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 a.s.signed 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 G.o.d was on their side, and, consequently, they were obstinate and irreconcilable. And how should it have been otherwise, since they confounded the cause of G.o.d 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 princ.i.p.al, 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 princ.i.p.al 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 pa.s.sages 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 G.o.d, 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 h.e.l.l?

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 a.s.sertion 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, surpa.s.ses 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 G.o.d.

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 G.o.d, 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 a.s.sERTION, 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 a.s.sertion of divines, ?that Jesus came to remove the heavy yoke of the Mosaic Law, and to subst.i.tute in its room one of easier observance.?--Whether this, their a.s.sertion, 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 a.s.sert 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 G.o.d only as the tutelary Deity of the Israelites, and as not so much concerned for the rest of mankind. To show that this is a very mistaken notion, and to manifest that the Eternal of the Old Testament is represented therein, not as the G.o.d of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles, I refer to these words:--?The Lord thy G.o.d is G.o.d of G.o.ds, and Lord of lords, a great G.o.d, a mighty and a terrible; who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward. He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless, and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye, therefore, the stranger.

Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him, for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.

One law shall be to him that is home born, and to the stranger that sojourneth among you. The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself. I am the Lord your G.o.d.?

Indeed, so little truth is there in the notion, that the law and religion of the Old Testament were established with the intention of confining them to one people, exclusive of all others, that the Old Testament certainly represents them in such manner, as shows, that they were intended to be as unconfined as the Christian, or Mahometan; its religion, in fact, admitted every one who would receive it. And what is more, it can be proved that the Old Testament dispensation claims, as appears from itself, to have been given for the common advantage of all mankind. And it is a.s.serted in it, (whether truly or not, is not the question; it is sufficient for my purpose, that it a.s.serts it), that the religion contained in it, will one day be the religion of all mankind. For it declares that Jerusalem will be the centre of worship for all nations, and the temple there, be ?the house of prayer for all nations;? that the Eternal will be the only G.o.d worshipped; and his laws the only laws obeyed. It represents Abraham and his posterity as merely the instruments of the Eternal to bring about these ends; it is repeatedly declared therein, that the reason of G.o.d?s dispensations towards them was, ?that all the earth might know that the Eternal is G.o.d, and that there is no other but Him.? According to its history, when G.o.d threatened to destroy the Israelites for their perverseness in the wilderness, and offers Moses, interceding for them, to raise, up his seed to fulfil the purposes for which he designed the posterity of Abraham; he tells Moses that his purpose should not be frustrated through the perverseness of the chosen instruments; ?but, (saith He), as surely as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord,? Numbers xiv. 21. Many pa.s.sages of similar import are contained in the Psalms, and the Prophets. In fact, there is no truth at all in the statement of the Catechisms, that the Old Testament was merely preparatory, and intended merely to prepare the way for ?a better covenant,? as Paul says; even for another religion, (the Christian) which was to convert all nations; for, (if the Old Testament be suffered to tell its own story,) we shall find, that it claims, and challenges the honour of beginning, and completing, this magnificent design solely to itself. I was going to overwhelm the patience of the reader with quotations from it, to this purpose; but being willing to spare him and myself, I will only produce one, which, as it is direct and peremptory to this effect, is as good as a hundred, to demonstrate that the Old Testament at least claims what I have said. Zech. viii.

20, ?Thus saith the Eternal of Hosts: It shall yet come to pa.s.s, that there shall come people, and the inhabitants of many cities; and the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying: ?Let us go speedily to pray before the Eternal, and to seek the Eternal of Hosts: I will go also. Yea, many people, and strong nations shall come to seek the Eternal of Hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Eternal. Thus saith the Eternal of Hosts: In those days it shall come to pa.s.s, that ten men shall take hold out of all the languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, we will go with you.?

Be it so, it may be said;--?Still, it is to Christianity the world owes the consoling doctrine of a life to come. Life and immortality were brought to light by the Gospel,? say the Christian divines; and they a.s.sert, that the doctrine of a resurrection was not known to Jew or Gentile, till they learned it from Jesus? followers. The Old Testament, (say they,) taught the Jews nothing of the glorious truths concerning ?the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting,? their ?beggarly elements? confined their views to temporal happiness, only.? These a.s.sertions I shall prove from the Old Testament itself, to be contrary to fact; for the Jews both knew, and were taught by their Bibles to expect a resurrection, and believed it as firmly as any Christian can, or ever did. For proof hereof, I shall, in the first place, quote the 37th chapter of Ezekiel, and which is as follows, ?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 pa.s.s by them round about, and behold there were very many in the open valley, and behold they were dry.--And he said unto me.

Son of man, can these bones live? and I answered, O Lord G.o.d, thou knowest. Again he said unto me. Prophecy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.

Thus saith the Lord G.o.d unto these bones, behold I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live, and I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh 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 up upon them, and the skin covered them above; but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me. Prophecy son of man, and say unto the wind, thus saith the Lord G.o.d, 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 up again upon their feet, an exceeding great army.?

A plainer resurrection than this is, I think never was preached either by Jesus or his followers. Again, Daniel the prophet says, ?Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt,?

Daniel xii. 2. Now Ezekiel lived almost six hundred years before Jesus, and Daniel was contemporary with the former; and is it not a little surprising, that the Jews should learn, for the first time, the doctrine of a resurrection of the followers of Jesus Christ, when they knew of the resurrection almost six hundred years before he was born? Isaiah also, (who lived before either Ezekiel or Daniel), in the 26th chapter of his prophesies, (exciting the Jews to have confidence in G.o.d, and not to despair on account of their captivity, and the troubles and afflictions which they should suffer therein), foretells to them that death would not deprive them of the reward of their piety and virtue; for G.o.d would raise them from the dead, and make them happy. ?Thy dead men shall live, my dead bodies# (i. e., the bodies of G.o.d?s servants) they shall arise. Awake! and sing! ye that dwell in the dust, for thy dew is as the dew of herbs,?

The meaning of the last clause is--that, as the gra.s.s, which in Oriental countries becomes brown and shrivelled by the heat of the sun; from the effects of the dew it changes and springs up, as it were, in a moment, green and fresh and beautiful; so, by the instantaneous influence of the word of G.o.d, the dry and decayed remains of mortality shall become blooming with immortal freshness and beauty. See also Hosea xiii. 14. I might easily multiply pa.s.sages from the Old Testament, to prove that the doctrine of a resurrection was familiar to the ancient Israelites, but I suppose that what I have already produced, is sufficient. Those, however, who wish to see the subject more thoroughly examined, are referred to ?Greave?s Lectures on the Pentateuch,? a work lately published in Europe, highly honourable to the author. See also a Tract upon this subject, published by Dr. Priestley, in 1801.

I shall only add one observation more on this subject, viz., that it is very singular that Christian divines should a.s.sert, that ?life and immortality were first brought to light by the Gospel,? when the New Testament itself represents the resurrection of the dead as being perfectly well known to the Jews, and describes Jesus himself as proving it to the Sadducees out of the Old Testament!!!

CONCLUSION.

I have now finished my work, which I have written in order to exculpate myself, and to do justice to others; and having re-examined every link of the chain of my argument, I think it amply strong to support the conclusions attached to it. Though there might have been drawn from the Old and New Testaments, many additional arguments corroborative of what has been said, yet, at present, I shall add no more; as I think that what has been brought forward has just claims to be considered by the impartial as quite sufficient to prove these two points--that the New Testament can neither subsist with the Old Testament, nor without it; and that the New Testament system was built first upon a mistake, and afterwards b.u.t.tressed up with forged and apocryphal doc.u.ments.

Let the candid now judge, whether the author, knowing these things, or, at least persuaded of their truth, could have persisted in affirming, (in a place where sincerity is expected), in the name of the Almighty, that the claims of the New Testament were valid, without being a hypocrite, and an impostor.

Let them also consider, whether, after being unable to obtain a satisfactory refutation of the objections contained in this volume, his resigning a profession whose duties obliged him to say what he was convinced was false, was conduct to be reprehended. And lastly, he appeals to the good sense of the public, for a decision, whether, with such objections and difficulties weighing upon his mind, as he has now exposed, his conduct in that respect can reasonably be attributed to the unmanly influence of caprice and fickle-ness, (as has been circulated by some who had an interest in making it believed;) or to the just influence of motives deserving a better name.

With regard to the unfortunate people whose arguments have been brought forward in this volume, we have, reader, now gone over, and distinctly felt, the whole ground of the controversy between them and their persecutors, mentioned in the Preface. And as they make use of the Old Testament as a foundation, admitted, and necessarily admitted by Christians, to be of divine authority, and are surrounded by the bulwarks they have raised out of the demolished entrenchments of their adversaries, I do not see but that ?their castle?s strength may laugh a siege to scorn.? And after reviewing, and revolving, over and over in my own mind the arguments on both sides, I am obliged to believe, that the stoutest Polemical Goliath who may venture to attack it, especially their strong hold--their arguments about the Messiahship, will find to his cost, that when his weak point is but known, the mightiest Achilles must fall before the feeblest Paris, whose arrow is--aimed at his heel.

The author hopes, and thinks he has a right to expect, that whoever may attempt to answer his book, will do it fairly, like a man of candour; without trying to evade the main question--that of the Messiahship of Jesus. He fears, that he shall see an answer precisely resembling the many others he has seen upon that subject. Except two--those of Sukes, and Jeffries. (who acknowledge that miracles have nothing to do with the question of the Messiahship, which can be decided by the Old Testament only;)-- all that he has ever met with, evade this question, and slide over to the ground of miracles. Such conduct in an answerer of this book would be very unfair, and also very absurd. For the case is precisely resembling the following--A father informs by letter his son in a foreign country, that he is about to send him a Tutor, whom he will know by the following marks; ?He is learned in the mathematics, and the physical sciences; acquainted with the learned languages, and an excellent physician; of a dark complexion; six feet high, and with a voice loud, and commanding.? By and by, a man comes to the young man, professing to be this tutor sent to him by his father. On examining the man, and comparing him with the description in his father?s letter, he finds him totally unlike the person he had been taught to expect. Instead of being acquainted with the sciences, therein mentioned, he knows nothing about them; instead of being ?six feet high, of a dark complexion, and with a voice loud and commanding,? he is a diminutive creature of five feet, of a light complexion, with a voice like a woman?s.