two days. Consider, besides, that when the soldiers gave the coup
de grace to the two robbers, that they did not break the legs of
Jews. This, the author of the Gospel according to John says, they
did, in order to fulfill a prophecy; but I leave it to my reader,
whether it is not more likely that they did so in order to fulfill
secret orders? But to make up for that omission, the author adds,
that they pierced Jesus with a spear. Now, besides that this is not
mentioned by the other Evangelists, the very manner in which this
circumstance is mentioned, and eagerly affirmed by him, looks as
if the author was aware of the likelihood of a suspicion of the fact
we are trying to prove probable, and that he wrote this in order to
obviate it. And after all, the gospel according to John was certainly
not written by him, and, therefore, what the author of it observes,
may be true, or not. You will observe also, reader, that the body of
Jesus was given by Pilate to his friends immediately; a favour
never vouchsafed by the Romans in such a case, except "speciali
gratia." You will observe also, that the body was taken down by
his friends, no doubt with great care; probably was washed from
the blood, and rubbed perfectly dry; and was deposited in the cave
or sepulchre, with a large quantity of spices, and aromatics. Now
suppose that Jesus only swooned on the cross, and that his naked
body, after being cleansed as aforesaid, was laid in the new
sepulchre where the air was cool and fresh, wrapped in a
considerable quantity of dry linen, together with many spices, and
aromatics, what could be more opportune, or proper, to stimulate
his drowsed senses, and recall the unfortunate sufferer to life?
Suppose then, that on awaking from his trance, he disengaged
himself, and took himself away as secretly as possible, might not
all this have happened? Is it impossible? And does it not look
plausible? It is not improbable that he might after this have
shewed himself privately to his particular disciples; for you will
recollect, reader, that the appearances of Jesus to his disciples after
his crucifixion were to them, only, and for the most part in the
night. And it is by no means impossible, that the twelve apostles,
who were, I doubt not, well meaning men, though extremely
simple and credulous; I say it is thus by no means impossible, that
they might have believed sincerely, that their master had risen
from the dead. This hypothesis must not be considered only as the
brain work of an unbelieving sceptic; for it has been (in its main
principle) advanced, and elaborately defended by Dr. Paulus the
professor of divinity in the principal University in Bavaria.

It is true, that it may be said, that this is all hypothesis, and mere
conjecture. We allow it; it is true; and we assert that the account
given by the Evangelists is no better, nay, worse than conjecture,
as it is a mere forgery of the second century! For no man, we think,
who knows all that has been made known by biblical critics, in
later years, will now seriously contend for the literal truth of that
account. [See Appendix A.]

If all this will not satisfy the man that "believeth all things," our
last resource is to demy the act of this resurrection. And this we
can do with perfect sang froid, as we know very well that it cannot
be proved; for the only testimony in favour of it, are the four
evangelists; four witnesses, the like of whose written testimony,
with reference thereto, (being as contradic-tory as that is,) to say
no more, certainly would not, we believe, be received in a modern
court of justice, to settle the fact about a debt of five dollars. And if
it be still urged, that such a story is unparalleled, and therefore
respectable; we say that it is not unparalleled; as we have an
account of a false Messiah, who applied the prophecies to himself,
had a forerunner, and more than two hundred thousand followers,
who publicly acknowledged him for the Messiah, raised
contributions, and supported him magnificently. He too, quoted the
prophets as speaking concerning him, and was said to have worked
divers miracles, and was ultimately put to death by the order of the
Grand Seignor at Constantinople; yet nevertheless was said to have
been, seen again by certain of his followers, who wrote books in
favour of that fact, and of his Messiahship. Many learned Rabbins
enrolled themselves as his disciples, and wrote controversial works
in his cause, as Paul did. And to conclude, his party was not
entirely extinct within a very few years. Yet, notwithstanding all
this, he was an impostor; and no man now believes the stories of
his miracles, or his resurrection; notwithstanding that both are
affirmed by more recent, more learned, and more respectable
testimony than is, or can be, offered, in favour of the Messiahship
of Jesus. The name of this famous impostor was Shabathai Tzevi,
and his history is given by Basnage, in his history of the Jews, [and
by other writers of Jewish history. See on this subject the Sepher
Torath Hakenaoth, page 2. The learned Mr. Zedner has extracted
the life of Shabetai Tsebi from tins book, and published it, with a
German translation, in his Auswahl historischer Stucke aus
Hebraischen Schriftstellern, Berlin, 1840.--D.]

I wish the Christian reader to peruse carefully, and cooly, that
account; and if he then persists in believing the history given by
the evangelists; with such faith as his, he certainly ought to be able
to move mountains; and I have no doubt at all, that with such a
good natured understanding as his, if he had found in his New
Testament the story of Jonah misquoted, and and by a small
transposition a la mode de Surenhusius, representing that "Jonah
swallowed the whale!" this sturdy "confidence in things not seen,"
would, I doubt not have enabled him without difficulty to swallow
the prophet with the whale in his belly.



CHAPTER XVII.

OF THE PECULIAR MORALITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,
AS IT AFFECTS INDIVIDUALS.

I have already expressed my respect for the character of Jesus. And
I again declare, that I request it may be distinctly understood, that
by nothing that I have said do I intend to impeach, or to deprecate
his moral character. Whatever may have been his defects, or
whatever were his foibles, they must have been the faults of his
mind, not of his heart. For, though he may hare been a mistaken
enthusiast; yet I do firmly believe, That, with such a character as
he is represented to have possessed, he could not have been either
a hypocrite, or a wilful impostor. And if it be replied, that I have,
by some observations on his conduct, indirectly impeached the
perfection of his moral character; I answer, that if so, it is certainly
my misfortune, but it may not be his fault. To explain this
observation, I request the reader to recall to mind, that Jesus wrote
nothing himself! that the only accounts we have of him, are
contained in books, probably apocryphal, certainly not generally
known till after the middle of the second-century from his birth.
The gospels now extant do not appear to have been known to
Justin Martyr; and the earliest fathers, in their writings, generally
quote traditions concernng Jesus, instead of histories. Since these
things are so, who knows, but that the authors of the histories of
him now extant, have attributed to him words and actions of which
he was guiltless. We know how prone mankind are to invent
falsehoods concerning eminent men; for instance, Mahomet
expressly disclaimed the power of working miracles, and yet the
writings of his early followers ascribe hundreds to him. Why may
it not be possible then, since Jesus wrote nothing himself, that
these books ascribe to him words and actions he neither spake nor
performed? God grant that this may one day be proved! For I
should rejoice to find the meek, gentle, and amiable man of
Nazareth proved guiltless of the follies and impieties attributed to
him in the New Testament as I find it, and to reason concerning the
works and words of Jesus, as I find them there expressed, yet I
would earnestly request the reader to consider me willing and
desirous to exempt the author, or rather the cause of the Christian
religion, from the reproach of the sentiments I am bound by my
regard for one God, and his attributes, to express for the system
itself. Yes! I can in my own mind separate Jesus from his religion
and his followers. I read with admiration many of his beautiful
parables. I shall ever contemplate his mildness, and benevolence
with respect; and I peruse, with pity, the recital of his sufferings,
and cruel death. All this I have done, and I believe I shall ever do;
but I cannot! I cannot, in effect, deny the one living and true God,
and renounce my reason, and common sense, by believing all the
contradictory and strange doctrines contained in the New
Testament.

Having unburthened my mind upon this subject, and frankly
expressed my sentiments and feelings with regard to the character
of Jesus; I hope I may now be allowed (without incurring the
charge of maliciously exposing him, or the twelve apostles, to
reproach) to state my opinions with regard to the merit of the
moral maxims, ascribed to him and them, in the New Testament.
And I again caution the reader, that he is not obliged to lay to his,
or their, charge, the mischievous consequences that originated
from acting upon these maxims and principles, since it is by no
means impossible that they may have been falsely ascribed to him
and to them.

Now then, let us attend to the subject of the chapter, viz., the moral
maxims ascribed to Jesus. These moral maxims consist of 1st,
Those which were adopted by him from the Old Testament. 2d,
Those of which he himself is described as the author. With the
consideration of those of the first class I shall not trouble the
reader, but shall devote this chapter to the examination of those
which are supposed to have originated from him. These are, 1st, '
Do to others what you would that others should do to you.' 2d, '
Resist not the injurious person; but if a man smite thee on one
cheek, turn to him the other also.' 3d, If a man ask thy cloak, give
him thy coat also.' 4th, ' If thou wouldest be perfect, sell all that
thou hast, and give to the poor; and come follow me.' 5th, ' Unless
a man hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and
possessions, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.'
6th, ' Take no thought for the morrow.'

With regard to the first of these maxims, it does not belong to
Jesus, as the author. It is found in the book of Tobit, chapter iv.
15, and it was a maxim well known to the Rabbins. It is found in
the Talmud verbatim. "What thou wouldest not have done to thee,
do not thou to another." (Tal. Bab. Schabbat. fol. 31.) So also
Hillel addressed a proselyte thus, "What is hateful to thee, do not
thou to thy neighbour." Several other expressions of Jesus were, it
appears from the Talmud, proverbial expressions in use among the
Jews. For instance, the original of that saying recorded Matthew
vii. 2. "With whatsoever measure ye mete," &c., is found in the
Talmud of Babylon (Sanhedrim fol. 100, Sotah, chapter 4, 7, 8,9.)
"With whatsoever measure any one metes it shall be measured to
him. So also the original of that expression of "Cast out the beam
out of thine own eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to cast the
mote out of thy brother's eye is to be found in the Talmud*.

What is called by Christians "the Lord's Prayer," is merely a few
clauses taken from Jewish prayers, and put together. Very many
instances of a similar nature to these might be produced; but, as I
must be brief, the reader is referred for further satisfaction to the
works of Lightfoot, where he will learn, by extracts from Jewish
writings, the source, and meaning of many more of the sayings of
Jesus.

I now proceed to the most disagreeable part of the subject, viz.:
The consideration of the other maxims mentioned, which, it must
be allowed, do belong to Jesus, or at least to the New Testament,
since they are the peculiar moral principles of Christianity, and the
honour of them can be challenged by, I believe, no other religion.

These precepts are so extremely hyperbolical, that they are not,
and cannot be perfectly observed by any Christian, who does not
detach himself completely from the business of society; and these
maxims, (which, as I said before, are the only parts of the morality
of the New Testament, which are not borrowed,) never have been
obeyed by any but the primitive Christians; and by the Monks, and
Anchorets; for even the Quakers and Shakers, eminent as they are
in Christian morality, have never been able to come quite up to the
self denial required by the New Testament.

Indeed, the moral maxims peculiar to Christianity are
impracticable, except by one who confines his wealth to the
possession of a suit of clothes, sad wooden platter, and who lives
in a cave, or a monastery. They bear the stamp of enthusiasm upon
their very front, and we have always seen, and ever shall see, that
they are not fit for man: that they lift him out of the sphere in
which God designed him to move; that they are useless to society,
and frequently produce the most dangerous consequences to it. In a
word, in these maxims we find commands, the fulfillment of
which, is impossible by any man who is a husband, a father, or a
citizen.

It is an outrage to human nature, and to common sense, to order a
virtuous man, in order to reach perfection, to strip himself of his
property; to offer the other cheek to receive a new outrage; not to
resist the most unjust violence, injury, and insult; not to defend
himself, or his property, when "sued at the law;" to quit his house
and goods, and to hate his parents, and brethren, and wife, and
children, for the sake of Jesus; to refuse and reject innocent
pleasures; to deny himself lawful enjoyments, appointed by the
Creator to make the existence of man a blessing to himself and
others.

Who does not see in these commands the language of enthusiasm
of hyperbole? These maxims! are they not directly fitted to
discourage, and debase a man? to degrade him in his own eyes, and
those of others? to plunge him into despair? And would not the
literal fulfillment of them prove destructive to society? What shall
we say of that morality which orders the heart to detach itself from
objects, which God, and reason, and nature order it to love? To
refuse to enjoy innocent and lawful happiness,--what is it but to
despise the benefits of God? What real good can result for society
from these melancholy virtues, which Christianity regards as
perfections? Will a man become more useful to society when his
mind is perpetually inquieted by imaginary terrors, by mournful
thoughts, which prevent him from fulfilling the duties he owes to
his family, his country and those with whom he is connected?

It may be safely said, that enthusiasm is the base of the morality of
Christianity; I say, the morality of Christianity, meaning thereby,
not the morality of those called Christians, but the morality
expressed, and required in the New Testament. The virtues it
recommends, are the virtues caricatured, and rendered extravagant;
virtues which divide a man from his neighbour, and plunge him in
melancholy, and render him useless, and unhappy In this world we
want human virtues, not those which make a man a misanthrope.
Society desires, and wants virtues that help to maintain it, which
gives it energy and activity. It wants virtues which render families
industrious, and united; and which incite, and enable every one to
obtain lawful pleasures, and to augment the general felicity. But
the peculiar virtues of the New Testament, either debase the mind
by overwhelming fears, or intoxicate it with visionary hopes, both
which, are equally fitted to turn away men from their proper duties.

In truth, what advantages can society derive from those virtues
styled by Christians, Evangelical? which they prefer to the social
virtues, the real and the useful, and without which, they assert, a
man cannot please God, Let us examine these vaunted perfections,
and let us see of what utility they can be to society, and whether
they really merit the preference which is given them by their
advocates.

The first of these Christian virtues, which serves as a base for all
the others, is faith. It consists in believing the truth of dogmas, of
absurd fables, which Christianity (according to the catechisms)
orders its disciples to believe--dogmas, as absurd and impossible
as a square circle, or a round triangle--from which we see, that
this virtue exacts an entire renunciation of common sense; an
assent to incredible facts, and a blind credulity in absurd dogmas,
which, yet, every Christian is required to believe, under pain of
damnation.

This virtue, too, though necessary to all men, is, nevertheless, the
gift of heaven! the effect of special grace. It forbids doubt and
examination; it "forbids a man the right to exercise his reason; it
deprives him of the liberty of thinking, and degrades him into a
bearded baby.

This faith vanishes when a man reasons; this virtue cannot sustain
a tranquil scrutiny. And this is the reason why all thorough going
Christians are naturally, and, consequently, the enemies of science.
This miraculous faith, which "believeth all things," is not given to
persons enlightened by science and reflection, and accustomed to
think. It is not given but to those who are afraid to think, lest they
should offend God.

The next Christian virtue which flows from the first, is hope,
founded upon the promises which the New Testament makes to
those who render themselves miserable in this life. It nourishes
their enthusiasm, it makes them "forget the things that are on earth,
and reach forward unto the things" which are in another world. It
renders them useless here below, and makes them firmly believe
that God will recompense in heaven, the pains they have taken to
make themselves miserable on earth. How can a man, occupied
with such expectations of heavenly happiness, concern himself at
all with, or for, the actual and present happiness of those around
him, while he is indifferent as to his own? And how can he help
this, when he believes that "friendship with the world is enmity
with God?"

The third virtue is charity. We have elsewhere said, that if
universal love or charity means only general benevolence, and a
desire to makes others happy, and to do them good, all this is
commanded by reason and the ancient revelation; but if by this
precept it is commanded to love those who hate, oppress or insult
us, we do not at all scruple to assert, that the thing is impossible,
and unnatural. For, though we can abstain from hurting our
enemy; or even can do him good, we cannot really love him. Love
is a movement of the heart, which is governed and directed by the
laws of our nature, to those whom we think worthy of it, and to
those only.

Charity, considered as general benevolence of disposition, is
virtuous and necessary. It is nothing more than a feeling which
interests us in favour of our fellow beings. But how is this feeling
consistent with the peculiar doctrines of the gospel? According to
its maxims, it is a crime to offer God a heart, whoso affections are
shared by terrestrial objects. And besides, does not experience
show, that devotees obliged by principle to hate themselves, are
little disposed to give better treatment to others?

We should not be surprised that maxims, originating with
enthusiasm, should aim at, and have the effect of, driving man out
of himself. In the delirium of its enthusiasm, this religion forbids a
man to love himself. It commands him to hate all pleasures but
those of religion, and to cherish a long face. It attributes to him as
meritorious, all the voluntary evils he inflicts upon himself. From
thence originate those austerites, those penances, destructive to
health; those cruel privations by which the inhabitants of the
monastic cell kill themselves by inches, in order to merit the joys
of heaven. Now, how can good sense admit that God delights in
seeing his creatures torment themselves?

It may be said to all this, perhaps, that this is mere declamation, for
Christians now a days do not torment themselves, but live as
comfortable as others. To this I answer that Christianity is to be
judged not by what Christians do, but by what it commands them
to do. Now, I presume it will not be denied that the New Testament
commands its professors to renounce the world, to be dead to the
world, to "crucify the flesh with its passions, and desires."
Certainly these directions were literally complied with by the
primitive Christians; and, in doing so, they acted consistently. In
those times, the deserts, the mountains, the forests were peopled
with perfect Christians; who withdrew from the world, deprived
their families of support, and their country of citizens, in order to
lead unmolested "the divine life." It was the New Testament
morality that spawned those legions of monks and cenobites, who
thought to secure the favour of heaven, by burying their talents in
the deserts, and devoting themselves to inaction and celibacy.

And at this very day we see these very same things in those
Christian countries, which are truly faithful to the principles of
their religion.

In fine, Christianity seems from the first, to have taken pains to set
itself in point blanc opposition to nature, and reason. If it admits
and includes some virtues ordered and appointed by God, good
sense, and universal experience; it drives them beyond their
bounds into extravagance. It preserves no just medium, which is
the point of perfection. Voluptuousness, adultery and debauchery
are forbidden by the laws of God and reason. But Christianity not
content with commanding, and encouraging marriage, as did the
Old Testament, must forsooth go beyond it, and therefore
encourages celibacy, as the state of perfection God says, in
Genesis, "it is not good that man should be alone. I will make a
companion for him." And he blessed all his creatures, saying, "
increase and multiply." But the gospel annuls this law, and
represents a single life to be most pleasing, to the very being,
whose very first command was, "increase and multiply"! It advises
a man to die without posterity, to refuse citizens to the state, and to
himself, a support for his old age.

"It is to no purpose to deny that Christianity recommends all this; I
say, it substantially does! and I boldly appeal,--not to a few
Protestant Divines,--but to the New Testament; to the Homilies
of the Fathers of the Church; to the History, and Practice of the
Primitive Christians; to the innumerable Monasteries of Europe,
and Asia; to the immense multitudes who have lived, and died
hermits; and, finally, (because I know very well, the Protestant
divines attribute these follies to the influence of Platonism,
Pythagoranism, and several other isms upon pure Christianity) I
appeal to living evidence now in the world, to the only
thoroughgoing Christians in it, viz., to the Society of the Shakers,
who I maintain, and can prove, to be true, genuine imitators of the
Primitive Christians, and a perfect exemplification of their
manners, and modes of thinking. I adduce them the more
confidently, because, being simple, and unlearned, their character
has been formed by the spirit of the New Testament, and perfectly
represents the effects of its principles fully carried out, and acted
upon. They never heard of Platonism, or of Pythagoras in their
lives, and, consequently, the polemic tricks, and evasions, which
have been, as hinted just now, resorted to by Protestant divines, to
shift from the shoulders of Christianity to those of Plato or
Pythagoras, the obnoxious principles we have been considering,
are of no use in this case, as, whatever the characters of these
Shakers may be, they were formed by the New Testament, and by
nothing else; and I believe, that every scholar in ecclesiastical
history, who reads Brown's history of the Shakers, will be
immediately and powerfully struck with the resemblance
subsisting between them, and the Christians of the two first
centuries.

As examples of the effects of those precepts of Christian morality,
which command us to hate father, and mother, and sister, and
brother, for the Bake of Jesus, take the following extracts from the
history referred to.

"According to their faith, natural affection must be eradicated; and
they say they must love all equally alike, as brothers, and sisters in
the gospel. It would exceed the limits of this work to give a
particular account of the various schemes that have been contrived,
to destroy all natural affection and social attachment between man
and wife, parent and child, brothers and sisters; especially towards
such as have left the society. Two instances that occurred about
this time, as specimens of others, may suffice. A mother, who had
renounced the faith, (i. e. left the society,) come to Niskeuna to
see, her daughter. Eldress Hannah Matterson told the daughter to
go into the room to her carnal mother, and say, ' What do you
come here for? I don't want you to come and see me with your
carnal affections!' 'The mother being grieved, replied, 'I did not
expect that a daughter of mine would ever address me in that
manner.'

'The daughter, in obedience to what she was taught, replied again,
'You have come here with your carnal fleshly desires, and I don't
want to see you,' and left her mother."

"Some time after, one Duncan Shapley, who had belonged to the
society, called to see Abigail, his sister, at Niskeuna, whom he had
not seen for six or seven years; but he was not admitted: he waited
some time, being loath to go away without seeing her. At last she
was ordered to go to the window and address him in the language
of abuse and scurrility. The words she made use of, it would be
indecent to mention. For this she was applauded, and that in the
author's hearing, when he belonged to the society."

This man gives a very curious account how the elders treated "
their babes," in their spiritual nursery; but I shall notice only one or
two examples, which illustrate what I have advanced concerning
the natural hostility of the spirit of the New Testament towards
science. "I know of several, who, soon after they joined the
Church, have been counselled by the Elders to dispose of their
books; and have accordingly done it. Elder Ebenezer being at my
house one day, on seeing a number of books, he said--'Ah!
Thomas must put away his books if he intends to become a good
believer.'

As an instance of its effects upon the human understanding, take
the following:--"A short time after, being at a believer's house,
at eleven o'clock at night, they all having retired to rest, and I
laying awake in a dry well finished room, in which was a stove and
fire, there fell a large drop of water on my temples; on
examination, I could not discover where the water came from. I
told the believers of it in the morning."

"One said, ' Ah! it is a warning to you respecting your unbelief.'

"I then assigned some inconclusive reason, how the drop might
have become formed in the room, and its falling."

"One replied, 'Ah! that is the way you render a natural reason for
the cause of every thing, and so reason away your faith and
yourself out of the gospel.'"

As another proof, that genuine Christianity discourages marriage,
and considers celibacy as the only state of perfection, the Shakers
allow of no marriages at all.

Thus you see that, among these people, to become a "good
believer," you must insult your parents, revile your brother, depise
learning, and never render a "natural reason" for any thing, lest
you should "reason away your faith, and yourself out of the
gospel."



CHAPTER XVIII.

ON THE PECULIAR MORALITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,
AS IT AFFECTS NATIONS AND POLITICAL SOCIETIES.

After having seen the uselessness, and even the danger, to
individuals, of the perfections, the virtues, and the duties, which
Christianity peculiarly commands; let us now see whether it has a
more happy influence upon politics; or whether it produces real
happiness among the nations with whom this religion is
established, and the spirit of it faithfully observed. Let us do so,
and we shall find, that wherever Christianity is established and
obeyed, it establishes a set of laws directly opposed to those of a
well ordered national society; and it soon makes this disagreement
and incompatibility distinctly to be felt.

Politics are intended to maintain union and concord among the
citizens. Christianity, though it preaches universal love, and
commands its followers to live in peace; yet, by a strange
inconsistency, consequentially annihilates the effect of these
excellent precepts, by the inevitable divisions it causes among its
followers, who necessarily understand differently the Old and New
Testaments, because the latter is not only irreconcilably
contradictory to the former, but it is even inconsistent with itself.
From the very commencement of Christianity, we perceive very
violent disputes among its founders and teachers; and through
every succeeding century, we find, in the history of the Church,
nothing but schism and heresy. These are followed by persecutions
and quarrels, exceedingly well adapted to destroy this vaunted
spirit of concord, said by its defenders to be peculiar to Christianity;
and the existence of which is, in fact, impossible in a religion
which is one entire chaos of obscure doctrines and impracticable
precepts. In every religious dispute, both parties thought that God
was on their side, and, consequently, they were obstinate and
irreconcilable. And how should it have been otherwise, since they
confounded the cause of God with the miserable interests of their
own vanity? Thus, being little disposed to give way on one part or
the other, they cut one another's throats; they tormented, they burnt
each other: they tore one another to pieces; and having
exterminated or put down the obnoxious sects, they sung Te Deum.

It is not my intention to pursue, in this place, the horrid detail of
ecclesiastical history, as connected with that of the Roman empire.
Mr. Gibbon has exhibited in such colours this dreadful record of
follies, and of crimes, that it is difficult to see how the maxim of
judging the tree by its fruit, will not fatally affect the cause of the
Christian religion. I refer to Mr. Gibbon's history as a cool and
impartial narrative; for I am well satisfied that, so far from having
reason to complain of him, the advocates of Christianity have very
great reason, indeed, to thank him for his forbearance, since, with
his eloquence, he might have drawn a picture that would have
made humanity shudder. For, throughout the whole history, if a
man had wished to know what was then the orthodox faith, the best
method of ascertaining it, would have been, undoubtedly, to ask, "
What is the catechism of this public executioner."

The Christian religion was, it is evident from his history, the
principal, though by no means the only cause of the decline and
fall of the Roman empire. Because it degraded the spirit of the
people, and because it produced monks and hermits in abundance,
but yielded no soldiers. The heathen adversaries of Christianity
were in the right when they said, that "if it prevailed, Rome was no
more!" The Christians would not serve in the armies of the
emperor, if they could possibly avoid it. They justly considered the
profession of a soldier, and that of a Christian, as incompatible.
Celsus accuses them of abandoning the empire, under whose laws
they lived, to its enemies. And what is the answer of Origen to this
accusation? Look: at his pitiful reply! He endeavours to palliate
this undutiful refusal by representing that--"the Christians had
their peculiar camps, in which they incessantly combatted for the
safety of the emperor and empire, by lifting up their right hands--
IN PRAYER!!" (See Origen contra Celsum, Lib. 8, p. 437.) This is
a sneaking piece of business truly! But Origen could have given
another answer, if he had dared to avow it, which is, that his
co-religionists, in his time, had not ceased to expect their master
momentarily to appear; and, of course, it little mattered what
became of the emperor, or the empire. This notion was the
principal engine for making proselytes; and it was by this
expectation that many were frightened into baptism.

That Christianity was considered incompatible with the military
profession, is evident from many passages of the fathers. And one
of them, I believe, Tertullian, ventures to insinuate to the
Christians in the legions, the expediency of deserting, to rid
themselves of "their carnal employment." Nay, to such a height did
this spirit prevail, that it never stopped till it taught the Roman
youth in Italy the expedient of cutting off the thumbs of their right
hands in order to avoid the conscription, and that they might be
allowed to count their beads at home in quiet.

If we examine, in detail, the precepts of this religion, as they affect
nations, we shall see, that it interdicts every thing which can make
a nation flourishing. We have seen already the notion of
imperfection which Christianity attaches to marriage, and the
esteem and preference it holds out to celibacy. These ideas
certainly do not favour population, which is, without contradiction,
the first source of power to every state.

Commerce is not less obnoxious to the principles of a religion
whose founder is represented as denouncing an anathema against
the rich, and as excluding them from the kingdom of heaven. All
industry is equally interdicted to perfect Christians, who are to
spend their lives "as strangers, and pilgrims upon earth," and who
are "not to take care of the morrow."

Chrysostom says, that "a merchant cannot please God, and that
such a one ought to be chased out of the church."

No Christian, also, without being inconsistent, can serve in the
army. For a man, who is never sure of being in a state of grace, is
the most extravagant of men, if, by the hazard of battle, he exposes
himself to eternal perdition. And a Christian who ought to love his
enemies, is he not guilty of the greatest of crimes, when he inflicts
death upon a hostile soldier, of whose disposition he knows
nothing: and whom he may, at a single stroke, precipitate into hell?
A Christian soldier is a monster! a non-descript! and Lactantius
affirms, that "a Christian cannot be either a soldier, or an accuser
to a criminal cause." And, at this day, the Quakers, and
Mennonites refuse to carry arms, and, in so doing, they are
consistent Christians.

Christianity declares war against the sciences; they are regarded as
an obstacle to salvation. "Science puffeth up." says Paul. And the
fathers of the church, St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine
denounce vehemently astronomy, and geometry. And Jerome
declares, that he was whipped by an angel only for reading that
Pagan Cicero.

It has been often remarked, that the most enlightened men are
commonly bad Christians. For independent of its effects on faith,
which science is exceedingly apt to subvert, it diverts the Christian
from the work of his salvation, which is the only thing needful. In
a word, the peculiar principles of Christianity literally obeyed,
would entirely subvert from its foundations every political society
now existing. If this assertion is doubted, let the doubter read the
works of the early Fathers, and he will see that their morality is
totally incompatible with the preservation and prosperity of a state.
He will see according to Lactantius, and others, that "no Christian
can lawfully be a soldier." That according to Justin, "no Christian
can be a magistrate." That according to Chrysostom, "no Christian
ought to be a merchant" And that according to several, "no
Christian ought t study." In fine, joining these maxims together
with those of the New Testament, it will follow, that a Christian,
who as he is commanded, aims at perfection, is a useless member
of the community, useless to his family, and to all around him. He
is an idle dreamer, who thinks of nothing but futurity; who has
nothing in common with the interests of the world, and according
to Tertullian "has no other business but to get out of it as quietly as
possible."

Let us hearken to Esebius of Caesarea, and we shall abundantly
discover the truth of what has been said.

"The manner of life, (says he,) of the Christian church, surpasses
our present nature, and the common life of men. It seeks neither
marriage, nor children, nor riches. In fine, it is entirely a stranger
to human modes of living. It is entirely absorbed in an insatiable
love of heavenly things. Those who follow this course of life, have
only their bodies upon earth, their whole souls are in heaven, and
they already dwell among pure and celestial intelligences, and they
despise the manner of life of other men" Demonstrat. Evang. vol.
ii. p.29.

Indeed a man firmly persuaded of the truth of; Christianity cannot
attach himself to any thing here below. Every thing here is "an
occasion of stumbling, a rock of offence." Every thing here, diverts
him from thinking of his salvation. If Christians in general,
happily, for society, were not inconsistent, and did not neglect the
peculiar precepts of their religion, no large society of them could
exist; and the nations enlightened by the gospel would turn
hermits, and nuns. All business, but fasting and prayer, would be at
an end. There would be nothing but groaning in "this vale" of
tears;" and they would make themselves, and others, as miserable
as possible, from the best of motives, viz; the desire to fulfill what
they mistakenly conceived to be the will of God.

Is this a picture taken from the life, or is it a fanciful representation
of something different from the peculiar morality of the New
Testament? This serious question demands a serious answer. If it
be such as it is represented above and such it really appears to me,
and such I have unfortunately experienced its operation to be on
my own mind--I would respectfully ask--can such a religion,
whose peculiar principles tend to render men hateful, and hating
one another: which has often rendered sovereigns, persecutors, and
subjects, either rebels, or slaves: a religion, whose peculiar moral
principles and maxims, teach the mind to grovel, and humble, and
break down the energies of man; and which divert him from
thinking of his true interests, and the true happiness of himself and
his fellow men. Can such a religion, I would respectfully ask, be
from God, since where fully obeyed, it would prove utterly
destructive to society?



CHAPTER XIX.

A CONSIDERATION OF SOME SUPPOSED ADVANTAGES
ATTRIBUTED TO THE NEW, OVER THE OLD, TESTAMENT;
AND WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF A RESURRECTION,
AND A LIFE TO COME, IS NOT TAUGHT IN THE OLD
TESTAMENT; IN CONTRADICTION TO THE ASSERTION,
THAT "LIFE AND IMMORTALITY WERE BROUGHT TO
LIGHT BY THE GOSPEL."

From the preceding chapters, you may judge, reader, of the justice
and truth of the opinion, that "the yoke of Christian morality is
easy, and its "burthen light;" and also of the veracity and fairness
of that constant assertion of divines, "that Jesus came to remove
the heavy yoke of the Mosaic Law, and to substitute in its room
one of easier observance."--Whether this, their assertion, be not
rash, and ill founded, I will cheerfully leave to be decided by
any cool and thinking man, who knows human nature, and is
acquainted with the human heart. I say, I would cheerfully leave it
to such a man, "whether the Mosaic Law, with all its numerous
rites, and ceremonial observances, nay, with all "the (ridiculous)
traditions of the Elders," superadded, would not be much more
bearable to human nature, and much easier to be observed and
obeyed, than such precepts as these, "Sell all thou hast, and give it
to the poor." "If a man ask thy cloak, give him thy coat also."
"Resist not the injurious person, but if a man smite thee on one
cheek, turn to him the other also." "Extirpate and destroy all carnal
affection, and love nothing, but religion." "Take no thought for
to-morrow;"--I am confident that the decision would be given in
my favour; and have no doubt, that with thinking men, the contrary
opinion would be instantly rejected with the contempt it merits.

Whether the Mosaic Code be the best possible, or really divine, is
of no consequence in this inquiry, and is with me another question
from that of its inferiority to that of the New Testament. I do by no
means assert the former; but have no hesitation to give my opinion,
after a pretty thorough examination of the subject, that the
reflections of Paul, and those usually thrown out against the
Mosaic Code by Theologians, when comparing it with that of the
New Testament, in order to deprecate the former, appear to me
extremely partial and unjust; and so far from true, that I think, that
the ancient law has the advantage over the precepts of the New
Testament, in being, at least, practicable and consistent.*

Another unfounded reproach which Theologians, in order to
magnify the importance of the New Testament, cast upon the Old,
is this: They say, that the Old Testament represents God only as