ページの画像
PDF
ePub

I once was of the opinion that the metals were not combustible. Afterwards I believed from the testimony of others that a watch spring made of iron would burn like a shaving. I now know it, for I have seen it, and am of the opinion, reasoning from analogy, that all metals are combustible. Yet I never opined that Sir H. Davy and other chemists had wrought miracles by decomposing the alkalies, or burning a watch spring. Had it been reported to me that these alkalies were not compounds and that iron was not combustible, but that the former had been converted into two substances, and that iron had been burned, in violation of the laws of nature and in answer to prayer for the effectuation of some political or religious object; I would not have believed the report, neither would you. Every new fact of this nature reported to us and believed by us, we opine establishes or is in conformity to some principle or law of nature, before unknown to, or hidden from us, and not in oppositfon to, or in violation of any law.

You all run into the grossest fallacies on this subject. You assert that the conversion of water into ice, is as a miracle to him who was never out of the tropics and never heard of or saw ice, and your conclusion is, that if the conversion of water into wine cannot be proved by human testimony, neither can the conversion of it into ice be proved to our man within the tropics.

3;,

Let me state your argument as it should be, and the fallacy will be apparent: "The infidel contends that a miracle cannot be proved by testimony. The conversion of water into wine, he contends, and we admit, is a miracle, therefore he concludes it cannot be proved. Now, certainly the conversion of water into a solid is as a miracle to him within the tropics, therefore, according to the infidel's mode of argument an apparent miracle, but which is not one in truth, cannot be proved to this individual."

This is a palpable non sequitur. The argument is based on the position that likes are equals. Our man in the tropics is not told that the conversion of water into ice is a miracle-a violation of the laws of nature-but we are expressly told that the conversion of water into wine was. I agree that if you state a falsehood to this man within the tropics, viz: that the conversion of water into ice is a miracle-a violation of the laws of nature, you cannot rightfully demand his faith in your allegations. It is the violation of the law of nature not the novelty or inexplicability or wonderful nature of the fact, that should induce him to reject all testimony.

Your doctors have never met the real question. The questions they have discussed, have been whether there were laws of nature, and whether any such laws could be proved from experience, both of which are put to rest by the definition of a miracle.

I admit that we cannot from any reasonings, a priori, determine what are the laws of nature. A man who had never seen alkali and lard combined, could not affirm that the compound would be soap, nor oil of vitriol with soda, Glauber's salts.

We give credit to reports of men of science. Important discoveries are being daily made, not by reasonings, but by experiments discoveries, not of new laws of nature, but of those that have existed, since nature com menced, but which have remained unknown. A chemist might impose upon us, and make us believe a miracle; not, however, by reporting it as such, but as a law of nature. He might, for instance, report the discovery of some gas, which, when exposed to water, was absorbed by it. His discovery of the gas may be true, but its liability to be absorbed by water may not be one of its properties. Yet we should have no hesitation to believe the absorption of the gas by water. But if he should report that he ascertained it was not one of the properties of his gas to be absorbed by water, but that on praying to God, that a certain jar of it might be, and it was done, we should not believe him any more than we should, were he to state any other miracle.

I shall close the argument by asking the great question which must come home to every one; viz: Is it more probable that an admitted law of nature should be violated, than that Moses, or Joshua, or Mark, or Luke, or John, or all of them would intentionally deceive or had been deceived.

CHAPTER XX.

There are certain questions uniformly put up by the religionist, in defence of his system.

First: How came the world into existence? If we answer, that God spoke it into existence; they reply, that, we derived this notion from the writings of Moses. It unfortunately happens, that this same Moses, (supposing him to be the author of Genesis) dates the creation of all things, only about six thousand years back; whereas, we have proofs stronger than your holy writ, that the earth must have existed myriads of years before the existence of man.

No individual, who ever reflected for a moment, believes, that the solar system, and the innumerable other systems, of which the fixed stars are supposed to be the centres, were spoken into being. no longer ago than the existence, of a man, up to whom, a gentile christian (Luke) could trace the descent of the obscure Joseph. The reply to this question should be, that we cannot answer it. We know just as much about it as the writer, or writers of Genesis, and that is nothing at all.

We are told, that but for the Bible we should have been ignorant of the how or the when, all things came into existence, So, those people who were told that the earth rested on the back of a turtle, might have said, that but for the writings of their philosophers, they would not have known upon what the earth rested.

Because we cannot give the how and the when, the why and the wherefore, the earth and its inhabitants came into existence, it does not follow, that we must become the disciples of every dogmatist that may publish his crude notions to the world.

Second: We are asked how man became the being that he is?

There would be just as much propriety and good sense, in the question, why the earth was spherical, or why it revolved around the sun, or why the deer was timid, and the tiger fierce and voracious. To such questions we can only make the child's answer-because. We would not believe him however, who should assert, that tigers were originally as mild and harmless as the deer, and fed on herbs, but that a great drought happening in Asia and Africa, they were driven by hunger, to prey on each other, and hence, their nature was changed; even if he should allege, that God appeared to him, and told him so. Nor will I believe that the nature of man has

been changed, because some wild dreamer, has told a tale about a garden

and talking serpent.

Third: We are asked what will become of us after death?

The original Israelites, (I must say this for them) were more rational on this subject, than the philosophers of the Nations. They knew nothing, and therefore said nothing about it. During the five hundred years immediately preceding Christ, the Jews having mixed with the Heathen, many of them adopted their notions of a life after death. Hence the sects of the Pharisees and Essenes. The biographers of Jesus were, or pretended to be, of this sect, and would have us to believe that he and his twelve were of the same party; hence, they represent them as travelling without money in their purses. By refering to the chapters of Josephus, in which he gives an account of these Jewish sects, the reader will discover that Jesus taught nothing new, not even the immortality of the soul, or the resurrection of the body.

T'o this question I reply, that I know nothing about a life after death, and shall say nothing about it, except that it wants proof.

Fourth: We are asked what we will substitute for the religion of the bible?

J'

[ocr errors]

I answer, nothing. I have no substitute to propose. The question presumes that man must necessarily have some religion.. This principle, if carried out, would prove that all the religions, that ever existed, must have received the approbation of God, and therefore, have been true.

I am fully persuaded, and have endeavored to prove, that we would be happier without any religion. It is not to be presumed that any prophet ever alluded to me, yet I shall presume to explain by parable.

A friend of mine, kept a pet monkey, that was constantly in all manner of mischief, which greatly disturbed the equanimity of the good lady. I advised him to part with this pest. He replied, that he and his ancestors before him, had always kept a pet monkey about the house, and he did not know how he would get along without one, acknowledged that its pranks sorely vexed his wife, and concluded by saying, that he had serious notions of exchanging it for a squirrel or a coon.

Fifth: What notions have you of heaven?

None at all.

Sixth: What of hell?

If possible, less than none.

Seventh: What not believe in Heaven, or hell. You must be worse than a heathen.

I acknowledge that in this particular, I resemble the followers of Moses, They were worse than the heathen but not on this account.

Eigth: Can you believe that a just God would send us into this world of sin and sorrow, to live a few years and then die and be no more.

This question presumes that all men will finally exist in heaven; for if God is to be presumed cruel and tyrannical for compelling us to abide for a very short period in this world of trouble and misery, how much more cruel for taking us out of it, and placing us in another, replete with torture, and for an unlimited period.

You appear to claim existence in a future world as a right, founding it upon God's wisdom and justice. You certainly must be very unreasonable and exorbitaant. You claim that this world and all things in it, both animate and inanimate, were made for you. To the question why all things else were made, man answers, 'tis for me. Your great difficulty is to know why man was made. You subject the animals to your dominion, compel them to labor for your gratification and slay and devour them, and then tell your creator that these are the miserable things of time and sense.

[ocr errors]

You plough the earth, and entrust to her your seed corn, which she is faithful to return some fifty fold, and then you call her cursed, because she will not furnish you with the staff life spontaneously.

You cheat, defraud, harrass, enslave, and murder each other, and then exclaim: Oh! what a world of sin and wickednes! Will not God reward us with a better world for the sufferings we now endure in this? It ap pears to me that these are singular grounds of application for a better world, the most conspicuous among them being the slander and abuse of this.— When reduced to plain English it reads thus: "You, Our Creator, have made the world and all other things therein, for our use, but it is a very scurvy, world, and it will be a very scurvy trick in you, if you do not give us a bet ter. The animals that we have beaten and eaten, are not worthy of a better mode of existence, they were made for us: had no souls, their brains being not as large in proportion to their bodies as ours, having fewer ganglions, and composed of grosser materials. Having given us capacities to hate and despise this world, the creation of which cost you so much trouble, and to conceive of, and hope for another, you are bound in all good conscience to give it to us."

Let me in turn ask the christian what notion he has of heaven and hell. Do these terms in your vocabulary, represent states or places. Have they locality? Can their latitude and longitude be ascertained. Are not these vexed questions, at this day.

A distinguished divine, one of your standard writers, Dr. Dwight, gives locality to heaven, supposes it to be some orb, whose latitude and longitude, and distance from the earth can be ascertained, believes it to be, in a peculiar manner, the residence of God and his angels to whom he gives palpable bodies. By supposing the distance of this orb from the earth to be

« 前へ次へ »