[]

A VINDICATION OF PAINE'S "AGE OF REASON."

Price 2s. 6d.

[]

A VINDICATION OF THE AGE OF REASON, BY THOMAS PAINE: BEING An Anſwer to the Strictures OF MR. GILBERT WAKEFIELD AND DR. PRIESTLEY, ON THIS CELEBRATED PERFORMANCE.

BY THOMAS DUTTON.

AMICUS SOCRATES; AMICUS PLATO; SED MAGIS AMICA VERITAS.

LONDON: PRINTED FOR GRIFFITHS AND CO. NO. 169, STRAND.

1795.

A VINDICATION OF THE AGE OF REASON, &c.

[]

MANY and virulent are the Replies which have appeared to Mr. Paine's Age of Reaſon. It was not, indeed, to be expected that a work of this deſcription, which ſtruck immediately at the very root of prieſt-craft, ſhould remain long unanſwered. No ſooner was the challenge given, than a "whole hoſt of witneſſes" ſtarted up in defence of that ſyſtem, from whence (as Demetrius in a ſimilar caſe obſerved to his colleagues at Epheſus) they derive their wealth. Men who had long been in the habit of fattening in luxurious eaſe upon the ſpoils and contributions of credulity, bigotry, and ſuperſtition, were juſtly apprehenſive, leſt the inveſtigation of truth ſhould at length open the eyes of the community at large, and diſcover in all its nakedneſs the fallacy of that ſyſtem, by virtue of [6]which they domineered over the ſouls and conſciences of mankind, and which "brought no ſmall gain unto the craftsmen."

Hence the Age of Reaſon no ſooner made its appearance, than the tooſin of alarm was ſounded throughout the whole Hierarchy. Religion was now declared to be threatened with as great, and even greater dangers than thoſe which were ſuppoſed at a former period to menace the ſtate, in conſequence of the publication of the Rights of Man. Every diſgraceful epithet of abuſe was conferred with liberal hand upon the author: the titles of Deiſt, Atheiſt, Infidel, the Apoſtle of Beelzebub, the Agent of Lucifer, with an infinite variety of the like opprobrious terms, now ſucceeded to the appellations of Jacobin, Leveller, Anarchiſt, Revolutioniſt, Rebel, &c. which had formerly been given to Mr. Paine on the ſcore of his politics. Not only the clergy of the eſtabliſhed church, but the leading men of every religious ſect, had equal intereſt at ſtake, and were equally concerned in providing an antidote againſt the baneful influence of this deleterious poiſon: for the moment the way to God was laid open to every man alike; the moment neither maſters of the ceremonies, nor court etiquette—neither [7]prieſts, nor religious forms—were neceſſary to introduce man to his Maker; that moment, they readily foreſaw, muſt inevitably put an end to their lucrative traffic, and totally annihilate the vaſt revenues they received for acting as ambaſſadors of Chriſt, and inſtilling into the minds of the people ſpiritual knowledge and heavenly comfort. Replies, Anſwers, and Refutations of the Age of Reaſon, and its diabolical doctrines, were therefore publiſhed in abundance; many of which, however, by their futility, and total want of argument, have produced the very reverſe of that effect, which their reſpective writers hoped to bring about; inaſmuch as their incapacity to refute the doctrines they attacked, ſerved at once to ſhow their own imbecility, and the impregnable ſtrength of the fortreſs againſt which their puny efforts were directed.

It cannot be expected, nor indeed will the limits I have preſcribed to the preſent work permit it, that I ſhould enter into a minute, elaborate, examination of every petty Reply to which the Age of Reaſon has given birth. Their name may truly be denominated Legion, "for they are many;" and a ſerious refutation of ſome of them is, perhaps, a moral impoſſibility. The [8]wild, incomprehenſible ravings of a Huntington, and other myſtical writers, are beneath the dignity of Criticiſm; and to cope with ſuch men with the weapons of ſound argument and plain reaſon, would be, to adopt the language of their favourite Apoſtle, "fighting like one that beateth the air."

For theſe reaſons I ſhall confine my ſtrictures chiefly to what I conceive the two moſt reſpectable publications that have appeared in our language on this intereſting ſubject. Theſe are—1. AN EXAMINATION OF THE AGE OF REASON, by Gilbert Wakefield; and, 2. AN ANSWER TO MR. PAINE'S AGE OF REASON, by the celebrated Dr. Prieſtley.

Both theſe gentlemen appear to agree nearly in their religious as well as in their political ſentiments; and yet the manner in which they conduct their attack upon the Age of Reaſon furniſhes a ſtriking contraſt. Mr. Wakefield but too often indulges himſelf in a ſpirit of acrimony, which, if not downright illiberality, borders, I am ſorry to ſay, immediately upon it. He acknowledges, in the very outſet of his career, that ‘the Work which he has undertaken to examine (ſee page 2) is entitled to particular reſpect, not only from the genius [9]of the Author, but alſo from the ſingular circumſtances of its compoſition:’ but he ſoon loſes ſight of this reſpect, and deſcends to invective and abuſe *, which are quite unworthy of the high literary reputation Mr. Wakefield deſervedly enjoys. The field of literary diſpute, we apprehend, lies open to every man; but let him wield none but lawful weapons, even truth and ſound argument, and not turn the ſacred Academic Grove into the ſanguine Field of Mars!

Another objection I have to the general character of Mr. Wakefield's Work, is the ſtrong vein of egotiſm which pervades many parts of it. Mr. Wakefield, contemplating himſelf as ‘a delicate bird, delighting in ſtrawberries and the choiceſt fruits,’ (ſee page 66) may bridle his neck, and ſurvey with fond ſelf-complacency his gay plumage—may hold in ſovereign contempt Thomas Paine, and every other author, who, by differing from him in opinion, manifeſts himſelf to be ‘a crow, who prefers carrion and putreſcence, and finds a feaſt in a [10]rotten carcaſe;’ but ſurely he might have modeſtly left his readers an opportunity of drawing this flattering compariſon in his favour.

"Ad populum phaleras"—to imitate Mr. Wakefield's conſtant practice of introducing quotations from Latin and Greek authors on the moſt trifling occaſions *; a practice which, [11]though it may ſerve to impreſs the common claſs of readers with a ſtupendous idea of the Author's learning, has, in the eyes of men of ſenſe, an air of pedantry, that more than any thing elſe has contributed to bring the name of ſcholar into diſrepute.

Quite the reverſe is Dr. Prieſtley's mode of proceeding in this literary warfare. He conducts himſelf with becoming dignity; argues in a fair, candid, and manly manner; never deſcends to perſonalities, but confines himſelf ſtrictly to the ſubject of diſpute, which he treats with great ingenuity, and at the ſame time with a plainneſs, which forms, as I before obſerved, a ſtriking contraſt to the oſtentatious diſplay of learning exhibited by Mr. Wakefield.

One obſervation more I muſt beg leave to premiſe before I enter upon my intended Vindication of the Age of Reaſon in the aggregate; to wit, that I do not ſet out (and I hope I ſhall not fall into this error in the courſe of my diſquiſitions) with a predetermination to defend my author at all events, whether right or wrong; or to vindicate indiſcriminately every poſition laid down by Mr. Paine, becauſe I have once been induced to take up the cudgels in [12]his defence; or as though I deemed every aſſertion advanced by Mr. Paine infallible. On the contrary, I propoſe to treat the ſubject with due candour; and, much as I admire the general purport of the work under conſideration, ſhall readily ſubſcribe to the juſtice and validity of any cenſure beſtowed upon particular paſſages, (and ſuch paſſages I am well aware there are,) where hardy aſſertion and ſpecious ſophiſtry ſupply the place of ſound argument and knowledge. It is not the perſonal cauſe of Mr. Paine, but the cauſe of what I conceive to be the Truth, that I wiſh to eſpouſe: from the free diſcuſſion and inveſtigation of which no conſideration upon earth ought to deter a rational being. To inveſtigate, and boldly avow, the Truth, as far as the meaſure of reaſon wherewith we are endowed by the all-wiſe Author of Nature enables us to aſcertain it, is a duty which man owes both to himſelf, and to ſociety at large; and whoever ſhrinks back from the taſk, whoever neglects to diſcharge this part of his moral obligations, is either a traitor or a coward.

I proceed now to an examination of the work I have undertaken to defend.

After briefly ſtating the reaſon which induced him to anticipate the time he had originally propoſed [13]to himſelf for the publication of his religious ſentiments, Mr. Paine proceeds to a ſummary recapitulation, or confeſſion of his creed. This may be ſaid to conſiſt of two parts—the one poſitive; the other negative. To the former part the ſtauncheſt advocate of Chriſtianity, I apprehend, cannot have the ſmalleſt objection to make: it accords with th [...] [...]enets of every religious denomination in the [...]ſent Chriſtian world that has come within my knowledge: it profeſſes a belief in one God; a hope of happineſs beyond this life; inculcates the natural equality of man, which, in the ſenſe [...]re implied, the proudeſt upſtart of ariſtocra [...] will not, I flatter myſelf, take upon him to deny; and concludes with a definition of religious duties, which may be conſidered as a conciſe, but energetic comment upon the golden rule, ‘Do unto others as ye would that others ſhould do unto you.’

With the ſecond or negative part, the caſe is widely different. Here Mr. Paine attacks, with one bold deciſive blow, the whole order of Prieſthood, of every religious ſyſtem, from the times of Moſes to the preſent day; and not only the Prieſthood, but the followers and diſciples of every religion and ſect, that does, or [14]ever did exiſt in the whole world. His words are theſe:

‘I do not believe in the creed profeſſed by the Jewiſh church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkiſh church, by the Proteſtant church, nor by any other church that I know of—My own mind is my own church.’

‘All national inſtitutions of churches, whether Jewiſh, Chriſtian, or Turkiſh, appear to me no other than human inventions, ſet up to terrify and enſlave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.’

This may be conſidered as a general challenge to the zealous ſticklers of every church eſtabliſhment. From ſuch, therefore, we muſt not look for a ready aſſent to this part of our Author's creed. The doctrines of faith, whatever the religion may be in which we are educated, whether the Jewiſh, Chriſtian, Turkiſh, or Pagan ſyſtems, forming, generally ſpeaking, the firſt leſſon inſtilled into the infant mind, at a time when the reaſoning faculties may be almoſt ſaid to lie dormant, naturally make a deep impreſſion; and, being familiariſed to us by conſtant repetition, we adopt them without examination; we receive them upon truſt; ſubſcribe to them as a matter of courſe; and if, afterwards, [15]as we advance in years, and our reaſon attains to its proper growth, we are led to weigh, to prove, and examine, the religion we profeſs, which, by the bye, is not done, upon a very moderate calculation, by one in ten thouſand, we have unfortunately, excluſive of the taſk, the arduous taſk, of ſeparating Truth from Error, a powerful hoſt of prejudices and aſſumptions to combat with. For my own part, I am free to confeſs, that this blind acquieſcence in the opinions of others, this eaſy indifference with which mankind in general ſit down contented with the religion of their anceſtors, whether Jews, Chriſtians, Turks, or Pagans, furniſhes, in my mind, no mean argument againſt the truth of any of them; or, in other words, againſt their divine origin. A religion, profeſſing to be derived immediately from the Almighty, and written by divine inſpiration, ought to flaſh conviction in the face of every one who hears or reads it. But this we do not find to be the caſe with any known religion in the world. Add to this, that I do not ſee, that peace, morals, ſocial order, and the rights of humanity, are better reſpected and maintained under governments profeſſing the Chriſtian faith, than where the blindeſt Idolatry prevails. [16]Nay, I am bold to aſſert, that the remote and Pagan empire of Japan, might, in this reſpect, furniſh a pattern for the moſt enlightened and religious ſtate (if a religious ſtate there be) in Chriſtendom *. But this is a topic which I propoſe to diſcuſs more fully when I come to treat of the intimate connexion between religion and morals; on which occaſion I ſhall not omit to ſay a few words on the ſtale, but juſt maxim, as Mr. Wakefield very properly terms it, and which he accuſes Mr. Paine of having moſt egregiouſly violated—ab abuſu ad uſum non valet conſequentia.

Meanwhile, I cannot but remark upon the ready acquieſcence with which Mr. Wakefield ſubſcribes to every part of our Author's creed, that makes in favour, and I might emphatically add, as far too as it makes in favour, of his own political creed.

"All national inſtitutions of churches," writes Mr. Paine,—‘whether Jewiſh, Chriſtian, [17]or Turkiſh, appear to me no other than human inventions, ſet up to terrify and enſlave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.’

How eagerly does Mr. Wakefield, who probably, in conſequence of his unfortunate ſchiſm from the doctrines of the eſtabliſhed Church of England, ſees no proſpect of obtaining the mitre, ſubſcribe his Yea and Amen, to this juſt remark ‘conciſely and pregnantly expreſſed!’ He immediately becomes more violent in his reprobation than our Author himſelf; and launches out into a general invective againſt national churches, without the ſmalleſt diſcrimination or exception.

National Churches (ſee page 10) are that hay and ſtubble, which might be removed without any difficulty or even danger of confuſion (this ipſe dixit aſſertion of Mr. Wakefield, by the bye, will, I fear, by the venerable bench of biſhops be pronounced equally hardy with any with which he taxes Mr. Paine *)’ ‘from the fabric of religion by the gentle hand of Reformation, but which the infatuation of eccleſiaſtics will leave to be deſtroyed [18] by fire. National Churches are that impure incruſtation, which has envelloped, by gradual concretion, the diamond of Chriſtianity; nor can, I fear, for the reaſon juſt now ſtated, the genuine luſtre be recovered, but by ſuch violent effort of reſtitution, as the ſeparation of ſubſtances, ſo long and cloſely connected, muſt inevitably require.’

The happy ſimile of hay and ſtubble in this beautiful conglomeration of metaphors we find is taken from the firſt Epiſtle of Paul to the Corinthians, where the apoſtle ſpeaks of a building to be raiſed; and from his boaſt of having himſelf wrought, as a wiſe maſter-builder, upon the foundation, it ſhould ſeem that the erection of this building was a work of uſe and neceſſity. Now, if the words of the apoſtle have any reference at all to national eſtabliſhments, we apprehend, that the hay and ſtubble muſt apply to corrupt eſtabliſhments that will not ſtand the teſt; ſuch, for inſtance, as the Church of Rome, in the eyes of the Proteſtant clergy, and which therefore are threatened with deſtruction by fire; whilſt the gold, the ſilver, and the precious ſtones, (as for the wood, I do not inſiſt upon that, but will give it to Mr. Wakefield, to ſhare the fate of his hay and ſtubble) by a parallel chain of reaſoning [19]may be ſuppoſed to deſignate and point out a pure, uncorrupted eſtabliſhment, cleared from the errors and ſuperſtitions of the Church of Rome, ſuch as our divines pronounce the preſent national Church of England to be. And as by the fire, which, the apoſtle tells us, is doomed to try every man's work, the awful phaenomena and awards of the day of judgment are generally underſtood to be meant, in which day the ‘elements ſhall melt with fervent heat, the earth alſo, and the works that are therein, (of courſe the hay and the ſtubble) ſhall be burnt up *,’ we are very ſorry to think that Mr. Wakefield has no nearer proſpect of getting rid of this ſelf-ſame worthleſs hay and ſtubble, and ſubſtituting his gold and ſilver and precious ſtones in their ſtead, than at the very moment when the end of all things ſhall take place.

Were I as ready to lay hold of every opportunity of finding fault with Mr. Wakefield's expreſſions, as this gentleman appears to be in the caſe of Mr. Paine, I might poſſibly diſcover a flaw in his Diamond of Chriſtianity, which, to quote his own words, ‘the impure incruſtation of National Churches has, by gradual concretion, enveloped to that degree, [20]that the genuine luſtre cannot (he fears) be recovered, but by ſuch violent effort of reſtitution, as the ſeparation of ſubſtances, ſo long and cloſely connected, muſt inevitably require.’

Now, if we compare the religion founded by Chriſt to a Diamond (and I take it for granted that every ſincere believer and profeſſor of it muſt regard it in this light as a jewel of the firſt water, as ‘the pearl of great price, more precious than the golden wedge of Ophir’) it ſeems no more than fair to conclude, that this Diamond was not put into our hands by the Almighty in its rough incruſted ſtate, for man to cut and hack at pleaſure (ſuch an idea would indeed fall little ſhort of blaſphemy), but rather in a ſtate of the utmoſt purity, poliſhed to the higheſt degree of perfection, and, like the God from whom it profeſſes to originate, without ſpot or blemiſh. A diamond in this ſtate, once ſeparated from its incruſtation, and properly poliſhed, might, we apprehend, venture to defy all the impurities in nature, and could, perhaps, never be incruſted over again, either by ſudden or gradual concretion; inaſmuch as the hardneſs of its ſubſtance, added to the finiſhed poliſh of its ſuperficies, would [21]reſiſt the impreſſion of every foreign body that had a tendency to ſully and debaſe it. And therefore, as Mr. Wakefield's Diamond of Chriſtianity has, according to his own confeſſion, loſt its purity and poliſh by the impure incruſtation of National Churches, we cannot claſs it among the genuine productions of Golconda's mine, but rather conceive it to be a kind of factitious or mock diamond; a kind of compoſition-work, like the faux brillants, or Temple Diamonds, which crafty and intereſted jewellers ſo well know how to palm upon their credulous cuſtomers for the genuine produce of Golconda or Peru.

Again, let me put the queſtion to Mr. Wakefield, how he can, conſiſtently with this general and furious invective againſt all national eſtabliſhments, ſpeak ſo highly of the Jewiſh Diſpenſation *, which, we apprehend, was to all intents and purpoſes a national church in the [22]ſtricteſt ſenſe of the word;—a church dreſſed out with far more "trumpery *," to make uſe of Mr. Wakefield's own expreſſion in alluſion to the church of England; and a hundred times more oppreſſive and deſpotic, than any national Church we know of in the Chriſtian world? If Mr. Wakefield thinks it a ſore and grievous hardſhip, that a difference in certain points of doctrine, termed Articles of Faith, from the tenets of the eſtabliſhed church of England, ſhould debar a man from the privileges of [23]preaching in the pale of that particular church; muſt it not appear much more arbitrary and unjuſt, that a man, aſſenting in every reſpect to the religious tenets of the Church, ſhould be incapacitated from exerciſing the ſacred functions of the prieſthood, on no other ſcore than ſome perſonal deformity, or caſual defect, under which he unhappily labours: ſuch, for inſtance, as a * flat noſe; an unfortunate lameneſs in the hands or feet ; a crooked or hump back; a diminutive ſtature; a ſquint, or caſt in [24]the eye; an impure habit of the blood; or a ſcrophulous eruption; or, laſtly, a certain misfortune to which the prieſts of the preſent day are, perhaps, ten times more expoſed, in conſequence of the prevalence of a certain faſhionable diſorder, than they ſeem to have been in the times of Moſes? Muſt not, I ſay, misfortunes and calamities like theſe furniſh, in the eye of every ſenſible and diſpaſſionate enquirer, a far weaker argument for excluding a man from the ſacred function, than an avowed ſchiſm from the religious tenets of the church, whoſe miniſter he deſires to be? Unleſs, indeed, as probably may be the caſe, Mr. Wakefield has an eye to the loaves and fiſhes, and provided he is indulged the privilege of eating of the ſhew-bread *, and partaking of the Holy and Moſt Holy, will readily conſent to turn the ſacred office into a ſinecure!

But leſt the above remarks, which have only in view to point out the inconſiſtency of Mr. Wakefield's arguments, and the readineſs with which he attempts to throw the blame of all the corruptions, which, according to his own [25]confeſſion, have crept into religion, upon the ſhoulders of the eſtabliſhed church, inſtead of tracing them back to their true ſource, the very principles of Chriſtianity itſelf, as we ſhall in the ſequel endeavour to ſhow; leſt, I ſay, the above remarks ſhould lead to miſconception, and render me ſuſpected of being the ſecret or avowed advocate of any one particular church-eſtabliſhment whatever; I take this opportunity of teſtifying my full and hearty execration of them all, in the concluding words of Mr. Paine's creed:

‘All national inſtitutions of churches appear to me no other than human inventions, ſet up to terrify and enſlave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.’

In proof of which aſſertion, if a ſelf-evident axiom like this, plain as the ſun in its meridian ſplendour, can require any proof, I need only refer my reader to the uniform practice of prieſts through all ages and in all countries; from the ſons of Eli, who could not keep their three-pronged fleſh-books out of the ſeething-pot, while the meat was boiling, to the good ſhepherds of the preſent day, who, if the unfortunate ſheep are already ſo cloſely ſhorn, that they cannot yield wool ſufficient to diſcharge the fees [26]of office, make no ſcruple (for their ‘mouth is always open, and their heart enlarged *) of excommunicating them at once from the pale of the church, and the benefits of ſalvation! I need only refer them to the page of hiſtory for the vaſt eſtates taken from the church under our pious Defender of the Faith, Henry VIII. of England; to the more recent events of the French Revolution, and the immenſe treaſures which the church has been made to refund in a neighbouring nation; I need only refer them, laſtly, to the eagerneſs with which people of all deſcriptions ſtrive to get into ſacred orders, an eagerneſs which in ſome countries, and eſpecially in Spain, is carried to ſuch an incredible exceſs, that the number of paſtors and ſhepherds ſeems to be in a fair way of riſing to par with the ſheep of the flock over whom they are, by divine grace, and the expreſs calling of God, appointed to preſide.

Leaving, however, the clergy for the preſent at leaſt, in the full exerciſe and enjoyment of their ſacerdotal privileges, that we may not "muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out [27]the corn:" * (and certainly, as long as we contemplate ourſelves as Chriſt's Vineyard, it is no more than juſt, that theſe Huſbandmen ſhould " have power to eat and to drink," for " pruning and lopping us: or, viewing ourſelves in the light of God's huſbandry (1. Cor. iii. 9.) we muſt allow the labourer that ploweth and threſheth us in hope (1. Cor. ix. 10) to be worthy of his hire)’—leaving, I ſay, the "Clergy, and thoſe that wait at the altar, to be partakers of the altar; to reap of our carnal things, in return for the ſpiritual things which they have ſown unto us; and to fatten on the things of the temple,’ I recur to the text of my author.

‘Every national Church or religion has eſtabliſhed itſelf by pretending ſome ſpecial miſſion from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moſes; the Chriſtians their Jeſus Chriſt, their Apoſtles, and Saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.’

It is at this paſſage, that Mr. Wakefield may be ſaid to commence his attack upon our author. [28]Hitherto we have beheld him ſubſcribing with the readieſt acquieſcence to every poſition advanced by Mr. Paine: but he now takes up the cudgels with a vengeance, and boldly declares Mr. Paine's ſtatement to be ‘not only vague and frivolous, but nonſenſical and erroneous in the extreme.’

In ſupport of this aſſertion, Mr. Wakefield preſents us with a ſpecies of argument, which I have not the ſmalleſt heſitation to pronounce infinitely more ‘vague, and frivolous, and erroneous,’ than one half of the ſtatements in Mr. Paine's book, which his antagoniſt, without any ſhow of reaſon, declares to be ‘not only the eſſence but the very quinteſſence of all weakneſs and abſurdity.’

‘The ſyſtem of Jeſus Chriſt, (Mr. Wakefield writes, page 14) proceeds upon the very ſuppoſition, here inſtituted as in direct contradiction to it, that the way to God is open to every man alike; which might be proved, as every body knows, by many paſſages of moſt explicit purport in the Chriſtian ſcriptures.’

Nothing can well be more vague and inconcluſive than this mode of reaſoning. Mr. Paine ſays, and ſays truly, (for all hiſtorical evidence [29]is decidedly on his ſide) that every national religion has eſtabliſhed itſelf by pretending ſome ſpecial miſſion from God, communicated to certain individuals; and this palpable aſſertion Mr. Paine ſupports by inſtancing the examples of the founders of the Jewiſh, Chriſtian and Turkiſh religions, who certainly did, for we have their own words for it, (if any faith may be placed in the written biographies of theſe heavenly meſſengers) lay claim to divine delegation. Surely Mr. Wakefield cannot mean to call facts of ſuch hiſtorical notoriety in queſtion, when he pronounces our author's ſtatement to be "frivolous, noſenſical, and erroneous?" Hi [...] cenſure, therefore, if it have any weight at all, muſt apply to the inference our author draws from this ſtatement, that the very act of granting a divine miſſion to any favoured individual, or admitting ſuch a miſſion to be granted, is in itſelf a plain, though tacit acknowledgment, that the way to God is not open to every man alike," but that we ſtand in need of mediators, plenipotentiaries, advocates, and ambaſſadors, to tranſact our buſineſs, and arrange preliminaries for us; and that God is really a conſuming fire, (Deut. iv. 24. Heb. xii. 29.) dwelling in the light, which no man can approach unto, (1 Tim. vi. 16,) but [30]only through the medium * of theſe privileged agents or proxies, who are empowered to treat and act for us on all occaſions by procuration.

To the divine miſſion of Moſes and Jeſus Chriſt Mr. Wakefield himſelf bears teſtimony in the moſt unequivocal terms:

‘Our inference from theſe indubitable poſitions (ſee page 17) is clearly ſome degree of ſupernatural communication, which we ſtyle Revelation, to the founders of Judaiſm and Chriſtianity, Moſes and Jeſus.

Moſes, we are aſſured (and it is allowed by the Jews themſelves) was but a man, as we are, however highly favoured and diſtinguiſhed [31]by the Almighty, according to ſcriptural account. So was Jeſus Chriſt likewiſe, according to Mr. Wakefield's creed *; and yet he [32]boldly charges Mr. Paine with error and abſurdity, and aſſerts that the Chriſtian ſyſtem preſuppoſes that ‘the way to God is open to every man alike;’ whereas the very reverſe may eaſily be proved ‘by many paſſages of moſt explicit purport in the Chriſtian ſcriptures,’ and by the expreſs declarations of Chriſt himſelf. If the way to God be actually, and of a truth, open to every man alike, (which it no doubt is, though prieſts would fain perſuade us to the contrary) why does Chriſt (who himſelf, according to Mr. Wakefield's doctrine was but a mere man) arrogate to himſelf the excluſive right and power of granting paſſports to mankind to walk in this way? ‘No man cometh unto the Father but by me. (John xiv. 6.) Why does he, in the ſame chapter and verſe, declare himſelf to be this way? Why does he roundly aſſert, that man can have no knowledge of the Deity, but through his revelation? ‘No man knoweth the Father ſave the Son, and he to whomſoever the Son will reveal him.’ (Matt. xi. 27.) Wherefore are we directed [33]by his apoſtles, to look up to Chriſt as the mediator of the new covenant, (Heb. xii. 24.) through whoſe blood a new and living way has been opened unto us into the holieſt of all? (Heb. x. 19, 20.) ‘Through whom we have acceſs unto the Father.’ (Eph. ii. 18, and iii. 12. Rom. v. 2.) who is our "advocate" with God, (1 John, ii. 1.) and ‘who ever liveth to make interceſſion for us?’ (Heb. vii. 25.) To what purpoſe can all theſe admonitions, all theſe exhortations tend, if the ſyſtem of Jeſus Chriſt proceeds (as Mr. Wakefield aſſures us it poſitively does proceed) upon the ſuppoſition that ‘the way to God is open to every man alike?’ Why are we then directed to look up to Chriſt, or to any other man, as our only hope of eternal life and happineſs, with the denouncement of a terrible curſe, an everlaſting Anathema Maranatha againſt us if we do not believe in this author and finiſher of our faith, as Chriſt is emphatically ſtyled? (Heb. xii. 2.) Can this, let me put the queſtion to every candid and impartial enquirer, can this be reconciled with Mr. Wakefield's hardy aſſertion, that the way to God, by the Chriſtian ſyſtem, is thrown open to every man alike? Certainly it cannot; and therefore the charge of error, inconſiſtency, [34]and abſurdity recoils, in the preſent inſtance, from Mr. Paine upon his antagoniſt.

Mr. Wakefield next attacks our author's definition of the word Revelation, in its ſcriptural or religious ſenſe; but his attack is ſo impotent, and, at the ſame time, ſo ill-conducted, that I cannot poſſibly characterize it more aptly, than by aſking, in Mr. Wakefield's own words, ‘Can any thing in reality be more feeble and inefficient, than this objection?’ It would amply juſtify the inſertion of the Latin quotation, which Mr. Wakefield has ſo ſucceſsfully introduced on this occaſion, were I ambitious of enriching my page with claſſical alluſions. Mr. Paine obſerves:

‘As it is neceſſary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the ſubject, offer ſome obſervations on the word Revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion,’ (and it is in this ſenſe ſolely that Mr. Paine conſiders it; and therefore Mr. Wakefield's attempt at ſarcaſm, in his caſe of the Village Dame and her horn-book (ſee page 51), is totally irrevalent, and at beſt but a conceited quibble) "means ſomething communicated immediately from God to man."

[35]"No one will deny or diſpute" (can any thing be more candid than this conceſſion?) ‘the power of the Almighty to make ſuch a communication, if he pleaſes. But, admiting, for the ſake of a caſe, that ſomething has been revealed to a certain perſon, and not revealed to any other perſon, it is revelation to that perſon only. When he tells it to a ſecond perſon, a ſecond to a third, a third to a fourth, and ſo on, it ceaſes to be revelation to all thoſe perſons. It is revelation to the firſt perſon only, and hearſay to every other, and conſequently they are not obliged to believe it.’

"This ſtatement alſo," exclaims Mr. Wakefield, with all the ſelf-ſufficiency of a Pedagogue,—‘is inaccurate, fallacious, and inconcluſive.’ That I deny; and till Mr. Wakefield can produce me ſome more ſatisfactory proof than mere aſſertion, I ſhall not abide by his ipſe dixit. Indeed, in all what Mr. Wakefield has advanced upon this ſubject, I cannot trace ſo much as the ſhadow of an argument. He jumbles together a few crude, ſuperficial obſervations on the miſſion of Moſes, and his credentials, which, however, unhappily make directly againſt his own cauſe. The miracles [36]ſaid to have been wrought by Moſes in proof of his miſſion, ſuppoſing them to be authentic, (a circumſtance, by the bye, which Mr. Wakefield does not take upon himſelf to warrant *) cannot be looked upon as competent and ſatisfactory evidence; inaſmuch, as many of them were performed with equal ſucceſs by the Egyptian Sorcerers of Pharaoh's court: whence it ſhould ſeem, that if any inference is to be drawn from this diſplay of ſupernatural agency, it amounts to no more than this, that Moſes, who is expreſſly ſaid to have been ‘learned in all the wiſdom of the Egyptians, [37](Acts vii. 22) had excelled his maſters, and was become a greater adept in magic than themſelves. As to thoſe miſchievous miracles which Moſes was empowered to perform, and which the magicians of Pharaoh's court in vain eſſayed to imitate; ſuch, for inſtance, as the plague of lice; the murrain of beaſts; the ſore and grievous plague of blains and bliſters; the plague of hail; of locuſts; of palpable darkneſs; but more particularly the deſtruction of all the firſt-born in Egypt, both of man and beaſt; I reſerve my remarks upon this plaguy ſubject to a future opportunity; only obſerving in this place, that it appears very extraordinary, that Moſes ſhould be commiſſioned to preface his firſt introduction to Pharaoh with a palpable falſehood. ‘The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us; and now let us go, we beſeech thee, three days' journey into the wilderneſs, that we may ſacrifice to the Lord, our God;’ (Exod. iii. 18) when it is evident from the 8th verſe of the ſame chapter, ‘I am come down to deliver my people out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, [38]and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebuſites;’ (which places were certainly more than "three day's journey" diſtant from the abode of the Iſraelites); when it is evident, I ſay, that it was never intended they ſhould ſtop in the wilderneſs; much leſs return back to the land of Goſhen. Hence it ſhould ſeem, that falſehood and prevarication are to be reckoned among the credentials of the miſſion of Moſes! But to proceed.

"It is a contradiction in terms and ideas," (continues Mr. Paine) ‘to call any thing a revelation, that comes to us at ſecond hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is neceſſarily limited to the firſt communication. After this, it is only an account of ſomething which that perſon ſays was a revelation made to him: and though he may find himſelf obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the ſame manner; for it was no revelation made to me; and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

Theſe, together with Mr. Paine's former remarks on the ſubject of Revelation, in the religious acceptation of the word, appear to me to contain ſuch a clear, juſt, and maſterly definition [39]of the term, that, had I not poſitive evidence to the contrary before my eyes, I ſhould hardly believe it poſſible for any man to diſſent from him. And yet we find, that this, as little as other paſſages of Mr. Paine's book, can eſcape cenſure, and even miſrepreſentation.

Dr. Prieſtly, after pronouncing his arguments to be truly curious, and as he believes quite original, (ſee page 44.) gives us a very unfair and partial ſtatement of the caſe.

‘On this principle, it is not incumbent on Mr. Paine to believe what any perſon may tell him, and he may give credit to nothing but what he ſees himſelf; in which caſe his faith will be reduced to a very ſmall compaſs indeed. His pretence to a contradiction in terms is a mere quibble. We do not ſay, that the revelation made immediately to Moſes or to Chriſt is ſtrictly ſpeaking a revelation to us; but if we ſee ſufficient reaſon to believe that the revelation was made to them, are, properly ſpeaking, believers in revelation; and if the revelation, whatever it be, relate to the whole human race, as well as to the perſon to whom it was immediately made, all mankind, Mr. Paine himſelf included, [40]will find themſelves under an equal obligation to reſpect it.’

In this exemplification the Doctor allows himſelf a greater latitude of conſtruction than we conceive ourſelves bound to concede to him. Had Mr. Paine, in ſtating his own individual rejection of revelation, attached any degree of blame to thoſe of an oppoſite opinion, he would have been guilty of uncharitableneſs and injuſtice, by uſurping that controul over the opinion of others, which he very properly refuſes to ſubmit to himſelf. But this is far from being the caſe; Mr. Paine does not betray the remoteſt diſpoſition or deſire to aim at ſuch deſpotic ſway over the ſouls and conſciences of men *. He contents himſelf with aſſigning his reaſons for not believing certain recorded facts and tenets, without inſinuating the ſlighteſt degree of cenſure againſt thoſe who, viewing things in a different light, deem themſelves bound to place implicit faith and confidence therein. He very modeſtly ſays: ‘I did not ſee the angel, and therefore I have a right not to believe his appearance. The [41]revelation was not made to me, and therefore it cannot be incumbent upon me to believe it.’ And, ſpeaking of mankind in general, he does not ſay, ‘they act wrong in believing it,’ but merely, ‘they are not obliged to believe it.’

As the liberty of thought is not, and indeed, cannot be, obnoxious to that reſtraint which arbitrary power frequently impoſes upon our words and actions, every man, we apprehend, has a right to the moſt unlimited freedom of opinion in his own individual capacity. It is, indeed, his birth-right, and perhaps of all his juſt and numerous rights, the only one which the lawleſs hand of deſpotiſm cannot invade. On this principle, therefore, inſtead of deeming Dr. Prieſtley's ſtatement of the caſe any argument againſt the juſtice of Mr. Paine's remarks, we are clearly of opinion, ‘that it is not incumbent on Mr. Paine, nor upon any other man, to believe what any perſon may tell him,’ if he has, or conceives himſelf to have, good and grounded reaſon for withholding his faith. And, though by refuſing to credit any tranſaction which he does not ſee with his own eyes (here the Doctor, by the bye, carries his propoſition to a much [42]greater length than Mr. Paine's * ſtatements will warrant; as our author only refuſes his faith to ſupernatural and miraculous events, which militate directly againſt the ordinary and eſtabliſhed courſe of nature) though by refuſing to credit any tranſaction which he does not ſee with his own eyes, a man no doubt will reduce his faith and knowledge to a very ſmall compaſs indeed; ſtill we cannot conceive ſuch a refuſal, however unreaſonable, to be culpable, immoral, and criminal to that degree as to merit the puniſhment of eternal perdition, which however, by the Chriſtian ſyſtem, is flatly denounced [43]againſt every one who diſbelieves a ſingle word, or even an iota of the ſcriptures *.

Mr. Paine is further accuſed of quibbling, becauſe he ſtyles it a contradiction in terms to call any thing a revelation that comes to us at ſecond-hand; but I apprehend that the charge of quibbling will be found in the preſent inſtance to fall with greater weight and juſtice upon the party who brings this crimination againſt him. "We do not (argues Dr. Prieſtley) ‘ſay, that the revelation made immediately to Moſes or to Chriſt is, ſtrictly ſpeaking, a revelation to us; and yet he immediately ſubjoins—‘If we ſee ſufficient reaſon to believe, that the revelation was made to them, we are, properly ſpeaking, believers in revelation: and if the revelation, whatever it be, relate to the whole human race, as well as to the perſon to whom it was immediately made, all mankind, Mr. Paine himſelf included, will find themſelves under an equal obligation [44]to reſpect it.’ Can any thing, let me appeal to the reader's candour, favour more ſtrongly of quibble and ſubterfuge than this? By a parallel argument, I might prove the obligation the whole Engliſh nation, and let me add, the whole human race at large, is under to reſpect and believe in the wonderful revelations lately made to that enlightened Prince of modern prophets, Mr. Richard Brothers!

Mr. Wakefield has been at ſome pains, with the ſuperaddition of a formidable trio of Latin quotations, to ſhow us the juſtice of the Moſaic doctrine of viſiting the ſins of the fathers upon the children *, even unto the [45] third and fourth generation, (and it is a mercy the vengeance ſtops there!) which forms ſuch a prominent feature in the two tables of the commandments, written, we are told, by the expreſs ſinger of God. Now we [46]cannot but lament, when we peruſe Mr. Wakefield's arguments on this ſubject, that any capacity, not ‘conſtitutionally defective,’ ſhould be capable of forming ſuch derogatory ideas of that great Almighty Being, who is emphatically ſtyled the Fountain of all Goodneſs, and the Father of Mercies; whom John, by the happineſt perſonification, calls Love itſelf; we cannot but lament, that any capacity, not "conſtitutionally defective," ſhould entertain ſuch unworthy, I had almoſt ſaid blaſphemous, notions of the benevolent Author of Nature, as to aſcribe to the Deity attributes and propenſities which the moſt lawleſs tyrant would bluſh to own to. The God whoſe omnipotence is competent to puniſh ſin in its remoteſt ramifications, has mercy to nip the growing evil in the bud; or ſhall we boaſt the wiſdom and humanity of modern civilized legiſlature, which profeſſes to aim rather at the prevention than puniſhment of crimes, and impiouſly ſuppoſe, that Eternal Juſtice and Unerring Wiſdom ſhould act upon a plan diametrically oppoſite; upon a principle which fiends muſt contemplate with [47]execration? Reaſon revolts at the horrid diabolical idea!

I have before had occaſion to remark upon the illiberality of Mr. Wakefield's attack, which diſplays itſelf in a very conſpicuous manner in various paſſages of his work; and I cannot diſmiſs the preſent ſubject without obſerving, that his application of the viſiting ſyſtem to the late rigorous and unmerited ſufferings of Mr. Paine, (ſee page 22) ſeems to carry with it, notwithſtanding his boaſted ſympathy and regret, an air of triumph and exultation, that calls to my mind in lively colours the treatment which Job received in his affliction from his three pretended friends and comforters: ‘Remember, I pray thee, who ever periſhed, being innocent? or where were the righteous cut off?’ (Job, iv. 7.)

Mr. Paine's ſtrictures on the miraculous * [48]and immaculate conception of Chriſt, as they have an obvious tendency to promote the cauſe of Unitarianiſm, meet with little or no animadverſion from our two Unitarian divines. Mr. Wakefield expreſsly acknowledges, that ‘the immaculate conception of Jeſus Chriſt by the Holy Spirit conſtitutes no eſſential article of his creed, and therefore he leaves the vindication of it to the orthodox ſons of the eſtabliſhment.’ Doctor Prieſtley follows him nearly on the ſame ground; and as it is their common intereſt to reaſon the divinity of Chriſt fairly out of the Bible, they both of them have recourſe to ſuppoſed errata, and ſpurious interpolations to invalidate the plain and poſitive teſtimonies which we find [49]on record in the ſcriptures in favour of the Godhead of Jeſus Chriſt. The two firſt chapters of the Goſpel of St. Matthew are peremptorily rejected, becauſe there is no poſſibility of ſoftening down their evidence, which makes immediately againſt the Unitarian ſyſtem: The ſame fate, for the ſame reaſon, is awarded againſt the two firſt chapters of the Goſpel of St. Luke, and thus they hope at once to get over a difficulty which muſt otherwiſe prove an inſurmountable ſtumbling-block and rock of offence in their way. But their hopes are far too ſanguine; and they have no alternative, but either totally to reject all faith in the revelation, or concede this point. The miraculous birth of Chriſt does not depend upon the ſingle teſtimony of St. Matthew, or St. Luke, as its only vouchers; it ſtands plainly predicted (I am arguing on the principle of a belief in revelation) in the prophecies of Iſaiah, where it is expreſsly ſaid, and mentioned emphatically as a ſign or miracle, a ſign which the Lord himſelf ſhould give after it had been ſubmitted to Ahab, to aſk a ſign of the Lord God, either in the depth beneath, or in the height above: ‘Behold, [50]a Virgin ſhall conceive, and bear a Son, and ſhall call his name Immanuel. (Iſaih, viii. 14.) So likewiſe in the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, we find Chriſt declared to be a High Prieſt, after the Order of Melchiſedec; as being ‘without father, without mother,’ (in as far as he was not engendered after the ordinary courſe of nature) ‘without deſcent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.’

It would be endleſs to animadvert upon all the abſurdities and inconſiſtencies to which a partial belief in the word of God, as the Scriptures are ſtyled, muſt neceſſarily and invariably lead. The man who ſubſcribes to the adulteration or interpolation of a part, by that very conceſſion invalidates my faith in the whole. The ſame right by which he preſumes to reject any obnoxious paſſages that militate againſt the ſyſtem which he has been led to adopt, authorizes me to do the ſame by any part which does not accord with my ideas; and this right of rejection and diſcrimination being once admitted and eſtabliſhed, it becomes a very eaſy taſk, ‘ſuch and ſo various are the taſtes and opinions of men,’ to argue and fritter away the whole. [51]And although "one defect of demonſtration" (as Mr. Wakefield obſerves) ‘has not impaired the general truth of the Newtonian philoſophy,’ the application of this propoſition to Religion and the word of God will not hold good. Newton, and every other philoſopher, however enlightened and intelligent, as men, are liable to error; and therefore claim, as ſuch, our indulgence: but the writings which we emphatically honour with the name of God's Word; and which we profeſs to believe in, as given by divine inſpiration, *, for our rule of faith and conduct: theſe, we apprehend, ought to bear the ſtamp of divinity in every page, in every line, in every word; ought by their purity and perfection to diſtinguiſh themſelves from the works of man, of which imperfection ever remains the prominent characteriſtic. And therefore, wherever this infallible criterion of perfection is wanting, I am certainly juſtified in not [52]receiving ſuch a maſs of incongruity and imperfection as the tranſcript of the omniſcient mind. Or, ſhall charges of interpolation and perverſion, which, in judicial proceedings, in the caſe of a will or covenant for inſtance, would, if proved, totally abrogate and diſannul the validity of the inſtrument;—ſhall, I ſay, charges ſuch as theſe, in a caſe of far greater magnitude and moment, in a caſe which concerns at once the honour of the Deity, and the happineſs of the whole human race, be diſregarded as nugatory, futile, and irrevalent?

Viewing things in this light, it will perhaps be aſked, why I ſhould make choice of two Unitarian publications for the ſubject of my diſquiſitions, in preference to ſo many Treatiſes written on the ſame topic, by the zealous and avowed partizans of the Eſtabliſhed Church? To this demand I make anſwer, that as the Unitarian Creed appears to admit of much greater latitude of conſtruction, together with an almoſt unlimited freedom of rejection, with reſpect to whatever militates againſt its own ſyſtem in the Scriptures, I conceived that any conviction brought home againſt the profeſſors and advocates of this faith, muſt infallibly carry with it double [53]weight and authority, and ultimately conduce more to the Cauſe of Truth, and the Triumph of Reaſon, than my labours would have done, had I attacked the followers and diſciples of the good old way, who, from their implicit aſſent to ‘that monſtrous farrago of abſurdities and contradictions, concentrated with moſt ingenious and comprehenſive brevity in the Creeds denominated the Athanaſian and Nicene,—(I quote Mr. Wakefield's own emphatic words) are infinitely more vulnerable. Beſides, as we are expreſsly told by Mr. Wakefield, in the Introduction to his Work, ‘that Chriſtianity cannot be vindicated adequately and conſiſtently againſt Deiſm, by any votary of ſyſtems and eſtabliſhments, it ſhould ſeem unmanly to direct our aſſault againſt that quarter from which the leaſt reſiſtance is to be expected. I enter now upon the moſt ſerious part of my Defence.

As the Reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt is made by the Apoſtles themſelves the grand teſt and criterion of his divine miſſion, and of the truth of the Chriſtian religion; for, ‘if Chriſt be not riſen, then is our preaching vain, and your Faith is vain alſo;’ (1 Cor. xv. 14.) [54]it will naturally be expected, that our Champions of the Faith ſhould reſerve their moſt formidable batteries for the bold aggreſſor who dares to lift his impious hand againſt this ſtrong hold of their hope. Hence I was led to apprehend a redoubtable diſplay of heavy artillery and weighty arguments in anſwer to Mr. Paine's bold attack upon the authenticity of this important and fundamental article of the Chriſtian creed; but not a little was I diſappointed!

"I ſhall confine myſelf (writes Mr. Wakefield, page 26) ‘to one only argument, which appears to my mind incapable of confutation upon any principles of philoſophy or experience; and will indeed, admit of no diſpute, but upon poſitions ſubverſive of all hiſtorical teſtimony whatſoever, and introductory of univerſal ſcepticiſm.’

‘The numerous circumſtances interſperſed through the Goſpel narratives and in the Acts of the Apoſtles, appertaining to the geography of countries, the poſitions of rivers, towns, and cities; public tranſactions of much notoriety and account in thoſe days; the dreſs, cuſtoms, [55]manners, languages of nations and individuals; political characters of eminence, and their conduct, in connection with a moſt potent and enlightened empire, with a vaſt multiplicity of detached occurrences and facts not neceſſary to be ſpecified at large; all theſe circumſtances, I ſay, probable in themſelves, and of fidelity unimpeached, challenge (to ſpeak with moderation) as large a portion of credibility to theſe books, conſidered in the ſimple character of hiſtorical * teſtimonials, [56]as can be claimed for any writings whatever, received as genuine, and equally ancient and multifarious. Now, no mean preſumption ariſes in favour of the moſt extraordinary tranſactions alſo, blended in the ſame texture of narrative, by hiſtorians of ſo credible a character with reſpect to the reſt of their relations; but when thoſe extraordinary facts are found to have ſo intimate an incorporation with the common and unſuſpicious occurrences of theſe hiſtories, as to admit of no detachment, but to ſtand or fall with the main body of the compoſitions, ſo that one part depends upon another for conſiſtency and ſupport, I cannot ſee how any hiſtorical probability of the authenticity of theſe extraordinary [57]events can riſe higher than in ſuch an inſtance.’

When I find ſuch lame ſubterfuge and ſophiſtry uſurp the place of ſound argument, I cannot but congratulate Mr. Paine on his triumph. If the reſurrection of Chriſt ſtands upon no better baſis than this, rotten is its ſupport, and it muſt inevitably fall to the ground. Mr. Wakefield, we apprehend, will not refuſe to the books of Livy, the ſame internal ſymptoms of genuineneſs and authenticity which he aſcribes to the Goſpel narratives as far as appertains to the ‘geography of countries, the poſitions of rivers, towns, and cities; public tranſactions of much notoriety and account; the dreſs, cuſtoms, manners, languages of nations, individuals, &c.’ which he expatiates upon ſo ably, as ‘challenging as large a portion of credibility to the Goſpel narratives as can be claimed for any writings whatever, received as genuine, and equally ancient and multifarious,’ and yet were I to argue upon the principle laid down in this propoſition by Mr. Wakefield himſelf, and from the ‘credibility of the common and unſuſpicious occurrences of this hiſtory to infer no mean preſumption [58]in favour of the moſt extraordinary tranſactions alſo, recorded by the hiſtorian,’ I might undertake to prove the authenticity of all the prodigies and marvellous events related by Livy; ſuch, for inſtance, as the prophetic denunciation of the ox * belonging to the Conſul Cn. Domitius, "ROMA CAVE TIBI," which furniſhes indeed no unworthy counterpart to the ſtory of Balaam's Aſs, or the tears ſhed by the image of the goddeſs Juno Soſpita at Lanuvium, which not improbably may have furniſhed many a ſerviceable hint to the wonder-workers of the Greek and Romiſh [59]churches; or laſtly, the foaling of a mule *, at Reate, which, perhaps, is not more repugnant to the ordinary courſe of nature, than the immaculate conception and delivery of a virgin in Bethlehem!

[60]As little can Mr. Wakefield hope to eſtabliſh the truth of the Reſurrection of Chriſt by inſtancing the unconquered perſeverance with which the apoſtles perſiſted in profeſſing and preaching this doctrine, in ſpite of ‘ridicule, contempt, perſecution, poverty; bodily chaſtiſements, impriſonment, and death’—Mr. Wakefield is not aware how ſtrongly and directly this argument makes againſt himſelf. Reaſoning upon the very ſame principle, I will eaſily prove ‘that monſtrous farrago of abſurdities and contradictions, concentrated, with moſt ingenious and comprehenſive brevity in the creeds denominated the Athanaſian and Nicene, and which is ſo tough of digeſtion to Mr. Wakefield's ſtomach; all this I will eaſily prove to be the Truth as it is in Chriſt Jeſus, (Epheſ. iv. 21) inaſmuch as many thouſands of ſincere profeſſors, and among theſe biſhops themſelves, have ſuffered the moſt cruel and ignominious death, rather than renounce their faith in theſe creeds. Indeed, I am fearful, that in matters of religion there cannot poſſibly be a more fallacious criterion to aſcertain the truth, than the [61]ſtubborn pertinacity with which men adhere to their opinion.

But by far the weakeſt place in Mr. Wakefield's defence of the reſurrection is the following paſſage, in which he attempts to invalidate the force of the objections raiſed by Mr. Paine, on the plea of this miracle not being accompanied with that degree of publicity, which the nature of the caſe ſo well admitted of, and which the magnitude of the fact, if true, demanded.

‘The reſurrection of a dead perſon from the grave, (writes Mr. Paine) and his aſcenſion through the air, is a thing very different, as to the evidence it admits of, from the inviſible conception of a child in the womb. The reſurrection and aſcenſion, ſuppoſing them to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular demonſtration, like that of the aſcenſion of a balloon, or the ſun at noon-day to all Jeruſalem at leaſt. A thing, which every body is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it ſhould be equal to all, and univerſal: and as the public viſibility of this laſt related act was the only evidence that could give ſanction to the former [62]part, the whole of it falls to the ground, becauſe that evidence never was given. Inſtead of this, a ſmall number of perſons, not more than * eight or nine, are introduced, as proxies for the whole world, to ſay, they ſaw it, and all the reſt of the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did not believe the reſurrection; and, as they ſay, would not believe, without having ocular and manual demonſtration himſelf. So neither will I: and the reaſon holds equally good for me, and every other perſon, as for Thomas.’

In this ſtatement of our author, whatever Mr. Wakefield may affect to think or ſay to [63]the contrary, I diſcern nothing but juſt and manly argument. It is an eſtabliſhed rule in the moral as well as phyſical world, that the means ſhould be adequate to the end, and it is upon this principle that Mr. Paine reaſons in the preſent inſtance. The reſurrection of Chriſt, as I before obſerved, forming the grand teſt of the truth of Chriſtianity: to ſubſtantiate and blazon abroad the fact beyond the power of controverſy, becomes an object of the firſt magnitude. As the belief required in it extends to all, Mr. Paine ſtands juſtified in requiring that the evidence of it ſhould be accompanied with a competent degree of publicity. The nature of the fact admitted of ſuch public demonſtration; the magnitude of the object demanded it; and yet—this public demonſtration is withheld:—the only evidence, which would at once have rendered all the eternal wranglings ſince maintained upon the ſubject unneceſſary; which would have completely baffled all the alledged machinations of the enemies of Chriſt to ſuppreſs the truth and invalidate its force; and which would have procured Chriſtianity a deciſive triumph over ſcepticiſm and infidelity; this [64]only full, ſatisfactory, incontrovertible, irrefragable evidence is not granted. And why not granted? Becauſe, forſooth, its place in the eyes of Mr. Wakefield, is better ſupplied by ‘corroborating coincidencies, collateral circumſtances, by probabilities of the higheſt kind, by indiſſoluble connexions,’ et hoc genus omne; all of which, by the bye, notwithſtanding the inconceivable magnitude of the object; notwithſtanding the incalculable intereſt at ſtake, do not amount to the ſame degree of poſitive conviction, which impreſſes on the mind of the geometer the ‘equality of the three angles of a triangle to two right angles. *

We concede, indeed, to Mr. Wakefield, that in occurrences of common life the concurring teſtimony of credible and diſintereſted witneſs may be conſidered as competent evidence in matters of plain fact, which do not militate againſt the eſtabliſhed order of things. Thus, for inſtance, to purſue Mr. Wakefield's own argument, when I firſt heard of the aſcenſion of Lunardi from [65]the Artillery ground, in a balloon, I felt myſelf no more diſpoſed to call in queſtion the truth of the report, (notwithſtanding, from the circumſtance of my being abroad at the time, I did not enjoy the advantage of being an eye-witneſs of the fact,) than Mr. Wakefield could poſſibly do, who, we find, was preſent on that memorable occaſion. But, had I been ignorant of the principle on which balloons are conſtructed; had I never heard or read of the properties of air; had the experiment been made in ſome remote, far diſtant part of the globe, before only a few ſelect friends, and in only one or two ſolitary inſtances, and never afterwards repeated or attempted; had this, I ſay, been the caſe, and any one had told me, under ſuch circumſtances, that a man had been ſeen to aſcend to a prodigious height in the air, and to purſue his aerial excurſion for a conſiderable number of miles with incredible velocity; in that caſe, the faith of the relator of this marvellous account, ſuppoſing him to have been at the ſame time an eye-witneſs of the fact, would, I fancy, exceed mine by many an "evaneſcent infiniteſimal of efficacy." *—And, [66]though no lapſe of time will probably, with reſpect to the former caſe, (the actual aſcenſion of Lunardi, in a balloon, from the Artillery ground) deſtroy a credibility ſo well founded and eſtabliſhed, with reaſonable men; nothing, I apprehend, ſhort of actual inſpection and ocular demonſtration, would attach faith with thinking minds to the latter. Neither would, I preſume, any man's refuſal to credit ſuch an aſcenſion, under the above circumſtances, without poſitive and ocular proof, draw down upon him the ſtigma of univerſal ſcepticiſm, though Mr. Wakefield is pleaſed to inſinuate this charge againſt Mr. Paine, when he talks of the man, ‘who is reſolved to believe no tranſaction, but upon ocular and manual demonſtration, and who, therefore, is compelled to bely his own theory in every movement of his life.’

Before I diſmiſs the ſubject of the reſurrection, as far as concerns Mr. Wakefield's ſtrictures in favor of it, I muſt ſlightly remark upon a moſt curious and extraordinary argument, indeed, (ſee page 33) which he brings forward, to juſtify our being left, in this, confeſſedly highly momentous and intereſting, [67]affair, to ‘truſt to degrees of probability infinitely diverſified’ (or, in other words, being left in the dark!), ‘inſtead of having poſitive certainty for our guide.’

‘I might advance alſo, in aid of theſe remarks,’ (to give the whole of Mr. Wakefield's arguments) ‘that mankind are moſt evidently placed here in a ſtate of probationary imperfection: that, inſtead of certainty for our guide, we are compelled to truſt, on moſt occaſions, to a degree of probability infinitely diverſified; and that ſome of our nobleſt and moſt refined excellencies both moral and intellectual, ſpring from a forbearance and candour, from a diffidence, and docility, and lowlineſs of underſtanding, which diſputable evidence is beſt calculated to generate and foſter. Beſides, that exerciſe and agitation of our mental powers, which is invariably produced by the delays and difficulties intervening propoſitions of this nature, and the attainment of moral certainty, in a painful diſquiſition of evidence and a long deduction of particulars, contribute eſſentially to the quickneſs, the clearneſs, the vigour and general ſalubrity of our underſtandings; juſt as the water [68]of a river is meliorated and refined by a winding obſtructed paſſage over ſand and gravel.’

Of all the wretched ſophiſtry I ever remember to have met with, on this, or, I might add, on any other ſubject, the preſent furniſhes the moſt conſpicuous, and I think, the moſt contemptible inſtance! Are there not matters enough of "diſputable evidence" to generate and foſter our candour and forbearance, our diffidence and docility, in the Book of Nature, without borrowing from the ſacred pages of Revelation? Or, if we ſtand in need of ‘exerciſe and agitation of our mental powers, to contribute to the quickneſs, the clearneſs, the vigour, and general ſalubrity of our underſtandings;’ might not the time and talents which have been ſpent in the ‘painful diſquiſition of evidence and a long deduction of particulars,’ to aſcertain the truth of the reſurrection, have been far more profitably employed, upon reſearches which have a more immediate reference to the happineſs and improvement of man in his preſent ſtate? We verily think they might; and maugre the profound knowledge and deep metaphyſical reaſoning contained [69]in Mr. Wakefield's remarks, they appear to us in reality deſigned for little more, than to ſerve as a vehicle to the author to diſplay his extenſive reading and ready acquaintance with the Poets of the Auguſtan age.

The remarks (for I cannot call them arguments) advanced by Doctor Prieſtley, concerning the evidence of the reſurrection, carry with them ſtill leſs weight and conviction than Mr. Wakefield's ſtrictures. He notices the error into which Mr. Paine has fallen with reſpect to the number of perſons who are ſaid to have been witneſſes of Chriſt's aſcenſion, and which error I have already had occaſion to remark upon. But we do not find any thing new or ſtriking in his obſervations. A general challenge, indeed, is thrown out to all, who entertain any doubts upon the ſubject, ‘to propoſe any other circumſtances that would have made the Reſurrection more credible than it now is at this diſtance of time;’ but, as this challenge has been anticipated by Mr. Paine himſelf, and the propoſal or requiſition made, which would have rendered its evidence incontrovertible, and of courſe have eſtabliſhed its credibility [70]beyond the reach of ſuſpicion or doubt, we deem it unneceſſary to tread over again the beaten track.

As my deſign is, not ſo much to write a panegyric upon Mr. Paine's work, as to examine, and, if I can, refute the objections which have been made to it, I paſs over moſt of his propoſitions which I do not find attacked by his opponents. Hence I ſhall not dwell upon the maſterly picture he has drawn of his Satanic Majeſty, who, I am happy to perceive, from the readineſs with which Mr. Wakefield gives him up, (and I congratulate my readers upon the pleaſing proſpect) ſeems to be in a fair way of bidding us Adieu, and returning once more to the bottomleſs pit, where I ſincerely hope the Angel with the key and the great chain in his hand (Rev. xx. 1. ſqq.) will take good care of him, and bind and faſten him up or down, it matters little which, at leaſt a thouſand years *.

[71]The account given us by Mr. Paine of the Origin of Chriſtianity has been ſeverely cenſured and attacked by Dr. Prieſtley, who pronounces it to be ‘the moſt curious romance he ever met with.’ With all deference to ſuperior abilities, I cannot but conceive Doctor Prieſtley to be too haſty in this judgment; and though he particularly prides himſelf on his dates, in oppoſition to Mr. Paine's practice, who, he tells us, ‘does not deal in dates, any more than in quotations, writing wholly from memory, (ſee page 63) it ſhould ſeem that Mr. Paine, without the help of a book, has even with reſpect to his dates, not erred ſo widely from the truth, as Dr. Prieſtley's ſtrictures would at firſt ſight tempt us to imagine.

‘The writings aſcribed to the men called Apoſtles,’ (Mr. Paine obſerves) ‘are chiefly controverſial; and the gloomineſs of the ſubject they dwell upon, that of a man dying in agony on the croſs, is better ſuited to the gloomy genius of a monk in his cell, by whom it is not impoſſible they were written, than to any man breathing the open air of the creation.’

[72]This latter remark of Mr. Paine furniſhes his formidable antagoniſt with a moſt deſirable opportunity of triumph, as he apprehends; but, unfortunately, his triumph is premature, as I ſhall endeavour to prove from his own ſtatement of the caſe.

"As theſe books, written by Apoſtles, or Apoſtolical men," (does Dr. Prieſtley, by this diſtinction, mean to ſignify his aſſent to the doubt ſtarted by our * Author, relative to the certainty of the books of the New Teſtament being written by the perſons whoſe names are prefixed to them?) ‘were appealed to in deciſion of controverſies, it was thought proper to have a ſtandard collection; and the Biſhops met in council at Laodicea, Anno Domini 373, did as well as they [73] could, but by no means to the ſatisfaction of all.

Doctor Prieſtley allows therefore, that it was nearly four hundred years after the birth of Chriſt, and at leaſt three hundred years after the writing of the major part of the books called the New Teſtament, according to the common received chronology, before a ſtandard collection of theſe books was made.

That interpolations and ſpurious readings, (allowing the Books themſelves to have been actually written at the early date I have juſt ſpecified, and by the writers whoſe names they bear,) might, in ſuch a long courſe of time, have crept into the text; eſpecially when we conſider that the art of printing was not known in thoſe days, but that every copy required to be individually tranſcribed by an amanuenſis; is a poſſibility, and, let me add, a probability, which I think will be readily conceded by every candid examiner. That ſome of them might have undergone material alterations, or have been new-modelled, or even freſh vamped up, to ſuit particular purpoſes, between the time of their original compoſition, and their ſubſequent incorporation in the ſtandard collection, is likewiſe no impoſſibility; [74]and on this ſuppoſition Mr. Paine ſtands amply juſtified in the inference he draws from the diſmal complexion of many of thoſe writings (the controverſial parts eſpecially), that it is not impoſſible (and he mentions the circumſtance merely as a poſſibility, and by no means as a matter of poſitive fact), but they may have been written by ſome gloomy Aſcetic or Monk; a conjecture which receives additional weight and plauſibility, when we reflect that * Monks and Convents had eſtabliſhed themſelves nearly half a century before the Biſhops met in council at Laodicea, to determine by vote which of the books out of the collection they had made, ſhould be the Word of God. I ſee therefore no ground for ſuppoſing Mr. Paine to have written his Age of [75]Reaſon without the leaſt knowledge of the Scriptures, or indeed of hiſtory." *

Mr. Prieſtley further, in the exultation of his triumph, throws out a challenge to Mr. Paine, and of courſe to all thoſe that join with him in opinion, ‘to point out any one paſſage in the New Teſtament, that, in the moſt diſtant manner, intimates that God is pleaſed by the mortifications men inflict upon themſelves; or that it is their duty, or at all acceptable to God, that they ſhould ſhut themſelves up from the world, and decline the active duties of life.’

[76]Inſtead of being at a loſs to diſcover one, I could inſtantly refer to a hoſt of paſſages, a "whole cloud of witneſſes," and thoſe of the New Teſtament diſpenſation, to anſwer this challenge; which as it ſeems to have originated from Mr. Paine's alluſion to monks, where he ſays, that ‘the gloomineſs of the ſubject on which the writers of the New Teſtament expatiate is better ſuited to the gloomy ſenſes of a monk in his cell, (by whom it is not impoſſible thoſe books were written) than to any man breathing the open air of creation. I ſhall begin my reply with the grand leading characteriſtic of the monkiſh ſyſtem, celibacy.

I have already remarked upon the riſe and rapid increaſe of theſe gloomy fanatics in the early ages of the Chriſtian church. That ſuch characters actually exiſted, and were not unknown to the New Teſtament writers, and among the reſt to the author of the Epiſtles to Timothy, is evident from the fourth chapter of the firſt of theſe epiſtles—‘The Spirit ſpeaketh expreſsly, that in the latter*[77]times ſome ſhall depart from the faith, giving heed to ſeducing ſpirits, and doctrines of devils; ſpeaking lies in hypocriſy; having their conſciences ſeared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abſtain from meats, &c.’ which words, I apprehend, allude, in moſt unequivocal terms to the monkiſh doctrines of celibacy and faſting. Now bearing this in [78]remembrance, let us recur to Paul's firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, and take up our parable at the ſeventh chapter: ‘It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (ver. 1) ‘I would that all men were even as I myſelf. (ver. 7) How ſoon would a general compliance with this unnatural, and let me add, irreligious requiſition, (for it militates directly againſt the firſt grand commandment given to man by the Almighty, Increaſe and multiply, and therefore would be a caſe of poſitive diſobedience; or (to quote Dr. Prieſtley's own words) would be ‘declining the active duties of life’) terminate in the total extinction of the human race! it would be ‘ſhutting ourſelves not only up from the world,’ but would ſoon lead to ſhutting the whole ſpecies out of the world!

The Apoſtle continues: ‘I ſay therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. What reaſon doth he aſſign for this ſtrange, prepoſterous doctrine? Why, forſooth, becauſe he that is unmarried, and ſhe that is unmarried, (the monks and the nuns) care for the things that belong to the Lord, how they may pleaſe the Lord: whereas [79] he that is married, and ſhe that is married, care for the things that are of the world, how they may pleaſe each other, in the relative ſtations of huſband and wife.

Does not this, let me put the queſtion to Mr. Prieſtley's own candid reflection, does not this incongruous doctrine ſavour ſtrongly of the aſcetic and the monk? Does it not, as I before obſerved, militate, point blank, againſt one of the moſt active duties, if not the moſt active of all the duties of life? Does it not? but I ſhall drop the ſubject, only obſerving, that the apoſtle had better have counſelled us at once, as the ſureſt way to put and end to the ‘war in our members,’ to ‘make eunuchs * of ourſelves for the kingdom of heaven's ſake!’ which we find ſome of the primitive Chriſtians actually did, and among others, the celebrated Origen, having, it is ſaid, this very ſaying of Chriſt, with Paul's enlightened commentary upon it in view!

And here let no man object, in extenuation of the abſurdity of theſe doctrines and [80]tenets, that the apoſtle ‘is not ſpeaking by commandment, but by permiſſion. (1 Cor. vii. 6.) The greater is his preſumption, in daring to broach ſuch vile and dangerous principles, which I am ſure threaten more immediately the welfare of a ſtate, than any principle, ‘however pregnant and full fraught with danger’—in the Rights of Man, and which aim with one deciſive blow, at the very extinction of the human ſpecies; the greater, I ſay, is Paul's preſumption, the greater his guilt in daring to palm ſuch infamous nonſenſe upon us, under the ſanction and authority of an apoſtle, without even the ſmalleſt pretence to divine commandment, in apology for his deteſtable conduct!

In the ſecond place, to ſay a few words upon the monkiſh ſyſtem of mortification, penance and abſtemiouſneſs (in commendation of which Mr. Prieſtley challenges our author to produce a ſingle inſtance,) I again recur, with full confidence of ſucceſs, to the fruitful writings of Paul.

‘If ye live after the fleſh, ye ſhall die: (ſpiritually ſpeaking, I ſuppoſe) but if ye through the ſpirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye ſhall live. (Rom. viii. 13.) [81]They that are Chriſt's, have crucified * the fleſh, with the affections and luſts, (Galat. v. 24) I keep under my body, and bring it into ſubjection. (1 Cor. ix. 27. the apoſtle ſpeaks, as the context ſhews, of corporal abſtemiouſneſs, ſee verſe 25.) Mortify your members, which are upon the earth (Col. iii. 5. and from what immediately follows fornication, uncleanneſs, inordinate affection, evil concupiſcence, &c. &c. it is abundantly evident what particular members the apoſtle alludes to) ‘I am crucified unto the world, and the world unto me. (Gal. vi. 14.) Make not proviſion for the fleſh (Rom. xiii. 14.) Give yourſelves to faſting and prayer, that ſatan tempt you not for your incontinency. (1 Cor. vii. 5.)

Can any thing be more explicit? Or, will Mr. Prieſtley, with theſe plain and poſitive declarations before his eyes, (which, however, are only brought forward as a ſpecimen [82]of the "vaſt cloud of witneſſes" that are kept in reſerve) ſtill perſiſt in maintaining, that there is not one ſingle paſſage in the whole of the New Teſtament, which, in the moſt diſtant manner, intimates, that God is pleaſed by ſelf-denial and mortification? The man, who, at the very time, that he charges his antagoniſt with ignorance and error, which he charitably pretends to account for on the plea of his having written from memory and without book, (page 63) can commit ſtill greater errors and blunders himſelf, with book, may not unaptly be compared to the proud phariſee in the goſpel, who was lynxeyed enough to diſcern a moat in his brother's eye, though not conſcious of the beam that lodged in his own.

That Mr. Paine may have carried his propoſition too far, when he aſcribes the great change that took place in the whole ſyſtem of learning, after the introduction of Chriſtianity, to a deep, preconcerted ſcheme on the part of the ſetters-up and advocates of that religion, I ſhall not affect to diſſemble nor deny. But that the Chriſtian religion was virtually and in reality the cauſe of that change, I am clearly convinced; and Mr. Prieſtley [83]may boaſt of the preſervation of literature, by the Chriſtian monks of the weſtern and eaſtern Roman empire, as much as he pleaſes, it remains an incontrovertible fact, that the eternal wranglings about points of faith, and the nonſenſical jargon of prieſts, gave a new turn to the ſtate of learning, which was now made to centre almoſt entirely in polemical divinity, and of courſe rendered the acquiſition of thoſe languages, in which the books of the Bible were originally written, the moſt important, if not the only, branch of education.

Without the ſmalleſt deſign to depreciate the value of * philology, in its application to the learned languages, (and experience has too well taught me their proper value and eſtimation, to hold their acquirement in contempt,) I cannot but ſubſcribe, with the fulleſt energy of conviction, to the juſtice of Mr. Paine's remark, that it would be advantageous to the general ſtate of learning [84]to lay leſs ſtreſs in the ſyſtem of education upon the dead languages than is generally done. Learning and knowledge, though commonly reputed ſynonimous terms are far from being ſo in reality. The one conſtitutes the ſhell, the other the kernel, and certainly it muſt be acknowledged the height of folly and abſurdity to ſet greater ſtore upon the huſk than upon the fruit it envelops. However, to return from this digreſſion.

As we happen to be diſcuſſing the ſubject of dead languages, it may not be amiſs to notice in this place a very juſt and ſagacious argument (urged with great propriety by our author, but rejected and condemned with wonted ſuperciliouſneſs and injuſtice by his opponents) reſpecting the inſufficiency of human language to be the vehicle of the word of God. Mr. Paine obſerves,

‘If we permit ourſelves to conceive right ideas of things, we muſt neceſſarily affix the idea, not only of unchangeableneſs, but of the utter impoſſibility of any change taking place, by any means or accident whatever, in that which we would honour with the name of the word of God: and [85]therefore the word of God cannot exiſt in any written or human language.

‘The continually progreſſive change to which the meaning of words is ſubject; the want of a univerſal language, which renders tranſlations neceſſary; the errors to which tranſlations are again ſubject; the miſtakes of copyiſts and printers; together with the poſſibility of wilful alteration; are of themſelves evidences, that human language, whether in ſpeech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the word of God.

"Trite! and little to the purpoſe!" exclaims Dr. Prieſtley, in reply to theſe truly ingenious remarks. ‘Frivolous! and unworthy of a man of ſenſe!’ cries Mr. Wakefield: and both our learned Polemics immediately launch out into a long ſtring of declamation, which has hardly the ſhadow of an argument to countenance it. Inſtead of bearing in mind, that the Bible, as far as it profeſſes to be a lanthorn to our feet; a light unto our path; our law, counſellor, and guide, relates chiefly to matters of opinion, and to matters of faith, and that it therefore is the more liable to ſuffer from the defects of tranſlations, the miſtakes of copyiſts, and [86] wilful or accidental alterations, they are continually harping upon its hiſtorical credibility (which our Author does not attempt to invalidate), and comparing it in this point of view to Livy's Roman Hiſtory, or Caeſar's Commentaries.

"The truths of Revelation," (writes Mr. Prieſtley, page 45) ‘do not depend upon niceties of ideas.’ ‘A few miſtakes of copyiſts and printers make no alteration in the general effect,’ ſays Mr. Wakefield. As a proof, however, how ſadly both theſe learned gentlemen are deceived and miſtaken in the poſition they ſo obſtinately maintain, I ſhall juſt adduce one inſtance, amongſt a number that might be urged; which ſaid inſtance, as it adds a freſh laurel to their triumph over Trinitarianiſm, entitles me, I think, to ſome claim on their acknowledgments.

Few texts in the Bible, perhaps, are more frequently referred to by the orthodox Sons of the Church, to prove the divinity of Chriſt, than the following paſſage from St. Paul's firſt Epiſtle to Timothy: ‘And, without controverſy, great is the myſtery of godlineſs; GOD was manifeſt in the fleſh, juſtified in the ſpirit, ſeen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on [87]in the world, received up into glory.’ (1 Tim. iii. 16.) Now would it be believed, and yet the fact is well aſcertained, that the word God, in which the whole ſtreſs of the ſentence centres, is not to be met with in the original? Would it be believed, that the ſingular circumſtance of the middle ſtroke of the E, in [...], having ſunk through the parchment, ſo as to appear on the oppoſite ſide, ſhould exactly occupy the centre of the omicron in the relative OC, which by that means being taken for a [...], cauſed the word to paſs for [...], which is the abreviation of [...]? Would it be believed, that the Divinity of Chriſt ſhould reſt upon ſuch a ſlender foundation as this? And yet ſuch is the actual ſtate of the caſe, as the * Alexandrine Codex plainly proves. Mr. Prieſtley, I hope, will no longer take upon him to deny, that the truths of Revelation may depend upon very great niceties!

Another inſtance of groſs error and miſtake occurs in Mr. Wakefield's reply to our Author's ſtrictures on the hiſtory of the creation.

[88] ‘Why it has been called the Moſaic Account of the creation, (writes Mr. Paine) ‘I am at a loſs to conceive. Moſes, I believe, was too good a judge of ſuch ſubjects, to put his name to that account. He had been educated among the Egyptians, who were a people as well ſkilled in ſcience, and particularly in aſtronomy, as any people in their day.’

To this true and modeſt ſtatement, Mr. Wakefield replies, with all the haughty ſelfſufficiency of a Dictator in the Republic of Letters:

‘All this may be literally true (ſee page 54) but a palpable untruth is implied in it, that the Egyptians were really a learned and ſcientific people, whereas their ſcience and their aſtronomy was juſt nothing at all *.’

[89]It requires no great portion of penetration to diſcover Mr. Wakefield's true motives for [90]refuſing to allow the Egyptians their juſt tribute of ſcientific praiſe. He is well aware, that the conceſſion of this point would detract from the high encomiums he has paſſed upon the Jews, (ſee page 15) as the firſt founders and cultivators (it ſhould ſeem) of ſcience; and which he obliquely urges as a proof of the revelations and ſupernatural communications (page 17) ſaid to have been vouchſafed to Moſes. But Mr. Wakefield may romance upon this ſubject as long as he pleaſes, he cannot [91]invalidate thoſe incontrovertible evidences to Egyptian ſcience and cultivation, which the writings of Moſes himſelf afford, and of which I might eaſily produce convincing ſpecimens in abundance, did I ſee any further ‘need of witneſſes,’ after the reſpectable voucher I have already brought forward in ſupport of the claims of the Egyptians.

Indeed the whole of the Moſaic account of the creation appears to have been borrowed from documents of ſtill greater *antiquity, which he found ready prepared to his hand, and of which it is certainly more reaſonable to ſuppoſe that Moſes availed himſelf, than to pretend that he received his knowledge of the ſubject immediately from divine communication. His famous hiſtory of the Fall of Man carries with it unqueſtionable evidence of the obligation he lies under to the decried, depreciated learning of the Egyptians. It is obviouſly a tranſcript of a hieroglyphical [92]repreſentation of ſome traditional account reſpecting the deterioration of human nature, which Moſes, if it was not previouſly done by ſome other writer, ſeems to have tranſlated from the language of emblem, into that of words *.

Endleſs would be the taſk (and, indeed, what I have already advanced conſiderably exceeds the limits I had originally preſcribed to the preſent undertaking) were I to attempt a reply to every impertinent cavil raiſed by theſe two redoubtable Champions of Revelation, againſt the Age of Reaſon. I ſhall therefore curtail my ſtrictures as much as propriety will admit, ‘and, heartily tired with examining into the inconſiſtencies’ of Mr. Wakefield and his learned coadjutor, through which I have already fought my way, haſten to the concluſion of my diſquiſitions, without ſtopping to anſwer objections which are beneath the notice of criticiſm; ſuch, for inſtance, as Mr. Wakefield's ſilly [93]triumph over Mr. Paine, (ſee page 59) becauſe our author, forſooth, has interpreted the term Teſtament in its common acceptation, as implying a will, (and I will not take upon me to affirm, when the context is properly attended to, that Mr. Paine is not perfectly juſtified in giving the name of will to a covenant, of which the apoſtle expreſsly declares, that it is of no force during the life-time of the teſtator. (Heb. ix. 10, 11.) Be that, however, as it may, the objection ſtarted by Mr. Wakefield is perfectly puerile, irrevalent, and abſurd, as the force of Mr. Paine's argument is not in the ſlighteſt degree affected, much leſs invalidated by it. The preſumption and blaſphemy of the charge, which aſcribes fickleneſs of mind to the Creator, and makes him abrogate the covenant into which he had formerly entered with his creatures, remains the ſame; remains equally impious and daring, whether we diſtinguiſh this compact by the appellation of a covenant, or by that of will. To change or amend this covenant, implies a defect or incongruity in his former compact, which Omniſcience was not competent [94]to foreſee, till experience pointed out the error; ‘for if that firſt covenant * had been fau [...]tleſs, then ſhould no place have been found for the ſecond; but now he taketh away the firſt, that he may eſtabliſh the ſecond.

With reſpect to our author's excellent animadverſions on prophets and prophecy, it is a matter of very little conſequence, in my apprehenſion, whether the term, taken in its ſcriptural uſe and acceptation, ſignify a poet, as Mr. Paine explains it, or a teacher, as Mr. Wakefield maintains. I am ſatisfied that Mr. Paine's ſtrictures contain abundance of truth , and perhaps too much to go down palatably in this age of prophecy and [95]revelation. ‘The axe (to quote our author's own energetic language) ſtrikes immediately at the root;’ it attacks the very fundamentals of Chriſtianity, the teſtimony of Jeſus being the ſpirit of prophecy.—(Rev. xix. 10.)

Such being the ſtate of the caſe, it ſhould ſeem well worth our while to beſtow a little attention and enquiry upon the ſubject.

"The ſuppoſed prophet (writes our author) ‘was the ſuppoſed hiſtorian of times to come; and if he happened, in ſhooting with a long bow of a thouſand years, to [96]ſtrike within a thouſand miles of the mark, the ingenuity of poſterity could make it point-blank; and if he happened to be directly wrong, it was only to ſuppoſe, as in the caſe of Jonah and Nineveh, that God had repented himſelf, and changed his mind.’

Let us next examine Dr. Prieſtley's ſtatement. ‘Some parts of the book of Daniel, and alſo of the Revelation, are written in ſuch a manner, that it is probable we ſhall not underſtand them completely, till we can compare them with the events to which they correſpond.’

Here then let me put the queſtion to Dr. Prieſtley—Of what ſervice can theſe prophecies be, allowing them even to merit the title, if they are ſo obſcure that they are not to be underſtood, till explained and elucidated by fulfilment? And as by the term prophecy, a prediction, we apprehend, is meant, of certain ſpecified events to be verified or accompliſhed at ſome future period; how are we to know that the writings in queſtion have any claim to the title, if they be ſo darkly worded that we cannot even [97]aſcertain what tranſactions or events they are predictive of? We may on this plea wait till the end of days, and ſtill honour them with the title of prophecies, in daily hopes of ſome event or other turning up, to which our ingenuity can make theſe luminous and univerſal predictions refer; for it ſeems they are prophetical of the firſt plauſible event that ſhall befal!

But it ſeems, the moment this fortunate and long expected chance turns up, ‘it is very poſſible we may then be ſatisfied, that only He who can ſee the end from the beginning, could have deſcribed them, even in that obſcure manner, ſo long before.’ Good bye, then, to prophecy, if even the original Revealer of it can ſcarcely ſee his way through the dark himſelf!

Yet ſtill is our determined champion of the faith, (and it requires great faith, indeed, almoſt enough to remove mountains, to believe on ſuch weak, unſatisfactory grounds) ſtill is he not a whit caſt down, nor diſcomfited! He continues:

‘The reaſon of the obſcurity of thoſe particular prophecies, concerning events which [98]are yet to come, is pretty obvious *. For as theſe prophecies are now in the hands of thoſe who reſpect them, it might have been ſaid, that they contributed to their own fulfilment by the friends of revelation endeavouring ſo bring about the events predicted.’

A curious mode of reaſoning, indeed! What a pity theſe prophecies were not written in hieroglyphics, in which caſe they might, poſſibly, have been more obſcure and darker ſtill than they are in their preſent ſtate! However, as it is, I believe there is very little danger of the believers in them deſtroying the credit of the prophecies after fulfilment, by incurring the ſuſpicion of [99]having, from their clear apprehenſion of them, contributed to their verification.

But not yet, even, is our doughty champion to be diſpirited. He has followed the advice given by the ſpirit to the angel of the church of Laodicea, (Rev. iii. 18.) and has wiſely provided himſelf with eye ſalve, that he may ſee, where others are fain to ſhut their eyes, and give up all hopes of extricating themſelves.

"Though ſome intermediate ſteps" (by the bye I am ſadly apprehenſive that all the ſteps in the prophetical ladder are broken down, ſince none of the admirers and advocates of the ſyſtem are able to get to the top of it, in order, from the elevated ſtation it would afford them, to take a nearer peep into futurity, and tell us when we may reaſonably expect to ſee the fulfilment of ſome one or other of theſe glorious predictions, Mr. Halhed's Millenium, for inſtance!) ‘though ſome intermediate ſteps in the great train of events be thus obſcure, both the great outline of the whole, and the cataſtrophe are moſt clearly expreſſed. Obſcure, as is,’ (I wonder Mr. Prieſtley ſhould be perpetually harping upon this ſtring; he [100]ſhould, methinks, have rather imitated the dutiful example of the ſons of Noah, and have thrown a mantle over the nakedneſs of his prophets, unleſs, indeed, as not improbably may be the caſe, this charitable action is already performed by the prophets themſelves in conſequence of the thick mantle of obſcurity, and "darkneſs palpable," in which they have wiſely taken care to wrap themſelves up) ‘Obſcure as is the language of theſe prophecies, they plainly enough indicate a long period of great corruption in Chriſtianity,’ (methinks there is no need of either prieſt or prophet, apoſtle nor commentator, to tell us that. Unleſs, indeed, it be for our comfort, that we are foretold this happy ſyſtem of things, which has already continued in force a conſiderable length of time, is likely to continue ſo a great deal longer: the prophets, in this reſpect, ſeem to have taken pattern from the comforters of poor, afflicted Job!) ‘A long period of great corruption in Chriſtianity is indicated; eſpecially by the riſe of a * perſecuting power within [101]itſelf; but that this power, together with all the * temporal powers of this world in [102]league with it, is to be overthrown; and that this will be a ſeaſon of great calamity.

As far as reſpects the latter part of the prediction, I readily grant, that the prophecy is, and has long been, (perhaps from the time of its firſt delivery, if not before) and I fear will continue ſo to be a long, long time ſtill to come, in a ſtate of actual fulfilment. But neither was the Viſion of the Four Beaſts, nor yet of the Ram and He-Goat, nor yet the Viſion of the Four great Monarchies (ſee Daniel), nor yet the Viſions granted to the viſionary writer of the Apocalypſe, (which, according to Mr. Wakefield's ſtatement bears ‘ſuch ſtrong, incontrovertible, internal ſymptoms of genuineneſs,’ and ſtrong, and incontrovertible, and genuine thoſe ſymptoms are of the higheſt pitch of enthuſiaſm [103]wound up almoſt to madneſs); neither, I ſay, were Daniel's Viſions, nor St. John's Viſions; neither the Viſion of the Seven Stars and Seven golden Candleſticks; of the Man in the midſt of theſe Candleſticks with feet like braſs, and a ſharp, two-edged ſword in his mouth, clothed with a garment down to the feet, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle; nor the ſecond edition of the Viſion of the Four Beaſts, with its glorious apendages; nor the Viſion of the Seven Angels with the Seven Trumpets; nor the Viſion of the Woman in the Sun (who was then and there delivered of a male child, from whence, I ſuppoſe, our modern Jeruſalem Sols!); nor yet the Viſion of the Beaſt with Seven Heads (which, allowing each head to have had two eyes, or even only one eye to each head, would have made a moſt excellent ſpy; and as the Beaſt had moreover ten horns, he might have acted in the double capacity of Informer and Alarmiſt!) nor yet the Viſion of the Beaſt with two horns, coming up out of the earth (or from the dunghill of corruption, as ſome interpreters render it, and which is therefore, by many learned commentators, ſuppoſed to be typical and illuſtrative of our incomparable [104] PRIME MINISTER, for as much as this Beaſt, as well as the one that preceded him, is ſaid to have had a mouth vaunting great things; for though he had but two horns, and thoſe, it is preſumed, of no great ſignificancy or native power, being ‘like unto the horns of a lamb, and therefore not calculated for warlike enterprizes, yet he ſpake as a dragon, and deceived them that dwell on the earth *); nor yet the Viſion of the GREAT [105]WHORE (which is the moſt beautiful and ſublime of all the Viſions, and on which thefore I mean to publiſh a ſmall Treatiſe, dedicated to the Maids of Honour, to appear on the Feſtival of the Bleſſed Virgin); nor the Viſion of the Seven laſt Plagues (which I devoutly pray the Almighty to ward off from us, as we have had plagues enough already); nor yet the Viſion of Satan's capture and incarceration (who ſeems to have given his keeper the ſlip, and to have got among the herd of ſwine again); nor yet the Viſion of the [106]battle of GOG and MAGOG, which has been a long while determining, and in the conteſt has coſt us millions of lives and treaſure); nor yet the Viſion of the new Heaven and new Earth (which Mr. Halhed and Mr. Brothers are in daily expectation of); nor yet the Viſion of the Water and Tree of Life (both of which I wiſh to my heart I could tranſplant and diſtribute among our troops in the Weſt Indies); nor yet the Viſion of Viſions (which has made Viſionaries of us all; but which I forbear to expatiate upon; and indeed after having ſucceſsfully run through ſuch an almoſt unprecedented length of ſentence, it is proper I ſhould be indulged a little reſpite to fetch breath): neither, I ſay, was this Viſion, nor all theſe Viſions, nor any of them, neceſſary to prove and point out to us the alarming ſtate of things, and the general depravity of the age; which conſideration leads me to treat of the laſt ſubject I propoſe to diſcuſs in the preſent work—the radical Defects of our Religion; from whence all the numberleſs abuſes which both Mr. Prieſtley and Mr. Wakefield complain of, flow, and muſt flow, whilſt we continue to believe ſuch monſtrous doctrines, and impiouſly [107]honour them with the title of God's Word.

However, before I finally diſmiſs the topic of Prophecy, I muſt remark, that there are in the Bible Prophecies of a peculiar ſtamp, which ſeem to refer to no particular event, but depend for accompliſhment ſolely upon the heated ſtate of the imagination. To this claſs belong the major part of thoſe pretty, melting, love-ſick allegories, which commentators generally refer to the myſtical union between Chriſt and his Church. Nothing can, indeed, be more completely ridiculous, or ſerve to impreſs us with a more contemptible idea of the Word of God, as the Bible profeſſes to be, than when we contemplate the vaſt pains which have been taken to hammer out of theſe prophetic writings, always in a "train of fulfilment, *" but never accompliſhed, [108]any kind of ſenſe or meaning whatever! What numberleſs folios of learned commentaries have been written to trace out Chriſt under the various types of Angel, Man, Bird, Beaſt, Fiſh, Inſect; nay, even under the type of a ſtumbling ſtone and ſhin-breaker *. And have not equal pains been taken to diſcover his Bride, the Church, under the maſk of a Harlot, a Strumpet, a Proſtitute, a Whore, and Adultreſs; one moment reclaimed, and the next as arrant a jilt as ever! And then [109]again, by happy metamorphoſis, ſhe is a ſweet little innocent, a true and perfect maid, without ſpot or blemiſh; a little ſiſter with no breaſts, or a Prince's daughter with two breaſts, like two young roes that are twins, and with a navel like a round goblet! In ſhort, the Bridegroom and the Bride are much of a piece—are any thing and every thing, as ſuits the convenience of the Prophet and his commentator. To call ſuch a farrago of nonſenſe and abſurdity the Word of God, is a downright profanation of the ſacred name *.

Where then, it will be demanded, are we to look for God's word? Or, hath he left himſelf wholly without witneſs? Mr. Paine's reply to this intereſting queſtion is truly admirable.

[110] ‘It is only in the creation that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The creation ſpeaketh a univerſal language, independently of human ſpeech or human language, multiplied and various as they are. It is an ever-exiſting original, which * every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; [111]it cannot be loſt; it cannot be altered; it cannot be ſuppreſſed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it ſhall be publiſhed or not; it publiſhes itſelf from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds: and this word of God reveals to man all that is neceſſary for man to know of God?’

Were it my deſign to turn panegyriſt to Mr. Paine, I might find ample ſcope for my talents in this one ſingle beautiful and comprehenſive ſentence. It contains every thing that can be ſaid either in ſavor of the real word of God, or in detraction of the counterfeit. The comparatively ſmall part of the terraqueous globe, which, even at this day, after a lapſe of more than three thouſand years, has any knowledge of the written word of God, as profeſſed to be contained either in the Jewiſh or Chriſtian ſcriptures muſt, in the eye of reaſon, furniſh a ſtrong and inſurmountable objection to the divinity of theſe books, in as much as a revelation of the Creator's will undoubtedly ought to extend to all his creatures, and not depend upon chance and circumſtances for promulagtion. [112]An earthly ſovereign who iſſues an edict, or makes known his pleaſure, to his ſubjects, is particularly careful that his proclamation ſhall be promulgated as univerſally as poſſible, in order that diſobedience may have no ſhadow of excuſe. If he be a king over many nations, and people of different tongues and languages bow down before him, he gives orders to have his proclamation tranſlated into all thoſe languages, that every one may read it in his vernacular tongue. Theſe are meaſures of precaution and expediency which juſtice demands; and the application of this propoſition to revelation, or the word of God holds ſtrictly good. ‘How ſhall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how ſhall they hear without a preaches? and how ſhall parſons preach except they be ſent? (Rom. x. 14, 15.) Univerſality, therefore, as the laws of God extend equally to the whole human race, becomes an indiſpenſible requiſite in whatever lays claim to the title of God's word, and as the ſcriptures cannot boaſt this indiſpenſible requiſite, they muſt relinquiſh their pretenſions.

The oldeſt religion (I proceed now to the laſt object of my diſcuſſions, as ſpecified [113]above) of which we have any authentic and credible accounts, is Judaiſm. Not that I ſuppoſe mankind were entirely devoid of all religious notions (the reverſe is evident from ſcripture itſelf) till Moſes received a divine commiſſion to be the Founder of Judaiſm: but whatever their religion was, conſidered in the light of a ſyſtem, it is now impoſſible for us to aſcertain. They worſhipped idols, and probably the heavenly bodies, particularly the ſun and moon, as from theſe they derived the bleſſings of heat and light.

Moſes, whoſe views appear to have been no leſs than the eſtabliſhment of Univerſal Hierarchy, formed a ſyſtem moſt admirably adapted to promote his ambitious views. He was originally the ſon of an obſcure Iſraelite, ſaved by ſtealth, as the book of Exodus informs us, from being put to death in his infancy, in purſuance of the edict of the king of Egypt, to which country the anceſtors of Moſes had emigrated to eſcape * ſtarvation at a time of general ſcarcity and [114]famine. At the age of three months, his mother being no longer able to conceal him at home with ſafety, he is put into an ark of bullruſhes, and ſet adrift in the Nile. In this deplorable ſituation he is diſcovered by Pharaoh's daughter, whoſe compaſſion induces her to take care of him, and Moſes is educated at Pharaoh's court, where he is initiated into all the wiſdom of the Egyptians.

When advanced to manhood, he diſcovers a turbulent diſpoſition *; interferes in the [115]quarrels between his countrymen and the Egyptians; kills one of the latter in a fray; [116]and to avoid the puniſhment of his crime, (for the laws of the Egyptians relative to murder were exceedingly ſevere *) he eſcapes into the land of Midian.

[117]Here, after marrying the daughter of the ſhepherd whoſe flocks he tended, he grows diſſatisfied with his humble condition, and plans ſchemes of future aggrandizement. Being born to no dominions, he muſt either acquire them by conqueſt, or be content to continue ſhepherd. Conqueſts are not made without armies, and as Moſes has no troops, he muſt ſtudy the means of raiſing them. He had obſerved the hatred which the Iſraelites entertained againſt the Egyptians, to whom they were vaſſals; he forms the plan of inciting them to revolt, and making them the inſtruments of his ambition.

For this purpoſe he pretends a divine miſſion from God, accompanied with a grant of certain lands, the ſituation of which he deemed eligible. With theſe credentials he returns to Egypt; encourages his countrymen to emancipate themſelves; and having prepared them for his purpoſe, endeavours to circumvent Pharaoh, by preferring an inſidious requeſt for leave of abſence for the Iſraelites, that they may go three days journey into the wilderneſs, and * ſacrifice to their [118]God. Pharaoh, however, had, it ſeems, reaſon to miſtruſt the ſincerity of his zeal, having perhaps received ſecret intimation of his real deſign; and therefore not only flatly refuſes to grant his requeſt, but gives orders moreover to keep a ſtricter hand over the Iſraelites than before. The conſequence is, the Iſraelites, finding themſelves treated with aggravated rigour, remonſtrate with Moſes, and ſeem willing to relinquiſh the deſign of recovering their liberty. Moſes, however, ſucceeds in diſſuading them, and having ſufficiently confirmed their wavering reſolution, repeats his crafty requeſt to Pharaoh, but with no better ſucceſs than before.

A long ſeries of plots and inſidious machinations * now enſues, with ſome feats of legerdemain, which Moſes being more expert at than the magicians of Pharaoh's court, he at length impoſes upon the king, who grants the Iſraelites permiſſion to decamp. No [119]ſooner, however, are the latter upon the march, (which they took care not to enter upon till they had very genteelly picked the pockets of their late acquaintance—Exod. xii. 35, 36.) than Pharaoh, receiving poſitive information, that Moſes, and the Iſraelites under his command, had no intention of returning back to vaſſallage, but that their pretended pilgrimage to ſerve the Lord their God in the wilderneſs was a mere ſtratagem to effect their eſcape, determines to purſue the fugitives, and coming up with them towards evening *, is either drowned in attempting to ford the Red Sea at the place where the Iſraelites paſſed through it, but which was now no longer fordable, (the waters having returned) or elſe he ſounds a retreat, and orders his troops home again, leaving the Iſraelites to purſue their route unmoleſted.

Our adventurer has now got a conſiderable number of ſubjects, for whom he has nothing to do but provide a place to ſettle in. As it was neceſſary to violate all the laws of [120]of juſtice and humanity, in ſeizing upon the territories of other ſtates, (for none were willing to reſign their lands up to him) he pretends that the grant he had received from God of certain pleaſant lands which ſuited his purpoſe, not only authorized the invaſion of thoſe lands, but moreover enjoined him to butcher and totally extirpate the original inhabitants, ſparing neither men, women, nor children. Thus, by an alledged commandment from the Almighty, are the hearts of the Iſraelites ſteeled to all the cruelties and enormities which they afterwards perpetrated.

Seeing himſelf at the head of a numerous, and of courſe powerful nation, Moſes turns his thoughts to ſecure the continuance of that power which he had ſo ſucceſsfully and artfully uſurped. For this purpoſe he gives a code of laws to the Iſraelites, which, like thoſe of Draco, may be ſaid to be written in blood! throws all the power into the hands of the prieſthood, which he makes hereditary in his own tribe of Levi, becauſe their progenitor was a blood-thirſty ruffian and cut-throat! (Gen. xxiv. 25, 30.) conſecrates his brother Aaron high-prieſt! and confirms the deſpotiſm of his hierarchy by [121]making the prieſts keepers of the oracles and interpreters of the law to the people. As for himſelf, he fills no one particular office, but is the all in all of the ſyſtem.

That a religion founded upon ſuch principles as theſe muſt inevitably tend to brutalize the heart, and lead to the moſt diabolical actions is ſelf-apparent. Nothing can be cloſer than the intimate connection between religion and morals. The Jewiſh hiſtory furniſhes a ſtriking proof of the juſtice of this maxim. It exhibits little elſe to our view than a black catalogue of the moſt atrocious crimes that ever diſgraced human nanature. Murders, rapes, enormities of every kind, at the bare mention of which humanity recoils with horror, appear on every page. A captive king is cut in pieces in cool blood before the Lord in Gilgal, by the reputed prophet of the Almighty, and the Conqueror whoſe humanity induced him to ſpare the life of his unhappy priſoner, is declared to have forfeited his crown, and to be rejected of the Lord, becauſe he obeyed not the word of his prophet, who commanded him to ‘ſmite Amalek, and utterly deſtroy all that they had, and ſpare them not; but ſlay [122]both man and woman, infant and ſuckling, ox and ſheep, camel and aſs!’ (1 Sam. xv. 3.) Such was the bleſſed ſpirit of the Jewiſh diſpenſation, ſo highly valued in Mr. Wakefield's eyes, under which the ſimple act of gathering ſticks to light a fire on the Sabbath-day, was puniſhed with a torturing death. (Numbers, xv. 32—36.)

Let us now turn our eye to the Chriſtian Syſtem:

The leading feature of this ſcheme is Redemption. The Chriſtian Scriptures concur with the Jewiſh Chronicles in informing us, that man, deviating from the line of rectitude, by liſtening to the ſeductions of wayward appetite *, entailed death and miſery upon all his numerous poſterity, not one of whom (Enoch and Elijah excepted, and why they ſhould be excepted we ſee no reaſon) eſcape the puniſhment due to Adam's diſobedience, though not one of them acceſſary to his crime.

Nearly four thouſand years elapſe, man continuing all that time to ſuffer the puniſhment [123]of a guilt he had not incurred, when a Saviour is born in Bethlehem; whether by divine conception or not, is nothing to the preſent queſtion. This illuſtrious perſonage is held up as the ſcape goat of the whole human race, who is to expiate the guilt incurred by the original tranſgreſſor.

Both theſe doctrines therefore proceed upon one and the ſame principle. The one damns all mankind for a guilt in which (one only pair excepted) they had no participation; and the other profeſſes to ſave theſe wretched victims for the merit of another, in which they were equally neuter. Thus injuſtice forms the grand characteriſtic of them both.

The glaring abſurdity, and, as I ſaid before, injuſtice, of this ſcheme, are ſo ably pointed out by Mr. Paine (whoſe notion of Redemption I conceive to be a very juſt one, though poſſibly derived from his father's * inſtruction), that I forbear to go over the ground he has already ſo ſucceſsfully trodden However, to ſtate one argument which I do [124]not find urged by our Author, I object to Redemption, excluſive of every other conſideration, on the plea that juſtice is not done by it to man.

Adam tranſgreſſes, and his whole poſterity is doomed to die. This doom is carried into moſt rigorous execution, for not one (our two Old Teſtament worthies excepted) eſcape its force. As * death therefore was the puniſhment denounced againſt ſin, it was impoſſible for any Redemption to take place, after the puniſhment had once been actually inflicted. Unleſs, indeed, as ſoon as the proxy-expiation was effected, thoſe who had already paid the forfeit, that is to ſay, all the perſons who have died from Adam to Chriſt, had been reſtored to life; for, if I am arreſted for a debt, and a friend is generous enough to diſcharge it for me, I am no longer detained in priſon.

[125]Again, allowing even the poſſibility of Redemption; nay I will go a ſtep further, and ſuppoſe it to have actually taken place; ſtill I maintain, that juſtice is not done to man by it. Adam's tranſgreſſion damns me, ipſo facto, without any act of mine. I have a right, therefore, when Redemption is held out to my view, to expect that I ſhall benefit by it upon the ſame terms. I have a right to ſtand neuter in the buſineſs; and as I am damned by Adam's Fall, whether I profeſs to believe in it or not, I have a right to benefit by Chriſt's Redemption, whether I make it my creed of faith or not. Upon any other terms this Redemption becomes partial and unjuſt.

Having thus ſtated the inconſiſtency of the ſcheme in theory, I proceed to try its merits by the touchſtone of practice.

It is by the fruit that we judge of the tree; and even the Chriſtian ſcheme allows the juſtice of this principle. I have already ſhown the intimate connexion between Morals and Religion in the caſe of Judaiſm; I ſhall now diſcuſs the ſame topic with reference to Chriſtianity.

Deeds conſtituted the merit of the Jewiſh [126]ſyſtem; Faith conſtitutes the merit of the Chriſtian. The b [...]ſt Jew was the man that conformed moſt ſcrupulouſly to the outward ceremonies of the Levitical law; the beſt Chriſtian is the man who has the ſtrongeſt faith. The ſinner, who tranſgreſſed againſt any ordinance of the Moſaic diſpenſation, not puniſhable with death was made to ſmart for his crime, by the forfeit he had to pay under the name of an offering. Under the Chriſtian diſpenſation the moſt damnable ſins (provided they do not offend againſt the ſtatute) may be committed one moment, and repented of the next, and pardoned to boot, without coſting the ſinner one farthing, unleſs he has the misfortune (for ſuch I muſt conſider it in this light) to belong to the Romiſh church; in which caſe he will have to pay (but I believe the terms are pretty moderate) for abſolution.

Whether he pays, however, or not; whether he be a diſciple of the Church of Rome, or a diſciple of the church of England, it makes no difference as to his conduct. In the former caſe, he can buy a licence to ſin on with impunity, for three, or four, or a dozen years together, according as his purſe [127]holds out; in the latter he may ſin and pay nothing: but then the Proteſtant who does not pay, muſt be at the trouble of repenting, which the Catholic, who pays, has no need to do. Thus they ſtand both nearly upon a level. Now let us ſee what good effects this bleſſed Religion produces in their practice.

The Chriſtians, long perſecuted by the Jews and Pagans, no ſooner get out of the fire themſelves, than they begin to thruſt others into it. They retaliate upon the Jews, they retaliate upon the Pagans, and when they have no common enemies to perſecute, they fall out among themſelves, and begin to worry each other. Their religion at length branches out into two diſtinct ramiſications; which is not to be wondered at, as I have already demonſtrated Chriſtianity to be theoretical; whereas Judaiſm was practical. Theſe two branches, though originating from the ſame ſtem, harbour greater hatred to each other, than if they were rival trees. Perſecution rages hotter now than ever; the elder branch, being the moſt powerful, as matured and invigorated by age, carries it awhile with a high and daring hand. At length the younger branch attains to ſufficient [128]growth and vigour to diſpute the day, and retaliates in its turn upon the elder branch. Thus they continue worrying each other, till their mutual intereſts compel them to live more neighbourly together: but neither ſhould a ſingle leaf on the Proteſtant branch enjoy one viſit from the genial beams of the ſun, if the Catholics could prevent it; nor the ſame bleſſing be allowed to the leaves of the Catholic branch, if the Proteſtants had it in their power to caſt a ſhade upon them. *

Religion being thus made to conſiſt in faith, or in other words, in opinion; and opinions being as various as there are heads to harbour thoſe opinions, the moſt abſurd and monſtrous doctrines are engrafted upon it. Hence we hear talk of ſtanding up for our religion; (which is, or ought to be, well able to ſtand up for itſelf) of fighting for [129]our religion; (though the founder of it would not permit the ſword to be drawn in his own defence) of dying for our religion; (which is nearly as abſurd as fighting for it, religion being intended for the happineſs of man, and not for an ignis fatuus to lead him into deſtruction) of making Proſelytes to our religion; (which, if poſſible, is more abſurd ſtill, as religion ſhould be left to beat up recruits for itſelf) of reforming our religion; (which, if it ſtands in need of reform, is better totally rejected) of eſtabliſhing our religion; (which God has taken care to do himſelf when he firſt laid down the immutable laws of nature) of proving our religion; (which if it be not the religion of nature will be found not worth the proof) of bringing our religion to the teſt; (which none but natural religion can ever ſtand) of ſupporting our religion (which if it wants ſupport from man ſhould be left to fall to the ground). Hence likewiſe in practice we are guilty of the moſt ridiculous abſurdities, and whilſt we ſtyle our God the Prince of peace, at whoſe birth the angels rent the air with loud acclaims of Tidings of great joy; peace upon earth, and good will to men:—we call [130]upon him to bleſs our ſlaughtering arms, and hang up the ſhattered ſtandards and blooddiſtained trophies of our enemies in his conſecrated temples!

But here ſteps in Mr. Wakefield with his famous plea, Ab abuſu ad uſum non valet conſequentia.—I admit the propoſition in its fulleſt extent. But firſt, let him demonſtrate to me the uſe of the thing for which we are contending. I defy him to do it. But ſhould he even ſucceed in diſcovering and ſubſtantiating ſome degree of uſe; it ſtill remains to be aſcertained, whether the uſe atones for the abuſe; whether it preponderates in the ſcale. When I ſee nothing but abuſe from firſt to laſt; nothing but corruption throughout; when I ſee nothing but fraud and deception; I fear that his "Abuſus non tollit uſum," will ſtand him in little ſtead. Let him prove to me that we have leſs uncharitableneſs, leſs unmercifulneſs, leſs vindictiveneſs in the world (I am ſpeaking in general terms of mankind at large, and not arguing from individuals) ſince the introduction of the Chriſtian ſyſtem: let him prove that we have fewer animoſities, fewer wars, leſs blood-ſhed, leſs [131]butchering of our fellow-creatures, and that often under the maſk of religion; * let him prove and eſtabliſh theſe important points, and I ſhall readily acknowledge myſelf his convert. Till then, however, I muſt make bold to believe with Mr. Paine, that the CREATION IS THE ONLY TRUE AND REAL WORD OF GOD, that ever did or will exiſt, and that every thing elſe called the Word of God, is fable and impoſition.

Notes
*
See pages 45, 51, 60, 61, 66. But I ſhall have occaſion to remark more largely upon this topic in the courſe of the work.
*
In juſtification of this remark, the reader is referred to the following pages of Mr. Wakefield's work, where he will find quotations heaped upon quotations, with all the pompoſity and affectation of a ſchool-boy. See pages 2, 10, 13, 21, 22, 34, 42, 50, 51, 54, 59, 64, 66. In many of theſe paſſages Greek and Latin authorities are brought forward in ſupport of the moſt palpable, the moſt plain, trite, and (if I may be allowed the expreſſion) the moſt every-day obſervations imaginable. I am far from objecting to claſſical quotations, introduced with judgment and with a ſparing hand; but, when dealt out with extravagant profuſion, when they ſtare you in the face at every turn, where neither the ſubject nor the pointedneſs of the alluſion, juſtify their inſertion, they certainly betray a pedantic diſpoſition, unworthy any gentleman of eſtabliſhed character in the republic of letters. And this remark I make the rather, as the general outcry raiſed againſt Mr. Paine, on the ſcore of his being unverſed in what are generally ſtyled the learned languages, ſeems to have led ſeveral of his opponents into this error; and I am convinced, that many an author has thereby acquired credit with uninformed minds, for a greater portion of learning than he was juſtly entitled to.
*
See ſome excellent remarks upon this ſubject, in the fourth Volume of the Chevalier Thunberg's Travels, publiſhed this year by Meſſrs. Rivingtons, of St. Paul's Churchyard.
*
See page 37 of Mr. Wakefield's Work.
*
2 Pet. iii. v. 10.
*
See page 16, where Mr. Wakefield ſays: ‘Though we concede to Mr. Paine, that ‘the way to God was open to every man alike,’ we affirm of the Jewiſh and Chriſtian diſpenſations, that they only were this way to any man deſirous of entertaining rational notions of God and human duty.’
*
Let any unprejudiced reader peruſe the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; let him peruſe the deſcription of the Jewiſh Feſtivals—the feaſt of trumpets; the feaſt of tabernacles; the feaſt of the new moon; the feaſt of paſſover; the feaſt of the Sabbatical year; the feaſt of jubilee; the feaſt of atonement, &c. &c. &c. with all their concomitant pomp and pageantry: let him read the deſcription of the ark of covenant; the altar of incenſe; the table of ſhew-bread; the golden candleſtick; the dreſſes of the prieſts; the ceremonies and formalities to be obſerved in the various offerings, rites, &c. ordained by the Levitical law; together with the ſevere penalties annexed to neglect or diſobedience:—and if, after a candid peruſal of all this, he does not find as much trumpery in the Jewiſh worſhip, as in that of the eſtabliſhed church of England, or of Rome, or of the Greek church, or of any other church I know of, I will acknowledge myſelf guilty of the moſt unpardonable error and injuſtice, in the character I have juſt given of the Jewiſh diſpenſation.—
*
Leviticus xxi. 18—22.
Admitting that the Gout, under the Moſaic diſpenſation, would have furniſhed ſufficient ground for diſqualifying a man from the diſcharge of the prieſtly function; and ſuppoſing theſe inhibitions to be in force under the preſent ſyſtem of things; it is lamentable to think what an irreparable loſs the poor ſheep of Chriſt's flock muſt inevitably ſuſtain, through the diſqualification of ſuch numbers of their moſt valuable and eminent paſtors, whoſe faithful care and tending the wretched ſheep would of courſe be deprived of, by the perſevering ſpite of a diſorder which ſeems to take a kind of cruel pleaſure in attacking the votaries of luxury and ſloth; inſomuch, that it is now generally conſidered as the certain appendage of indolence and high living; and to which, therefore, the higher orders of the clergy, that is to ſay, the chief ſhepherds and paſtors of the flock, the biſhops, deans, &c. are, in conſequence of their large revenues, the moſt expoſed!
*
Levit. xxi. 22.
*
2 Cor. vi. 11.
*
1 Cor. ix. 9. and ſqq.
*
"And all the people ſaw the thunderings and the lightnings, and the noiſe of the trumpet and the mountain ſmoking: and when the people ſaw it, they removed, and ſtood afar off. And they ſaid unto Moſes, Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God ſpeak with us, leſt we die." Exod. xx. 18, 19. So likewiſe in Deut. v. 25. et ſqq. The Iſraelites are repreſented addreſſing themſelves to Moſes to act as their agent and plenipotentiary with God: "Now, therefore, why ſhould we die? for this great fire will conſume us. If we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then ſhall we die. Go thou near, and hear all that the Lord our God ſhall ſay; and ſpeak thou unto us all that the Lord our God ſhall ſpeak unto thee, and we will hear it and do it."
*
‘That Creed of Chriſtian churches (writes Mr. Wakefield, page 5,) which acknowledges Jeſus Chriſt to be God, (one, by his own confeſſion, like ourſelves, and ſubject to all the conſtitutional weakneſſes of mortality, to pain and death) that creed, I ſay, is a fundamental violation of all theology, a moſt groſs and hideous doctrine, alike unknown to the Heathens (here Mr. Wakefield is guilty of a moſt groſs and palpable error, as any one in the leaſt degree converſant with the Heathen mythology will immediately perceive) ‘and the Jews, and contemplated with abhorrence by the followers of Moſes from its firſt propagation to this very day; a doctrine inconſiſtent with the plaineſt repeated declarations of Chriſt himſelf and his apoſtles; a doctrine which no human teſtimony whatever could render credible for a moment, becauſe a contradiction to divine; a doctrine which muſt ever ſhock and diſguſt unprejudiced and diſintereſted examination; and which therefore will happily prove a mill-ſtone on the neck of all political eſtabliſhments of Chriſtianity, and whelm them in perdition.’ And this denial of the divinity of Chriſt Mr. Wakefield further enforces by one of the moſt pointed and elegant quotations we ever remember to have ſeen brought forward; the inſertion of which bears unqueſtionable evidence to the delicacy of Mr. Wakefield's taſte; though our "delicate bird" ſeems in the preſent inſtance, it muſt be owned, to have loſt ſight of his "ſtrawberries and choiceſt fruits," and to be roving near the ſink of ‘rottenneſs and putreſcence!’
*
Mr. Wakefield's language on this occaſion is ſo very extraordinary, that I cannot refrain from quoting it: ‘Whether ſuch diſplay of ſupernatural agency’ (he writes page 19) ‘were in reality made in the caſe before us by Moſes to the Iſraelites, is not now the queſtion. I am only attempting to exhibit the propoſition in its proper form, and ſtating the fact as it exiſts, whether authentically or otherwiſe, in the Moſaic hiſtory.’
This quotation I purpoſely introduce, notwithſtanding the "palpable untruth" implied in it, according to Mr. Wakefield's aſſertion. I ſhall, however, decline vindicating it in the preſent inſtance, as I reſerve my remarks upon this ſubject, till I come to Mr. Paine's Strictures on the Moſaic account of the Creation.
*
‘I do not mean (writes our author, page 2) to condemn thoſe who believe otherwiſe. They have the ſame right to their belief, as I have to mine.
*
The very reverſe of this inſinuation is abundantly apparent in many paſſages of Mr. Paine's book. Speaking of Jeſus Chriſt, he ſays: ‘That ſuch a perſon as Jeſus Chriſt exiſted, and that he was crucified, which was the mode of execution at that day, are hiſtorical relations ſtrictly within the limits of probability.’ So neither does he call in queſtion the exiſtence of Moſes or of David, nor the hiſtorical tranſactions of the kings of Judah and Iſrael; all he combats is the abſurdity of beſtowing the title of God's word upon a miſcellaneous collection of Chronicles, Regiſters, Genealogies, Anecdotes, Ethics, Poetry, Rhapſody, Epiſtles, &c. &c.
*
Matthew, v. 18. xxiv. 35. Mark, xvi. 16. Luke, xvi. 17. 2 Theſſ. ii. 10. Rev. xxii. 18, 19.
*
Excluſive of the glaring impiety of this doctrine, which Mr. Paine juſtly obſerves ‘is contrary to every principle of moral juſtice,’ it ſtands in direct, irreconcileable contradiction to the moſt explicit declarations in ſeveral other parts of the Bible Thus it is expreſsly commanded in Deut. xxiv. 16. ‘The father ſhall not be put to death for the children; neither ſhall the children be put to death for the father: every man ſhall be put to death for his own ſin.’ So likewiſe Amaziah's conduct is highly applauded, (2 Kings, xiv. 5, 6. 2 Chron. xxv. 4.) becauſe, in avenging the death of his father, ‘he flew not the children of the murderers, according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moſes, &c.’ Here likewiſe may be referred the following paſſage in Jeremiah, xxxi. 29. ‘In thoſe days they ſhall ſay no more— The fathers have eaten a four grape, and the children's teeth are ſet on edge.’ And Ezekiel, xviii. 2, 3, 4. ‘What ſay ye, that ye uſe this proverb concerning the land of Iſrael, ſaying, The fathers have eaten four grapes, and the children's teeth are ſet on edge? As I live, faith the Lord God, ye ſhall no more uſe this proverb in Iſrael. The ſoul that ſinneth, it ſhall die.’ And again in the 20th verſe of the ſame chapter—‘The ſoul that ſinneth it ſhall die. The ſon ſhall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither ſhall the father bear the iniquity of the ſon: the righteouſneſs of the righteous ſhall be upon him, and the wickedneſs of the wicked ſhall be upon him.’ Can any thing be more deciſive and explicit? and yet Mr. Wakefield is ſuch a ſtaunch, determined advocate and admirer of the viſiting ſyſtem, unto the third and fourth generation, that he overlooks theſe and innumerable other paſſages in ſcripture of ſimilar import, and enters into a ſerious defence of the diabolical doctrine of puniſhing the innocent with the guilty, though he has both Moſes and the prophets decidedly againſt him!
*
The writer of a certain virulent attack upon our author, entitled, Chriſtianity the only true Theology, who very properly ſtyles himſelf a Churchman, for he is evidently the tool of party, accuſes Mr. Paine of the moſt diſſolute and impudent buffoonery; and with that charitableneſs which characterizes moſt of Mr. Paine's antagoniſts, compares him to "the ſow at its vomit." (page 58) Now I appeal to every candid examiner, whether Mr. Paine has not treated the ſubject of the immaculate conception of Jeſus Chriſt (a ſubject which, had he really merited the character ſo charitably beſtowed upon him, might have afforded ample ſcope for the diſplay of his talents) with a degree of delicacy and forbearance which gives the lie direct to ſuch impudent, unſupported aſperſions?
*
All Scripture is given by inſpiration of God, and is ‘profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for inſtruction in righteouſneſs; that the Man of God may be perfect. 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.
*
This poſition, we apprehend, was never called, nor intended to be called in queſtion by Mr. Paine, whoſe animadverſions upon the ſcriptures, if we conceive aright, do not attach to them in their hiſtorical capacity, as chronicles, and records of human tranſactions and events, (in which light they certainly claim an equal portion of credibility, as long as they ſteer clear of the marvellous and ſupernatural, with the writings of any other hiſtorian of received veracity) but are ſolely directed againſt their claim to revelation, and the unwarrantable requiſition they make upon our faith, to tales of moſt monſtrous prodigy, which militate directly againſt the eſtabliſhed order of nature, and which the reader therefore has an equal right to reject in the Chranicles of the Jews, and in the Goſpel Narratives, as he has in the Greek or Roman hiſtorians, Few, it is preſumed, who have read Plutarch's Lives, entertain any doubts as to the general authenticity of the tranſactions recorded in that valuable work, and yet many, perhaps, might be found who cannot reconcile their notions of probabilities to a belief in the apparition of the phantom, ſuppoſed to be Coeſar's ghoſt, to his murderer, Brutus, at Abydos. The inference is obvious, and renders all comments upon the caſe unneceſſary.
*
See Livy, book xxxv. chap. 21.
Ibidem, book xl. chap. 19.
The ingenious compiler of the Characteriſtic Anecdotes of the Ruſſian Emperor, Peter the Great, publiſhed by royal authority at Peterſburgh, gives a very remarkable inſtance of this monarch's ſagacity, and at the ſame time of the villainy of the crafty ſons of Loyola. Peter, having given offence to the clergy by ſome of his innovations, the prieſthood, among other attempts to baffle his deſigns, had recourſe to a miracle. Suddenly it was reported, that the image of the Virgin Mary, in one of their churches, had been obſerved to weep; nor was the cauſe of theſe heavenly tears pointed out in very ambiguous terms. Multitudes flocked to the ſacred ſhrine to convince themſelves by ocular demonſtration of the truth of this portentous prodigy, for ſuch the prieſts unanimouſly pronounced it to be, and returned back, like the apoſtles of old, fully ſatisfied of the fact, having heard, and ſeen, and handled, and for aught I know, taſted of theſe tears, which many, from a principle of devotion, had caught in handkerchiefs, and even vials, as they fell. At length the monarch, who eaſily penetrated into the true motives of this miracle, was induced to pay the weeping ſaint a viſit. Several of the ſuperior clergy accompanied him by his order, in whoſe preſence he proceeded to examine into the myſtery. A ladder being procured, Peter aſcended the ſteps, and pulling off the golden crown that encompaſſed the Virgin's head, made a complete diſcovery of the whole plot. The bleſſed Mother of Chriſt, it ſeems, had undergone the trepan; which having laid her ſcull open, a ſilver veſſel, containing about a pint and a half of water, was introduced, which by means of ſmall punctures, was very dexterouſly made to diſtil through the eyes in the form of tears!
*
Livy, book xxxvii. chap. 4.
*
Here Mr. Paine, as his antagoniſt juſtly obſerves, has fallen into an error, with reſpect to the number of perſons ſaid to have been witneſſes of Chriſt's reſurrection and aſcenſion. The ſtrength of the argument, however, ſuſtains no detriment by it; and furthermore it muſt be remembered, that our author is refuted only by the ſingle evidence of Paul, (1 Cor. xv. 6.) and that only in one ſolitary inſtance; and who knows but this paſſage, only that it makes againſt the Author of the Age of Reaſon, might have been one of Mr. Wakefield's occaſional interpolations? (see page 23.)
*
See page 35 of Mr. Wakefield's work.
*
See page 32 or Mr. Wakefield's work
*
In caſe, that is to ſay, our good Churchmen, our old Dames and Nurſes, for whoſe behoof, it ſeems (ſee Mr. Wakefield, p. 44) theſe "monſtrous doctrines" have been tagged to the word of God, can any wiſe do without him.
*
‘How much, or what part of the Books, called the New Teſtament, were written by the perſons whoſe name they bear, is what we know nothing of.’ Thus writes Mr. Paine; and Mr. Wakefield does not appear to claſs this among the hardy aſſertions he complains of in our Author; for he does not contravene the opinion. ‘If the books (ſee page 37 of Mr. Wakefield's work)’ ‘ſhould not be written in reality by thoſe identical perſons whoſe names are affixed, which is no eſſential circumſtance,’ &c.
*

The celebrated Auguſt Ludwig Schloezer, Profeſſor of Statiſtics at the Univerſity of Goettingen, informs us in his Welt Geſchichte, or Univerſal Hiſtory, that the number of Monks and Nuns in the principal convents of Egypt alone, amounted, towards the end of the fourth century, to upwards of 96,000 perſons! The firſt regular Convent of Chriſtian Monks was founded at Tabenna, Anno Domini 325, by Pachomius, a diſbanded ſoldier.

See Schloezer's Univerſal Hiſtory, Part I. p. 173.

*
Such is the expreſs charge brought againſt him by Dr. Prieſtley, (ſee page 66) who from thence argues, that his Work is only calculated to ‘make an impreſſion on thoſe who are as ignorant as himſelf.’ Conceding this "point to the Doctor (though I ſee no argument to extort this conceſſion from us, but rather the very reverſe, yet conceding the point for the ſake of a caſe), I apprehend, that Mr. Paine's Work, allowing it to make impreſſion upon only one third, inſtead of all his readers, who are not more intelligent than himſelf, bids fair to make ten times the number of proſelytes that Mr. Prieſtley has any reaſon to expect.
*
From the frequent recurrence of the term, latter times, laſt days, laſt time, evil days, &c. ( [...], 1 Tim. iv. 1. [...], 2 Tim. iii. 1. [...], 2 Pet. iii. 3. [...], Jude, v. 18. [...], Eph. v. 16. [...]1 Cor. x. 11,) in the New Teſtament, which expreſſions bear an obvious alluſion not only to an alarming degeneracy, both doctrinal and practical, in the church, but likewiſe to a conſiderable interſtice between the firſt foundation of Chriſtianity, and the times in which the writers of theſe Epiſtles lived, it ſhould ſeem that no mean argument might be inferred againſt the chronological order in which the books of the New Teſtament are generally ſuppoſed to have been written, unleſs, indeed, we are willing to argue away the force of this objection, on the preſumption of theſe diſputable paſſages being interpolations. St. John, in his firſt Epiſtle, ii. 18. even goes a ſtep farther, and affirms it to be "the laſt time," or as it ought to be rendered, ‘the laſt hour!
*
Matthew, xix. 12.
*
Does the apoſtle mean, after the example of Origen?
I am well aware, that this quotation begins abruptly in the middle of a comma; but the reader's own good ſenſe will ſatisfy him with reſpect to the ſuppreſſion of the former part of the ſentence, without any comment being neceſſary on my ſide.
*
The moſt valuable philology is beyond diſpute, a general and extenſive acquaintance with the moſt uſeful of the modern living languages.
*
See Wetſtenii Proleg. in N. T. page 54 et ſqq. Edit. Halens.
*

The learned and juſtly celebrated profeſſor Schloezer whoſe authority (and the teſtimony of ſuch a man I deem ſufficient authority,) I have already, in a former inſtance, had occaſion to refer to, bears evidence to the wiſdom and ſcience of the Egyptians, in the moſt honorable and unequivocal terms. As German Literature is not known adequately to its merits, in this country, I ſubjoin a tranſlation of one or two extracts from this valuable work. "Egypt, he writes, (ſee his Univerſal Hiſtory, firſt part, page 151) was probably the moſt ancient poſt-diluvian ſtate in the world. Moſes, who was a pupil of the Egyptians, was himſelf unacquainted with its origin; otherwiſe he would, no doubt, have informed us of it, as he has done of the origin of Babylon. As early as the times of Abraham, we find a regular court, with court-ſycophants in abundance, who neglect not to give his majeſty timely notice the moment a beautiful lady, from foreign parts, ſets foot in his dominions. (Gen. xii. 15.) At Joſeph's time we find this court greatly increaſed in ſplendor, with ſuitable appendages of grandeur and officers of ſtate: and furthermore a numerous prieſthood, inveſted with hereditary revenues; and a ſtanding army at the time of Moſes. And all this in Lower-Egypt only: though it is highly probable that Upper Egypt was cultivated much earlier."

And in page 168 he writes.

"That the Egyptians were the moſt ancient of all cultivated nations, is eſtabliſhed beyond a doubt: they were the wiſeſt nation upon earth, even according to the teſtimony of the Oracle at Delphi: they were the inſtructors of the Hebrews and the Greeks: and powerful and highly-cultivated even at the time when Greece and all Europe was overrun with foreſts, in whoſe ſhades individual groups of ſavages fed upon acorns. The young Greeks were not acquainted with them till in the wane of their glory. Herodotus found Thebes a heap of ruins, and could procure no certain intelligence concerning the age of the Pyramids. He ſaw ſtatues, which had tumbled down with age, notwithſtanding they were, probably, like the unperiſhable caſes of their mummies, made of ſycamore wood. To the Egyptians the Greeks ſtand indebted (page 172) for the whole of their wiſdom and cultivation, as do the Hebrews likewiſe for the greateſt part of theirs. Their architectural ruins, ſurpaſs all the relics we have of Grecian, Perſian, and Roman architecture, and will endure longer in their preſent condition, than the moſt modern of our palaces, for neither earthquakes nor rain (caſualties to which they are not expoſed) cauſe them to decay. To their aſtronomers the world ſtands indebted for the true Solar year. (within eleven minutes, five ſeconds, at leaſt)—This learned people (page 178) wrote both in hieroglyphics and with letters, upon ſtones, hermetical columns ( [...]) and obeliſks, and afterwards upon the Papyrus, or Egyptian bullruſh, which is of greater antiquity than Numa."

*
This is not merely my own individual opinion: it is entertained, and moſt ably vindicated likewiſe, by commentators of the firſt erudition and celebrity. Eichhorn's Einleitung in das Alte Teſtament. (Eichhorn's Introduction to the Study of the Old Teſtament.) Part II. p. 294.
*
See Roſemmüller's Erklaerung der Geſchichte vom Sünden Fall, (Roſemmüllers Illuſtration of the Moſaic Hiſtory of the Fall of Man) in the Repertory of Biblical and Oriental Literature, part v. page 158-185.
*
Heb. viii. 7.
Heb. x. 9.

Juſtice, however, requires that I ſhould notice in this place two very palpable errors into which Mr. Paine has fallen, and which are very properly animadverted upon by Dr. Prieſtley, though they ſeem to have eſcaped the lynx-eyed criticiſm of Mr. Wakefield. The firſt of theſe errors refers to Mr. Paine's attempt to prove that the prophetical writings were written in poetical meaſure, by quoting paſſages from the Engliſh verſion. The truth of the propoſition itſelf, at leaſt with reſpect to a part, is not deſigned to be called in queſtion; but the argument upon which Mr. Paine grounds his proof is altogether nugatory and fallacious.

In the ſecond inſtance, Mr. Paine lays himſelf ſtill more open to animadverſion. His hypotheſis, that there muſt be degrees in propheſying, becauſe the prophets are diſtinguiſhed by the appellations of the greater and the minor, is really calculated to raiſe a ſmile, as Mr. Prieſtley very juſtly obſerves; the term having no reference whatever to the quality, but only to the quantity of what theſe prophets wrote. In both caſes Mr. Paine is vulnerable, and I cannot defend him.

*
Obvious, indeed! for as the fortunate chance of an antitype to theſe myſtical alluſions has not yet turned up, the believers in them are ſtill groping about in the dark, and, like the prieſts of Baal, calling upon their God to know whether he be ſleeping; or buſily engaged in granting audience to ſome of his newly-commiſſioned delegates and prophets; or whether, peradventure, he is on a journey in queſt of fortunate chances, to verify his predictions, and render them intelligible, that he heareth not, nor yet ſendeth one ſpark of fire, one ray of light, to enable them to ſee their way through the prophetical fog in which their ſenſes are loſt and bewildered!
*
My advice to the unhappy victims of this perſecuting power may be ſeen in Matth. xxiv. 16. And poſitively, if things do not ſhortly appear to mend, which, from the favorable circumſtance of their being nearly, if not quite ſo, at the worſt already, is reaſonably to be expected, I believe I ſhall even find expedient, to put this advice in practice myſelf, as the doctor has done before me.
*
Here I cannot but congratulate the author of the Rights of Man, that there is a chance, (provided he does but live long enough for the fulfilment of the prophecy, twice the age of Methuſelah, or thereabouts) of his being no longer the object of miniſterial perſecution, obloquy and revenge. I cannot help congratulating him that there is a chance (let us all pray fervently to God, and Mr. Paine, I make no doubt, notwithſtanding his general objection to prayer, will readily join us on this votive occaſion, let us pray for the ſpeedy realization of this chance, leſt, haply, we, both ourſelves and our little ones, ſhould all be mouldering in our graves, "ages of hopeleſs years," before the accompliſhment of this prophecy) there is a chance, however, and I glory in the pleaſing, however diſtant proſpect, that the long proſcribed Rights of Man ſhall at length triumph over every adverſary; when thrones, and dominions, principalities, and powers, ſhall bow their proud necks under the footſtool of Reaſon and Philoſophy; when they ſhall be led captive and a ſhow made of them openly (I am talking ſcripture on this occaſion, and not treaſon, be it known to the Accuſing Spirit, to the Dragon and his Angels, Mr. REEVES and Co. for whoſe further information, and to ſave them the trouble of conſulting the biſhops I herewith ſubjoin chapter and verſe Col. ii. 15.) and man no longer be the ſlave of man! but all unite, under the happy banners of LIBERTY, EQUALITY, and FRATERNITY, (I hope I may be allowed to repeat the words of Chriſt, Matth. xxiii. 8, 10.) in one grand ſocial compact of confederation, as the offspring of one God, and children of one common parent. Amen! ſo be it; yea let the time come quickly!
*
I have in moſt ſerious contemplation, and indeed I have already arranged the plan of my work, to give a comprehenſive Commentary on the true and myſtical meaning of this part of St. John's Viſion; its tropes, ſimilies, types, alluſions, references, &c. in which I ſhall not fail to expatiate largely, and I hope ſatisfactorily, on all and ſeveral the characteriſtics of this marvellous Beaſt. I ſhall treat of the fire which he maketh to come down from heaven,—of the miracles which he has power to do in the ſight (but no longer than in the ſight) of the other Beaſt; to whom he ſeems to look up as to his maſter; and who is ſaid to have received a deadly wound; which deadly wound, however, was notwithſtanding, to the great admiration of all who knew him, healed. I ſhall moreover comment upon the image ſet up by order of my Beaſt to the other Beaſt, after his recovery from the deadly wound; of the power he has to give life to the image of this Beaſt, which image he cauſes to ſerve his own purpoſes as effectually as the Beaſt itſelf; of his arbitrary ſtretch of prerogative, in cauſing all men, both ſmall and great, rich and poor, free and bond to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their forcheads, whence ſome would infer the true origin of Whig and Tory, Jacobin and Alarmiſt; though others, from what immediately follows, that no man might buy or ſell, ſave he that had the mark, or the name of the beaſt or the number of his name, ſuppoſe it to allude to the ſyſtem of taxation, Exciſe-laws, licenſes, &c. but the beauty of my commentary is, that it proves it to be typical and demonſtrative of all and every one of theſe opinions. Laſtly, (and here it is I propoſe to diſplay my wiſdom) I ſhall give the only true, full, genuine and ſatisfactory comment, elucidation, interpretation, myſtical meaning, and real explication, that ever was, or ever will be given of the number of this beaſt. As this work promiſes to prove a very expenſive undertaking, I propoſe to publiſh it by ſubſcription, and hope to get it ready for delivery againſt the Firſt of April next!
*
This has ever been the cant-phraſe with the pious advocates of theſe pious frauds; who, by their happy dexterity in refering every notable event or revolution, whether in the moral or political world, to ſome favourite prophecy, till they fulfil it and unfulfil it again a hundred times over, make Prophecy the ſcarlet-coloured Beaſt with ſeven heads and ten horns, which John ſaw in the wilderneſs, that "was, and is not, and yet is." Doctor Prieſtley ſeems to have got aſtride on this Beaſt, when he diſcants on the Prophecies of Moſes now in a ſtate of fulfilment (ſee p. 94); together with the predictions of Iſaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and others. It is amazing what ſtriking analogies what ſtrong relations, and palpable references theſe ſecondſighted ſons of the prophets can diſcover between types, and prototypes, and antitypes, and archetypes, where plain ſimple reaſon can diſcover no manner of reſemblance whatever. It was with great truth, though from a different conviction, that Werenfels wrote on the cover of his Bible:
"Hic liber eſt, in quo quaerit ſua dogmata quiſque;
"Invenit et pariter dogmata quiſque ſua."
*
‘Behold, I lay in Sion a ſtumbling-ſtone and rock of offence. (Rom. ix. 33) ‘Whoſoever ſhall fall on this ſtone ſhall be broken; but on whomſoever it ſhall fall, it will grind him to pieces.’ (Math. xxi. 44.)
*
Let it not be imagined that I indulge in this ludicrous ſtrain from a wantonneſs of diſpoſition. The revival of the claim to prophetic inſpiration, renders it neceſſary to oppoſe a barrier to the rapid progreſs of deluſion. Theſe pious frauds are in their conſequences productive of very unholy miſchiefs, and of greater evil than many would at firſt ſight imagine. Argument and remonſtrance have been in vain applied to expoſe the Cheat in all its nakedneſs; let us try what the lighter ſhafts of ridicule may be able to effect.
*
The truth of this poſition is in fact admitted by Paul himſelf. ‘The inviſible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly ſeen, being underſtood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.’ And in the preceding verſe he ſays, ‘That which may be known of God is manifeſt in them: for God hath ſhown it unto them; ſo that they are without excuſe: becauſe, that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,’ Rom. i. 19, 20, 21. And I might add, that the happy change which has taken place, to ſpeak in general terms, in our pulpit-harangues, is of itſelf no mean corroboration of the truth of the principles contained in the Age of Reaſon, in as much as our pious orators of the church, except it be on a day of particular celebrity, ſuch as a holiday, a day of faſt or thankſgiving, or a day appropriated for the diſcuſſion of certain crabbed knotty points of the Chriſtian faith, ſuch, for inſtance, as Trinity Sunday, chiefly confine their weekly lectures to the principles of morality, which certainly muſt edify their congregations infinitely more than nonſenſical wranglings upon incomprehenſibilities, which have not the ſmalleſt tendency to reform and meliorate the heart.
*
Such was the amazing fertility of Egypt, that it was ſtyled by way of eminence the Granary of the Romans. Agriculture did not require more than one ninth of the labour, which it calls for in England: nothing more was neceſſary than to ſow and water: the land yielded in incredible abundance, inſomuch that it ſupplied Italy, under Juſtinian, with nearly forty millions of quarterns annually!
*
Here I hold myſelf prepared and ready for attack. The man Moſes we are told, and told by himſelf into the bargain, (and ſurely he ought to have been the beſt judge of his own feelings) ‘was a very meek man, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.’ (Numbers, xii. 3) Greatly am I led to doubt the juſtice of the character which Moſes here gives us of himſelf, and ſtrong and cogent are my reaſons for doubting it. They may however, be expreſſed in very few words. I call in doubt his written character of himſelf, becauſe it is flatly contradicted by his actions. He ſeeth an Egyptian ſmiting an Hebrew, and ſtraitway his ſpirit waxeth hot, and he falleth upon, and ſtayeth the Egyptian. Heroic as this action might otherwiſe appear, were it not for two untoward circumſtances, the odds againſt the Egyptian, and the ‘looking of Moſes this way and that way, (Exod. ii. 12.) to aſſure himſelf that he was ſafe; I greatly doubt whether it can be conſtrued, by any polemical ambidexterity whatever, into a proof of extraordinary meekneſs. Again, when the ſeven daughters of the prieſt of Midian are rudely driven away from the watering troughs by the ſhepherds, (men ſeem to have entertained very ſtrange notions of gallantry in thoſe days) Moſes, as every gentlemen ought to have done in ſuch a caſe, feels his blood begin to boil; he ſtandeth up, takes the part of the diſtreſſed damſels, and delivereth them out of the hands of the ſhepherds. (Exod. ii. 16, 19.) I am not finding fault with this action, on the contrary, I greatly admire it; it evinces much more true heroiſm (for here we ſee one engaged againſt many) than the former inſtance. All I contend for is, that it does not ſatisfy me as to the meekneſs of the man. Neither can his meekneſs, I apprehend, be argued from the circumſtance of his daſhing in pieces, in the intemperance of his zeal, the two tables of the commandments, which God himſelf, according to his account, had been at the trouble of engraving for him: nor yet from the hiſtory of Korah's rebellion, when Moſes is ſaid to have been very wroth, (Numbers, xvi. 15.) and indeed he had reaſon to be wroth, for Korah ſeems to have aimed at nothing leſs than ſupplanting him; wherefore Moſes very charitably prays the Lord to have ‘no reſpect unto their offerings;’ and puts an end to the rebellion by undermining thoſe who were plotting to undermine him. (Numbers xvi. 31, 33) Nor yet can we prove his meekneſs from his ſmiting the rock in a paſſion, inſtead of intreating it kindly (Numbers xx. 11, 12), for which extraordinary proof of meekneſs he was doomed to periſh in the wilderneſs, without entering the land of Promiſe; nor yet from the order he gave unto the Judges "to ſlay every man his neighbour;" (Numbers xxv. 5) nor yet from his being wroth with the officers of the hoſt, becauſe they had ſaved the women and children alive, whom Moſes, very humanely commands them to butcher, reſerving, however, the females who had not parted with their virginity for themſelves (Numbers xxxi. 13, 18), Moſes being greatly incenſed againſt the Midianites, becauſe they had ſeat a deputation to Balaam, the man with the wonderful aſs, under the ſuppoſition of his being a greater prophet than Moſes himſelf. (Numbers xxii) Neither, I ſay, can this laſt inſtance, nor any of the former inſtances I have enumerated, ſatisfy me of the meekneſs of Moſes. The fact is, Moſes (ſuppoſing the writings in queſtion to be actually his own) was no more a novice in the art of writing Commentaries than Julius Caeſar, or the moſt enlightened writer of his own memoirs among the moderns: but I am ever apt to diſtruſt the praiſes which people beſtow upon themſelves.
*
So ſevere indeed, that not only the actual perpetration of murder, but the non-prevention likewiſe of the crime, were puniſhable with death.
*
Thus we ſee the practice of making religion the tool of politics is not of modern invention.
*
The length to which this publieation has already ſwelled, prevents me from entering into the merits of the reputed miracles wrought by Moſes. It is not, however, improbable but I may be induced to give a criticiſm of the hiſtory of the emigration of the Jews, in ſome future publication, of which I have already collected the chief materials,
*
This ſeems to be the true pillar of the Cloud which ſtood between the Iſraelites and the Egyptians (Exod. xiv. 19, 20.)
*
I ſtate the propoſition in Mr. Wakefield's own words (ſee page 62) to give it in its moſt unexceptionable form.
*
See Mr. Wakefield, p. 61.
*
Here I am well aware of a whole hoſt of quibblers, that will not fail to fall foul upon me with their ridiculous diſtinction between natural death and ſpiritual death; but, to give them their fulleſt ſwing, they muſt allow that natural death, if it did not conſtitute the whole of Adam's puniſhment, forms however, a part; and this conceſſion granted (and grant it they muſt) my argument holds equally good.
*
The diſqualification of the Catholics and Diſſenters to hold places under our government; ſit in cur ſenate; paſs their degrees in our Univerſities; with various other illiberal reſtrictions, bear ample evidence to the truth of my aſſertion.
I am grieved to think, that we are at the very moment that I write theſe pages ſighting for religion in our cruſade againſt the French.
*
How many millions of lives have been ſaorificed at the ſhrine of Chriſtianity in the holy wars againſt the Saracens! in the cruſades againſt the Huſſites, Hugonots, &c.
Distributed by the University of Oxford under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

Citation Suggestion for this Object
TextGrid Repository (2020). TEI. 4935 A vindication of The age of reason by Thomas Paine being an answer to the strictures of Mr Gilbert Wakefield and Dr Priestley By Thomas Dutton. University of Oxford Text Archive. . https://hdl.handle.net/21.T11991/0000-001A-605C-1