AN EXAMINATION OF THE AGE OF REASON, &c.

THAT the former writings of Thomas Paine abound with indications of original conception and profound thought, of comprehenſion and ſa⯑gacity, far beyond the vigour of vulgar minds, no man, I preſume, of character for intelligence and integrity will venture to deny. To the authority of venal ſycophants, and all the retainers of cor⯑rupt and wicked ſyſtems, whether in politics or religion, no competency can be allowed in a deci⯑ſion upon this ſubject: but, on the contrary, the virulence of their abuſe is in itſelf no unequivocal ſymptom of extraordinary merit: juſt as the ſcreams and tumult of the feathered tribe prove ſome bird of nobler preſence and more ample pi⯑nion to be approaching. The work, which I have undertaken to examine, is entitled to particular reſpect from the circumſtances of it's compoſition. [2]It is the effuſion of a pregnant intellect, ſobered by the meditations of a ſolitary priſon, not unat⯑tended probably by ſome apprehenſions of ſuch a cataſtrophe, as a criſis of things ſo novel and event⯑ful, may daily and hourly be expected to produce. The reflections therefore of ſuch a ſeaſon, from ſo popular a name, on a ſubject of ſuch univer⯑ſal intereſt, is ſecure, we may preſume, of conſider⯑able attention in this country, from thoſe who are occupied in the diſcuſſion of their civil and religious creed: a number, which has certainly in⯑creaſed of late with ſurpriſing rapidity, and will, I hope and believe, go on encreaſing with an ac⯑celerated progreſs. On this account, I conceived myſelf not unlikely to ſerve the cauſe of revealed truth by an examination of a deiſtical pamphlet, which ſeemed ſo fair a candidate for extenſive cir⯑culation: and I felt the more inclination to this talk, not from an arrogant perſuaſion of ſuperior knowledge and abilities, but from a clear con⯑viction, that Chriſtianity CANNOT be vindicated adequately and conſiſtently againſt Deiſm by any ſlave of ſyſtems and eſtabliſhments; well aware in the mean time, that all my zeal for Chriſtianity will not ſcreen me from the malice of thoſe, who love church-emoluments better than ſcripture-truth; becauſe an opportunity will ariſe of expoſing the trumpery and nonſenſe of eccleſiaſtics.

[3]The time is come, when all our opinions muſt be tried at the touchſtone of ſevere enquiry: and, if the Jewiſh and Chriſtian Revelations cannot ſupport themſelves againſt the batteries of their aſſailants, in the eſtimation of capable and diſin⯑tereſted judges, the out-poſts muſt be abandoned; and a retreat ſecured to the fortreſſes of deiſm, al⯑ready occupied by the patriarchs of old, and the illuſtrious philoſophers of later times. The ſway of creeds and councils, of hierarchies and churches, whether Proteſtant or Popiſh, over the bodies and conſciences of men, is diminiſhing apace: and the temple of revelation, deprived of the mouldering props, which prieſtcraft, and tyranny, and ſuperſti⯑tion had framed for it's ſupport, muſt repoſe ſolely on it's proper baſis, the adamant of TRUTH.

After premiſing a ſhort introduction, explana⯑tory of his motives to this work, our ingenuous author delivers his creed:

‘I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happineſs beyond this life.’

I join the writer in aſſent to theſe articles of faith. That Creed of Chriſtian Churches, which acknowledges Jeſus Chriſt alſo to be God, and the Holy Spirit to be God, is a fundamental violation [4]of all theology; a doctrine, alike unknown to the Heathens and the Jews, and contemplated with abhorrence by the followers of Moſes from it's firſt propagation to this very day: a doctrine, incon⯑ſiſtent with the plaineſt declarations of Chriſt himſelf and his apoſtles; a doctrine, which no human teſtimony whatever could render credible; a doctrine, which will happily prove a mill-ſtone of deſtruction to all political eſtabliſhments of chriſtianity.

Our author thus proceeds in his confeſſion: ‘I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties conſiſt in doing juſtice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our fellow-creatures happy.’

All diverſity of civil privileges and titular diſ⯑tinctions; all inequality, but the tranſient and ca⯑ſual inequality produced by perſonal exertion, public benefit, or private worth, is deſtitute of even the ſhadow of ſupport from nature or revela⯑tion. We are all children of one common father: and Jeſus of Nazareth allowed no pre-eminence among his diſciples, but that of mutual ſubjection, condeſcending ſervice, profound humility, and ſelf-abaſement ^*; of which lowly virtues he pro⯑poſed [5]himſelf as a complete example. It requires but a trivial portion of ſagacity to diſcover, that certain orders and deſcriptions of frail creatures, encompaſſed with every inducement to be corrupt themſelves, and plentifully furniſhed with every means of corrupting others, cannot be peculiarly calculated to promote the general happineſs of mankind; and this happineſs we are compelled to regard as the prime object of the divine ad⯑miniſtration. It was a beautiful ſentiment of Plato ^*, that ‘the affairs of ſtates would never be well conducted, 'till philoſophers were kings, or kings philoſophers.’ He, who vindicates corruption in ſociety, and diſcountenances a pro⯑greſs to all perfection, of which humanity is capable, from the ſtale topic of the inevitable depravity of human beings, diſcourages every effort for virtu⯑ous pre-eminence, degrades the dignity of our nature, libels his ſpecies, and thwarts the mea⯑ſures of divine government. Chriſtians at leaſt might be expected to beſtow ſome readineſs in their attempts of conforming to the injunctions of their divine teachers, by ſtriving to be perfect ^†, and thoroughly furniſhed unto all good works by ‘leaving the principles of the doctrine of Chriſt, and go⯑ing on unto perfection ^‡.’ In our preſent ſtate of embarraſſment and degradation from a thouſand [6]cauſes, it were preſumptuous ignorance, border⯑ing on profaneneſs, to preſcribe a limit to the ca⯑pacities of mortality, either in moral or intel⯑lectual exertion. He at leaſt cannot be deemed unfriendly to his ſpecies, or contemptuous to the divinity, who thinks reſpectably of the workman⯑ſhip of God, of the rational image of his Creator.

Again: ‘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 church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.’

This too may be conceded, if by ‘the creed of the Proteſtant church,’ be meant that mon⯑ſtrous farrago of abſurdities and contradictions, concentrated with moſt ingenious and compre⯑henſive brevity, in the creeds denominated the Athanaſian and Nicene; which, without the expe⯑dient of repeating backwards, would

a much more untractable daemon than Aſmodeus ^†: or, if ſome clauſes even of the Apoſtle's creed were intended by our author; clauſes, which may be [7]found indeed in the liturgies of eſtabliſhed churches, but are certainly not "written in the book of life."

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

A juſt remark, conciſely and pregnantly ex⯑preſſed. National churches are that hay and ſtubble ^* which might be removed without difficulty or confuſion, from the fabric of religion, by the gentle hand of reformation, but which the infa⯑tuation of eccleſiaſtics will leave to be deſtroyed by fire ^†. National churches are that incruſtation, which has enveloped, by gradual concretion, the diamond of chriſtianity; nor can, I fear, the ge⯑nuine luſtre be reſtored, but by ſuch violent efforts as the ſeparation of ſubſtances ſo long and cloſely connected muſt inevitably require.

Nor can I forbear the quotation of another pa⯑ragraph, replete with manly ſenſe and dignified mo⯑rality, conveyed in ſimple but energetic language; [8]though not immediately pertinent to the diſcuſſion, which I have in view; eſpecially as fewer occa⯑ſions of approbation and coincidence will be pre⯑ſented in our progreſs through the pamphlet.

‘It is impoſſible to calculate the moral miſchief, if I may ſo expreſs it, that mental lying has pro⯑duced in ſociety. When a man has ſo far cor⯑rupted and proſtituted the chaſtity of his mind, as to ſubſcribe his profeſſional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himſelf for the commiſſion of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a prieſt for the ſake of gain, and in order to qualify himſelf for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more deſtructive to morality than this?’

Theſe very rational and important obſervations are applicable in the fulleſt latitude to the ſubſcrip⯑tions exacted from young men at our Univerſities for degrees, and for the candidates for the miniſtry in the Church of England. It is a moſt ſhocking reflection to every lover of truth and honeſty, that a requiſition to acknowledge a multitudinous maſs of theological and political propoſitions, deno⯑minated articles of religion, which many have never read, and which they, who read, cannot under⯑ſtand; that an aſſent, I ſay, to ſuch a monſtrous [9]and unintelligible hodge podge of ſcholaſtic reve⯑ries ſhould be made an indiſpenſable condition to the privilege of preaching the truths of Chriſtianity. The ſimplicity and ſincerity of the goſpel cannot fail of furtherance and ſupport, beyond all contro⯑verſy, from thoſe, who begin their godly functions in ſuch trifling with veracity and the ſolemnity of oaths! who thus bind themſelves to the belief of certain tenets manufactured and impoſed by others; and thereby preclude themſelves (in addition to the indirect impediment in the way of acquiring truth, interpoſed by this unequivocal declaration of indifference to her intereſts) from purſuing their theological enquiries beyond the limits aſſigned by councils and parliaments in former days, by an ex⯑preſs obligation not to exceed the knowledge of their forefathers, nor to diſpute their opinions, whether true or falſe. I cannot myſelf conceive a caſe more palpably immoral and indefenſible: nor can we be ſurpriſed at a plenteous harveſt of unbelievers in a vineyard cultivated by labourers of this complexion.

‘Every national church or religion has eſtabliſh⯑ed 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 [10]their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.’

This ſtatement is frivolous and erroneous in the extreme. The ſyſtem of Jeſus Chriſt pro⯑ceeds upon the very ſuppoſition here inſtituted, that "the way to God is open to every man alike;" as might be proved by many paſſages in the Chriſtian Scriptures. What the Jews and Chriſtians maintain in behalf of their reſpective ſyſ⯑tems, is: that their founders delivered to man⯑kind rational ſentiments of the Divine nature, of his exiſtence, and his providential government of the world, at a time, when ignorance and deprava⯑tion, with reſpect to theſe fundamental canons of religious rectitude, were almoſt univerſally predo⯑minant. With relation to the writings of the Jews, it is altogether undeniable, and is a truth of the ut⯑moſt weight and magnitude, that our accumulated diſcoveries in ſcience and philoſophy, and all our progreſs in other parts of knowledge, has not en⯑abled the wiſeſt of the moderns to excel the noble ſentiments conveyed in the didactics and devo⯑tional compoſitions of the Old Teſtament; com⯑poſitions, many of which exiſted, without diſpute, before the earlieſt writings of heathen antiquity, and at a period, when even thoſe illuſtrious in⯑ſtructors of mankind, the Greeks and Romans, were [11]barbarous and unknown. It would gratify me much, I confeſs, to be informed in what manner the contemners of the Jews and of the Moſaic ſyſ⯑tem account for this ſingular phoenomenon: which indeed might be ſtated with abundantly more full⯑neſs and cogency, if it were neceſſary on this oc⯑caſion. Will Thomas Paine the deiſt, or any of our modern atheiſts, undertake the ſolution of this difficulty?—Beſides, let any man compare the ſim⯑ple morality and the noble precepts of the Goſpel, as they relate to the attributes of God and the du⯑ties of humanity, with the monſtrous theology, with the ſubtleties and the contradictory ſchemes of contemporary moraliſts, among the Greeks and Ro⯑mans; (who nevertheleſs had, in all probability, profited mediately or immediately by the Jewiſh ſyſtem, which could not exiſt without diffuſing ſome influence through the neighbourhood) and reflect at the ſame time, that a perfect manual of morality may be collected from a few pages in the goſpel, but muſt be picked in Pagan writers from a multitude of diſcordant volumes, and a maſs of incoherency and abſurdity: and then condeſcend to furniſh us with an explanation of what muſt be allowed on all hands a ſurpriſing fact; namely, the exiſtence of ſuch ſuperior intelligence in a Jewiſh carpenter at Nazareth. So then, though we con⯑cede to Mr Paine, that "the way to God was open [12]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 no⯑tions of God and human duty. Without the illu⯑mination, which has been diſtributed through the world from theſe diſpenſations, Thomas Paine, and other deiſts of our own and ſucceeding ages, who fancy themſelves ſo very philoſophical and intelli⯑gent in their theology, would have known full as little of the matter, to ſpeak with moderation, as much wiſer heads than their's, among the illuſtri⯑ous nations of antiquity, deprived of theſe advan⯑tages, ſo much contemned and ſo ungratefully en⯑joyed. The natural inference from theſe indubit⯑able poſitions is clearly, ſome degree of ſupernatu⯑ral communication, which we ſtile Revelation, to the founders of Judaiſm and Chriſtianity, Moſes and Jeſus; and the denial of ſuch communica⯑tion leaves a problem, I apprehend, of much more arduous ſolution; but which we may now expect the wonderful diſciples of modern reaſon to ex⯑plain in a way, that will leave no further difficul⯑ties on the ſubject.

‘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, means [13]ſomething communicated immediately from God to man.’

‘No one will deny or diſpute the power of the Almighty to make ſuch a communication if he pleaſes. But admitting 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 a 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 is inaccurate, fallacious, and inconcluſive. Let us ſee, if we can exhibit a rational and unexceptionable repreſentation of the point in queſtion. A revelation is made to one perſon in the firſt inſtance; Moſes, for example. He communicates this revelation to a ſecond party, his countrymen, the children of Iſrael. But does he expect them to believe this meſſage on a mere aſſertion, ſo that their aſſent may be ſtiled a hearſay revelation? No ſuch thing. He delivers his credentials with the meſſage, and ſanctions his pretenſions by ſome diſplay of [14]ſupernatural agency. Whether ſuch diſplay were in reality made in the caſe before us, is not now the queſtion: I am only exhibiting the propoſition in it's proper form, and ſtating the fact, as it exiſts, whether authentically or otherwiſe, in the Moſaic hiſtory: and hence, I think, it is abundantly ma⯑nifeſt, that Mr Paine's notions of the character and condition of the Jewiſh and Chriſtian revela⯑tions are ſo confuſed, as to render his account al⯑together unſuitable to the purpoſe in view, and moſt effectually impertinent. And this anſwer, I ap⯑prehend, will ſerve for all contained in the ſuc⯑ceeding paragraphs, which are alſo wholly foreign to the ſubject; a mere inapplicable figment of our author's bewildered imagination.

‘It is a contradiction in terms and ideas 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 not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.’

[15] ‘When Moſes told the children of Iſrael that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hand of God, they were not obliged to believe him, becauſe they had no other authority for it than his telling them ſo; and I have no other au⯑thority for it than ſome hiſtorian telling me ſo: the commandments carrying no internal evi⯑dence of divinity with them. They contain ſome good moral precepts, ſuch as any man qualified to be a law-giver or a legiſlator could produce him⯑ſelf, without having recourſe to ſupernatural in⯑tervention.’

In a note our author ſubjoins a ſarcaſtical re⯑flection, with which his fancy ſeems not a little tickled; and he propoſes it accordingly with an air of ſelf-complacency and exultation.

‘It is, however, neceſſary to except the de⯑claration, which ſays, that God viſits the ſins of the fathers upon the children. It is contrary to every principle of moral juſtice.’

But nothing in reality can poſſibly be more feeble and inefficient than this objection. The belief and worſhip of one true God, in oppo⯑ſition to a plurality of divinities and the vani⯑ties of idolatry, is the root of all genuine reli⯑gion; and ſprings up into that ſtem, upon which [16]every moral and ſocial duty muſt be engrafted. Now, it is moſt notorious, mankind are ſo entirely the creatures of imitation, aſſociation, and habit, that a general prevalence of a falſe principle in one age has an obvious and unavoidable tendency to tranſmit this principle, with accumulated error and aggravation, to the age immediately ſucceed⯑ing ^*. But hiſtory and experience uniformly aſcer⯑tain, that, while individuals go unpuniſhed, large ſocieties and communities of men at leaſt (and to the Jews in their national capacity were theſe commandments given) are, in the regular courſe of divine adminiſtration, chaſtiſed for their crimes, in conſequence of the eternal alliance and inſep⯑arable connection between vice and ſuffering: yet theſe crimes are not their own crimes merely, but the aggregate wickedneſs of themſelves and their progenitors. And with unfeigned ſorrow do I regret, that Thomas Paine ſhould himſelf be a ſtanding evidence of this immutable diſpenſa⯑tion; whilſt he lies languiſhing in priſon for an acci⯑dental attachment to the Briſſotine faction, without [17]one perſonal or political immorality to juſtify ſo harſh a treatment ^*.

Our author proceeds: ‘When alſo I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, ſaid, or gave out, that ſhe was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed huſband, Joſeph, ſaid, that an angel told him ſo, I have a right to believe them or not: ſuch a circumſtance required a much ſtronger evi⯑dence than their bare word for it: but we have not even this; for neither Joſeph nor Mary wrote any ſuch matter themſelves. It is only reported by others that they ſaid ſo. It is hearſay upon hearſay, and I do not chuſe to reſt my be⯑lief upon ſuch evidence.’

Theſe difficulties I concede to the deiſt, for my own part, in all their force; they are pertinent in themſelves, and of ſerious ſignificancy to thoſe whom they may concern: but as the immaculate conception of Jeſus by the Holy Spirit conſtitutes no eſſential article of my creed, and certainly reſts [18]on much weaker evidence, than any other impor⯑tant fact of all the goſpels, I leave the vindication of it to the orthodox ſons of the eſtabliſhment. In the mean time, as one defect of demonſtration ^* has not impaired the general truth of the Newto⯑nian philoſophy, not even in the caſe of that parti⯑cular doctrine, the propagation of ſounds, ſo an oc⯑caſional interpolation of one or two groundleſs circumſtances will not invalidate the evidences of Chriſtianity: they repoſe on a much broader and firmer baſis than that of detached facts, knaviſh im⯑poſitions on the ſuperſtitious, and unneceſſary mi⯑racles. For the ſame reaſon, I ſhall not ſcruple to paſs unnoticed the ſubſequent paragraphs of our antagoniſt, which direct their attacks on the wretched materials heaped up, for the ſecurity of uſurped dominion and ſecular intereſt, by the hands of prieſts and devotees: a tribe of Chriſtians, holden by Mr Paine and myſelf in equal vene⯑ration.

‘Nothing that is here ſaid can apply, even with the moſt diſtant disreſpect, to the real character of Jeſus Chriſt. He was a virtuous and an ami⯑able man. The morality that he preached and practiſed was of the moſt benevolent kind; and [19]though ſimilar ſyſtems of morality had been preached by Confucius, and by ſome of the Greek philoſophers, many years before; by the Quakers ſince, and by many good men in all ages; it has not been exceeded by any.’

Of theſe remarks the former part is excellent: the latter was never ſurpaſſed in ignorance and ab⯑ſurdity. The Quakers undoubtedly, take them all in all, are as a PRACTICAL ſociety, the moſt re⯑ſpectable of all the religious ſects that have come to my knowledge: but what can be more ſu⯑premely ridiculous, than to exemplify their mora⯑lity in contradiſtinction to that of the goſpel; when they are one and the ſame? To ſay, moreover, of the Chriſtian ſyſtem merely, that "it has not been exceeded by any" ſyſtems ancient or mo⯑dern, is ſuch a miſconception, as candour will chooſe to impute, not to malignant diſparagement, but to an ignorance rather of the philoſophical ſyſtems of antiquity, and the comparative merits of evangelical morality; which, I fear, Mr Paine has not examined with a minuteneſs and ſcrupuloſity, that will authoriſe to a conſcientious reaſoner ſuch peremptory deciſion on the caſe.

I wiſh thoſe heavenly maxims of Solon and the ſon of Sirach, Know thyſelf:—and, Underſtand firſt [20]and then rebuke; were more deeply impreſſed on the hearts and memories of us all: that we might not impoſe upon ourſelves conceit for knowledge; upon our readers, ſophiſtry for argument, and dogmatiſm for intelligent conviction.

We are now arrived at the moſt important parts, in my judgement, of our author's production; to which I ſhall endeavour to reply directly, intelli⯑gibly, and without evaſion: and, if I ſhould prove unable to vindicate my faith in Chriſtianity upon principles truly rational and unambiguouſly expli⯑cit, I will relinquiſh it altogether, and look for an aſylum in the deiſm of Thomas Paine, and the calm philoſophy of Hume.

‘Jeſus Chriſt wrote no account of himſelf, of his birth, parentage, or any thing elſe. Not a line of what is called the New Teſtament is of his writing. The hiſtory of him is altogether the work of other people; and as to the account given of his reſurrection and aſcenſion, it was the neceſſary counterpart to the ſtory of his birth. His hiſtorians having brought him into the world in a ſupernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the ſame manner, or the firſt part of the ſtory muſt have fallen to the ground.’

[21]To this argument againſt the reſurrection of Jeſus, various anſwers might be inſtituted: but I ſhall confine myſelf to one only, which appears to my mind incapable of confutation upon any prin⯑ciples of philoſophy or experience; and will in⯑deed admit of no diſpute, but upon poſitions, ſub⯑verſive 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 in thoſe days; the dreſs, cuſtoms, manners, and languages of na⯑tions and individuals; political characters of emi⯑nence and their conduct, with a vaſt multiplicity of detached occurrences and facts, not neceſſary to be ſpecified at large, challenge (to ſpeak with mo⯑deration) as large a portion of credibility to theſe books, conſidered in the light of hiſtorical teſtimo⯑nials, as can be claimed for any writings what⯑ever, 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 hiſto⯑rians of ſo credible a character with reſpect to the reſt of their relations; but, when theſe extraordi⯑nary [22]facts are found to have ſo intimate an incor⯑poration with the common and unſuſpicious occur⯑rences of theſe hiſtories ſo as to admit of no de⯑tachment, but to ſtand or fall with the main body of the compoſitions; I cannot ſee how any hiſto⯑rical probability of the authenticity of theſe extra⯑ordinary events can riſe higher than in ſuch an in⯑ſtance. But it will be proper to unfold the pur⯑port of this reaſoning, which admits abundant illuſ⯑tration, more explicitly, by a particular example.

The apoſtles, Peter and John, after the death of their Maſter, being ſummoned before the prieſts and elders of the Jews ^*, boldly aſſert in their pre⯑ſence, that ‘God had raiſed Jeſus Chriſt of Na⯑zareth, whom the Jews had crucified, from the dead.’ After ſome examination and debate, the two apoſtles are commanded by thoſe magi⯑ſtrates and rulers of the Jewiſh nation to teach no more in the name of Jeſus. But theſe intrepid followers of Jeſus replied in preciſely the words of Socrates to the Athenians ^†: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men: for we cannot but ſpeak the things, which we have SEEN and HEARD.’ And what was their proſpect and expectation from this determination to perſeve⯑rance? [23]Nothing leſs than ridicule, contempt, per⯑ſecution, poverty, bodily chaſtiſements, impriſon⯑ment and death:—‘"Starving their gains, and martyrdom their price."’

Now, if we recollect in union with all this, what indeed ſhould never be forgotten, that theſe apoſ⯑tles, the firſt teachers of chriſtianity, the companions and friends of Jeſus, did not endure theſe ac⯑cumulated inconveniencies from a mere obſti⯑nate attachment to ſpeculative opinions, in which, in my opinion, they were fallible as other men; but for aſſerting the palpable unqueſtionable evi⯑dence of their external ſenſes, what "they had heard, and ſeen, and handled ^*: no alternative of deluſion or fallacy can be ſuppoſed; but their caſe ſtands clearly diſtinguiſhed from that of every future victim to religious perſuaſions: liable, as they were, to no miſconſtruction, no precipitate and prejudiced judgements, no conceivable impoſture. The falſhoods therefore of Chriſt's reſurrection in connection with this ſingle fact, and all the train of collateral circumſtances dependant from it, would, I am perſuaded, upon any mathematical calcula⯑tion of the ſum of moral and hiſtorical preſump⯑tion, amount to an improbability of the greateſt [24]magnitude, indefinitely approximating to a mira⯑culous event.

‘The reſurrection and aſcenſion, ſuppoſing them to have taken place, admitted of public and o⯑cular demonſtration, like that of the aſcenſion of a balloon, or the ſun at noon day, to all Je⯑ruſalem 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 part, the whole of it falls to the ground, becauſe that evidence never was given. Inſtead of this, a ſmall num⯑ber 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 is equally as good for me and for every other perſon, as for Thomas.’

Farther, The demonſtration of the reſurrection may have been ſufficiently public to demand our [25]aſſent, in conjunction with ſuch a variety of cor⯑roborating coincidencies, though it were not at⯑teſted by the ocular obſervation of all Jeruſalem, which Mr. Paine ſuppoſes to be abſolutely neceſſary to the eſtabliſhment of this fact. The actual degree of publicity, however, attendant on this * tranſac⯑tion, according to the hiſtories, may be learned from the texts referred to below ^†. Not a thou⯑ſandth part of the people in Great Britain ſaw Lunardi go up from the Artillery Ground in a baloon; but the ſuperior impulſe to any poſſible action upon my mind, who ſaw him, in conſequence of that event, does not exceed the impulſe to a ſimi⯑lar action on the mind of another, who did not ſee him, by an evaneſcent infiniteſimal of efficacy. The man, therefore, who is reſolved to believe no tranſaction, but upon "ocular and manual de⯑monſtration," belies his own theory in every movement of his life. I might advance alſo, in aid of theſe remarks, that mankind are moſt evidently placed here in a ſtate of probationary im⯑perfection; that, inſtead of certainty for our guide, we are compelled to truſt, on moſt occaſions, to degrees of probability infinitely diverſified; and that ſome of our nobleſt and moſt refined excel⯑lencies, [26]moral and intellectual, ſpring from a diffidence and docility and lowlineſs of under⯑ſtanding, which diſputable evidence is beſt calculated to produce. Beſides, that exerciſe and agitation of our mental powers, which is inevitably generated by the delays and difficulties, intervening propoſi⯑tions of this nature and the attainment of moral certainty, in a painful diſquiſition of them, contri⯑bute eſſentially to the clearneſs, and vigour, and general ſalubrity of the underſtanding: juſt as rivers are meliorated and refined by a winding paſſage over ſand and gravel ^*. It might as well be pretended, that the faculties of man would be enlarged, and his condition improved, without the neceſſity of labour and ingenuity for the ſub⯑ſiſtence and well-being of common life: if the trees dropt honey into our mouths; if the land flowed with milk and nectar, as is fabled of the golden age ^†. [27]The declaration, therefore, of Chriſt, is no fana⯑tical ejaculation, but a poſition ſtrictly philoſo⯑phical and intrinſically wiſe: ‘Thomas, becauſe thou haſt ſeen me, thou haſt believed: bleſſed are they, that have not ſeen, and yet have be⯑lieved ^*.’

No conſiderate and inquiſitive chriſtian will pretend, that he ſees the truth of his maſter's re⯑ſurrection and the ſyſtem ſupported by it, with the ſame intuition, which perceives the equality of the three angles of a triangle to one right angle. He is ſatisfied with thinking an acquieſcence in this grand doctrine ſtrictly rational and philoſo⯑phical, if he deſcries it's indiſſoluble connection with other numerous occurrences of the higheſt probability; if it forms a moſt important link in one concatenated ſeries of divine communications, dignified and important in themſelves, corrobo⯑rated by contemporary hiſtories, and aſcertained almoſt to demonſtration by the preceding and [28]preſent exiſting circumſtances of mankind at large: if, in ſhort, nothing can be diſcovered in ſuch a ſyſtem, unfit for man to receive, or the Creator to beſtow; but, on the contrary, innumerable indica⯑cations preſent themſelves of that benevolence to the human race, which is to us the moſt convincing characteriſtic of the divinity.

‘It is vain to attempt to palliate or diſguiſe this matter. The ſtory, ſo far as relates to the ſupernatural part, has every mark of fraud and impoſition ſtamped upon the face of it. Who were the authors of it is as impoſſible for us to know, as it is for us to be aſſured, that the books in which the account is related, were written by the perſons whoſe names they bear. The beſt ſurviving evidence we now have reſpecting this affair is the Jews. They are regularly deſcended from the people who lived in the times this re⯑ſurrection and aſcenſion is ſaid to have happen⯑ed, and they ſay, it is not true. It has long appeared to me a ſtrange inconſiſtency to cite the Jews as a proof of the truth of the ſtory. It is juſt the ſame as if a man were to ſay, I will prove the truth of what I have told you, by producing the people who ſay it is falſe.’

That the ſtory of the reſurrection ‘has every mark of fraud and impoſition ſtamped upon the [29]of it,’ is the hardy aſſertion of one, who muſt be deemed to have nothing better to offer than hardy aſſertion, 'till he preſent us with a deduction of particulars in vindication of his confidence: and, if the books ſhould not be written in reality by thoſe identical perſons, whoſe names are affixed, the truth of the facts themſelves is deducible from a maſs of collateral and independent evidence. And with reſpect to the incredulity of the Jews, many ſatisfactory reaſons may be alledged. I have been aſſured indeed, and upon authority exceed⯑ingly reſpectable, that in the written annals of the Iſraelitiſh nation, repoſited at Venice and Amſter⯑dam, two miracles of Jeſus ſtand recorded; one of which is the reſuſcitation of the widow's ſon at Nain ^*: but I would not wiſh this argument to paſs for more than it's proper value. It is, how⯑ever, acknowledged by the Jews, that ſuch a per⯑ſon as Jeſus of Nazareth exiſted ^†, and at the time aſſigned by the Evangeliſts: but motives numerous and highly probable may be ſuggeſted for their rejection of him. The Jewiſh nation were ex⯑pecting a magnificent leader and glorious conquer⯑or, not an obſcure Nazarene and humble teacher of religion: they were at that time, as appears from their countryman Joſephus, and from the [30] Roman and Evangelical hiſtorians, a people ex⯑ceedingly vicious and depraved: their leading men, with their chief prieſt and ſcribes, whoſe opinions and authority ſwayed the whole nation, according to the cuſtom of corrupt communities, hated and reviled Jeſus, not only for that ſimpli⯑city and purity of life, which read a lecture of tacit reprobation to their oſtentatious and immoral characters, but much more from his public and unreſerved reproof of their ignorance, their ty⯑ranny, their ſelfiſhneſs, their extortion, and hy⯑pocriſy. Now, if it ſhould be rejoined to theſe allegations, (and nothing elſe diſcoverable by me can be rejoined) that miracles, if Jeſus really per⯑formed them, would not have failed to overpower their prejudices and animoſity; I reply firſt; that the Jews, who admitted the poſſibility of working miracles by a confederacy with evil ſpirits, and a ſkill in magical operations ^*, would much more eaſily take refuge in that popular ſolution, than ſurrender their emoluments, their vices, and their religious profeſſions, entwined as theſe were with great intellectual depravity; than offer up ſuch coſtly ſacrifices to the name and authority of a deteſted Cenſor. And, ſecondly, daily expe⯑rience [31]preſents us with innumerable inſtances of a perſeverance in vice and folly, which, the unhappy victims of this tyranny are in their own minds fully aſſured, will as inevitably terminate in wretched⯑neſs and deſtruction, as if the evidence of ſuch an iſſue were aſcertained by a miracle.

But the ſubject before us admits of further illuſ⯑tration from the example of Mr. Paine himſelf. In this country, where his oppoſition to the corrup⯑tions of government has raiſed him ſo many ad⯑verſaries, and ſuch a ſwarm of unprincipled hire⯑lings have exerted themſelves in blackening his character and in miſrepreſenting all the tranſac⯑tions and incidents of his life; will it not be a moſt difficult, nay, an impoſſible taſk, for poſterity, after a lapſe of 1700 years, if ſuch a wreck of modern literature, as that of the ancient, ſhould intervene, to identify the real circumſtances, moral and civil, of the man? And would a true hiſtorian, ſuch as the evangelists, be credited at that future period againſt ſuch a predominant incredulity, without large and weighty acceſſions of collateral atteſta⯑tion? And how tranſcendently extraordinary, I had almoſt ſaid miraculous, will it be eſteemed, by candid and reaſonable minds, that a writer, whoſe object was, a melioration of condition to the com⯑mon people, and their deliverance from oppreſſion, [32]poverty, and wretchedneſs, to the numberleſs bleſ⯑ſings of upright and equal government, ſhould be reviled, perſecuted, and burned in eſſigy, with every circumſtance of inſult and execration, by theſe very objects of his benevolent intentions, in every corner of the kingdom?

Upon the whole, we find no difficulty in declar⯑ing, that what has aſtoniſhed Mr. Paine ſo long, ſhould aſtoniſh him no longer: as no ſpecies of reaſoning is more common and more legitimate, than that which proves the truth of a circumſtance from the evidence of corrupt and intereſted wit⯑neſſes, who aſſert it to be falſe. The very denial of ſuch a people as the Jews is no mean preſump⯑tion in favour of the character of Jeſus. Indeed, Mr. Paine pleads this cauſe with ſo much ability in our favour and againſt himſelf, that I ſhould be unpardonable in with-holding the next paragraph, replete with cogency and good ſenſe, from the notice of the reader.

‘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. He preached moſt excellent morality, and the equa⯑lity of man; but he preached alſo againſt the [33]corruptions and avarice of the Jewiſh prieſts; and this brought upon him the hatred and ven⯑geance of the whole order of the prieſt-hood.’

In the following pages, from p. 13 to p. 21, Mr. Paine enters into what he calls ‘a bold in⯑veſtigation, and which, he apprehends, will alarm many.’ Upon this topic of diſcuſſion our au⯑thor fancies himſelf, no doubt, extremely eloquent; and, inſtead of plain ſenſible Thomas Paine, he commences a tumid and hypertragical declaimer. A moſt formidable and pompous repreſentation is exhibited of the devil; with a detail of the battles, the transformations, the impriſonment, and other ſtrange adventures of his Satanic majeſty. All this, I grant, may ſwell into a ſerious difficulty with good churchmen and puritanical fanatics, but to myſelf, and others of the ſame orthodox ſtandard, occaſion no embarraſſment at all, being received with exactly the degree of credit vouchſafed them by Thomas Paine himſelf. The whole fable of the Devil and his angels, with all it's terrific appen⯑dages, has been gratuitouſly fabricated by the ſons of ſuperſtition from one or two emblematical paſ⯑ſages in the Revelations, where the author has de⯑lineated future characters and events under the guiſe of theſe fictitious perſonages. No legiti⯑mate rules of interpretation, and no circumſtances [34]of the Jewiſh or Chriſtian ſyſtems, make it neceſ⯑ſary for us to regard the Devil, or Satan, in any other light than that of an allegorical character. This mode of perſonification was perfectly ſuited to the taſte of the orientals; who delighted in ſpeak⯑ing, not only in ſtriking metaphors, but by actions; and whoſe compoſitions are a tiſſue of figurative and emblematical expreſſion. The origin of evil, moral and natural, is a problem, which has exer⯑ciſed the ingenuity of man, ſince the creation of the world; and the Hebrews relieved the diſtreſs of mind, reſulting from theſe diſquiſitions, by per⯑ſonifying the evil principle under the denomina⯑tion of Satan, or the enemy. The Greeks alſo had recourſe to a ſimilar contrivance for their ſatisfac⯑tion on this point; and employed Ate, the Furies, and other malignant deities, as convenient ſubſti⯑tutes for the origin of evil ^*. Nor were ſimilar fic⯑tions, with a view to the ſame embarraſſment, un⯑known to the followers of Confucius and Zoroaſter, to the natives of Peru and Mexico. But Mr. Paine's information upon the ſubject of modern theology muſt be very ſlender indeed, or he would have known, that thoſe, who have diſtinguiſhed them⯑ſelves of late years by the freedom of ſcriptural re⯑ſearch, unfettered by the chicanery and bribery [35]of eſtabliſhments, have exploded theſe monſtrous doctrines, which receive no real countenance from the genius of the Christian covenant, or the ſenſe of ſcripture; and will ſoon have no exiſtence but in the creeds of Dames and Nurſes. Alaſs! our Deist fancied himſelf in ſtout combat with genuine Christianity, whilſt he was buffeting a mere phan⯑tom of ignorance and ſuperſtition! So eaſy is de⯑clamation againſt folly!

‘Theſe books, beginning with Geneſis and ending with Revelations (which by the bye is a book of riddles that requires a Revelation to explain it) are, we are told, the word of God.’

The vindicator, who occupies himſelf in the confutation of ſuch unſupported and dogmatical aſſertions, is not much more excuſable, than the ignoramus, who has the audacity to produce them. I thus expreſs myſelf with unreſerved cenſure, upon a probability of the higheſt kind, that Mr. Paine never ſtudied the apocalypſe with an expreſs view of deciding upon the authenticity of that ſin⯑gular compoſition. When he has done this, and is able to invalidate merely thoſe incontrovertible internal ſymptoms of genuineneſs, which the ſyn⯑chroniſms, the curious coincidences and arrange⯑ment of the parts, detected and elucidated with [36]ſuch incomparable ſkill and clearneſs by Joſeph Mede, carry with them to every diſpaſſionate exa⯑miner, it will then be proper and ſeaſonable to diſ⯑cuſs the allegations of our deiſt. But that the random fiction of a diſtempered brain ſhould be marked with ſuch characters of truth, as are found on the face of the apocalypſe, is to me perfectly inconceivable.

‘When the church mythologiſts eſtabliſhed their ſyſtem, they collected all the writings they could find, and managed them as they pleaſed. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether ſuch of the writings as now appear, under the name of the Old and the New Teſta⯑ment, are in the ſame ſtate in which thoſe col⯑lectors ſay they found them; or whether they added, altered, abridged, or dreſſed them up.’

‘Be this as it may, they decided by vote which of the books out of the collection they had made, ſhould be the WORD OF GOD, and which ſhould not. They rejected ſeveral; they voted others to be doubtful, ſuch as the books called the Apocrypha; and thoſe books which had a majority of votes, were voted to be the word of God. Had they voted otherwiſe, all the peo⯑ple, ſince calling themſelves Chriſtians, had be⯑lieved [37]otherwiſe; for the belief of the one comes from the vote of the other. Who the people were that did all this, we know nothing of; they called themſelves by the general name of the church; and this is all we know of the matter.’

In anſwer to this undigeſted and inaccurate ſtate⯑ment of the caſe, I obſerve, as follows: It is moſt certain, and ought not to be diſſembled, that all the books of the Old and New Testaments have not come confirmed to us by the ſame degree of evi⯑dence. They may be properly diſtributed into two claſſes, Books of Fact, and Books of Opinion. Under the former claſs I would compriſe from Ge⯑neſis to the book of Job, with the Goſpels and Acts of the Apostles; and under the latter, to make the largeſt conceſſion to this argument, the Hagio⯑grapha and Prophets, i. e. all the remainder of the Old Testament, with the Epistles and Apocalypſe of the New. Now, that we may wave all diſcuſſion of the evidences and importance of the latter col⯑lection, the Christian and Jewiſh ſyſtems need no ſupport beyond the authenticity of the historic claſs: and I aſſert in the fulleſt confidence, and appeal to a multitude of publications in behalf of this aſſertion, that no hiſtory whatever, taking it's antiquity into conſideration, has more claims to be [38]received as genuine, than the hiſtories in queſtion. And what need of circumſtantial detail in repelling the objections of men, who really know juſt nothing of the ſubject, and ſatisfy their reaſon and philo⯑ſophy by peremptory aſſeveration only, unillumi⯑nated by one ſingle ray of information on the topic in diſpute ^*? To contravene poſitions, that have been diſcuſſed again and again by writers of the firſt genius and erudition, and to diſparage the ge⯑nuineneſs of the bible histories wholly and indiſcri⯑minately, without ſome preciſion of inveſtigation, ſome ſpecific allegations, founded on the report of authentic documents, is intolerable arrogance, and the conſummation of literary profligacy. With reſpect to the internal evidences of theſe histories, I am perſuaded, and would engage to prove in de⯑tail, that they are exceedingly ſuperior to thoſe of any ancient records whatever, whoſe authenticity is admitted; evidences, of which no man will doubt, who does not inſiſt, on mathematical demonstration in caſes only ſuſceptible of varying probabilities. However this be, it is my ſettled perſuaſion, de⯑duced from experience and the manners of man⯑kind, that, if no written memorials of the Jewiſh and Christian diſpenſations were at this moment in [39]exiſtence, the preſent condition of the profeſſors of theſe ſyſtems, as a traduction of believers in a certain ſyſtem, compoſing vaſt aggregates of men through a ſucceſſion of ages, in a variety of inſtan⯑ces perſecuted, diſtreſſed, and deſtroyed for their belief, cannot be accounted for, but on a ſuppo⯑ſition of the original reaſonableneſs of theſe diſ⯑penſations, in the apprehenſions of the firſt profeſ⯑ſors; and conſequently of their probable authen⯑ticity: unleſs indeed we are reſolved to exempt the men of thoſe aeras from the common benefits of ra⯑tionality. It were moſt eaſy to enlarge on this ſubject; but more has been ſaid already, than ſuch deſultory and unſubſtantiated allegations have any reaſon to expect: and I ſhall only add, from a multiplicity of cogent inſtances, with reference to one branch of evidence of the firſt moment, that a compariſon of the xxviii. chapter of Deuteronomy only, with the ſubſequent and preſent ſtate of the Iſraelitiſh nation, muſt ſlaſh conviction, I ſhould think, upon any mind, not totally prejudiced and perverted, in favour of the prophetical pretenſions of the Scriptures: for that the book of Deuteronomy was compoſed posterior to theſe events, what effron⯑tery even of unlearned deiſm, if it hazard the aſſer⯑tion, will undertake to prove?

‘Revelation is a communication of ſomething, which the perſon, to whom that thing is revealed, [40]did not know before. For if I have done a thing, or ſeen it done, it needs no revelation to tell me I have done it, or ſeen it, nor to enable me to tell it, or to write it.’

This is not only the eſſence, but the quinteſſence, of all weakneſs and abſurdity: and affords a me⯑lancholy inſtance, how men of real genius and abi⯑lities muſt expoſe themſelves, when they venture to diſcuſs ſubjects of the higheſt moment, for which they are qualified neither by reading nor reflexion. Such preſumption is no other than the caſe, ſimply but pointedly deſcribed by the apoſtle: ‘Profeſ⯑ſing themſelves to be wiſe, they become fools ^*.’ Mr. Paine has given us a notable definition truly; in which the term to be explained conſtitutes a part! But, to paſs by this ſtupidity; how ſayeſt thou, child of reaſon? ‘Revelation is a commu⯑nication of ſomething unknown before.’ So then, not only the profeſſors of philoſophy at the higher places of education, but every dame, that teaches the horn-book in a country village, com⯑municates, it ſeems, a revelation! And the man, who ſo defines and ſo conceives, and, upon the ſtrength of ſuch definition and conception, talks about it and about it with all the fullneſs of ſelf-ſuffi⯑ciency, is able, it ſhould ſeem, to demoliſh Judaiſm [41]and Christianity with a few daſhes of his pen, and to eſtabliſh mere deiſm on their ruins!

What our redoubtable antagoniſt immediately ſubjoins, ſavours of equal imbecillity, and total miſapprehenſion of the ſubject under contempla⯑tion. The greater part of the bible-history con⯑tains ſimply a narrative of the political occurrences of the Jews; and the tranſactions recorded are, therefore, in a variety of inſtances to be conſider⯑ed in the ſame light with thoſe of all other hiſtories; namely, as aggravated and diſguiſed in a thouſand inſtances by paſſing through the medium of na⯑tional partiality. The hiſtory of Sampſon is, on this account, to be credited in proportion only to that degree of probability, meaſured by the com⯑mon experience of mankind and the ſtate of the world in thoſe days, which the hiſtory itſelf ſhall claim in the eſtimation of reaſonable judges, un⯑der ſuch qualifications and deductions, as will by no means invalidate the main body and the leading facts of the narrative in the light of a national re⯑giſter of perſons and events.

I agree with Thomas Paine, that ‘the account of the creation, with which the book of Geneſis [42]opens, has all the appearance of being a tradi⯑tion, which the Iſraelites had among them be⯑fore they came into Egypt; and after their de⯑parture from that country, they put it at the head of their hiſtory, without telling, as it is moſt probable that they did not know, how they came by it.’

But what majeſty of ſentiment, what a dignified ſimplicity of expreſſion, characteriſes the Moſaic ac⯑count of the creation of the world! Compare only this elegant and compendious relation with the ſtrange, confuſed, and deſpicable coſmogonies of the Greeks: for it is manifeſt from internal evidence, that Ovid's beautiful deſcription was conſtructed upon the Moſaic narrative: nor, otherwiſe, is it pro⯑bable, that the literary Romans of the Augustan age ſhould be ſtrangers to the Greek tranſlation of the Old Testament ^*.

To all that occurs between pages 23 and 31, as far as they comprehend any objections to the Jewiſh inſtitution, a very ſatisfactory anſwer has, if I miſtake not, been already given. One pre⯑dominant [43]error in page 24, it may not be unſeaſon, able to detect. Mr. Paine there aſſerts:

‘Why it has been called the Moſaic account of the creation, I am at a loſs to conceive. Mo⯑ſes, I believe, was too good a judge of ſuch ſub⯑jects 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 of their day.’

All this may be literally true; but a palpable untruth is implied in it; that the Aegyptians were really a learned and ſcientific people: whereas their ſcience and their aſtronomy was juſt nothing at all. If not, produce me your vouchers to this fact, from exiſting monuments or ancient teſtimony ^*. Political ſociety was undoubtedly exiſting in much ſtability and regularity at a very early period in AEgypt; but probably not earlier than in China and Indoſtan, or, perhaps, other pleaſant and fertile countries of the Eaſt; but where ſhall we find the ſcientific diſcoveries of all, or any of theſe people, at the Moſaic aera? The only circumſtance, which has fallen to my knowledge, that is favourable to the ſcience of the Aegyptians, but in much later ages, [44]is that eagerneſs, with which the Grecian ſages travelled for information to this country. But the Aegyptian prieſts, like prieſts of other ages, cajoled mankind with juggling tricks, myſterious mythologies, lying legends of gods and heroes, and an imaginary chronology dependant on pretended obſervations of eclipſes; and, I ap⯑prehend, the acquiſitions of the Greeks from this peregrination, were no more than the general ac⯑quiſitions of modern travellers, and thoſe of Ulyſſes in ancient times; who, as we learn from Pope's tranſlation of the Odoſſey,

The few elementary propoſitions in geometry, which are aſcribed to Pythagoras and Plato, ought not to be imputed, in all probability, to any com⯑munications from the Aegyptians; but were the pure inventions of thoſe moſt acute and god-like philoſophers. Yes; ſuch men, as Plato and Pytha⯑goras, would either have learned more, or have learned nothing, from the Aegyptians. Not a day paſſes however, but authors are trumpeting the ſcience of the Aegyptians upon all occaſions; a ſcience, which has no exiſtence but in the miſcon⯑ceptions of their own brain, and the creeds of their [45]teachers. And theſe deiſts after all laugh at Chriſ⯑tians, forfooth! for their credulity.

‘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 therefore the word of God cannot exiſt in any written or human language.’

What can be more frivolous, and more unwor⯑thy of a man of ſenſe? A revelation, we ſup⯑poſe, is firſt conveyed to a particular perſon; he propoſes it with the proofs of his miſſion to others; they tranſmit the ſame by tradition and written records to their poſterity. It is acknowledged, that no ſucceeding evidence to future generations can ſtrictly authorize that moſt indubitable con⯑viction of the firſt immediate profeſſor; but even their evidence may approximate to certainty be⯑yond any aſſignable limits, ſo as to amount to a ſpecies of perſuaſion, from a concurrence of corroborating particulars, which is morally irre⯑ſiſtible. Who, even at this day, can be aſſured, that Michael Angelo planned the fabric of St. Peter's at Rome, or Sir Chriſtopher Wren, St. Paul's [46]in London, with a ſatisfaction equal to that of the contemporaries of theſe tranſactions? And yet, what man in his ſenſes entertains the leaſt doubt of theſe reſpective facts? And ſo it may be with reſpect to the Jewiſh and Chriſtian revelations; and ſo it is, notwithſtanding any arguments of Mr. Paine. A few miſtakes of copyiſts and prin⯑ters make no more alteration in the general effect of this argument, than a new ſtone, or pinnacle repaired, will be deemed to aboliſh the pretenſions of the primary architect to his ſtructure.

‘I now go on to the book called the New Teſtament. The new Teſtament! that is, the new Will, as if there could be two wills of the Creator.’

Scarcely a ſingle Christian can be found, I be⯑lieve, ſo totally ignorant and untutored, as not to know, that the New Covenant is the proper title of this book. Moſt completely ridiculous then does Mr. Paine make himſelf by his ſerious con⯑teſt with vulgar and exploded errors. A plain demonſtration this, how little of what is new and important he has to bring forward on theſe long agitated diſquiſitions.

[47]From p. 33 to 36, not an iota of remark is to be diſcovered, that does not diſgrace the meaneſt underſtanding: and no objection, that a ſchool-boy could not confute. My countrymen muſt be degenerated into a ſwiniſh multitude indeed, to find any nutriment in ſuch a meſs of pigs-meat, as theſe wretched caterers David Andrews and Thomas Paine have provided for them. But what better can be expected from zeal without knowledge? Nothing indeed, but dogmatiſm, miſ⯑repreſentation, nonſenſe, and obſcurity. In ſhort, to employ our author's own words in p. 38. ‘I become ſo tired with examining into the in⯑conſiſtencies and abſurdities of Thomas Paine's effuſion, that I haſten to the concluſion of it, in order to proceed,’ but on very unpromiſing ſpeculation of ſucceſs, "to ſomething better."

It is moſt true, as our author aſſerts in p. 40, ‘The church has ſet up a ſyſtem of religion very contradictory to the character of the perſon whoſe name it bears. It has ſet up a religion of pomp and of revenue in pretended imita⯑tion of a perſon whoſe life was humility and poverty:’ yet, according to the ſtale but juſt maxim, whoſe dictates Mr. Paine has ſo inceſ⯑ſantly and egregiouſly violated in this crude production; ‘ab abuſu ad uſum non valet conſe⯑quentia: [48] quentia:’ theſe corruptions are not chargeable on the ſpirit of true chriſtianity: the argument will not infer from perverted revelation to no revela⯑tion at all. No: there are, we truſt, ſuch things in being, as truth, philoſophy, and revealed religion, in ſpite of lying Chroniclers, imaginary ſyſtem⯑mongers, and meretricious theologians.

Your notion of redemption, upon which you ſo largely expatiate and ſo tragically declaim in the following pages, is the notion derived probably from your quaker father and the good fraternity, among whom you received your education: but is not the notion of the ſcriptures. Our doc⯑trine is, that God created man pure and upright, with a capacity of conforming himſelf in all reſ⯑pects to the injunctions of the divine will ^*: that life without ceſſation was the propoſed reward of unfailing obedience; and death the puniſhment of tranſgreſſion. Man deviated from the line of rec⯑titude, by liſtening to the ſeductions of wayward appetite; and became juſtly expoſed to the penalty denounced againſt ſin. His heavenly father, who in the midſt of judgement remembers mercy, and [49]delights, through the whole conduct of his pro⯑vidential adminiſtrations to mankind, in educing good from evil, renews his covenant with his fallen creatures; promiſes to reverſe this ſentence of death, and to re-eſtabliſh him in his claim to immortality by means of another diſpenſation at a future ſeaſon, which appeared to divine wiſdom the beſt calculated for it's promulgation. Ac⯑cordingly, in the fulneſs of time, after a prepara⯑tory ſyſtem, whoſe chief object was the eſtabliſh⯑ment of a belief in one God, in oppoſition to the corruptions of idol-worſhip; Jeſus of Nazareth was commiſſioned to preach in Judea the terms of acceptance with the Almighty. Theſe were, a belief and practice of the doctrines, which this apoſtle preached, and confirmed by miracles: the doctrines of unbounded mercy on the part of God upon repentance and reformation, and of univer⯑ſal undiſtinguiſhing benevolence on the part of man to all his brethren of the human race: prin⯑ciples eſſential in themſelves to the virtue and happineſs of mankind; and therefore required as the conditions of divine favour, by this ſyſtem of revelation. Thus was the ineſtimable privilege of immortality again indulged to the world; and Jeſus himſelf was propounded as the voucher of this truth. Hence manifeſtly appears the rea⯑ſon, [50]why, he did not ‘die of a fever, or of the ſmall-pox, of old age ^*,’ or in any private cuſtomary manner; but by a public exhibition of death upon a croſs: that he, whoſe reſurrection had been previouſly appointed by himſelf for the teſt and demonſtration of the whole chriſtian ſyſtem as it related to the deſtruction of death and the gift of immortality, might be ſhown to the world unequivocally and indubitably dead ^†. This may be regarded as a brief abſtract of the evangelical ſcheme of redemption according to my conception of it; a ſcheme, which admits of abundant illuſtration and eſtabliſhment from a multiplicity of conſiderations, conformable alike to reaſon, philoſophy, and experience: but nei⯑ther does the preſent occaſion permit, nor the weight of Mr. Paine's objections require, a more copious diſplay or a more ſcrupulous corrobo⯑ration of our creed.

In page 46, you ſay, ‘Jeſus Chriſt could ſpeak but one language, which was Hebrew,’ with as much confidence, as if you had been perſonally ac⯑quainted [51]with him. Now my opinion is, that the inhabitants of Judea, and the greater part of the Roman empire, underſtood Greek alſo as well and generally as the Iriſh underſtand Engliſh: but what claim have thoſe, who decide without know⯑ledge, to any ſatisfaction on this point? My wiſh is to excite in the deiſtical lovers of truth a deſire to examine for themſelves; a ſober eſtimate of their own acquirements; and a modeſt perſuaſion, that the diſciples of Chriſt may have ſome reaſons, not wholly puerile and inefficient, for their attachment to their religion: and I recommend, in the mean time, to the conſideration of the atheiſt (if ſuch men really exiſt; which I doubt exceedingly) what Mr. Paine advances in the 48th and following pages, and at the concluſion of his pamphlet. I know not, whether Mr. Paine's remarks on the languages of the ancients ^* can be thought worthy of any ani⯑madverſion as we paſs. I obſerve, however, that as all men have not that docility and humility of mind, which is eſſential to an acceptance of Chriſti⯑anity, but wrap themſelves up in a cloak of igno⯑rance and ſelf-ſufficiency; ſo neither have all that ſenſibility of perception, and that elegance of taſte, which is neceſſary to a reliſh of the inimitable beau⯑ties of ancient compoſition. I may be, for exam⯑ple, a delicate bird, delighting in ſtrawberries and [52]the choiceſt fruits: Thomas Paine, a crow; who prefers a feaſt on carrion and putreſcence. The genius and faculties of men are diverſified with in finite ſhades of texture: and it ſeems to be the duty of every individual to proſecute that branch of literature, with peculiar devotion, for which na⯑ture has peculiarly fitted him. Poetical inſpira⯑tion and the powers of eloquence were not given by God without ſome wiſe intention, with reſpect both to the poſſeſſor and mankind at large. ‘Nec tua laudabis ſtudia aut aliena reprendes:’ is a ſenſible and valuable maxim of an Auguſtan poet. The compoſitions of the Greeks and Ro⯑mans ſtand as yet unrivalled in the univerſe; and their admirers are much confirmed in their attach⯑ment, when they perceive their cenſurers to be thoſe, who know little, or nothing, of the ſubject themſelves, and ſcruple not to incur an imputa⯑tion of moſt contemptible impertinence for ſo ir⯑rational an interpoſition of their judgement. Be⯑ſides, I have not yet diſcovered, that the beſt phi⯑lologiſts are generally inferior in any other branch of knowledge to the wiſe-acres, who undervalue theſe attainments, merely becauſe they have not the means of acquiſition. Have the cultivators of the languages more natural powers therefore than other men? By no means: but their youth [53]has been happily exerciſed in thoſe purſuits, in which youth can only be occupied, very generally ſpeaking, with complete efficiency. In all that Mr. Paine has ſaid on this ſubject, I diſcern little more than a collection of ignorance, miſconcep⯑tion, effrontery, and inſipidity.

‘The event that ſerved more than any other, to break the firſt link in this long chain of deſ⯑potic ignorance, is that known by the name of the reformation by Luther. From that time, though it does not appear to have made any part of the intention of Luther, or of thoſe who are called reformers, the Sciences began to re⯑vive, and Liberality, their natural aſſociate, be⯑gan to appear.’

The reformation aroſe from an inſight into the corruptions and abſurdities of Popery, in conſe⯑quence of a freedom of enquiry already commen⯑cing, and a ſteady conviction of ſervility, diſ⯑graceful to a rational being, in a ſubmiſſion of the underſtanding to the arbitrary dictates of a ſpiri⯑tual uſurper. The reformation, therefore, by Lu⯑ther was only one circumſtance in the recovery of the natural right of man, to think and determine for himſelf. But the benefits of the reformation were momentous and extenſive; and particularly [54]by removing thoſe apprehenſions of perſonal dan⯑ger, which debarred all progreſs to true philoſo⯑phy in countries, where the Papal domination was eſtabliſhed. And ſurely it forms no mean pre⯑ſumption in favour of the reaſonableneſs of reve⯑lation, that the reſtoration of ſcience and the recti⯑fication of religion ſhould be congenial and con⯑temporary; that the beams of knowledge ſhould diſpel the damps and darkneſs of ignorant ſuperſti⯑tion, but contribute illumination and vigour to the ſincere goſpel of Jeſus Chriſt. The moſt diſtin⯑guiſhed mathematicians and philoſophers of our own country, Bacon, Boyle, Newton, Locke, Barrow, and Hartley, have been the firmeſt believers of the Chriſtian revelation: and not paſſive educational believers merely, accepting with implicit acqui⯑eſcence the traditionary creeds of their teachers; but ſtrenuous aſſertors and moſt able vindicators of the authority, the importance, and the rationality of the goſpel. I would recommend to the notice of Thomas Paine the following paſſage in the life of Emlyn ^*: ‘Dr. Halley, ſaid Sir Iſaac Newton, I am always glad to hear you, when you ſpeak about aſtronomy, or other parts of mathematics; becauſe that is a ſubject you have ſtudied, and well underſtand: but you ſhould not talk of Chriſtianity; for you have not ſtudied it. I [55]have; and know you know nothing o [...] the matter.’

Mr. Paine deſcants with a tolerable ſhare of merriment, in page 109, on the ſtory of Jonah and the Whale; which my own ſtomach alſo feels an equal indiſpoſition to ingurgitate. It is not un⯑like a tale, that I lately heard; which many will think not inferior to that before us in ſymptoms of credibility. A little black-boy, a favourite with the ſhip's company, as he was careleſsly ſitting with his bread and cheeſe, ſuddenly fell overboard; and was inſtantly ſwallowed by an immenſe ſhark. Some ſailors, witneſſes of this cataſtrophe, ex⯑claimed: "Caeſar is devoured by a ſhark." The captain immediately commanded a hook to be baited with a huge piece of beef; which the monſ⯑ter ſeized at once with the utmoſt rapacity. He was drawn with difficulty upon deck; his tail cut off to prevent miſchief; and the moſt trembling precaution uſed in opening his ſtomach for fear of wounding it's ineſtimable contents. But how great was their admiration and delight to diſcover little Caeſar, perched on a tubercle of the purte⯑nance, diſpatching his bread and cheeſe in perfect compoſure and ſecurity!

I have now finiſhed my remarks on this pamph⯑let of Thomas Paine; which have been extended [56]thus far, more in deference to the deſerved cele⯑brity of the name, than the powers of the diſputant: nor am I conſcious to myſelf of eluding any diffi⯑culty, or ſhrinking from the terrors of a ſingle ar⯑gument, in the courſe of this examination. To the beſt of my ability, a conciſe anſwer to every objec⯑tion, not completely puerile, has been ſpecifically given, or is virtually included in this ſeries of ob⯑ſervations. Nor, in concluſion, will I diſſemble one of my moſt urgent inducements to this publi⯑cation to have been, an ambition to declare to my fellow-citizens in the moſt unreſerved manner, that one in the midſt of a general obloquy on reform⯑ers, as infidels and atheiſts, is indeed a zealous ad⯑vocate for Chriſtianity; but, as becomes the diſci⯑ple of a lowly and pacific maſter, with as warm an enthuſiaſm for the univerſal equality and the una⯑lienable rights of man, as ever actuated the breaſt even of the "hallowed MILTON." The more perilous the times, with the more animation will a genuine votary of a crucified Saviour, who "looks for a better country, that is, a heavenly ^*," feel himſelf impelled to a bold and open profeſ⯑ſion of the practical principles of his religion; the principles of LOVE and PEACE and LIBERTY, without diſtinction, to the whole human race. [57]This is the profeſſion of our faith before atheiſts and unbelievers; before miniſters and kings: from this profeſſion, neither ſhall ſhame ſeduce, nor danger terrify. It ſhall be our guide through life, our ſupport in death, and, we truſt, our re⯑compenſe for ever!

I implore, finally, the omnipotent controller of events, who ‘ruleth in the kingdom of men and giveth it to whomſoever he will ^*,’ to con⯑ſider his creature man in this moſt momentous criſis of our affairs! to ſtem that torrent of human blood, which is deluging the earth, at the will of Chriſtian kings, beyond all example in the moſt ferocious ages of heatheniſm and barbarity! to confound the devices of all ſanguinary deſtroyers of mankind, combined againſt liberty and know⯑ledge; the true "ſynagogues of Satan ^†" and to turn their hearts! to annihilate every ſentiment of national hoſtility in every breaſt; that the horrid circumſtances of war and ſlaughter may no where exiſt, but in the bloody page of hiſtory, as awful memorials of ſavage unregenerated man! to re⯑gard the ſorrows of the diſtreſſed African; and to compenſate with ages of conſolation ‘the [58]years, in which he has ſeen adverſity ^*!’ to con⯑firm and comfort the glorious martyrs of truth, humanity, and freedom, whether in bonds or exile; to multiply the number of their followers, that riſing generations may call them bleſſed! to over⯑power the deluſive flame of infatuated ſuperſti⯑tion, engendered in the putrid ſink of prieſt⯑craft, tyranny, and perſecution, by the predo⯑minant radiance of the ſon of righteouſneſs, the pure and undefiled religion of Jeſus Chriſt! to conſolidate all fleſh with the cement of evange⯑lical fraternity ^† and benevolence! to harmonize all hearts with the ſympathetic influences of "unity, peace, and concord!"

HACKNEY, May 8, 1794.