionary Station at Hudding-
ton. The natives had been exasperated at the dog-
matism of the Christian priests. The letter states,
" After an hour's fighting, the assailants were repuls-
ed, with the loss of their leader and thirty or forty
men, which achievement tvas effected chiefly by two
Methodist missionaries, and tivo native converts. We
were awakened in our town by the firing of a gun
about two miles from us ; and, while we were musing
on what it could mean, we were again alarmed by
the voices of several of our people exclaiming, i War
is come ! war is come ! ' Brother Simon Harris got
out of bed immediately, and went out in town. But
he returned in one minute, and told me to be out of
bed and load the guns for war was at hand. I im-
mediately arose, slipped on my clothes, and was on
my knees to ask God to help us. By that time the
enemy was within musket-shot of the mission-house.
Brother Harris went down and gave them the first
shot, and was answered by ten or twelve muskets
from the enemy, while I was loading muskets in the
chamber. In less than one minute they were run-
ning up and down the picket fence about three rods
from the house, as thick as bees around a hive. Bro.
Bennett Dormory and Brother Harris were the only
two who stood in front, between the enemy and the
house. They both stood their ground, and cut them
down like mowers cutting grass. Meanwhile, Bro.
Jarvis Z. Nichols came into the chamber where I
was loading muskets (for we had eighteen muskets
in the chamber, which we knew would go at every
snap, and one hundred ready made cartridges, and a
keg of powder,) and poured a stream of lead down
upon them from the windows, as fast as two boys
could hand him loaded muskets. In the midst of all
this, the enemy broke through the fence, and poured
into the yard like bees. Brothers Harris and Dormo-

INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY. 237

Ty now retreated to the door, in which both stood
side by side, about two rods from them, with two
muskets apiece, throwing buckshot into their bowels,

hearts, and brains, like a tornado While

they were gathering up their dead to take off, I had
the best chance of any to fire into the groups. But
they soon slung their shattered bodies, and went off
as if the wicked one was after them. The engage-
ment continued one hour and twenty-two minutes.
After they were gone, we went out on the battle
ground ; and, although they had carried off all their
dead except three big slabsided fellows, yet I never
saw such a scene before. There was blood and
brains in every direction. The path on which they
went was one complete gore on both sides ; yea, it
stood in puddles. We picked up their fingers by the
way-side."

O ! and this is promulgating the "gospel!" — dis-
seminating the " True Word ! " — " enlightening the
heathen ! " Bah !

One more specimen, and I have done. Sir Edward
Belcher, in a recent work, " Voyages Round the
World," 1836 — 42, speaking of the condition of the
natives of the Sandwich Islands, says, " Their labor
is demanded for the church, the missionaries having
obtained the necessary edict, which compels the na-
tives to labor on the roofs, to procure blocks of stone
for the purpose of building a new church. The first
duty of obtaining subsistence for their families was
deemed but a secondary consideration. If they should
presume to do so on Sunday, their punishment was
double labor the ensuing week." " At Tahiti," says
Sir Edward, " the natives are compelled to frequent
the church." Oh, yes ! " compel them to come in." —
That is eminently Christian, and this is " spreading
the gospel in foreign parts," forcing natives to sup-
port Christianity.

It may be alleged, however, that the Bible does not
sanction such persecution.

238 INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY.

What! when we are told in Galatians, c. i.,.v, 8,
that " though we, or an angel from heaven preach
any other gospel unto you than that which we have
preached to you, let him be accursed" are we not to
say that it sanctions persecution ? When we are told,
in c. v., v. 12, "I would they were even cutoff which
trouble you," are we not to affirm that it sanctions
persecution ? When we are told in Matthew, c. x., v.
15, " 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. Verily, I say unto you,
it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and
Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city,"
are we not to insist that it sanctions persecution?

But Christians themselves have admitted that it
sanctions persecution. Beza, a distinguished Christian
author of the fourth century, wrote a book in defence
of persecution, and quotes some of the very passages
I have just read to you, and others mentioned in my
Tenth Lecture.

Bogarman, the President of the Synod of Dart, held
in the eleventh century, translated Beza's book, and
recommended it to the magistrates, which recom-
mendation was adopted.

But I may be told that Beza was a Catholic. —
Then listen to the opinion of the Rev. W. Fulke, a
distinguished English Protestant clergyman of the
seventeenth century. In his work against the Papists,
he says, "for the division of parishes, excommunica-
tions, suspensions, solemnizing of marriages with the
laws thereof, and the punishing of heretics by death,
they are all manifestly proved out of Scripture ! ! ! ;?

Let me now come nearer home.

What are the effects produced by the dissemination
of this book in our own age ? Has it tended to unite
mankind % Has it bound them together by sweet ties
of love and fraternity ? Has it made men brothers ?
Ah, no ! It has split them up into an endless number
of petty sectaries, and sown, in plentiful profusion,

INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY. 239

the bitter seeds of discord and hatred. This I will
prove by showing the opinion which the various
Christian sects entertain of each other. " Calvinism,
say the Unitarians, "is a tremendous doctrine, which
had it really been taught by Jesus and his apostles,
their gospel might truly have been denounced, not as
the doctrine of peace and good will, but a message of
wrath and injustice, of terror and despair." It was
viewed by Dr. Priestly, not only "as the extrava-
gance of error, but as a mischievous compound of
impiety and idolatry." — (Rev. J. Belsham's discourse
on Dr. Priestly.) By the Arminian Christians, Cal-
vinism is represented as a system, which, says Dr.
Jortin, consists "of human creatures without liberty,
doctrine without sense, faith without reason, and a
God without mercy." Mr. Warren declares that "its
frightful demoralizing errors are spreading themselves
like a black mist through the land, blasting every
spiritual joy, withering every amiable feeling, and
poisoning every social and domestic charity." By the
Calvinist Christians, on the other hand, Arminianism
is denounced "as delusive, dangerous, and ruinous
to immortal souls." — (Close's Sermons, 1834.) Top-
lady affirms that, " a particle of it never attended a
saint to heaven." " Socinians," says the Rev. Mr.
Cunningham, in his Apostacy of the Church of Rome,
p. 168, " are even farther removed than the Church of
Rome." The Rev. Mr. Norris, as quoted in Aspland's
plea, denounces their doctrines as "envenomed blas-
phemies." Arch. Magee says, in his Discourse on
Atonement, 1809, their system " embraces the most
daring impieties that ever disgraced the name of
Christianity." " I would rather," says the Rev. Mr.
Carson, " be the veriest prostitute, the disgraced and
infected inhabitant of the lowest brothel, than be Dr.
Drummond, (the Arian.) I would rather be a Thur-
tel, the sanguinary and premeditated murderer, than
be Dr. Priestly, the Unitarian." See Bib. Christians,
Nov. 1830, p. 449. Methodism, according to the Or-

240 INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY.

thodox Church Magazine, for 1802, p. 326, derived
both its origin and its name from the Methodism of
the Devil. " The Methodists/7 says the Rev. Calven-
ist Mulock, in his Divine Truth, p. 129, 1821, " and
other miserably-misled fanatics, are awfully alienated
from all knowledge of the true God. Their experi-
ences, when tried by Scripture, are found to be details
of the polluted workings of the imagination in minds
stimulated by the ravings of the hot-brained enthusi-
asts. They have contrived what may be termed con-
vulsive Christianity, a system of sighs, groans, and
sensual impulses, to supersede that glorious faith. —
Looking through the annals of Methodism, the Chris-
tian cannot fail to notice the subtlety of Satan, in thus
seasonably providing a substitute for Popery in the
hour of its decline. It retains everything of Popery,
but its gorgeousness and ritual observances. The
same depraved deference to human nature, stamps it
as the religion of corrupt human nature." The whole
body of Protestant Dissenters, in Godolphin's Report,
p. 625, are denounced " as accursed, devoted to the
Devil, and separated from Christ.7- The Rev. Mr.
Gathercole, in a letter to a dissenting minister, pub-
lished in 1834, actually declares that, " dissent is
worse than drunkenness, and its followers are actuated
by the Devil, and the curse of God rests heavily on
them all ! " The Church of England, in return, is
denounced by the Unitarians through Dr. Priestly, in
his Remarks en Blackstone, p. 171, "as idolatrous,
and consequently a deviation from the gospel of the
most criminal kind,7' and by the Calvinists, through
the Rev. Mr. Binney, as quoted in the Christian Ob-
server, 1834, " as an obstacle to the progress of truth
and holiness in the land, and that it destroys more
soids than it saves." The Papal religion again is re-
pudiated by Bishop Warbnrton, in his Principle of
Religion, as an "impious farce;77 and by the Rev.
Mr. Cecil, as quoted in Cunningham7s Apostacy, p.
140, as " the masterpiece of Satan — a complicated

INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY. 241

and almost incredible system of idolatry, blasphemy?
and may I not add, devilism ? - - But the whole of the
foregoing are denounced by their venerable mother,
the Roman Catholic Church, "as heretics and schis-
matics," and their clergy damned " as thieves and
ministers of the Devil." — Romish Testament on John
ix., and Heb. v. i.

Such, then, is Bibleism, as it is. Such the dissen-
sions and animosities which it has engendered among
mankind. Dr. Scott very justly says, in his Christian
Life, "the professors of religion are crumbled into
many sects and parties, each spitting fire and damna-
tion at its adversary, so that if all say true, or, indeed,
any two of them, m 500 sects, which there are, (and
for ought I know, there may be 5000,) it is 500 to one
but that every one is damned, because every one
damns all but itself, and is itself damned by 499." —
Glorious prospects these for the believers ! How I
pity them ! What a stupid lottery !

My friends, we have thus given a hasty sketch of
the Influence of the Bible during the Christian era. —
I ask, has not that influence been pernicious ? Do not
truth and humanity alike demand that it should be
repudiated ? O ! must it still continue to spread men-
tal desolation among men? Must it still be allowed
to make that fair field dark, dreary, barren, and cold,
which might otherwise be strewn with the bright
flowers of freedom, knowledge, and truth? No! the
spirit of the age forbids it ! Man is now releasing
himself from the iron grasp of priestcraft. He has
heard in the distance, the song of Free Inquiry, and
never will he rest till he has joined in its glorious
chorus. Let not the religious despots of the age
imagine that they will suppress this spirit. Let them
not imagine that they will confine its lofty soul within
the bars of a prison-house. Let them not conceive
that their denunciations and anathemas will deprive
it of its vitality Viain and presumptuous mortals ! —
Victims of a system of falsehood and imposture ! No !
21

£42 INFLUENCE OF THE BIBLE ON SOCIETY.

let them bid the whirlwind be calm, the earthquake
be still, the thunderbolt be powerless, the ocean be
stagnant, but bid not the human mind remain quies-
cent in their unholy grasp. No !

u Fear not that the tyrants shall rule for ever,
Or the priests of the bloody faith ;
They stand on the brink of that mighty river,-

Whose waves they have tainted with death :
It is fed from the depths of a thousand dells,
Around them it foams, and rages, and swells,
And their swords and their sceptres I floating see,
Like wrecks on the surge of eternity.77

LECTURE THIRTEENTH.

MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE,

Friends —

In the address I recently delivered on the Morality
of the Bible, I observed, that amongst the mass of
obscenity and immorality which characterized that
production, there might probably be found a few un-
exceptionable passages, but these were by no means
original or transcendental. Passages as good, and
in many instances, much better, could be quoted
from the writings of men who knew nothing of the
"Word of God," who lived centuries before the
Christian era, and whose reputation was not like
the alleged authors of the Bible, tainted with crimes
and vices, the very mention of which was pollution.
I gave a few instances in point, promising that on a
future occasion I would enter fully into the subject.
I now appear to redeem that promise.

There is a vulgar notion amongst Christians that
there never were any views of morality before the
Bible was composed, and that without the Bible we
should have no idea of right and wrong. We should
be left without a moral rudder or compass to steer us
through the ocean of life.

This notion I hold to be as absurd, as it is gratui-
tous and presumptuous. Morality existed before the
Bible existed, and morality will exist when the Bible
is obsolete. We can find morality, and that of the

244 MORALITY V/ITHOUT THE BIBLE.

highest and purest character — morality utterly un-
mixed and uncorrupted with the obscenities, barbari-
ties, mysteries, and incongruities which crowd the
pages of the " Holy Scriptures," in the writings of
men who could never have known of those precious
lucubrations.

Morality, therefore, is perfectly independent of the
Jewish and Christian text book.

We shall first remark upon a few of the authors of
ancient Greece, commencing with Thales. I may
state that the authorities I have consulted are highly
respectable. — Dr. Enfield's " History of Philosophy,"
and " The Student; or, the Biography of Grecian
Philosophers."

Thales was born B. C. 643, and died B. O. 548.
He was one of the founders of the Grecian schools of
philosophy, and so ardent was his thirst for know-
ledge, that he gave up the care of his estate to his
nephew. Science owes much to Thales, which can-
not be said of any of the Bible writers. Though
living at so remote a period, he was so far acquainted
with astronomy and mathematics, as to be able to
predict an eclipse, and to determine the solar revolu-
tion with such accuracy, that he corrected the Gre-
cian calendar, and made their year contain 365 days.
His moral doctrines, with which we have more par-
ticularly to do, on this occasion, were singularly
excellent. I mentioned in my address on the moral-
ity of the Bible, that he taught the very doctrine
Christians say comprises all morality, " Do unto
others as you would wish others to do unto you."
This, we are told, is the "golden ride," and the law
by which the moral world should alone be governed.
Now this law, the basis of all morality, was pro-
pounded by a philosopher, who was ignorant of the
Scriptures, who wrote 600 years before Christ was
born, 300 years before the Old Testament was trans-
lated into Greek, and 200 before even the Old Tes-
tament was compiled. I hold, then, that this, the

MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE, 245

fundamental principle of morality, is altogether inde-
pendent of the Bible, and were that book forgotten
to-morrow, the acknowledged standard of morals
would still be left to regulate the actions of man-
kind. The words of Thales are, " Avoid doing what
you would blame others for doing." He also taught
that noble aphorism, " Know thyself.'7 How soon
would vice and disease be unknown if this injunction
was universally followed ! He likewise says, u Let
your study be to correct the blemishes of the mind,
rather than those of the face." Were this the practice
of the world at the present moment, we should see
society adorned with wise and good men, instead of
being, as it is, overrun with dandies and coquettes.
" Stop the mouth of slander," says he, " by pru-
dence." " Enrich not thyself by unjust means." "Be
not idle, though rich." " Learn, and teach better
things." " Let not any words fall from thee which
may accuse thee to him who hath committed anything
in trust to thee." " Entertain not evil." "Idleness is
troublesome." "Intemperance hurtful." "Ignorance
intolerable." " Use moderation." " Believe not all."
"If a governor, rule thyself." "Be equally mind-
ful of friends, present and absent." " Cherish thy
parents," which is a beautiful contrast to Christ's
doctrine of " He who hates not his father and his
mother," &c. " What thou bestowest on thy par-
ents, thou shalt receive from thy children in thine
old age." A beautiful exhortation to filial duty and
affection. He gives the following rational definition
of human happiness : — " Sound health, moderate for-
tune, and a mind well stored with knowledge ; these
are the grand ingredients of happiness."

Find me morality better than this in the Bible.
Give me any name from the Scriptures that can be
compared to this Grecian sage. I defy you.

We will now speak of Solon, the immortal law-
giver of Athens, a different character, I assure you,
to the Biblical sage, Solomon. He lived from 638 to
21*

246 MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE.

558 B. G. He observed, "Make reason thy guide5'
—not blind faith as inculcated by Paul and Peter.
Also says he, "Study excellence, and aim at acquir-
ing it." " In everything you do, learn to consider
the end." "Laws are like cobwebs which entangle
the lesser sort, the greater break through." " Cherish
thy friend." "Reverence thy parents." "Those are
happy," he remarks, "who are competently furnished
with outward things, act honestly, and live temper-
ately." This great patriot died with the conviction,
that "he had left the world better for having lived in
it," not as Solomon, exclaiming, "all is vanity."

Pittacus, the next distinguished author of antiqui-
ty from whom 1 shall quote, was one of the seven
wise men of Greece. He flourished about 570 B. C.
He also, with Thales, as mentioned on a former oc-
casion, taught identically the same doctrine, as that
which is said to be the corner-stone of all morality,
and which Christians pretend is so peculiar to their
own system. He says, " Avoid doing that to your
neighbor, which you would take amiss if he was to
do it to you." He also taught, " Whatever you do,
do it well." " Never boast of your plans before they
are executed, for fear of the ridicule and disappoint-
ment to which you will be exposed if you do not
accomplish them." Pittacus felt a supreme contempt
and disgust at that beastly habit, I was going to say,
crime, drunkenness. He proposed from the public
forum of Athens, that every fault committed while
the person was in a state of intoxication, instead of
being excused, should receive double punishment.

I wonder what Pittacus would have thought if he
had heard of the freaks of that Bible moralist, Noah !
What a contrast between these heathen philosophers
and those Scriptural heroes !

Bias, another of the seven wise men of Greece,
who flourished about 556 B. C, taught that the value
of knowledge was above all price. During an in-
vasion of his country, one of his friends observed

MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE. 247

with surprise that he took no means of preserving
anything, Bias replied, alluding to the knowledge he
had acquired, " I carry all my treasures with me."

Chilo, another of the wise men, was a Spartan,
and a man of the most rigid integrity. He was
made one of the Spartan Ephori. He lived 542 years
B. C. The following are a few of the moral precepts
inculcated by that model of virtue. " Honest loss is
preferable to shameful gain" — a hint which might
be useful to many trading Christians of the present
day. " If you are great, be condescending, for it is
better to be loved than to be hated " — a hint which
might also be of service to many Christian despots,
in this Christian age. " Think before you speak."
" Gold is tried by the touchstone, and men are tried
by gold." u Do not desire impossibilities." " Never
ridicule the unfortunate."

Cleobulus, another of the seven, taught a doctrine
much similar in spirit, though less paradoxical in
language, to that boasted doctrine of Christ's, Avhich
is said by Christians to be so pre-eminently chari-
table and moral, viz., " Love your enemies." Cleo-
bulus says, " Be kind to your friends that they may
continue such ; and to your enemies that they may
become your friends." Cleobulus lived 571 years
B. C. If, therefore, there be any merit in that dogma,
it is due to the former. The following were also his
maxims: — " Avoid excess;" " Be more desirous to
hear than to speak ; " " Before you go home, think
what you have to do — when you come home, ex-
amine yourself and consider whether you have done
all well."

I shall now speak of that illustrious moral teacher,
Socrates, the Robert Owen of Athens. No character
in the Bible can be compared to that virtuous sage.
His life was one of exalted goodness and utility. No
one can contemplate his actions and his teachings
without feeling a better man, and few, I think, can
read of his cruel death without, as Cicero remarks.

248 MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE.

shedding tears. Socrates is a glorious answer to that
insufferable piece of cant and assurance — that unless
a man is a Christian or a believer in the Bible, he
cannot be a good man. The character of Christ
himself, considered only in its most favorable features,
falls quite into the shade, when placed in juxtaposi-
tion with that of the Athenian moralist. Dr. Enfield,
who was a Christian minister and historian of con-
siderable celebrity, admits that Socrates was "a man
whose penetrating judgment, exalted virtue, and lib-
eral spirit, united with exemplary integrity and purity
of manners, entitled him to the highest distinction
among the ancient philosophers."

Time will only admit of my quoting a few of his
maxims. He taught that " True felicity is not to be
derived from external possessions, but from wisdom,
which consists in the knowledge and practice of
virtue; that the cultivation of virtuous manners is
necessarily attended with pleasure, as well as profit
— that the honest man alone is happy, and that it is
absurd to separate things which in nature are so
closely united as virtue and interest." He held that
honors and riches ought to be secondary to the ac-
quisition of sound knowledge. < " The wealth of a
covetous man," he beautifully observes, "is like the
sun after it is set — it cheers nobody." " Believe not
those who praise all your actions, but those who re-
prove your faults."

When solicited by Crito to escape from his cruel
imprisonment, he nobly replied, "That no man on
any pretence, should return an injury for an injury,"
a sentiment worthy of such a philanthropist. Socra-
tes was essentially a practical moralist. Christ, when
in his best humors, was but a theorist. Socrates was
born 469, and died 400 years B. C.

Aristippus, the founder of the Cyreniac, who flou-
rished about 365 years before the Christian epoch,
promulgated some very sound and enlightened views
of morality. He was the Bentham of that age. His

MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE. 249

opinions are decidedly utilitarian. He held that
pleasure was the ultimate object of human pursuit,
and that happiness consisted rather in a pleasing agi-
tation of the mind, or active enjoyment, than in indo-
lence or tranquillity. " Prefer labor to idleness," says
he, "unless you would prefer rust to brightness." —
" The truly learned are not those that read much, but
those who read what is useful" — a very judicious
observation. "Friendship," he remarks, "is recipro-
cal benevolence which inclines each individual to be
as anxious for another person's welfare as for his
own." "It is better to be poor than illiterate, for the
poor only want money, the illiterate want the distin-
guishing characteristics of human nature."

The following is quite equal to the boasted wisdom
of Solomon, as given in the passage, "Train up a
child in the way he should go, and when he is old he
will not depart from it." Aristippus remarks, " Young
people should be taught those things which will be
useful to them when they become men." Contrary
to the opinion of that arch-apostle, Paul, Aristippus
entertained a high opinion of the utility and advanta-
ges of philosophical inquiry. Being asked by a friend,
" What is the advantage you receive from philoso-
phy?" he replied, " It enables me to converse freely
with all mankind " — a noble, liberal, and enlighten-
ed sentiment. As much could not be said for religion ;
especially the Christian religion. It teaches, through
its apostle John, " If there come any unto you, and
bring not this doctrine, receive him not in your house,
neither bid him God-speed;" nay, says Paul, "let
him be accursed ;" and Christ himself remarks, with
that bitterness so peculiar to him, " when ye depart
from his house, shake off the dust of your feet." —
O ! how nobly does the spirit of the heathen philoso-
pher rise above that of the Christian bigot, morality
above religion, philosophy above superstition !

We will now refer to Aristotle, one of the leading
philosophers of antiquity, and unquestionably the

250 MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE.

most varied and voluminous writer of any age. He
was born 384 B. C., and died 322 B. C.

Where will you find a better definition of justice
than the following? "Justice is the virtue of treating
every one according to his deserts.'7 " Justice includes
the observance of the laws for the preservation of so-
ciety, and the discharge of obligations and debts be-
tween equals.'5 He also taught the following excellent
maxims: "Learning is the best provision against
old age." " Friends, are one soul in two bodies."—
" There is just as much difference between the wise
and the foolish as there is between the living and the
dead." " A virtuous life is itself a source of delight ; "
a splendid sentiment. Again, " the purest and noblest
pleasure is that which a good man derives from virtu-
ous actions." Will you tell me there is no morality
in that sentiment 1 Find me a passage in the whole
of the Bible to equal it. " Virtue is either theoretical,
or practical ; theoretical virtue consists in the due ex-
ercise of the understanding — practical, in the pursuit
of what is right and good." " Happiness," says he,
"consists in a conduct conformable to virtue." These
sentiments are worthy of an enlightened and good
man, and are infinitely superior to the Bible morality.

Antisthenes, the founder of the Cynic sect, pro-
pounded many useful maxims — maxims which ought
to make some of our modern Christian moralists
blush. He had a great antipathy to war, as being
alike cruel and barbarous. He did not exhort his fel-
low-citizens, in the language of Christ, "If you have
no sword, sell your garment and buy one," but as be-
came a man of enlightenment and humanity, he en-
treated his countrymen to abandon that demoralizing
and inhuman practice. " War," said a person to him
on one occasion, " carries off many wretched beings; "
and this is the cold philosophy of not a few of our
modern Christians. "True," said Antisthenes, "but
it makes many more than it carries off." Well would
it be for civilization, if, instead of having more Chris-

MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE. 251

tians, we had a few more Antisthenites. That dis-
tinguished man flourished about 390 years before
our era.

Pythagoras, who has done more for philosophy
than any Christian, taught some admirable maxims.
He lived 500 years B. C. "Wisdom and virtue,"
says he, "are our best defence, every other guard is
weak and unstable." What a singular contrast to
the doctrine, of Paul, " If a man be ignorant — let him
be ignorant" — and that "a man is justified by faith
without the deeds of the law ! " In the estimation of
that Bible moralist, good works were as " filthy
rags." Pythagoras also enjoined, " Do what you
judge to be right, whatever the vulgar may think of
you; if you despise their praise, despise also their
censure." If Christians were to practice this injunc-
tion there would be less hypocrisy, cant, and pro-
fession amongst them than at present prevails. Men
can never afford to keep a conscience, till they dare
to keep one. Pythagoras attached great importance
to the education of the rising generation. He re-
marks, "Much forethought and discretion is necessa-
ry in the education of children. The following beau-
tiful advice was given by him to his scholars : — " Let
not sleep fall upon thine eyes till thou hast thrice
reviewed the transactions of the past day. Where
have I turned from rectitude? What have I been
doing ? What have I left undone which I ought to
have done ? Begin thus from the first act, and pro-
ceed ; and in conclusion, at the ill which thou hast
done be troubled, and rejoice for the good."

In Democritus we likewise find many worthy sen-
timents. He was highly distinguished among the
great men of Greece and was born 470 years B. C,
and died 361. "It is criminal," says he, "not only
to do mischief, but to wish it." "He who subdues
his passions is more heroic than he who vanquishes
an enemy." " Do nothing shameful, though you are
alone." " Every country is open to a wise man, for

252 MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE.

he is a citizen of the world." The following noble
sentiment is found in the writings of this great man,
and is in advance even of this age : — " It is the office
of prudence, where it is possible, to prevent injuries,
but where this cannot be done, a wise regard to
our own tranquillity will prevent us from revenging
them." " We are often told of that ejaculation of
Christ's— " Father, forgive them, for they know not
what they do." But this sentiment from Democritus
includes all the humanity, and incomparably more
enlightenment than Christ's famous exclamation.

We must now notice Epicurus, whose mildness,
temperance, aiid virtue, might have taught a useful
lesson to such Bible moralists as Moses, Joshua,
Samuel, David, and Solomon. That admirable phi-
losopher was born 341 years B. C, and died 270. He
held the following enlightened views: — " Philoso-
phy is the exercise of reason in search of happiness.
Those things, therefore, that neither assist in the
pursuit, nor add to the amount of happiness, are of
no value." " Temperance," he remarks, " is that
discreet regulation of the desires and passions by
which we are enabled to enjoy pleasure without
suffering consequent inconvenience." To be impi-
ous," says he, " is not to take away from the illiter-
ate the gods which they have, it is to attribute to
th;,se gods the opinions of the vulgar." How appli-
cable is this definition to the Bible believers ! Epi-
c \;us likewise taught, " Since it is every man's
interest to be happy, through the whole of life, it is
the wisdom of every one to employ philosophy in the
j ^ ch of felicity without delay, and there cannot be
a jjpeater folly than to be always beginning to live."
" We must philosophise, not for show, but seriously,
for it is requisite not that we seem sound, but that
we be sound." " Let us endeavor so to live that we
may not repent of the time past " — a most sound and
valuable aphorism — "The life of a fool is unpleas-
ant-." "Justice," he wisely remarks, "respects man

MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE. 253

as living in society, and is the common bond, without
which no society can subsist. This virtue, like the
rest, derives its value from its tendency tcf promote
flie happiness of life. Not only is it never injurious
to the man who practices it, but nourishes in his
mind calm reflections and pleasant hopes; whereas
it is impossible that the mind in which injustice *
dwells should not be full of disquietude. Since it
is impossible that iniquitous actions should promote
the enjoyment of life, so much as remorse of con-
science, legal penalties, and public disgrace must in-
crease its troubles, every one who follows the dictates
of4 sound reason will practice the virtues of justice,
equit]^, and fidelity." Such are the sentiments of
the Grecian sage Epicurus. Are they surpassed, or
equalled by any of the Bible moralists ? The various
moral maxims, indeed, which have been elucidated
by Christian divines are but an echo of the teachings
of men who flourished ages before Christianity was
promulgated, and who knew nothing of that book,
from which Christians assume all true morality ema-
nated, and without which the world would become
a moral wilderness. It is not, therefore, to Chris-
tianity we are originally indebted for our moral prin-
ciples ; they existed before Christianity was institu-
ted, or the Bible known. Morality, then, I repeat,
is independent of the Scriptures — rests, fortunately,
upon a more pure and imperishable basis, than upou
writings so immoral.

To prove that a population may be a moral popu-
lation, and still ignorant of the Bible, I will quote a
few words from Addison, author of " Evidences r"
Christianity," &c, and which confirm the precedir
observations. Alluding to the reverence for truta
among the ancient Athenians, he observes: — "The
virtue of the undent Athenians is very remarkable in
the case of Euripides. This great tragic poet, though
famous for the morality of his plays, had introduced
a person who, being reminded of an oath he had
22

254 MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE.

*aken, replied, I swore with my mouth, but not with
my heart. The impiety of this sentiment set the
audience in an uproar; made Socrates (though an
intimate friend of the poet) go out of the theatre
with indignation, and gave so great offence, that he
was publicly accused, and brought upon his trial,
as one who had suggested an evasion of what they
thought the most holy and indissoluble bond of hu-
man society. So jealous were these virtuous heath-
ens of the smallest hint that might open a way to
perjury."

This circumstance transpired nearly 500 years be-
fore the existence of Christianity. What a glorious
contrast to the Christian population of the 19th cen-
tury ! The admirers of Jack Sheppard and Dick
Turpin ! In England, the grand emporium of Chris-
tianity, the land of Bibles, churches, and parsons,
Dr. Price informs us, that there are " a million of
perjuries committed annually." How strange the
difference between ancient Greece, and modern Eu-
rope ; one the nursery of heathenism — the other of
Christianity !

1 will now briefly refer to the morality of the an-
cient Romans. What says their great moral teacher,
Seneca } After denouncing that monster crime, and
eminently Christian practice, war, he asks, " How
are we to behave towards our fallen creatures ? How
must we answer it? What rules shall we lay down?
Shall we say that we ought to spare the effusion of
human blood ? How small a matter it is not to hurt
him, whom we are bound, by every obligation, to do
all the good to in our power ! A prodigious merit,
indeed, if man is mild and gentle to his fellow man !
We are all limbs of one great body. Nature pro-
duces us all as relations one to another. She inspired
us with mutual love, and made us social. Accord-
ing to her laws, it is a more wretched thing to do an
injury than to suffer death.,J Such are the moral
principles of a Pagan — one who was never blessed

MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE. 255

with "the light of the Gospel." Let me not be told
that no morality is to be found but in the Christian's
Bible, while " Seneca's morals" can be read. Listen
to the moral philosophy of another Roman, no less
a man than the illustrious Cicero. In his Book on
Laws there is the following glorious moral truth :
" The universal, immutable, and eternal law of all
intelligent beings is, to promote the happiness of one
another like children of the same father." Again,
" The great law imprinted on the hearts of all men,
is to love the public good, and the members of the
common society as themselves." Is there anything
to excel this in the Bible? Yet Cicero had the mis-
fortune to live before "our Saviour.5'

Let me now speak of a people who knew nothing
of our inspired text-book — the Chinese. The ancient
inhabitants of that vast empire had a great number
of books, principally on morals. The more impor-
tant of those writings are called Uikn, or the five
volumes ; and Xu Xu, or the four volumes. Tae
first of the five is called Xu Kin. It was writhy
long before the time of Moses, and contains a histore
of the kings and sages of the first ages, with thev
wise sayings and moral maxims. The second is
called Xi Kim, and contains a history of twellu
kings, written in rhyme, interspersed with moret
maxims.

Confucius says, that the universal moral idea of
the book is, "Think nothing that is wicked or im-
pure." The third is called Xe Kim. This is con-
sidered the most ancient of all the books, and is
ascribed to Fohi himself. It cannot now be deci-
phered. The fourth is named Chun Creu, or Spring
and Summer. It was compiled by Confucius, and
treats of the rise of kingdoms by virtue, and their
fall by vice — Spring representing the rise, and Sum-
mer the fall. The fifth is called the Li Ki, or
Memoirs of Rights and Duties, and was compiled by
Confucius, chiefly from materials previously existing.

256 MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE.

In this production the following moral precept is pro-
pounded, precisely the same precept as that said to
constitute the hasis of Christian morals. The pas-
sage exhorts the followers of Fohi to "Do to another
what you would they would do unto you, and do
not unto another what you would should not be
done unto you ; thou only needeth this law alone, it
is the foundation and principle of all the rest." —
Moral 24.

This is just saying, almost in the same language,
"Do unto others as you would wish others do unto
you." Now Confucius lived 500 years before Christ,
and if the " Memoirs of Rights and Duties," in which
this moral is inculcated, be but a compilation, to a
great extent, of moral precepts previously existing
among the Chinese, it is highly probable this " gold-
en rule," said first to be promulgated by Christ, had
been current among that ancient people thousands
of years before our era. This fact proves the utter
want of originality in Christian ethics, and that mo-
rality can exist without the Bible.

The following passages from the writings of Con-
fucius clearly show that the boasted dogmas of for-
giving injuries for which Christ has been so much
lauded, was taught by the Chinese moralists long
ere the "Son of God" was "born." "Acknowledge
thy benefits," says Confucius in his maxims, page
133, " by the return of other benefits, but never re-
venge injuries."

The following are a few Chinese proverbs, which
are as sensible and pure as any of Solomon's: — "As
the scream of the eagle is heard when she has passed
over, so a man's name remains after his death."
"Following virtue is like ascending an eminence,
pursuing vice is like rushing down a precipice."
"Man perishes in the pursuit of wealth, as a bird
meets with destruction in pursuit of its food." "Pet-
ty distinctions are injurious to rectitude; quibbling
words violate right reason." " Those who respect

MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE. 257

themselves will be honorable; but he who thinks
lightly of himself, will be held cheap by the world."
"Time flies like an arrow; days and months like
a weaver's shuttle." " In making a candle we seek
for light ; light to illumine a dark chamber ; reason
to enlighten man's heart." " In security do not for-
get danger; in times of tranquillity do not forget
anarchy."

The Ancient Persians. We find morality even
among this people — a people whom Christians deem
almost beneath contempt. No one, I opine, will
affirm that they had the "light of the Gospel." Mr.
Dunlap, in his unrivalled defence of Abner Knee-
land, who was tried for blasphemy in America a
few years ago, has made the following admirable
remarks upon the morality of that people, as con-
trasted with that of modern Christians, in proof of
the position I am maintaining, that morality is inde-
pendent of the Bible. He observes, "Illustrations
from history abundantly show that morality can
exist without Christianity. Is there not a beautiful
instance in ancient history of forgiveness of an ene-
my, and magnanimity to a fallen foe, which the head
of the Church of England in our time — the Prince
Regent of the British empire, had not the lofty virtue
to imitate? I allude to the different treatment of
Themistocles, and the modern Themistocles (mean-
ing Napoleon) by the heathen and Christian mon-
archs. Did not the Persian king display more real
virtue than the Christian sovereign? Themistocles
had repulsed the fleets and armies in Persia, and
raised the Athenian republic to that pinnacle of glory
which Great Britain reached when the vanquished
Napoleon came a suppliant to a victorious foe. The
statesman of Athens experienced the ingratitude of
the republic, and was compelled to seek at the Per-
sian Court, a retreat from the persecution of his
countrymen. He threw himself at the feet of the
monarch of that nation whose fleets he had captured.
22*

258 MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE.

and whose immense armies he had overthrown, and
asked for protection and hospitality. Was it denied
him ? No, gentlemen ; all enmity was forgotten
when they beheld the great man of the age in the
depth of distress. He was received with kindness
and entertained with honor. The revenues of cities
were assigned to his support, and the illustrious
and unfortunate Athenian was the chief among the
friends of the king, and the object of the admiration
of his brilliant court. Compare the conduct of the
heathen prince with the treatment of the Christian
monarch, of a greater man than even Themistocles.
The Emperor Napoleon was received under circum-
stances which ought to have bound the consciences
of a Christian people, and the honor of a Christian
government. He said to the British people, ' I come,
like Themistocles, to throw myself upon the hospi-
tality of the British people.' But he was not receiv-
ed by this Christian government as was Themistocles
by the Persians. He was denied the honorable asy-
lum he sought. The laws of nations — the dictates
of humanity, and the precepts of the gospel were
violated, and he was borne away to a pestilent rock
in the midst of the ocean, which, after six years of
his cruel exile and agony had elapsed, was rendered
famous as the tomb of the greatest character in the
Pantheon of History. Does not the virtue of the
most powerful nation of antiquity, and the most
powerful Christian nation of modern times, demon-
strate that morality can exist without Christianity?"
Ancient Hindoos. — In the Braminical books, as
quoted, in the " Materials for Thinking," I find the
following moral sentiments, which do honor to hu-
manity ; they are only a few, however, of what
might be adduced. Tell me not that there is no
morality without the Bible, while such passages as
these can be found in the writings of a people who
know nothing of it. " Never to hear patiently of
evil, nor to spare that which is mischievous and

MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE. 259

wicked — utter no lies — practice no prevarication or
hypocrisy — use no deceit or over-reaching in trade
or dealing — never oppress the weak and humble,
nor offer any violence to your neighbor — keep your
hands from pilfering and from theft, and in no way
whatever injure a fellow creature. " What a differ-
ent scene our Bible-loving, tract-distributing coun-
try would present if these beautiful precepts were
practiced ! — precepts given long before Christianity
"had a habitation or a name," and which challenge
a comparison with any of our " inspired v morals.

We will now notice a people who were unknown
to Christians till so late a period as the 14th cen-
tury — the American Indians. Even this unculti-
vated race entertained views of morality of which
" civilized" Christians might be proud. The reply
of the famous Indian, Red Jacket, to the Christian
Missionary, Mr. Cramp, is highly characteristic. — -
The priest tells the Indians that they were in dark-
ness, and that there could be only one true religion,
and it was his. The reply of the Indian affords a
memorable instance of the moral dignity and sim-
plicity of that virtuous and unsophisticated race. It
is given in Howitt's " History of Christianity and
Colonization," p. 397 — 401. Red Jacket eloquently
observes : —

" Brother, you say you want an answer to your
talk before you leave this place. It is right you
should have one, as you are at a great distance from
home, and we do not wish to detain you; but we
will first look back a little, and tell you what our
fathers have told us, and what we have heard from
the white people.

" Brother, listen to what we say. There was a
time when our forefathers owned this great island.
Their seats extended from the rising to the setting
sun. The Great Spirit had made it for the use of
Indians. He had created the buffalo, the deer, and
other animals for food. He made the beaver and

260 MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE.

the bear, and their skins served us for clothing. He
had scattered them over the country, and taught us
how to take them. He had caused the earth to pro-
duce corn for bread. All this he had done for his
red children because he loved them. If we had any
disputes about hunting-grounds, they were generally
settled without the shedding of much blood; but an
evil day came upon us : your forefathers crossed the
great waters, and landed on this island. Their num-
bers were small; they found friends, and not ene-
mies; they told us they had fled from their own
country for fear of wicked men, and came here to
enjoy their religion. They asked for a small seat.
We took pity on them, granted their request, and
they sat down among us. We gave them corn and
meat, they gave us poison (spirituous liquors) in re-
turn. The white people had now found out our
country, tidings were carried back, and more came
amongst us ; yet we did not fear them, we took them
to be friends : they called us brothers, we believed
them and gave them a larger seat. At length their
numbers had greatly increased, they wanted more
land, — they wanted our country! Our eyes were
opened, and our minds became uneasy. Wars took
place ; Indians were hired to fight against Indians,
and many of our people were destroyed. They also
brought strong liquors among us ; it was strong and
powerful, and lias slain thousands.

"Brother, our seats were once large, and yours
were very small. You have now become a great
people, and we have scarcely a place left to spread
our blankets. You have got our country, but are not
satisfied ; — you want to force your religion upon us.

" Brother, continue to listen. You say that you
are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great
Spirit agreeably to his mind, and if we do not take
hold of the religion which you white people teach,
we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you
are right, and we are lost ; how do you know this l

MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE.

261

We understand that your religion is written in a
book ; if it was intended for us as well as you, why
has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only
to us, why did he not give to our forefathers the
knowledge of that book, with the means of under-
standing it rightly ? We only know what you tell
us about it; how shall we know what to believe,
being so often deceived by the white people ?

" Brother, you say there is but one way to worship
and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one re-
ligion, why do you white people differ so much about
it? why not all agree, as you can all read the book?

" Brother, we do not understand these things. We
are told that your religion was given to your fore-
fathers, and has been handed down from father to
son. We also have a religion which was given to
our forefathers, and has been handed down to us
their children. We worship that way. It teaches
us to be thankful for all the favors we receive ; to
love each other, and to be united ; — we never quarrel
about religion.

" Brother, the Great Spirit has made us all; but
he has made a great difference between his white
and red children. He has given us a different com-
plexion, and different customs. To you he has given
the arts; to these he has not opened our eyes. We
know these things to be true. Since he has made so
great a difference between us in other things, why
may we not conclude that he has given us a different
religion according to our understanding? The Great
Spirit does right : he knows what is best for his
children : we are satisfied.

u Brother, we do not wish to destroy your religion,
or take it from you ; we only want to enjoy our own.

" Brother, you say you have not come to get our
land or our money, but to enlighten our minds. I
will now tell you that I have been at your meetings,
and saw you collecting money from the meeting. 1
cannot tell what this money was intended for, but

262 MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE.

suppose it was your minister; and, if we should con-
form to your way of thinking, perhaps you may want
some from us.

" Brother, we are told, that yon have been preach-
ing to the white people in this place. These people
are our neighbors ; we are acquainted with them :
we will wait a little while, and see what effect
your preaching *has upon them. If we find it does
them good, makes them honest and less disposed
to cheat Indians, we will then consider again what
you have said.

" Brother, you have now heard our answer to your
talk ; and this is all we have to say at present. As
we are going to part, we will come and take you
by the hand, and hope the Great Spirit will protect
you on your journey, and return you safe to your
friends."

H The Missionary, hastily rising from his seat, re-
fused to shake hands with them, saying, ' there was
no fellowship between the religion of God and the
works of the Devil.' The Indians smiled and retired
in a peaceful manner."

O ! what a contrast between the Barbarian and
the Christian! How noble the virtue of the one,
how disgusting the bigotry of the other ! What a
glorious triumph of morality over religion ! What
an unanswerable proof that a people may be virtuous
without the Bible, and vicious with it !

Not only, however, can we find morality amongst
people who were entirely ignorant of Christianity,
but even amongst those who were ignorant of any
religion — Atheists.

D. H. Kolf, in a werk entitled, " Voyages of the
Dutch Brig of War, Donya, through the Southern
and little known parts of the Moluccan Archipelago,
and along the previously unknown Southern coast of
New Guinea, performed during the years of 1825-
726," informs that the inhabitants of the Arm Islands
knew nothing of a God or a future state, and " yet,"

MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE. 263

says he, " it is not a little remarkable that the Ara-
furas, notwithstanding that they have no hope of
rewards, or fear of punishment after death, live in
brotherly peace among themselves and respect the
rights of property in the fullest sense.7' Another
extraordinary instance of a people utterly ignorant
of all religion, and yet virtuous and hospitable, is
mentioned in a work entitled, " Narrative of the
loss of the ship Hercules, Captain Benjamin Stout,
on the Caffraria Coast, the 18th of June, 1796, and
subsequent travel through the southern deserts of
Africa, and Colonies of the Cape of Good Hope, ad-
dressed to the Honorable John Adams, President of
the United States of America." After giving many
highly interesting and amusing particulars of the
anti-religion of this singular people which I have
not time to read, Captain Stout proceeds to express
his astonishment and delight on finding "the virtues
of hospitality and humanity practiced by men termed
savages by their oppressors, but who put civilized
society to the blush by their conduct." Yes, our
God-worshipping and soul-mongering nations would
do well to imitate the simple virtues of a people
who can afford to be moral without the pious stim-
ulants of heaven and hell. How nobly and masterly
Mr. Dunlap, in the defence previously quoted, com-
bats the stupid assumption, that morality is insepa-
rable from Christianity! He proceeds: — "I have
just been told by an eminent clergyman of this city,
who is now within the reach of my voice, that some
few pious Christians, whose zeal, I suppose, a little
out-stripped their knowledge, hold that morality is
exceedingly dangerous, . as if induces the worker of
righteousness to place too great a reliance upon this
support, and, therefore, brings his soul into greater
peril of eternal perdition. The world has been told
by Dr. Horsely, a proud Lord in lawn of the House
of Lords of the Imperial Parliament in Great Britain
— that- Unitarianism, being heresy, pven the moral

264 MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE.

good of the Unitarians is sin. According to the doc-
trine of such Christians, morality and Christianity
are things as far removed from each other as earth
from heaven. If morality and Christianity, how-
ever, be one and the same, or things inseparable,
how were societies formed, governments established,
and nations raised to power and glory before Jesns
Christ was born, and the glad tidings of his gospel
proclaimed ? Upon what principle was society regu-
lated during the thousands of years which this globe
rolled through the fields of space, in its appointed
circuit around the glorious luminary, the centre of
our system, before the revelation of Christianity was
made ? Was there no morality in the days of Ho-
mer's heroes, amongst whom were some of the most
glorious characters ever described in any work of fact
or imagination ? Was there no morality in those
heroic ages; or were the sages and chiefs of the Illiad,
the Odyssey, and the iEniad, ideal models of human
excellence, the fanciful creations of the immortal bards
of Greece and Rome ? "

Never was a statement more unfounded, cr more
gratuitous, than that all morality must come from
the Bible, and that we are weeds without it. Mo-
rality alone emanates from a book, indeed, which
details obscenities so revolting — immoralities so de-
basing— crimes so monstrous, and butcheries so hor-
rible ! What an absurdity ! What a libel upon the
character of him whose virtue rises above the dark
records of priests and impostors ! But Bible or no
Bible, I would rather live one brief hour, though it
were in perdition itself, with the spirit of a Thal.es,
a Socrates, a Plato, and an Epicurus, than through
all eternity, with the corrupted remains of a Moses,
a Joshua, a Samuel, or a David. With the one I
should feel ennobled; the other, degraded. The
teaching and practices of the former incite to the
attainment of the wise, the good, and the beautiful,
but the injunctions and doings of the latter instigate

MORALITY WITHOUT THE BIBLE. 265

to all that is degraded, cruel, and vicious. The
morality of those sages, who taught long before the
Bible was known, or Christianity promulgated, was,
indeed, "pure and undeliled ; 7? but the morality of
the Scriptures, what little there be, is contaminated
by crimes and vices, superstitions, and persecutions
at which humanity shudders, and which has hitherto
converted Christendom into an arena of bigotry, ig-
norance, cant, and intolerance. Morality, then, I
reiterate, — morality, sound and spotless, existed before
the Bible existed, and morality will triumph when
that production is exploded, and the sooner its musty
pages are closed forever, the sooner will mental lib-
erty, moral excellence, and intellectual greatness per-
vade the earth !

END.

23

LIST OF BOOKS

PUBLISHED, AND FOR SALE BY

J". I*. 3bflEE33STI>XT3M,

/LT THE OFFICE OF THE BOSTON INVESTIGATOR, 45 CORNHILL,
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.

^ ' THE BOSTON INVESTIGATOR is a weekly paper,
devoted to the useful work of freeing and enlarging the mind, and
bringing man back to the path from which he has deviated in con-
sequence of being misled by the teachings and influence of super-
stition. Illiberal discussions and personalities we shall endeavor to
avoid, for our aim is to establish a character for temperate and sober
reasoning, for open investigation, and for universal conciliation. To
all who are favorable to the continuance of a journal unshackled
by prejudice or interest, which boldly advocates liberal principles,
and disclaims all interference with sectarian or party disputes, we
submit the above platform of the Investigator as one that is worthy
of a generous patronage. Terms. — Two or Three Dollars per
Annum, according to the ability or liberality of the subscriber,
PAYABLE IN ADVANCE. All letters should be addressed to
JOSIAH P. MENDUM, No. 45 Cornhill,

Boston, Mass.

VOLTAIRE'S PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY.

New Edition, Two Volumes in one, sheep. Containing 876 large
royal octavo pages, with two elegant steel engravings. Price
$4. Postage 65 cents. — This is the largest and most correct
edition in the English language, having, besides the whole of the
London Edition, several articles from a manuscript translated sev-
eral years since by a friend of Voltaire's, and others translated im-
mediately from the French Edition. The London Edition sells
at from $10 to $16, and does not contain near so much as this
American Edition.

THE DIEGESIS ; being a discovery of the Origin, Evidences,
and Early History olL Christianity , never yet before or elsewhere
so fully and faithfully set forth. By Rev. Robert Taylor. This
work was written by Mr. Taylor while serving a term in Oak-
ham (Eng.) Jail, where he was imprisoned for blasphemy. It
contains 440 pages, octavo, and is considered unanswerable as to
arguments or facts. Price $1. Postage 21 cts.

RIGHTS OF MAN" ; being an Answer to Mr. Burke's attack
on the French Revolution. By Thomas Paine. Price 50 cts.
Postage 12 cts.

BOOKS PUBLISHED BY J. P. MENDUM.

SYNTAGMA of the Evidences of the Christian Religion, being
a vindication of the manifesto of the Christian Evidence Society,
against the assaults of the Christian Instruction Society. By
Rev. Robert Taylor, A. B., & M. R. C. S., Orator of the Areop-
agus, Prisoner in Oakham Jail for the conscientious maintenance
of the truths contained in that manifesto, with a brief Memoir of
the Author. Price 50 cts. Postage 5 cts.

THE LIFE OP THOMAS PAINE, Author of « Common
Sense," " Rights of Man," " Age of Reason," &c, &c, with
Critical and Explanatory Observations on his Writings. By G.
Vale. Price, paper, 50 cts. Bound 75 cts. Postage 12 cts.

THE COMPLETE WORKS OP THOMAS PAINE,

Secretary to the Committee of Foreign Affairs in the American
Revolution. Three Yolumes. Consisting of his POLITICAL,
THEOLOGICAL, and MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS. To
which is added, a sketch of his Life. Price $4,50. Postage
65 cts.

POLITICAL WRITINGS OP THOMAS PAINE,

Secretary to the Committee of Foreign Affairs in the American
Revolution. To which is prefixed a brief sketch of the Author's
Life. A new edition with additions. 2 Yols. Price, $3. Post-
age 42 cts.

COMMON SENSE, a Revolutionary Pamphlet, addressed to
the Inhabitants of America, 1776. By Thomas Paine. To which
is added a brief sketch of the Author's Life. Price 20 cts. Post-
age 3 cts.

AUTHOR-HERO OP THE AMERICAN REVO-
LUTION. Price 3 cts.

THEOLOGICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS WRIT-
INGS OP THOMAS PAINE. The most complete
edition ever published. Containing his AGE OF REASON,
and all his writings on Theology, with many Miscellaneous and
Poetical fieces, and his Letter to Washington. Price $1,50.
Postage 23 cts.

THEOLOGICAL WORKS OF THOMAS PAINE.

To which are added, the Profession of Paith of a Savoyard
Vicar, by J. J. Rousseau ; and other Miscellaneous Pieces.
Price $1. Postage 20 cts.

THE AGE OP REASON ; being an investigation of True
and Fabulous Theology. By Thomas Paine. Price 37 cts.
Postage 7 cts.

A LEGACY TO THE FRIENDS OF FREE DIS-
CUSSION ; being a Review of the Principles, Historical
Pacts, and Personages of the books known as the Old and New
Testament ; with remarks on the Morality of Nature. By Ben-
jamin OfFen, formerly Lecturer of the Society of Moral Philan-
thropists, at Tammany Hall, New York. Price 50 cts, Postage
12 cts.

BOOKS FOR SALE BY J. P. MENDUM.

POSITIVE PHILOSOPHY of Auguste Comte. Trans-
lated by Harriet Martineau. With an elegant steel portrait.
Price $3. Postage 50 cts.

ESSENCE OP CHRISTIANITY. By Ludwig Feuer-
bach. Translated from the German, by Marian Evans. Price
$1,25. Postage 12 cts.

LIFE OP JESUS, CRITICALLY EXAMINED. By
Dr. David Friedrich Strauss. Translated from the German, by
Marian Evans. With an elegant steel portrait. Price $4,50.
Postage 50 cts.

PRINCIPLES OP NATURE ; or, a Development of the
Moral Causes of Happiness and Misery among the Human
Species. By Elihu Palmer. Price 50 cts. Postage 3 cts.

A REVIEW of the " TRIALS OP A MIND, in its

Progress to Catholicism." By an Ex-Clergyman. Price 75 cts.
Postage 10 cts.

THE DEIST'S REPLY to the alleged Supernatural Evi-
dences of Christianity. By Lysander Spooner. Price 18 cts.
Postage 2 cts.

PATHETISM — NEW THEORY OP MIND ; State-
ment of its Philosophy, and its Discovery Defended, against the
assumptions put forth recently under the names of M Electrical
Psychology," " Electro-Biology," &c, &c. By Laroy Sunder-
land. Price 10 cts. Postage 2 cts.

HELVETIUS ; or, the True Meaning of the System of Nature.
Price 17 cts. Postage 3 cts.

HISTORY OP PRIESTCRAPT in all Ages and Nations.
By William Howitt. Price 75 cts. Postage 12 cts.

CREED OP CHRISTENDOM ; its Foundations and Su-
perstructure. By William R. Greg. Price $1,25. Postage
12 cts.

BIOGRAPHY, and Notes of Frances Wright D'Arusmont.
Price 6 cts. Postage 1 ct.

ELEGANT EXTRACTS from the Holy Bible. Price 6 cts.
Postage 1 ct.

THE INSPIRATION OP THE BIBLE. Price 6 cts.

DISCUSSION on the Authenticity of the Bible. Between
Origen Bacheler, late Editor of the Anti-Universalist, and Rob-
ert Dale Owen, late Editor of the Free Enquirer. Price 75 cts.

Postage 10 cts.

THE GREAT PUZZLING CHAIN, by whom invented,
and for whose benefit exhibited ; and the mystery of mysteries
unfolded. Price 2 cts.

THE PREE INQUIRER'S PRAYER; To which is
added a description of the Bible, by Priestcraft and by Common
Sense. Price 2 cts.

BOOKS FOR SALE BY J. P. MENDUM.

VOLLEY'S NEW BESEABCHES into Ancient History.
Price $1,25. Postage 15 cts.

VOLNEY'S RUINS. Price 50 cts. Postage 10 cts.

ROBERT TAYLOR'S Astro-Theological Sermons. Price

$1,1:5. Postage 18 cts.

THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION. Being an In-
quiry into the Infallibility and Authority of Holy Writ. By
Rev. John Macn aught. Price $1,37. Postage 18 cts.

ROUSSEAU'S CONFESSIONS. A new and full trans-

lation. 2 Vols. Price $2,50. Postage 28 cts.

THE EVIDENCES AGAINST CHRISTIANITY.

By J. S. Rittell. 2 Vols. Price $2,50. Postage 30 cts.

BOOK OF PSYCHOLOGY; Historical, Philosophical,

Practical. By Laroy Sunderland. Price 25 cts. Postage 3 cts.

LOGIC OF DEATH : or, Why Should the Unbeliever or

Atheist Fear to Die? By G. Jacob Holyoake. Price 25 cts.
Postage 3 cts.

MASSACRE OF ST. BABTHOLOMEW ; and the

French Revolution. By C. C. H. Price 10 cts. Postage 1 ct.

A SACBED FBAGMENT, wonderfully obtained, but per-
fectly true. Price 1 ct.

POPULAB TBACTS. By Robert Dale Owen and others.
To which is added, Fables by Frances Wright. Price 62 cts.
Postage 9 cts.

PBOFESSION OF FAITH OF A SAVOYABD

VICAR ; extracted from Emilius ; or, a Treatise of Education.

By J. J. Rousseau. Price 6 cts. Postage 2 cts.
JEHOVAH UNVEILED ; or, the Character of the Jewish

Deity Delineated. By a Tradesman. Price 18 cts. Postage

2 cts.

HISTOBY OF ALL CHRISTIAN SECTS AND
DENOMINATIONS ; their Origin, Peculiar Tenets, and
Present Condition. By John Evans, L. L. D. Price 75 cts.
Postage 9 cts.

THE BIBLE EXPLAINED AND INFIDELITY
VINDICATED, against the Attacks of the Rev. David
Nelson, in his book entitled " The Cause and Cure of Infidelity."
By a Lover of Truth. Piice 37 cts. Postage 3 cts.

ON THE CONNECTION BETWEEN GEOLOGY
AND THE PENTATEUCH, in a letter to Professor
Silliman, from Thomas Cooper, M. D. To which is added an
Appendix. Price 25 cts. Postage 2 cts.

"WAT TYLEB ; a Dramatic Poem, in Three Acts, by Robert
Sou they, Esq. Price 18 cts. Postage 3 cts.

N. VEBY'S BEVIEW of Forty of the Most Prominent Chris-
tians in all Ages of Christianity. Price 16 cts. Postage 3 cts.

BOOKS PUBLISHED BY J. P. MENDUM.

HUME'S ESSAYS AND TREATISES ON VAR1.
OUS SUBJECTS. By David Hume, Esq. With a brief
sketch of the Author's Life and Writings. To which are added,
Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. Price $1. Postage
13 cts.

THE SYSTEM OF NATURE ; or, Laws of the Moral and
Physical World. By Baron D'Holbach, Author of " Good
Sense," etc. A new and improved edition, with notes by Diderot.
Two Volumes in one. Price $1,25. Postage 20 cts.

GOOD SENSE ; or, the Natural Ideas opposed to Super-
natural ; being a Translation from a work called " Le Bon Sens,"
by Baron D'Holbach, author of the " System of Nature," the
" Natural History of Superstition," •< Christianity Unveiled," and
other celebrated works. Corrected and carefully revised. Price
50 cts. Postage 12 cts. '

LETTERS TO EUGENIA; or, a Preservative against
Religious Prejudices. By Baron D'Holbach, Author of the •« Sys-
tem of Nature," &c. Translated from the French, by Anthony
C. Middleton, M. D. Price 75 cts. Postage 14 cts.

LETTERS ON THE LAWS OF MAN'S NATURE
AND DEVELOPMENT. By Henry George Atkinson,
F. G. S., and Harriet Martineau. Price, Pull Gilt, $1,25.
Postage 16 cts. Cloth $1. Postage 12 cts.

A FEW DAYS IN ATHENS ; or, an Abstract of the
Epicurean and Stoic Philosophy, being the Translation of a Greek
Manuscript discovered in Herculaneum. By Frances Wright.
Author of " Views of Society and Manners in America." Price
50 cts. Postage 7 cts.

THE "ELECTRICAL THEORY" OF THE UNI-
VERSE ; or, the Elements of Physical and Moral Philosophy.
By T. S. Mackintosh. Price, paper, 75 cts. Bound $1. Post-
age 10 cts.

A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCES OF CHRIS-

TIANITY ; in a Series of Lectures, delivered in Broadway
Hall, New York, August, 1829. To which is prefixed, an extract
from Wyttenbach's Opuscula, on the Ancient Notices of the
Jewish Nation previous to the time of Alexander the Great. By
Abner Kneeland. Price 50 cts. Postage 7 cts.

TRUE HISTORY OF MOSES, AARON, JOSHUA,

and others, deduced from a Review of the Bible. Also, Re-
marks on the Morals of the Old and New Testament, and some
of the Ancient Philosophers. By J. M. Dorsey. Price 50 cts.
Postage 9 cts.

CHRISTIANITY UNVEILED ; or, an Examination into
the principles and effects of the Christian Religion. From the
French of Boul anger, Author of Researches into the Origin of
Oriental Despotism. Price 25 cts. Postage 3 cts.

BOOKS PUBLISHED BY J. P. MENDUM.

NATIONAL HYMNS, ORIGINAL AND SELECT-
ED ; for the use of those who are " Slaves to no Sect." By A.
Kneeland. Price 25 cts. Postage 3 cts.

THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; or, Book of Dog-
mas ; comprising an inquiry into the Reality of the Death and
the Nature of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, together with a
concise view of the Several Dogmas of Inspiration, Paith, Mys-
tery, Trinity, Original Depravity, Regeneration, Vicarious Atone-
ment, Endless Misery, Second Advent, etc., with a few of their
Palpable Inconsistencies and Consequences. By a Unitheist.
Price 25 cts. Postage 3 cts.

EVILELA ; or, the Maid of Midian ; a Jewish Tragedy, in four
acts ; founded on the Massacre of the Midian Captives, by order
of Moses, as recorded in chapter thirty-first of the Book of Num-
bers. Price 6 cts. Postage 1 ct.

THE JEWS AND MOABITES ; or, the Festival of
" Ashtaroth : " a Tale of Palestine. By A. C. Middleton. Price
12 cts. Postage 2 cts.

REASON, THE ONLY ORACLE OP MAN; or, a

Compendious System of Natural Religion. By Col. Ethan
Allen. Price 37 cts. Postage 4 cts.

THE HISTORY OP DAVID ; or, the Man after God's
own Heart. By John Hollis. Price 10 cts. Postage 2 cts.

KNEELAND'S DEFENCE. Price 50 cts. This book
contains all the Arguments used in defence of Abner Kneeland,
by himself and Mr. Dunlap, before the Courts of Massachusetts,
on his trial for Blasphemy.

LETTERS TO THE CATHOLIC BISHOP OP
BOSTON. Proving that the Roman Catholic Religion is
opposed to a Republican Government. By an Independent
Irishman. Price 12 cts.

AN APPEAL TO COMMON SENSE and the Consti-
tution, in behalf of the Unlimited Freedom of Public Discus-
sion ; occasioned by the trial of Rev. Abner Kneeland, for
Blasphemy. Price 6 cts. Postage 1 ct.

CHRISTIAN SABBATH, the Religious Observance of,
not of Divine or Apostolical Appointment. By Dr. Thomas
Cooper. Price 6 cts. Postage 1 ct.

ANTIQUITY AND DURATION OP THE WORLD.

By G. H. Toulmin, M. D. Price 18 cts. Postage 2 cts.

ON THE SPIRIT OP THE TIMES. By G. Vale.
Price 6 cts. Postage 1 ct.

A DIALOGUE OP THE GODS ; being a comparison be-
tween Ancient Mythology and Modern Theology. By a Physician.
Price 3 cts.

VICAR AND PIG, or Preaching and Practice Contrasted.
Price 6 cts. Postage 1 ct.

Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process.
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide
Treatment Date: Feb. 2005

PreservationTechnologies

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive
Cranberry Township, PA 16066
(724)779-2111