ページの画像
PDF
ePub

municated to him by God himself, who appeared and talked to him face to face; then, and in that case, it might with propriety be said, that this idea would never have entered the mind of man but by revelation. The advocates of Moses might say: "his allegation, that God appeared to him must be true, for the world had stood then about three thousand years, and this idea had never been in it till then; hence we may reasonably infer that it never would have entered it but by revelation; and that there is such a being, all nature cries aloud, although man never before understood her voice; and as God saw fit to select Moses from out the whole race of men then existing, as the proper person to whom to communicate his existence and his will, that he might communicate them to his fellow men, he must and ought to be believed. This very selection must and ought to operate as a sufficient voucher for the truth of all he may have written. God would not have chosen a vain babler to announce him to his intelligent creatures." But this aument they cannot use, for the reason already given; namely, that Moses, the reputed author of the first five books of the Bible, was not the first man, from his own shewing, who had declared the existence of a God. As well might any man at the present day, who would assert that God appeared to him in a bush and made certain communications, claim credence of the people in his assertions, as Moses could in his; for our supposed cotemporary could say, 'the idea of a God is in the world-it never would have entered it but by revelation-my book speaks of such a revelation, therefore it is true.' Moses could say no more, nor can his advocates for him. He therefore is to be viewed in the same light that we would view any other individual at the present day, who might make similar assertions of interviews with God; and his testimony with regard to these interviews is to be weighed in the same scale that we would weigh a cotemporary's who would write a similar book; for he communicated nothing respecting God, which, of itself, would prove that it came direct from his mouth. I shall notice, in another place, his allegations of what he did, and of what God did for him.

Moses was perfectly safe in declaring that God had appeared and talked to the first man and his successors; for, according to the argument of the christians, he was only asserting a legitimate conclusion from undoubted premises. It is not unfrequent with them, to claim inspiration for the authors of the Bible, merely because they have declared some universally admitted truths, such as the selfishness and rapacity of man, I might as well claim inspiration for asserting that the diamond is hard, and grass green.

Before closing this chapter, we will, to use the language of a distinguished disputant, post our books, and see what we have proved. First,

that the christian religion consists in the belief of facts. No man can, with propriety, be called a christian, who does not believe all the facts in the Apostles' creed, and hundreds of others. Faith is the very essence of christianity. Faith in what? we answer, "faith in the allegations of facts contained in the Bible;" and not an assent (which is sometimes, though improperly, called faith) to the truth, propriety, or fitness of any moral code whatever. The adoption of the golden rule, as the standard, by which our actions are to be governed, and a perfect compliance with it, in its true spirit, are not religion. "Do not that which thou hatest, to another," which is Tobit's version of the golden rule, and less liable to perversion than Christ's, is a principle or truth as independent of Tobit, or Christ, or Confucius, or any vicegerent of God, or of Deity himself, as the proposition, that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right ones.

Take away the alleged facts that Christ was begotten by the Holy Ghost-that he raised the dead, and rose himself from the dead, and you take away the foundation of christianity-there would be nothing left of it: But expunge the golden rule and every other precept, said to have been delivered by him for the government of man in his various relations, and the christian religion would still exist. No religionist will, or can, with propriety, contend that to love mercy, walk humbly, or deal justly, is religion he will laugh, and we are aware that they all do laugh at the notion of getting to Heaven by leading a moral life: Hence, to ascertain whether the christian religion be founded in truth or not, it is necessary to read only the historical books of the Bible. These are the first five books, called the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, of the Old Testament, and the four gospels and the Acts of the Apostles in the New. As our religion is founded upon facts, and as a prophecy cannot prove, or have the least tendency whatever to substantiate a fact, it is not necessary to read the Prophets either greater or less. If there be sufficient testimony to establish any of the wonderful facts of the Bible, then we may conclude that he who foretold them, was inspired.

Secondly: Moses, and the other persons mentioned in the Bible as having communed and held conversations with God, have no greater claims to our credence than any man of the present day who might publish similar statements. On this part of the subject I shall have much more to say hereafter.

CHAPTER II.

I am aware that many skeptics and all christians are ready to ask: Why endeavor to overthrow a religion that has done, and is still doing so much good in the world--a religion that has a direct tendency to ameliorate the condition of man-to make him more mild and humane than any other religion, by operating as a restraint upon his otherwise ungovernable passions-a religion that has placed the tender sex in that scale of being designed by their creator? I need only answer, that all this is mere assertion. It is impossible for us to know what would have been, at this day, the condition of men and women, in those regions of the world called christendom, had the christian religion never obtained. I am satisfied, that it is not true, and that is sufficient for me. It will be readily admitted however, for the sake of argument, that it has been, and still is, either for great good, or for great evil. Believing it false, I cannot persuade myself that it can be for good. I cannot admit that a religion founded on false facts, ought to receive my support. I cannot but believe it to be my duty, and the duty of every other infidel, to exert all his powers for its prostration. Once adopt the principle that a false religion can be, and actually is productive of good, and truth will cease to be respected— will be put on the same level with falsehood; and the only enquiry will be, what truths are dangerous, and what falsehoods harmless-what truths are productive of evil, and what falsehoods of good. Can he be a lover of truth who will hold language like the following: "We know this religion policy to keep it up, and What! Is truth professedly

is false-founded on silly fables, yet it is good do all in our power for its further diffusion?" to yield to a fancied policy? Can that christian be a lover of truth, who can say, as is almost daily said, "If religion be a delusion, it is a delightful one, and he is an enemy of his species—a wicked wretch-who will endeavor to overthrow it?" What! contend that it is wicked to detect and oppose falsehood? Can truth be mighty-will it ever prevail, while such doctrines are preached by those who have the formation of public opinion? The old saw, that truth is mighty and will prevail, is quoted by none more frequently than by those preachers who are making every possible effort to render it, as it ever has been, like many others of the same stamp and celebrity, as great a falsehood as ever was uttered. It never has prevaileddoes not now, and never will, while such doctrines shall be preached and listened to with approbation.

The preachers of christianity may not be aware of it, but their

exhortations, and they are frequent-almost daily in all their preaching houses I say, their exhortations to their congregations to believe, are so many requests to play the hypocrite. The only method to produce faith, is to adduce testimony. What a ridiculous figure a lawyer would make-he would be stopped and reprimanded by the judge-who would endeavor to persuade jurors to find the facts for his client, for which he had adduced none, or insufficient testimony; or if sufficient, without adverting to it, or founding an argument upon it in order to convince them they ought thus to find, promising them, not money or lands, but ease of conscience. It is consistent for them to exhort those who believe the facts of the Bible to comply with its requisitions; but to persuade a man to believe, and to believe now, telling him.it is the safer course, is nothing more nor less than to persuade him it is safer to profess a belief which he has not, and cannot have; in short, to confess to a falsehood; for the exhortation supposes him a disbeliever, and no additional testimony in the case supposed—and such cases occur daily-is furnished. Truth will never prevail while such exhortations are countenanced.

A genuine lover of truth will take up the Bible, and examine and scrutinize it as he would any other book—will presume nothing without some proof-will not presume that Moses, or Matthew, or Luke, or Paul was inspired, and therefore conclude, that whatever they have written must be true; he will not take for granted, that which would render scrutiny unnecessary and useless. Can he be a lover of truth, who will tell you that the cx p's, beginning with: "The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy foot-stool," was written by David, and that the Lord that was to sit on the other Lord's right hand was Jesus, because Matthew has told us that Jesus said so; reasoning thus: "Jesus must have said so, because Matthew says he did, and Matthew was inspired; and the song must be David's, and mean what Jesus says it did, because Jesus was the Son of God, and even God himself.” I say, can he be a lover of truth who will reason thus-when, if he will presume nothing, and will give his reasoning faculties fair play, he will be convinced beyond the possibility of a doubt, that this psalm is nothing more nor less than an adulatory address to David, written by some one of his wives or courtiers, and that the Lord, whose enemies were to be made his foot-stool, was no other than David himself? Can they have been lovers of truth, who have made the term, free thinker, odious, and the term infidel, synonomous with scoundrel? Can he be a lover of truth, who has liberty to promulge his dogmas daily, and who as frequently abuses that liberty, by speaking in terms of derision and contempt of infidels, and of their boldness, knowing full well that not one in fifty dares to speak his real

sentiments, or read any work in opposition to the scriptures, unless in some secret corner? The christians, if they were lovers of truth, and conscious of having a religion founded upon it, would court all the opposition that could be made to it, that they might put it down by the only weapon with which it can be put down, or ought to be met; namely, sound logical argument; would invite the cowardly skeptics to come out from their lurking places and exhibit their books, and state their objections fully, in order to their complete refutation, and would not resort to the fire and faggot, as in times past, nor to proscription and denunciation, as at the present day. Thanks to the infidel sages of our revolution-they are here confined to the latter.

Truth will never prevail in this, or any other country, so long as the pecuniary interest and good standing of the citizen shall depend upon his belief of certain facts. Christians have had, and still have, even in this, our comparatively free country, the formation and control of public opinion, which emphatically says to every individual, profess a faith in the christian facts if you have it not. Christianity therefore has not advanced the cause of truth-but has been, and still is, her deadliest enemy.

But I have agreed to put, what I deem falsehood, on the same footing with truth, and discuss the question of fact, "What has religion done for mankind?" The first difficulty that presents itself in this discussion is, to ascertain what christianity is. The Protestants will tell you that she left the world in the fourth century, and did not reappear till the sixteenth. They therefore can claim no laurels for her during this period, which has been very properly called the dark age. If asked, what plunged the people of the Roman empire, which, at the former period, embraced the whole civilized world, from a state of refinement and civilization never before equalled, and not yet surpassed, into one of the grossest ignorance and superstition, the Protestant will answer, "the abuse and corruption of the christian religion."

To remove this difficulty, I will define the christian religion to be a belief in all the statements or allegations made by the authors of the Bible, and a compliance with all the definite or positive institutions enjoined by Christ, and those called his apostles, with the full persuasion that such faith and such compliance will secure to its possessor and practiser respectively, endless happiness in another world; and that the want of such faith and such compliance will not only exclude the infidel and recusant from this other world, called Heaven, but plunge them, after death, into a pit of eternal woe, called hell.

This definition includes all that is peculiar to the christian religion, and

B

« 前へ次へ »