A LETTER, &c.

OF all the tyrannies that afflict mankind tyranny in religion is the worſt: Every other ſpecies of tyranny is limited to the world we live in; but this attempts a ſtride beyond the grave, and ſeeks to pur⯑ſue us into eternity. It is there, and not here, it is to God and not to man, it is to a heavenly and not to an earthly tribunal, that we are to account for our belief; if then we believe falſely and diſhonourably of the Creator, and that belief is forced upon us, as far as force can operate, by human laws and human tribunals, on whom is the crimi⯑nality of that belief to fall; on thoſe who impoſe it, or on thoſe on whom it is impoſed?

A bookſeller o [...] the name of Williams has been proſecuted in Lon⯑don on a charge of blaſphemy, for publiſhing a book intitled the Age of Reaſon: Blaſphemy is a word of vaſt ſound, but of equivocal and almoſt indefinite ſignification; unleſs we confine it to the ſimple idea of hurting or injuring the reputation of any one, which was its original meaning. As a word, it exiſted before Chriſtianity exiſted, being a Greek word, or Greek anglofied, as all the etymological dictionaries will ſhew.

But behold how various and contradictory has been the ſignification and application of this equivocal word: Socrates, who lived more than four hundred years before the Chriſtian aera, was convicted of blaſphemy, for preaching againſt the belief of a plurality of gods, and for preaching the belief of one god, and was condemned to ſuffer death by poiſon: Jeſus Chriſt was convicted of blaſphemy under the Jewiſh law, and was crucified. Calling Mahomet an impoſtor would be blaſphemy in Turkey; and denying the infallibility of the Pope and the Church would be blaſphemy at Rome. What then is to be underſtood by this word blaſphemy? We ſee that in the caſe of Socrates, truth was condemned as blaſphemy. Are we ſure that truth is not blaſphemy in the preſent day? Woe, however, be to thoſe who make it ſo, whoever they may be.

[6]A book called the bible has been voted by men, and decreed by hu⯑man laws, to be the word of God, and the diſbelief of this is called blaſphemy. But if the bible be not the word of God, it is the laws, and the execution of them, that is blaſphemy, and not the diſbelief. Strange ſtories are told of the Creator in that book. He is repreſented as acting under the influence of every human paſſion, even of the moſt malignant kind. If theſe ſtories are falſe, we err in believing them to be true, and ought not to believe them. It is therefore a duty, which every man owes to himſelf, and reverentially to his Maker, to aſcertain by every poſſible enquiry, whether there be ſufficient evi⯑dence to believe them or not.

My own opinion is decidedly, that the evidence does not warrant the belief, and that we ſin in forcing that belief upon ourſelves, and upon others. In ſaying this, I have no other object in view, than truth. But that I may not be accuſed of reſting upon bare aſſertion, with reſpect to the equivocal ſtate of the bible, I will produce an ex⯑ample, and I will not pick and cull the bible for the purpoſe. I will go fairly to the caſe I will take the two firſt chapters of Geneſis, as they ſtand, and ſhew from thence the truth of what I ſay, that is, that the evidence does not warrant the belief, that the bible is the word of God.

Theſe two chapters are called the Moſaic account of the creation; and we are told, nobody knows by whom, that Moſes was inſtructed by God to write that account.

It has happened that every nation of people has been world-makers; and each makes the world to begin his own way, as if they had all been brought up, as Hudibraſs ſays, to the trade. There are hundreds of different opinions and traditions how the world began. My buſineſs, however, in this place, is only with thoſe two chapters.

I begin then by ſaying, that thoſe two chapters, inſtead of contain⯑ing, as has been believed, one continued account of the Creation, written by Moſes, contain two different and contradictory ſtories of a creation, made by two different perſons, and written in two differ⯑ent ſtiles of expreſſion. The evidence that ſhews this, is ſo clear when attended to without prejudice, that, did we meet with the ſame evidence in any Arabic or Chineſe account of a creation, we ſhould not heſitate in pronouncing it a forgery.

I proceed to diſtinguiſh the two ſtories from each other.

The firſt ſtory begins at the firſt verſe of the firſt chapter, and ends at the end of the third verſe of the ſecond chapter; for the adverbial conjunction, THUS, with which the ſecond chapter begins, (as the reader will ſee) connects itſelf to the laſt verſe of the firſt chapter, and thoſe three verſes belong to, and make the concluſion of, the firſt ſtory.

The ſecond ſtory begins at the fourth verſe of the ſecond chapter, and ends with that chapter. Thoſe two ſtories have been confuſed into one, by cutting off the three laſt verſes of the firſt ſtory, and throwing them to the ſecond chapter.

I go now to ſhew that thoſe ſtories have been written by two dif⯑ferent perſons.

[10]From the firſt verſe of the firſt chapter, to the end of the third Verſe of the ſecond chapter, wh [...]ch makes the whole of the firſt ſtory, the word GOD is uſed without any epithet or additional word con⯑joined with it, as the reader will ſee; and this ſtile of expreſſion is invariably uſed throughout the whole of this ſtory, and is repeated no leſs than thirty five times, viz. ‘In the beginning GOD created the heavens, and the earth, and the ſpirit of GOD moved on the face of the water, and GOD ſaid, Let there be light, and GOD ſaw the light, &c. &c.’

But immediately from the beginning of the fourth verſe of the ſecond chapter, where the ſecond ſtory begins, the ſtile of expreſſion is always the Lord God, and t [...]is ſtile of expreſſion is invariably uſed to the end of the ch [...]pter, and is repeated eleven times; in the one it is always GOD, and never the Lord-God, in the other it is always the Lord-God, and never GOD. The firſt ſtory contains thirty-four verſes, and repeats the ſingle word GOD thirty-five times. The ſe⯑cond ſtory contains twenty two verſes, and repeats the compound word Lord-God eleven times; this difference of ſtile, ſo often repeated, and ſo uniformly continued, ſhews, that thoſe two chapters, containing two different ſtories, are written by different perſons, it is the ſame in all the different edition [...] of the bible, in all the languages I have ſeen.

Ha [...]ing thus ſhewn from the difference of ſtile, that thoſe two chapters divided, as they properly divide themſelves, at the end of the third verſe of the ſecond chap [...]er, are the work of two different per⯑ſons, I co [...]e to ſhew from the contradictory matters they contain, that they cannot be the work of one perſon, and are two different ſtories.

It is impoſſible, unleſs the writer was a lunatic, without memory, that one and the ſame perſon could ſay, as is ſaid in the 27 and 28 verſes of the firſt chapter—‘So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them, and God bleſſed them, and God ſaid unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and repleniſh the earth, and ſubdue it, and have dominion over the fiſh of the ſea, and over the fowls of the air, and over every living thing, that moveth on the face of the earth.’ It is, I ſay, impoſſible, that the ſame per [...]on, who ſaid this, could afterwards ſay, as is ſaid in the ſecond chapter, ver. 5, and there was not a man to till the ground; and then proceed in the 7th verſe to give another account of the making a man for the firſt time, and afterwards of the making a woman out of his rib.

Again, one and the ſame perſon could not write, as is written in the 29th verſe of the firſt chapter; behold I (God) have given you every herb bearing ſeed, which is on the face of all the earth; and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree bearing ſeed, to you it ſhall be for meat and afterwards ſay, as is ſaid in the ſecond chapter, that the Lord-God planted a tree in the midſt of a garden, and forbad man to eat thereof.

Again, one and the ſame perſon could not ſay, ‘Thus the heavens and the earth were finiſhed, and all the hoſt of them, and on the ſeventh day God ended all his work, which he had made,’ and immediately [11] after, ſet the Creator to work again, to plant a garden, to make a man and a woman, &c. as is done in the ſecond chapter.

Here are evidently two different ſtories contra [...]icting each other— According to the firſt, the two ſexes, the male and the female, were made at the ſame time. According to the ſecond, they were made at different times. The man firſt, the woman afterwards. Accord⯑ing to the firſt ſtory, they were to have dominion over all the earth. According to the ſecond, their dominion was limited to a garden. How large a garden it could be, that one man and one woman could dreſs and keep in order, I leave to the proſecutor, the judge, the jury, and Mr. Erſkine, to determine.

The ſtory of the talking ſerpent, and its tete a tete with Eve: the doleful adventure, called the Fall of Man; and how he was turned out of this fine garden, and how the garden was afterwards locked up and guarded by a flaming ſword, (if any one can tell what a flaming ſword is) belong altogether to the ſecond ſtory. They have no con⯑nection with the firſt ſtory. According to the firſt there was no gar⯑den of Eden; no forbidden tree: The ſcene was the whole earth, and the fruit of all trees was allowed to be eaten.

In giving this example of the ſtrange ſtate of the bible, it cannot be ſaid I have gone out of my way to ſeek it, for I have taken the be⯑ginning of the book; nor can it be ſaid I have made more of it, than it makes of itſelf. That there are two ſtories is as viſible to the eye, when attended to, as that there are two chapters, and that they have been written by different perſons, nobody knows by whom. If this, then, is the ſtrange condition, the beginning of the bible is in, it leads to a juſt ſuſpicion, that the other parts are no better, and conſe⯑quently it becomes every man's duty to examine the caſe. I have done it for myſelf, and am ſatisfied, that the bible is fabulous.

Perhaps I ſhall be told in the cant-language of the day, as I have often been told by the biſhop of Landaff and others, of the great and laudable pains, that many pious and learned men have taken to explain the obſcure, and reconcile the contradictory, or as they ſay, the ſeemingly contradictory paſſages of the bible. It is becauſe the bible needs ſuch an undertaking, that is one of the firſt cauſes to ſuſpect it is NOT the word of God: this ſingle reflection, when carried home to the mind, is in itſelf a volume.

What! does not the Creator of the Univerſe, the Fountain of all Wiſdom, the Origin of all Science, the Author of all Knowledge, the God of Order and of Harmony, know how to write? When we contemplate the vaſt oeconomy of the creation, when we behold the unerring regularity of the viſible ſolar ſyſtem, the perfection with which all its ſeveral parts revolve, and by correſponding aſſemblage, form a whole;—when we launch our eye into the boundleſs ocean of ſpace, and ſee ourſelves ſurrounded by innumerable worlds, not one of which varies from its appointed place—when we trace the power of a Creator, from a mite to an elephant; from an atom to an univerſe; can we ſuppoſe that the mind that could conceive ſuch a deſign, and [12] the power that executed it with incomparable perfection, cannot write without inconſiſtence; or that a book ſo written can be the work of ſuch a power? The writings of Thomas Paine, even of Thomas Paine, need no commentator to explain, expound, derange, and re⯑arrange their ſeveral parts, to render them intelligible—he can relate a fact, or write an eſſay, without forgetting in one page what he has written in another; certainly then, did the God of all perfection con⯑deſcend to write or dictate a book, that book would be as perfect as himſelf is perfect: The bible is not ſo, and it is confeſſedly not ſo, by the attempts to amend it.

Perhaps I ſhall be told, that though I have produced one inſtance, I cannot produce another of equal force. One is ſufficient to call in queſtion the genuineneſs or authenticity of any book that pretends to be the word of God: for ſuch a book would, as before ſaid, be as per⯑fect as its author is perfect.

I will, however, advance only four chapters further into the book of Geneſis and produce another example that is ſufficient to invali⯑date the ſtory to which it belongs.

We have all heard of Noah's Flood; and it is impoſſible to think of the whole human race, men, women, children, and infants (ex⯑cept one family) deliberately drowning, without feeling a painful ſen⯑ſation; that heart muſt be a heart of flint that can contemplate ſuch a ſcene with tranquility. There is nothing in the ancient mythology, nor in the religion of any people we know of upon the globe, that re⯑cords a ſentence of their God, or of their Gods, ſo tremendouſly ſe⯑vere and mercileſs. If the ſtory be not true, we blaſphemiouſly diſ⯑honour God by believing it, and ſtill more ſo, in forcing, by laws and penalties, that belief upon others. I go now to ſhew from the face of the ſtory, that it carries the evidence of not being true.

I know not if the judge, the jury, and Mr. Erſkine, who tried and convicted Williams, ever read the bible, or know any thing of its contents, and therefore I will ſtate the caſe preciſely:

There were no ſuch people, as Jews or Iſraelites, in the time that Noah is ſaid to have lived, and conſequently, there was no ſuch law as that which is called the Jewiſh or Moſaic Law. It is, accord⯑ing to the bible, more than ſix hundred years from the time the flood is ſaid to have happened, to the time of Moſes, and conſequently the time the flood is ſaid to have happened, was more than ſix hundred years prior to the law, called the Law of Moſes, even admitting Moſes to have been the giver of that law, of which there is great cauſe to doubt.

We have here two different epochs, or points of time; that of the flood, and that of the law of Moſes; the former more than ſix hundred years prior to the latter. But the maker of the ſtory of the flood, whoever he was, has betrayed himſelf by blundering, for he has re⯑verſed the order of the times. He has told the ſtory, as if the law of Moſes was prior to the flood; for he has made God to ſay to Noah, Geneſis, chap. vii. ver. 2, ‘Of every clean beaſt, thou ſhalt take [13] unto thee by ſevens, male and his female, and of beaſts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.’ This is the Moſaic law, and could only be ſaid after that law was given, not before: There was no ſuch thing as beaſts clean and unclean in the time of Noah—it is no where ſaid, they were created ſo. They were only declared to be ſo, as meats, by the Moſaic law, and that to the Jews only, and there were no ſuch people as Jews in the time of Noah. This is the blundering condition in which this ſtrange ſtory ſtands.

When we reflect on a ſentence, ſo tremendouſly ſevere, as that of conſigning the whole human race, eight perſons excepted, to de⯑liberate drowning; a ſentence, which repreſents the Creator, in a more mercileſs character than any of thoſe, whom we call Pagans, ever repreſented the Creator to be, under the figure of any of their deities, we ought at leaſt to ſuſpend our belief of it, on a compariſon of the beneficent character of the Creator, with the tremendous ſeverity of the ſentence; but when we ſee the ſtory told with ſuch an evident contradiction of circumſtances, we ought to ſet it down for nothing better than a Jewiſh fable, told by nobody knows whom, and nobody knows when.

It is a relief to the genuine and ſenſible ſoul of man to find the ſtory unfounded. It frees us from two painful ſenſations at once; that of having hard thoughts of the Creator, on account of the ſeverity of the ſentence; and that of ſympathiſing in the horrid tragedy of a drowning world. He who cannot feel the force of what I mean, is not, in my eſtimation of character, worthy the name of a human being.

I have juſt ſaid there is great cauſe to doubt, if the law, called the law of Moſes, was given by Moſes; the books, called books of Moſes, which contain among other things, what is called the Moſaic law, are put in front of the bible, in the manner of a conſtitution, with a hiſtory annexed to it▪ Had theſe books been written by Moſes, they would undoubtedly have been the oldeſt books in the bible, and entitled to be placed firſt, and the law and the hiſtory they contain, would be frequently referred to in the books that follow; but this is not the caſe. From the time of Othniel, the firſt of the judges (Judges, chap. iii. ver. 9) to the end of the book of Judges, which contains a period of four hundred and ten years, this law, and thoſe books were not in practice, nor known among the Jews, nor are they ſo much as alluded to throughout the whole of that period. And if the reader will examine the 22d and 23d chapters of 2d book of Kings, and 34th chapter 2d Chron. he will find, that no ſuch law, nor any ſuch books were known in the time of the Jewiſh monarchy, and that the Jews were Pagans during the whole of that time, and of their judges.

The firſt time the law, called the law of Moſes, made its ap⯑pearance, was in the time of Joſiah, about a thouſand years after Moſes was dead, it is then ſaid to have been found by accident. The account of this finding, or pretended finding, is given, [14] 2d Chron. chap. xxxiv. ver. 14, 15, 16, 18. ‘Hilkiah the prieſt found the book of the law of the Lord, given by Moſes, and Hilkiah anſwered, and ſaid, to Shaphan the ſcribe, I have found the book of the law in the houſe of the Lord, and Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan, and Shaphan carried the book to the king, and Shaphan told the king. (Joſiah) ſaying, Hilkiah the prieſt hath given me a book.’

In conſequence of this finding, which much reſembles that of poor Chatterton finding manuſcript poems of Rowley the Monk in the Cathedral Church at Briſtol, or the late finding manuſcripts of Shakeſpeare in a [...] old cheſt, (two well known frauds) Joſiah aboliſhed the Pagan religion of the Jews, maſſacred all the Pagan prieſts, though he h [...]mſelf had been a Pagan, as the reader will ſee in the 23d chap. 2d Kings, and thus eſtabliſhed in blood, the law that is there called the l [...]w of Moſes, and inſtituted a paſſover in com⯑memoration thereof. The 22d ver. in ſpeaking of this paſſover ſays, ‘ſurely there was not holden ſuch a paſſover, from the days of the judges, that judged [...]ſrael, nor in all the days of the kings of Iſrael, nor the kings of Judah;’ and the 25th ver. in ſpeaking of this prieſt-killing Joſiah, ſays, ‘Like unto him there was no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his ſoul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moſes; neither after him aroſe there any like him’ This verſe l [...]ke the former one, is a general declaration againſt all the preceding kings without exception. It is alſo a declaration aga [...]nſt all that reigned after him, of which there were four, the whole time of whoſe reigning make but twenty-two years and ſix months, before the Jews were entirely broken up as a nation and th [...]ir monarchy deſtroyed. It is therefore evident that the law, called the law of Moſes, of which the Jews talk ſo much, was promulgated and eſtabliſhed only in the latter time of the Jewiſh monarchy; and it is very remarkable, that no ſooner had they eſtabliſhed it than they were a deſtroyed people, as if they were puniſhed for acting an impoſition and affixing the name of the Lord to it, and maſſacreing their former prieſts under pretence of religion. The ſum of the hiſtory of the Jews is this—they continued to be a nation about a thouſand years, they then eſtabliſhed a law which they called the law of the Lord given by Moſes, and were deſtroyed. This is not opinion but hiſtorical evidence.

Levi, the Jew, who has written an anſwer to the Age of Reaſon, gives a ſtrange account of the law called the law of Moſes.

In ſpeaking of the ſtory of the ſun and moon ſtanding ſtill, that the Iſraelites might cut the throats of all their enemies, and hang all their kings, as told in Joſhua, Chap. x. he ſays, ‘There is alſo another proof of the reality of this miracle, which is the appeal that the author of the book of Joſhua makes to the book of Jaſher, is not this written in the book of Jaſher. Hence continues Levi, it is manifeſt that the book, commonly called the book of Jaſher exiſted and was well known at the time the book of Joſhua was [15] written;’ and pray, Sir, continues Levi, ‘what book do you think this was? why no other than the law of Moſes;’ Levi, like the biſhop of Landaff and many other gueſs-work commentators, either forgets, or does not know, what there is in one part of the bible when he is giving his opinion upon another part.

I did not, however, expect to find ſo much ignorance in a Jew with reſpect to the hiſtory of his nation, though I might not be ſur⯑priſed at it in a biſhop. If Levi will look into the account given in the firſt Chap. 2d book of Samuel, of the Amalakite ſlaying Saul and bringing the crown and bracelets to David, he will find the following recital, ver. 15, 17, 18, ‘and David called one of the young men and ſaid, go near and fall upon him (the Amalakite) and he ſmote him that he died, and David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his ſon; alſo he bad them teach the chil⯑dren the uſe of the bow; behold it is written in the book of Jaſher.’ If the book of Jaſher were what Levi calls it, the law of Moſes, writ⯑ten by Moſes, it is not poſſible that any thing that David ſaid or did could be written in that law, ſince Moſes died more than five hun⯑dred years before David was born; and on the other hand, admitting the book of Jaſher to be the law, called the law of Moſes, that law muſt have been written more than five hundred years after Moſes was dead, or it could not relate any thing ſaid or done by David. Levi may take which of theſe caſes he pleaſes, for both are againſt him.

I am not going, in the courſe of this letter, to write a commen⯑tary on the bible. The two inſtances I have produced, and which are taken from the beginning of the bible, ſhew the neceſſity of examining it. It is a book that has been read more, and examined leſs, than any book that ever exiſted. Had it come to us as an Arabic or Chineſe book, and ſaid to have been a ſacred book by the people from whom it came, no apology would have been made for the con⯑fuſed and diſorderly ſtate it is in. The tales it relates of the Creator would have been cenſured, and our pity been excited for thoſe who believed them. We ſhould have vindicated the goodneſs of God againſt ſuch a book, and preached up the diſbelief of it out of reve⯑rence to him. Why then do we not act as honorably by the Creator in the one caſe, as we would do in the other. As a Chineſe book we would have examined it; ought we not then to examine it as a Jewiſh book? The Chineſe are a people who have all the appearance of far greater an iquity than the Jews, and in point of permanency, there is no compariſon. They are alſo a people of mild manners, and of good morals, except where they have been corrupted by European com⯑merce. Yet we take the word of a reſtleſs bloody-minded people, as the Jews of Paleſtine were, when we would reject the ſame authority from a better people. We ought to ſee it is habit and prejudice that have prevented people from examining the bible. Thoſe of the church of England call it holy, becauſe the Jews called it ſo, and becauſe cuſtom and certain acts of parliament call it ſo, and they read it from cuſtom. Diſſenters read it for the purpoſe of doctrinal con⯑troverſy, [16] and are very fertile in diſcoveries and inventions. But none of them read it for the pure purpoſe of information, and of rendering juſ⯑tice to the Creator by examining if the evidence it contains warrants the belief of its being what it is called. Inſtead of doing this, they take it blindfolded, and will have it to be the word of God whether it be ſo or not. For my own part, my belief in the perfection of the Deity, will not permit me to believe that a book ſo manifeſtly obſcure, diſ⯑orderly, and contradictory, can be his work. I can write a better book myſelf. This diſbelief in me proceeds from my belief in the Creator. I cannot pin my faith upon the ſay ſo of Hilkiah the prieſt, who ſaid he found it, or any part of it, nor upon Shaphan the ſcribe, nor upon any prieſt nor any ſcribe, or man of the law of the preſent day.

As to acts of parliament, there are ſome that ſay, there are witches and wizzards; and the perſons who made thoſe acts (it was in the time of James the Firſt) made alſo ſome acts which call the bible the holy ſcriptures or word of God. But acts of parliament decide nothing with reſpect to God; and as theſe acts of parliament-makers were wrong with reſpect to witches and wizzards, they may alſo be wrong with reſpect to the book in queſtion. It is therefore neceſſary that the book be examined, it is our duty to examine i [...]; and to ſup⯑preſs the right of examination is ſinful in any government or in any judge or jury. The bible makes God to ſay to Moſes, Deut. chap. vii. 2d ver. ‘And when the Lord the God ſhall deliver them before thee, thou ſhalt ſmite them, and utterly deſtroy them, thou ſhalt make no covenant with them, nor ſhew mercy unto them.’ Not all the prieſts, nor ſcribes, nor tribunals in the world, nor all the autho⯑rity of man, ſhall make me believe that God ever gave ſuch a Robeſperian precept as that of ſhewing no mercy; and conſequently it is impoſſible that I, or any perſon who believes as reverentially of the Creator as I do, can believe ſuch a book to be the word of God.

There have been, and ſtill are, thoſe, who whilſt they profeſs to believe the bible to be the word of God affect to turn it into ridicule. Taking their profeſſion and conduct together, they act blaſphemouſly; becauſe they act as if God himſelf was not to be believed. The caſe is exceedingly different with reſpect to the Age of Reaſon. That book is written to ſhew from the bible itſelf, that there is abundant matter to ſuſpect it is not the word of God, and that we have been impoſed upon, firſt by Jews, and afterwards by prieſts and commentators.

Not one of thoſe who have attempted to write anſwers to the Age of Reaſon have taken the ground upon which only an anſwer could be written. The caſe in queſtion is not upon any point of doctrine, but altogether upon a matter of fact. Is the book called the bible the word of God or is it not? If it can be proved to be ſo, it ought to be believed as ſuch; if not, it ought not to be believed as ſuch. This is the true ſtate of the caſe. The Age of Reaſon produces evidence to ſhew, and I have in this letter produced additional evidence, that it is not the word of God. Thoſe who take the contrary ſide, ſhould [17] prove that it is. But this they have not done nor attempted to do, and conſequently they have done nothing to the purpoſe.

The proſecutors of Williams have ſhrunk from the point as the anſwerers have done. They have availed themſelves of prejudice inſtead of proof. If a writing was produced in a court of judica⯑ture, ſaid to be the writing of a certain perſon, and upon the reality or non-reality of which, ſome matter at iſſue depended, the point to be proved would be, that ſuch writing was the writing of ſuch per⯑ſon. Or if the iſſue depended upon certain words, which ſome cer⯑tain perſon was ſaid to have ſpoken, the point to be proved would be, that ſuch words were ſpoken by ſuch perſon? and Mr. Erſkine would contend the caſe upon this ground. A certain book is ſaid to be the word of God, what is the proof that it is ſo, for upon this the whole depends; and if it cannot be proved to be ſo, the proſecution fails for want of evidence.

The proſecution againſt Williams charges him with publiſhing a book, entitled the Age of Reaſon, which, it ſays, is an impious blaſ⯑phemous pamphlet, tending to ridicule and bring into contempt the holy ſcriptures. Nothing is more eaſy than to find abuſive words, and Engliſh proſecutions are famous for this ſpecies of vulgarity. The charge however is ſophiſtical; for the charge as growing out of the pamphlet ſhould have ſtated, not as it now ſtates, to ridicule and bring into contempt the holy ſcriptures, but to ſhew, that the books called the holy ſcriptures are not the holy ſcriptures. It is one thing if I ridicule a work as being written by a certain perſon; but it is quite a different thing, if I write to prove that ſuch work was not written by ſuch perſon. In the firſt caſe, I attack the perſon through the work; in the other caſe, I defend the honor of the perſon againſt the work. This is what the Age of Reaſon does, and conſequently the charge in the indictment is ſophiſtically ſtated. Every one will admit, that if the bible be not the word of God, we err in believing it to be his word, and ought not to believe it. Certainly, then, the ground the proſecution ſhould take, would be to prove that the bible is in fact what it is called. But this the proſecution has not done and cannot do.

In all caſes the prior fact muſt be proved, before the ſubſequent facts can be admitted in evidence. In a proſecution for adultery, the fact of marriage, which is the prior fact, muſt be proved before the facts to prove adultery can be received. If the fact of marriage can⯑not be proved, adultery cannot be proved; and if the proſecution can⯑not prove the bible to be the word of God, the charge of blaſphemy is viſionary and groundleſs.

In Turkey they might prove, if the caſe happened, that a certain book was bought of a certain bookſeller, and that the ſaid book was written againſt the koran. In Spain and Portugal they might prove, that a certain book was bought of a certain bookſeller, and that the ſaid book was written againſt the infallibility of the pope. Under the ancient mythology they might have proved, that a certain writing [18] was bought of a certain perſon, and that the ſaid writing was written againſt the belief of a plurality of gods, and in the ſupport of the belief of one God: Socrates was condemned for a work of this kind.

All theſe are but ſubſequent facts and amount to nothing, unleſs the prior facts be proved. The prior fact with reſpect to the firſt caſe is, Is the koran the word of God? with reſpect to the ſecond, Is the infallibility of the pope a truth? with reſpect to the third, Is the belief of a plurality of gods a true belief? and in like manner with reſpect to the preſent proſecution, Is the book called the bible the word of God? If the preſent proſecution prove no more than could be proved in any or all of theſe caſes, it proves only as they do, or as an inquiſition would prove; and, in this view of the caſe, the proſecutors ought at leaſt to leave off reviling that infernal inſtitu⯑tion, the inquiſition. The proſecution, however, though it may injure the individual may promote the cauſe of truth; becauſe the manner in which it has been conducted appears a confeſſion to the world, that there is no evidence to prove that the bible is the word of God. On what authority then do we believe the many ſtrange ſtories that the bible tells of God.

This proſecution has been carried on through the medium of what is called a ſpecial jury, and the whole of a ſpecial jury is nominated by t [...]e maſter of the crown office. Mr. Erſkine vaunts himſelf upon the [...]ll he brought into parliament with reſpect to trials, for what the gov [...]nm [...]nt-party calls, libels. But if in crown proſecutions the maſter of the crown offi [...]e is to continue to appoint the whole ſpecial jury, which he does by nominating the forty-eight perſons from which the ſolicitor of each party is to ſtrike out twelve, Mr. Erſkine's bill is only vapour and ſmoke. The root of the grievance lies in the manner of forming the jury, and to this Mr. Erſkine's bill applies no remedy.

When the trial of Williams came on, only eleven of the ſpecial jurymen appeared, and the trial was adjourned. In caſes where the whole number do not appear, it is cuſtomary to make up the deficiency by taking jurymen from perſons preſent in court. This, in the law term, is called a Tales. Why was not this done in this caſe? Reaſon will ſuggeſt, that they did not chuſe to depend on a man accidentally taken. When the trial recommenced the whole of the ſpecial jury ap⯑peared, and Williams was convicted: It is folly to contend a cauſe where the whole jury is nominated by one of the parties. I will relate a recent caſe that explains a great deal with reſpect to ſpecial juries in crown proſecutions.

On the trial of Lambert and others, printers and proprietors of the Morning Chronicle, for a libel, a ſpecial jury was ſtruck on the prayer of the attorney-general, who uſed to be called Diabolus Regis or King's Devil.

Only ſeven or eight of the ſpecial jury appeared, and the attorney-general not praying a Tales, the trial ſtood over to a future day, when it was to be brought on a ſecond time, the attorney-general prayed [19] for a new ſpecial jury, but as this was not admiſſible, the original ſpecial jury was ſummoned. Only eight of them appeared, on which the attorney-general ſaid, as I cannot, on a ſecond trial, have a ſpecial jury, I will pray a Tales. Four perſons were then taken from perſons preſent in court, and added to the eight ſpecial jurymen. The jury went out at two o'clock to conſult on their verdict, and the judge (Kenyon) underſtanding they were divided, and likely to be ſome time in making up their minds, retired from the bench, and went home. At ſeven, the jury went, attended by an officer of the court, to the judge's houſe, and delivered a verdict, ‘Guilty of pub⯑liſhing, but with no malicious intention.’ The judge ſaid, ‘I can⯑not record this verdict; it is no verdict at all.’ The jury withdrew, and after ſetting in conſultation till five in the morning, brought in a verdict, NOT GUILTY. Would this have been the caſe, had they been all ſpecial jurymen nominated by the maſter of the crown-office? This is one of the caſes that ought to open the eyes of people with reſpect to the manner of forming ſpecial juries.

On the trial of Williams, the judge prevented the counſel for the defendant proceeding in the defence. The proſecution had ſelected a number of paſſages from the Age of Reaſon, and inſerted them in the indictment. The defending counſel was ſelecting other paſſages to ſhew, that the paſſages in the indictment were concluſions drawn from premiſes, and unfairly ſeparated therefrom in the indictment. The judge ſaid, he did not know how to act; meaning thereby, whether to let the counſel proceed in the defence or not; and aſked the jury, if they wiſhed to hear the paſſages read which the defending counſel had ſelected. The jury ſaid, NO, and the defending counſel was in conſequence ſilence. Mr. Erskine then, Falſtaff-like, having all the field to himſelf, and no enemy at hand, laid about him moſt heroicly, and the jury found the defendant guilty. I know not if Mr. Erskine ran out of court and hallooed, huzza for the bible and the trial by jury.

Robeſpiere cauſed a decree to be paſſed during the trial of Briſſot and others, that after a trial had laſted three days, (the whole of which time, in the caſe of Briſſot, was taken up by the proſecuting party) the judge ſhould ask the jury (who were then a packed jury) if they were ſatisfied? If the jury ſaid YES, the trial ended, and the jury proceeded to give their verdict, without hearing the defence of the accuſed party. It needs no depth of wiſdom to make an application of this caſe.

I will now ſtate a caſe to ſhew, that the trial of Williams is not a trial according to Kenyon's own explanation of law.

On a late trial in London (Selthens, verſus Hooſſman) on a policy of inſurance, one of the jurymen, Mr. Dunnage, after hearing one ſide of the caſe, and without hearing the other ſide, got up and ſaid, it was as legal a policy of inſurance as ever was written. The judge, who was the ſame as preſided on the trial of Williams, replied, that it was a great misfortune when any gentleman of the jury makes up his mind [20] on a cauſe before it was finiſhed. Mr. Erskine, who in that caſe was counſel for the defendant; (in this, he was againſt the defendant) cried out, it is worſe than a misfortune, it is a fault. The judge in his ad⯑dreſs to the jury, in ſumming up the evidence, expatiated upon, and explained the parts, which the law aſſigned to the counſel on each ſide, to the witneſſes, and to the judge, and ſaid, ‘When all this was done, AND NOT UNTIL THEN, it was the buſineſs of the jury to declare what the juſtice of the caſe was; and that it was extremely raſh and imprudent in any man to draw a concluſion before all the pre⯑miſes were laid before them, upon which that concluſion was to be grounded.’—According then to Kenyon's own doctrine, the trial of Williams is an irregular trial, the verdict an irregular verdict, and as ſuch, is not recordable.

As to ſpecial juries, they are but modern; and were inſtituted for the purpoſe of determining caſes at law between merchants; becauſe, as the method of keeping merchants accounts differs from that of com⯑mon tradeſmen, and their buſineſs by lying much in foreign bills of exchange, inſurances, &c. is of a different deſcription to that of com⯑mon tradeſmen, it might happen that a common jury might not be competent to form a judgment. The law that inſtituted ſpecial juries makes it neceſſary that the jurors be merchants, or of the degree of ſquires. A ſpecial jury in London is generally compoſed of merchants; and in the country of men called country ſquires, that is, fox-hunters, or men qualified to hunt foxes. The one may decide very well upon a caſe of pounds, ſhillings, and pence, or of the counting-houſe; and the other of the jockey-club or the chace. But who would not laugh, that becauſe ſuch men can decide ſuch caſes, they can alſo be jurors upon theology. Talk with ſome London merchants about ſcripture, and they will underſtand you mean ſcrip, and tell you how much it is worth at the Stock Exchange. Ask them about theology, and they will ſay, they know of no ſuch gentleman upon Change. Tell ſome country ſquires of the ſun and moon ſtanding ſtill, the one on the top of a hill, and the other in a valley, and they will ſwear it is a lie of one's own making. Tell them that God-Almighty ordered a man to make a cake and bake it with a t—d and eat it, and they will ſay, it is one of Dean Swift's blackguard ſtories. Tell them it is in the bible, and they will lay a bowl of punch it is not, and leave it to the parſon of the pariſh to decide. Ask them alſo about theology, and they will ſay, they know of no ſuch a one on the turf. An appeal to ſuch juries, ſerves to bring the bible into more ridicule than any thing the author of the Age of Reaſon has written; and the manner in which the trial has been conducted, ſhews, that the proſecutor dares not come to the point, nor meet the defence of the defendant. But all other caſes apart, on what ground of right, otherwiſe than on the right aſſumed by an inquiſition, do ſuch proſecutions ſtand. Religion is a private affair between every man and his Maker, and no tribunal or third party has a right to interfere between them. It is not pro⯑perly a thing of this world; it is only practiſed in this world; but [21] its object is in a future world; and it is no otherwiſe an object of juſt laws than for the purpoſe of protecting the equal rights of all, however various their beliefs may be. If one man chuſe to believe the book called the bible to be the word of God; and another, from a con⯑vinced idea of the purity and perfection of God, compared with the contradictions the book contains; from the laſciviouſneſs of ſome of its ſtories, like that of Lot getting drunk and debauching his two daughters, which is not ſpoken of as a crime, and for which the moſt abſurd apologies are made; from the immorality of ſome of its pre⯑cepts, like that of ſhewing no mercy; and from the total want of evidence on the caſe, thinks he ought not to believe it to be the word of God: each of them has an equal right; and if the one has a right to give his reaſons for believing it to be ſo, the other has an equal right to give his reaſons for believing the contrary. Any thing that goes beyond this rule is an inquiſition. Mr. Erskine talks of his moral education; Mr. Erskine is very little acquainted with theologi⯑cal ſubjects, if he does not know there is ſuch a thing as a ſincere and religious belief that the bible is not the word of God. This is my be⯑lief; it is the belief of thouſands far more learned than Mr. Erskine; and is a belief that is every day increaſing. It is not infidelity, as Mr. Erskine prophanely and abuſively calls it: it is the direct reverſe of infidelity. It is a pure religious belief, founded on the idea of the perfection of the Creator. If the bible be the word of God, it needs not the wretched aid of proſecutions to ſupport it; and you might with as much propriety make a law to protect the ſunſhine as to pro⯑tect the bible, if the bible, like the ſun, be the work of God. We ſee that God takes good care of the Creation he has made. He ſuffers no part of it to be extinguiſhed; and he will take the ſame care of his word, if he ever gave one. But men ought to be reverentially careful and ſuſpicious how they aſcribe books to him as his word, which from this confuſed condition, would diſhonour a common ſcribbler, and againſt which there is abundant evidence, and every cauſe to ſuſpect impoſition. Leave then the bible to itſelf. God will take care of it if he has any thing to do with it, as he takes care of the ſun and the moon, which need not your laws for their better pro⯑tection. As the two inſtances I have produced in the beginning of this letter, from the book of Geneſis, the one reſpecting the account called the Moſaic account of the Creation; the other of the flood, ſufficiently ſhew the neceſſity of examining the bible, in order to aſcertain what degree of evidence there is for receiving or rejecting it as a ſacred book. I ſhall not add more upon that ſubject; but in order to ſhew Mr. Erskine that there are religious eſtabliſhments for public worſhip which make no profeſſion of faith of the books called the holy ſcriptures, nor admit of prieſts, I will conclude with an account of a ſociety lately began in Paris, and which is very rapidly extending itſelf.

The ſociety takes the name of Theophilantropes, which would be rendered in Engliſh by the word Theophilanthropiſts, word com⯑pounded [22] of three Greek words, ſignifying God, Love, and Man. The explanation given to this word is, Lovers of God and Man, or Adorers of God and Friends of Man, adrateurs de dieu et armis des hommes. The ſociety propoſes to publiſh each year a volume, in⯑titled Armie Religieuſe des Theophilantropes, Year religious of the Theophilantropiſts; the firſt volume is juſt publiſhed, intitled

Being a collection of the diſcourſes, lectures, hymns, and canticles, for all the religious and moral feſtivals of the Theophilanthropiſts during the courſe of the year, whether in their public temples or in their private families, publiſhed by the author of the Manuel of the Theophilanthropiſts.

The volume of this year, which is the firſt, contains 214 pages duodecimo.

The following is the table of contents:

• 1. Preciſe hiſtory of the Theophilanthropiſts.
• 2. Exerciſes common to all the feſtivals.
• 3. Hymn, No. I. God of whom the univerſe ſpeaks.
• 4. Diſcourſe upon the exiſtence of God.
• 5. Ode II. The heavens inſtruct the earth.
• 6. Precepts of wiſdom, extracted from the book of the Adorateurs.
• 7. Canticle, No. III. God Creator, ſoul of nature.
• 8. Extracts from divers moraliſts upon the nature of God, and upon the phyſical proofs of his exiſtence.
• 9. Canticle, No. IV. Let us bleſs at our waking the God who gives us light.
• 10. Moral thoughts extracted from the bible.
• 11. Hymn, No. V. Father of the univerſe.
• 12. Contemplation of nature on the firſt days of the ſpring.
• 13. Ode, No. VI. Lord in thy glory adorable.
• 14. Extracts from the moral thoughts of Confucius.
• 15. Canticle in praiſe of actions, and thanks for the works of the creation.
• 16. Continuation from the moral thoughts of Confucius.
• 17. Hymn, No. VII. All the univerſe is full of thy magnificence.
• 18. Extracts from an ancient ſage of India upon the duties of families.
• 19. Upon the ſpring.
• 20. Thoughts moral of divers Chineſe authors.
• [23]21. Canticle, No. VIII. Every thing celebrates the glory of the eternal.
• 22. Continuation of the moral thoughts of Chineſe authors.
• 23. Invocation for the country.
• 24. Extracts from the moral thoughts of Theognis.
• 25. Invocation, Creator of man.
• 26. Ode, No. IX. Upon death.
• 27. Extracts from the book of the Moral Univerſal, upon happineſs.
• 28. Ode, No. X. Supreme Author of Nature.

INTRODUCTION, ENTITLED, PRECISE HISTORY OF THE THEOPHILANTHROPISTS.

Next follow the dogmas of the Theophilanthropiſts or things they profeſs to believe. Theſe are but two, and are thus expreſſed, les Theophilantropes croient à l'exiſtence de dieu et a l'immortalite de l'ame. The Theophilanthropiſts believe in the exiſtence of God, and the immortality of the ſoul.

The manuel of the Theophilanthropiſts, a ſmall volume of ſixty pages, duodecimo, is publiſhed ſeparately, as is alſo their catechiſm, which is of the ſame ſize. The principles of the Theophilanthropiſts are the ſame as thoſe publiſhed in the firſt part of the Age of Reaſon in 1793, and in the ſecond part in 1795. The Theophilanthropiſts as a ſociety are ſilent upon all the things they do not profeſs to believe, as the ſacredneſs of the books called the bible, &c. &c. They pro⯑feſs the immortality of the ſoul, but they are ſilent on the immortality of the body, or that which the church calls the reſurrection. The author of the Age of Reaſon gives reaſons for every thing he diſbelieves as well as for thoſe he believes; and where this cannot be done with ſafety, the government is a deſpotiſm, and the church an inquiſition.

It is more than three years ſince the firſt part of the Age of Reaſon was publiſhed, and more than a year and half ſince the publication of the ſecond part. The biſhop of Landaff undertook to write an anſwer to the ſecond part; and it was not until after it was known that the author of the Age of Reaſon would reply to the biſhop, that [25] the proſecution againſt the book was ſet on foot; and which is ſaid to be carried on by ſome clergy of the Engliſh church. If the biſhop is one of them, and the object be to prevent an expoſure of the numerous and groſs errors he has committed in his work (and which he wrote when report ſaid that Thomas Paine was dead) it is a confeſſion that he feels the weakneſs of his cauſe, and finds himſelf unable to maintain it. In this caſe, he has given me a triumph I did not ſeek, and Mr. Erskine, the herald of the proſecution, has proclaimed it.