1284. In a dialogue between the spirit of Wm. Penn and that of Thos. Paine, the former points out this error: “You strove to take from your readers one of their greatest comforts under the afflictions of mortal life.”Foreseeing thiswould have prevented me from writing the Age of Reason. Any set of skeptics who should only coincide in disbelieving, could never adhere together nor make many converts. The prospect of future life must be promised confidently, or there would be few proselytes.
1285. But the spiritual manifestations, and the intellectual, the heartfelt intercommunion with my relatives, friends, and the immortal, great, and good Washington, now enable me to assert that there is not, nor can be upon any record of the past, any evidence so complete, as that presented to my senses, concurrently with a multitude of observers. I now, therefore, feel myself warranted to speak out what my reason justifies and my conscience dictates; and have not hesitated to express the opinions which are spread out upon the pages immediately preceding that which contains this exposition.
1286. With a view to show how much more happy was the state of reciprocal sectarian feeling in the world before this idea of making belief an object of vital importance, I will quote here, first a passage from Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, vol. i., and will subjoin some pages from “Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire;” following these up with quotations from Bishop Hopkins, of Vermont:
1287. “Each nation suffered its neighbours to follow their own method of worship, to adore their own gods, to enjoy their own rites and ceremonies, and discovered no displeasure at their diversity of sentiments in religious matters. They all looked upon the world as one great empire, divided into various provinces, over every one of which a certain order of divinities presided, and that, therefore, none could behold with contempt the gods of other nations, or force strangers to pay homage to theirs.
1288. “The Romans exercised this toleration in the amplest manner. As the sources from which all men’s ideas are derived are the same, namely, from their senses, there being no other inlet to the mind but thereby, there is nothing wonderful in the general prevalence of a sameness of the ideas of human beings in all regions and all ages of the world. The affections of fear, grief, pain, hope, pleasure, gratitude, &c., are as common to man as his nature as a man, and could not fail to produce a corresponding similarity in the objects of his superstitious veneration. To have nothing in common with the already established notions of mankind, to bear no features of resemblance to their hallucinations and follies, to be nothing like them, to be to nothing so unlike, should be the essential predications andnecessarycredentials of the ‘wisdom which is from above.’
1289. “It has, however, been alleged by learned men, with convincing arguments of probability, ‘that the principal deities of all the Gentile nations resembled each other extremely, in their essential characters; and if so, their receiving the same names could not introduce much confusion into mythology, since they were probably derived from one common source. If theThorof the ancient Celts was the same in dignity, character, and attributes with theJupiterof the Greeks and Romans, where was the impropriety of giving him the same name?Dies Jovisis still the Latin form for our Thor’s day. When the Greeks found in other countries deities that resembled their own, they persuaded the worshippers of those foreign gods that their deities were the same that were honoured in Greece, and were, indeed, themselves convinced that this was the case. In consequence of this, the Greeks gave the names of their gods to those of other nations, and the Romans in this followed their example. Hence we find the names of Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Venus, &c. frequently mentioned in the more recent monuments and inscriptions which have been found among the Gauls and Germans, though the ancient inhabitants of those countries had worshipped no gods under such denominations.”
1290. “The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of their subjects. The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced, not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord.
1291. “The superstition of the people was not imbittered by any mixture of theological rancour; nor was it confined by the chains of any speculative system. The devout polytheist, though fondly attached to his national rites, admitted with implicit faith the different religions of the earth. Fear, gratitude, and curiosity, a dream or an omen, a singular disorder, or a distant journey, perpetually disposed him to multiply the articles of his belief, and to enlarge the list of his protectors. The thin texture of the pagan mythology was interwoven with various, but not discordant, materials. As soon as it was allowed that sages and heroes, who had lived, or who had died, for the benefit of their country, were exalted to a state of power and immortality, it was universally confessed that they deserved, if not the adoration, at least the reverence, of all mankind. The deities of a thousand groves and a thousand streams possessed, in peace, their local and respected influence; nor could the Roman, who deprecated the wrath of the Tiber, deride the Egyptian who presented his offering to the beneficent genius of the Nile. The visible powers of nature, the planets, and the elements, were the same throughout the universeThe invisible governors of the moral world were inevitably cast in a similar mould of fiction and allegory. Every virtue, and even vice, acquired its divine representative; every art and profession its patron, whose attributes, in the most distant ages and countries, were uniformly derived from the character of their peculiar votaries. A republic of gods of such opposite tempers and interests required, in every system, the moderating hand of a supreme magistrate, who, by the progress of knowledge and flattery, was gradually invested with the sublime perfections of an Eternal Parent, and an omnipotent Monarch. Such was the mild spirit of antiquity, that the nations were less attentive to the difference than to the resemblance of their religious worship. The Greek, the Roman, and the Barbarian, as they met before their respective altars, easily persuaded themselves that under various names, and with various ceremonies, they adored the same deities. The elegant mythology of Homer gave a beautiful and almost regular form to the polytheism of the ancient world.
1292. “The philosophers of Greece deduced their morals from the nature of man rather than from that of God. They meditated, however, on the Divine Nature as a very curious and important speculation, and in the profound inquiry they displayed the strength and weakness of the human understanding. Of the four most celebrated schools, the Stoics and the Platonists endeavoured to reconcile the jarring interests of reason and piety. They have left us the most sublime proofs of the existence and perfections of the first cause, but as it was impossible for them to conceive the creation of matter, the workmen in the Stoic philosophy was not sufficiently distinguished from the work, while, on the contrary, the spiritual God of Plato and his disciples resembled an idea rather than a substance. The opinions of the Academics and Epicureans were of a less religious cast; but while the modest science of the former induced them to doubt, the positive ignorance of the latter urged them to deny the providence of a Supreme Ruler. The spirit of inquiry, prompted by emulation and supported by freedom, has divided the public teachers of philosophy into a variety of contending sects; but the ingenuous youth who, from every part, resorted to Athens and the other seats of learning in the Roman empire, were alike instructed in every school to reject and to despise the religion of the multitude. How, indeed, was it possible that a philosopher should accept, as divine truths, the idle tales of the poets, and the incoherent traditions of antiquity, or that he should adore as gods those imperfect beings whom he must have despised as men! Against such unworthy adversaries Cicero condescended to employ the arms of reason and eloquence, but the satire of Lucian was a much more adequate as well as more efficacious weapon. We may be well assured that a writer conversant with the world would never have ventured to expose the gods of his country to public ridicule, had they not already been the objects of secret contempt among the polished and enlightened orders of society.
1293. “Notwithstanding the fashionable irreligion which prevailed in the age of the Antonines, both the interest of the priests and the credulity of the people were sufficiently respected. In their writings and conversation, the philosophers of antiquity asserted the independent dignity of reason, but they resigned their actions to the commands of law and of custom. Viewing, with a smile of pity and indulgence, the various errors of the vulgar, they diligently practised the ceremonies of their fathers, devoutly frequented the temples of the gods, and sometimes condescending to act a part on the theatre of superstition, they concealed the sentiments of an atheist under the sacerdotal robes. Reasoners of such a temper were scarcely inclined to wrangle about their respective modes of faith or of worship. It was indifferent to them what shape the folly of the multitude might choose to assume; and they approached with the same inward contempt, and the same external reverence, the altars of the Lybian, the Olympian, or the Capitoline Jupiter.
1294. “It is not easy to conceive from what motives a spirit of persecution could induce itself into the Roman councils. The magistrates could not be actuated by a blind though honest bigotry, since the magistrates were themselves philosophers, and the schools of Athens had given laws to the senate. They could not be impelled by ambition or avarice, as the temporal and ecclesiastical powers were united in the same hands. The pontiffs were chosen among the most illustrious of the senators, and the office of Supreme Pontiff was constantly exercised by the emperors themselves. They knew and valued the advantages of religion, as it is connected with civil government. They encouraged the public festivals which humanize the manners of the people. They managed the arts of divination, as a convenient instrument of policy, and they respected as the firmest bond of society the useful persuasion that, either in this or a future life, the crime of perjury is most assuredly punished by the avenging gods? But while they acknowledged the general advantages of religion, they were convinced that the various modes of worship contributed alike to the same salutary purposes, and that, in every country, the form of superstition which had received the sanction of time and experience was the best adapted to the climate and to its inhabitants. Avarice and taste very frequently despoiled the vanquished nations of the elegant statues of their gods and the rich ornaments of their temples, but in the exercise of the religion which they derived from their ancestors, they uniformly experienced the indulgence, and even protection, of the Roman conquerors. The province of Gaul seems, and indeed only seems, an exception to this universal toleration. Under the specious pretext of abolishing human sacrifices, the Emperors Tiberius and Claudius suppressed the dangerous power of the Druids; but the priests themselves, their gods and their altars, subsisted in peaceful obscurity till the final destruction of paganism.
1295. “Rome, the capital of a great monarchy, was incessantly filled with subjects and strangers from every part of the world, who all introduced and enjoyed the favourite superstitions of their native country. Every city in the empire was justified in maintaining the purity of its ancient ceremonies; and the Roman senate, using the common privilege, sometimes interposed to check this inundation of foreign rites. The Egyptian superstition, of all the most contemptible and abject, was frequently prohibited; the temples of Serapis and Isis demolished, and their worshippers banished from Rome and Italy. But the zeal of fanaticism prevailed over the cold and feeble efforts of policy. The exiles returned, the proselytes multiplied, the temples were restored with increasing splendour, and Isis and Serapis at length assumed their place among the Roman deities. Nor was this indulgence a departure from the old maxims of government. In the purest ages of the commonwealth, Cybele and Æsculapius had been invited by solemn embassies, and it was customary to tempt the protectors of besieged cities by the promise of more distinguished honours than they possessed in their native country. Rome gradually became the common temple of her subjects, and the freedom of the city was bestowed on all the gods of mankind.”
1296. “Origencomplains of the neglect and inattention of his day, through the increase of worldliness. Cyprian about the same time mourns over the progress of degeneracy, and Eusebius, toward the close of the third century, laments the corruption of the primitive morality in strong terms of censure.1297. “But yet superstition was rapidly advancing, and the complaints of priestly corruption and general licentiousness were on the increase. The election of Pope Damasus was the occasion of a public riot, in which his partisans besieged the church where the friends of the other candidate were assembled, broke down the doors, and uncovered the roof; and in the shameful battle that ensued, one hundred and thirty-seven persons were slain, of both sexes. The splendour of the Roman bishops had grown so rapidly, that the heathen historian Ammianus Marcellinus pronounced the episcopal style of living to be superior to that of a king. Toward the close of the fourth century, Chrysostom defended the new system of monkery, on the ground that Christians had become so corrupt, especially in the large cities. Jerome before him had bitterly complained of the prevailing degeneracy, and became a monk in order to escape from it. St. Augustine lamented that many Christians in his day (aboutA. D.389) were superstitious, that they adored the sepulchres and pictures of the saints, and ate and drank to excess at funerals, under the excuse that it was an act of religion.1298. “The fifth century was not likely to improve the state of the church, but on the contrary it witnessed a rapid deterioration. The testimony of Salvian is set forth by Fleury, proving that among the Roman Christians there was much heathen idolatry remaining; that the greater part were only Christians in name, and worse than the barbarians in life and conversation.1299. In the sixth century, toward the close, we see Pope Gregory the Great attributing all the public calamities to the ambition of the bishops, who concealed the teeth of wolves under the face of sheep.1300. “The seventh century. We begin to see the fruits of clerical celibacy in the rule established by the council of Toledo, that the illegitimate children of the clergy, from the bishop down to the sub-deacon, should be slaves in the church where their fathers served. It is to be presumed that this canon was intended to discourage and amend the incontinence of the clergy, but the adoption of such an extraordinary law proves plainly the prevalence of the evil. So general had the worldliness of the clergy become, that in the latter part of this century the most eminent bishops of France took great part in political matters, and in time of war marched at the head of their troops, like the lay barons.1301. “One of the most important events of the eighth century was the forgery of the Decretals, by which all the primitive bishops of Rome, from Clement to Sylvester, were made to utter the most extravagant doctrines concerning the power of the pope, the supremacy of Rome, and the authority to judge the other bishops, while the pope himself could be judged by none. Yet such was the ignorance of the times, that this forgery was successful throughout the whole Latin Church, and remained unquestioned for eight hundred years together. Another strong proof of this prevailing ignorance is found in the course of the bishops at the second council of Nice, where pretended miracles performed by images were cited from false documents without any suspicion of mistake.1302. “The parliament of Worms presented to the emperor a request from all the people that the bishops should no longer go out at the head of their troops, but should stay in their dioceses and assist the army by their prayers; and Charlemagne willingly granted the petition. But it is remarkable that this application came not from the clergy, but from the laity; and it was so little regarded afterward, that we shall find some warlike bishops even among the popes themselves. This same emperor endeavoured with great zeal to purify the morals of the clergy; and his reproofs of their worldliness, their avarice, and their prostitution of sacred things for the sake of gain, are remarkable monuments of his own good sense and of the corruption which infested the church in the ninth century. After his death, which occurred inA. D.814, some churches invoked him as a saint, notwithstanding he had four wives and five concubines.1303. “The year 844 was signalized by the introduction of false relics at Dijon in France, by which, nevertheless, several remarkable cures were supposed to have been effected, until the fraud was discovered; but the proceedings show that such impostures were common. InA. D.850 a poor presbyter named Gotheschalk, who had adopted high views on predestination, was not only deposed from the priesthood, but afterward publicly whipped, as an incorrigible heretic, and cast into prison, where he died after eighteen years’ confinement. Yet his doctrine was defended by other bishops of high reputation, and his punishment was denounced as cruel and unjust.1304. “InA. D.864, a violent outrage took place at Rome, in which Gonthier, the Archbishop of Cologne, protesting against the judgment of Pope Nicholas, told his brother Hildwin, who was a priest, to place his protestation on the tomb of Saint Peter: that is, upon the altar of the church. Accordingly, Hildwin entered into the church with several followers, all armed, and as the keepers opposed him, he repulsed them with blows, and killed one of them upon the spot. He then accomplished his purpose, and retreated sword in hand. The anecdote is only of importance as a proof of the spirit of the age. The first instance of a partial interdict occurs inA. D.871. The ordeals of boiling water, cold water, and red-hot iron were employed in this age, to determine questions of justice under the auspices of the priests; and even kings employed them, with all faith and confidence. The Duke of Naples had formed an alliance with the Saracens, which the pope disproved; and as he refused to break it on the order of the pontiff, he was excommunicated. The Bishop Athanasius, who was the duke’s own brother, took him and put out his eyes, sent him as prisoner to Rome, and caused himself to be proclaimed Duke of Naples in his place. The pope approved this conduct highly, and praised the bishop for loving God more than his brother, and putting out the right eye which had offended, according to Scripture. This pontiff was John VIII., and the time wasA. D.877.
1296. “Origencomplains of the neglect and inattention of his day, through the increase of worldliness. Cyprian about the same time mourns over the progress of degeneracy, and Eusebius, toward the close of the third century, laments the corruption of the primitive morality in strong terms of censure.
1297. “But yet superstition was rapidly advancing, and the complaints of priestly corruption and general licentiousness were on the increase. The election of Pope Damasus was the occasion of a public riot, in which his partisans besieged the church where the friends of the other candidate were assembled, broke down the doors, and uncovered the roof; and in the shameful battle that ensued, one hundred and thirty-seven persons were slain, of both sexes. The splendour of the Roman bishops had grown so rapidly, that the heathen historian Ammianus Marcellinus pronounced the episcopal style of living to be superior to that of a king. Toward the close of the fourth century, Chrysostom defended the new system of monkery, on the ground that Christians had become so corrupt, especially in the large cities. Jerome before him had bitterly complained of the prevailing degeneracy, and became a monk in order to escape from it. St. Augustine lamented that many Christians in his day (aboutA. D.389) were superstitious, that they adored the sepulchres and pictures of the saints, and ate and drank to excess at funerals, under the excuse that it was an act of religion.
1298. “The fifth century was not likely to improve the state of the church, but on the contrary it witnessed a rapid deterioration. The testimony of Salvian is set forth by Fleury, proving that among the Roman Christians there was much heathen idolatry remaining; that the greater part were only Christians in name, and worse than the barbarians in life and conversation.
1299. In the sixth century, toward the close, we see Pope Gregory the Great attributing all the public calamities to the ambition of the bishops, who concealed the teeth of wolves under the face of sheep.
1300. “The seventh century. We begin to see the fruits of clerical celibacy in the rule established by the council of Toledo, that the illegitimate children of the clergy, from the bishop down to the sub-deacon, should be slaves in the church where their fathers served. It is to be presumed that this canon was intended to discourage and amend the incontinence of the clergy, but the adoption of such an extraordinary law proves plainly the prevalence of the evil. So general had the worldliness of the clergy become, that in the latter part of this century the most eminent bishops of France took great part in political matters, and in time of war marched at the head of their troops, like the lay barons.
1301. “One of the most important events of the eighth century was the forgery of the Decretals, by which all the primitive bishops of Rome, from Clement to Sylvester, were made to utter the most extravagant doctrines concerning the power of the pope, the supremacy of Rome, and the authority to judge the other bishops, while the pope himself could be judged by none. Yet such was the ignorance of the times, that this forgery was successful throughout the whole Latin Church, and remained unquestioned for eight hundred years together. Another strong proof of this prevailing ignorance is found in the course of the bishops at the second council of Nice, where pretended miracles performed by images were cited from false documents without any suspicion of mistake.
1302. “The parliament of Worms presented to the emperor a request from all the people that the bishops should no longer go out at the head of their troops, but should stay in their dioceses and assist the army by their prayers; and Charlemagne willingly granted the petition. But it is remarkable that this application came not from the clergy, but from the laity; and it was so little regarded afterward, that we shall find some warlike bishops even among the popes themselves. This same emperor endeavoured with great zeal to purify the morals of the clergy; and his reproofs of their worldliness, their avarice, and their prostitution of sacred things for the sake of gain, are remarkable monuments of his own good sense and of the corruption which infested the church in the ninth century. After his death, which occurred inA. D.814, some churches invoked him as a saint, notwithstanding he had four wives and five concubines.
1303. “The year 844 was signalized by the introduction of false relics at Dijon in France, by which, nevertheless, several remarkable cures were supposed to have been effected, until the fraud was discovered; but the proceedings show that such impostures were common. InA. D.850 a poor presbyter named Gotheschalk, who had adopted high views on predestination, was not only deposed from the priesthood, but afterward publicly whipped, as an incorrigible heretic, and cast into prison, where he died after eighteen years’ confinement. Yet his doctrine was defended by other bishops of high reputation, and his punishment was denounced as cruel and unjust.
1304. “InA. D.864, a violent outrage took place at Rome, in which Gonthier, the Archbishop of Cologne, protesting against the judgment of Pope Nicholas, told his brother Hildwin, who was a priest, to place his protestation on the tomb of Saint Peter: that is, upon the altar of the church. Accordingly, Hildwin entered into the church with several followers, all armed, and as the keepers opposed him, he repulsed them with blows, and killed one of them upon the spot. He then accomplished his purpose, and retreated sword in hand. The anecdote is only of importance as a proof of the spirit of the age. The first instance of a partial interdict occurs inA. D.871. The ordeals of boiling water, cold water, and red-hot iron were employed in this age, to determine questions of justice under the auspices of the priests; and even kings employed them, with all faith and confidence. The Duke of Naples had formed an alliance with the Saracens, which the pope disproved; and as he refused to break it on the order of the pontiff, he was excommunicated. The Bishop Athanasius, who was the duke’s own brother, took him and put out his eyes, sent him as prisoner to Rome, and caused himself to be proclaimed Duke of Naples in his place. The pope approved this conduct highly, and praised the bishop for loving God more than his brother, and putting out the right eye which had offended, according to Scripture. This pontiff was John VIII., and the time wasA. D.877.
1305. It would occupy too much space, and make too wide a digression, were I to proceed in quoting the details of the evidence showing the state of morals in Christendom during the Middle Ages to have been much below that which the heathen displayed during the period immediately succeeding the advent of Christ, according to Mosheim and Gibbon. Butalthough the reader should not be enabled to form an opinion directly, by a perusal of the details, fortunately I am enabled to submit that of the right reverend prelate by whom they have been compiled.
1306. The fact deserves attention, that for more than a thousand years, of all the upper classes of society the Christian clergy were pre-eminently wicked, frequent complaints having been made against them by the laity, notwithstanding the cruel persecution to which complainants were liable. The popes were generally as prominent in wickedness as high in official distinction. The summing up of Bishop Hopkins, which I subjoin, fully confirms the impression which I have endeavoured to convey:
1307. “I have now gone over the history of your church, with the single aim of proving, from your own records, the rise, progress, and terrible extent of its corruption, up to the close of the sixteenth century. Here we see that for a period of seven centuries together there had been a constant outcry for reformation; that the popes and priesthood were the objects of continual complaint on the part of the laity; that by their own acknowledgment, although the church was never destitute of true Christians, yet holiness was the exception, and iniquity the rule, since the great body of the clergy were steeped in licentiousness, avarice, simony, cruelty, violence, falsehood, and blood; that the University of Paris, one of your most famous nurseries of theological education, was infested with an infidel philosophy, and with habits of libertine sacrilege; that the boasts of absolute atheism were heard from the lips of pontiffs and cardinals; that the reliance of your church was in the terrors of the inquisition, in the rack, the dungeon, and the stake; that war, and treachery, and assassination, were patronized in the service of religion; that bishops, and cardinals, and popes, were ready to lead their troops to battle; that there were constant revolts and rebellions against the tyranny of the priestly power; that there were many schisms in the papal kingdom, in which two or three pretenders to infallibility cursed each other at the same time, in the name of God and his apostles; and that every effort to banish these horrible iniquities proved utterly abortive, until the success of the Protestant reformation compelled them to respect public opinion, by fear for their very being if they continued to brave it any longer.”
1308. It is believed that there was no such wickedness among the pagan priesthood as to have become a cause of complaint, although far less power existed to silence accusation. Throughout Christendom even monarchs were made to suffer severely for their remonstrances against papal tyranny, and had to make concessions after having been ill-treated. By way of exemplifying his disrespect for those precepts of Christ which enjoin humility, meekness, and poorness of spirit as the means of reaching heaven, Pope Celestin kicked the crown from the head of the emperor, Henry VII., as this potentate knelt before him. Could any sane man have done this while believing that Christ’s allegations were to be verified,agreeably to which the “poor in spirit” are to have heaven, the meek to inherit the earth? (See Hopkins.)
1309. According to Taylor’s Diegesis, Constantine inquired of Sopater, the pagan priest, if he could absolve him from his sins, among which was that of scalding one of his wives to death, and executing unjustly one of his sons. Sopater informed him that it went beyond his power to obtain pardon for such sins. The Christian priests having agreed to procure the desired absolution, is supposed to have been one of the principal motives which induced Constantine to embrace Christianity. Yet it was under this wicked despot that the Council of Nice was held, which decided in favour of the divinity of Christ.
1310. It is difficult to imagine that persons who actually believed in a future state of rewards and punishments, and who of course must have been impressed with the comparative insignificance of any worldly enjoyments, would, for any earthly objects, have acted so much in a way to doom their souls to perpetual torture. It may therefore be inferred that the clerical papists who acted so wickedly were religious hypocrites, like the Jewish Pharisees. I am strongly under the impression that the imperfection of the proof of the truth of Scriptures, in the first place, and the inadequate and disgusting representations respecting the future world which they present, has always been productive of secret unbelief, and consequent recklessness respecting the dictates of religion or morality.
1311. Of the manner in which the clergy of the present day reason themselves into a belief, and expect to induce others to concur with them, the parodied quotation from the clerical Goliah of mywould-be guide to heavenis an exemplification. It is only byfrowning down objections, orbegging the question, that they can get on. (1182.)
1312. Said one among the most amiable of my clerical friends to me, when I adverted to the improbability that the Deity of this almost infinite universe would select a few human animalcules in Judea as his especial favourites: “Dr. Hare, you must not expect me to sit by patiently, and see the pillars of my profession assailed.” I am sorry, said I, if I have said any thing to give you pain. “How would you like the pillars of your science to be attacked?” I would defend them, not endeavour to silence the assailant! But all criticisms which lead to the cure of errors only benefit a science founded on truth.
1313. The skepticism produced by reading the Bible is alleged, by Archbishop Hughes, as the motive of his church for forbidding the reading of it to the faithful. It was the reading of the Bible, when a minor, which led to my unbelief in its authenticity. Bible societies may, without intending it, do much to prepare the reasoning portion of mankind for the adoption of a more moral, consistent, and rational gospel.
1314. That one pope at least was a materialist, the following quotation from Bishop Hopkins’s work will prove.
1315. “The year 1308 was marked by the resolution of Pope Clement V. to take up his residence at Avignon. Two years afterward, he appointed three cardinals to examine the witnesses against the former pope, Boniface VIII., and Cardinal Cajetan; and the testimony taken on the occasion proved them both to have been downright atheists. It was in substance as follows:1316. “Nicholas, a priest and canon of the cathedral, &c., on oath, said, that being at Naples, under the pontificate of Celestin V., viz.A. D.1274, in the house of Marin Sichinulfe, where Cardinal Benedict Cajetan dwelt, he entered the chamber of the cardinal in the suite of the Bishop of Fricenti, and found there a clerk disputing with him, in presence of several persons, upon the questions, which was the best law or religion, that of the Christians, of the Jews, or of the Saracens? and who those were that best observed their own? Then the cardinal said, What are all these religions? They are the inventions of men. We need not put ourselves to any trouble, except for this world, since there is no other life but the present. He said also, on the same occasion, that this world has had no beginning, and would not have an end. Nicholas, Abbot of St. Benedict, &c., deposed to the same fact, adding that the Cardinal Cajetan had said that the bread was not changed in the sacrament of the altar, and that it was false that it was the body of Jesus Christ; that there is no resurrection; that the soul dies with the body; that this was his opinion and that of all men of letters, but that the simple and ignorant thought otherwise. The witness being asked if the cardinal did not thus speak jestingly, replied that he said these things seriously and in good faith.1317. “Manfred, a lay citizen of Lucca, said, that in the year 1300, before Christmas, being in the chamber of Pope Boniface, in presence of the ambassadors of Florence, of Boulogne, and of Lucca, and many other persons, a man, who appeared to be the Pope’s chaplain, told his holiness of the death of a certain knight who had been a wicked man, and therefore it was necessary to pray for him, that Jesus Christ might have pity on his soul. Upon which Boniface treated him as if he were a fool; and after having spoken injuriously of Jesus Christ, he added: This knight has already received all the good and evil he can have, and there is no other life than this, nor any other paradise or hell than what is in this world. The witness testified to another discourse of Boniface, which modesty does not allow of our reporting; and another witness recited a story about him still more impious than the foregoing.1318. “‘What remains of this information,’ says Fleury, ‘comprehends the depositions of thirteen witnesses, all to a similar effect. Another information which appeared the following year contained the evidence of twenty-three witnesses to the same facts, with others equally scandalous. But as the affair was never brought to judgment, it is superfluous to enter into any further details.’1319. “Now here is a very extraordinary and powerful evidence to prove that at least one pope, and he a very distinguished one, Boniface VIII., and one cardinal, of high reputation, were not only infidels themselves, but claimed to be of the same class with ‘all men of letters.’ That the testimony was satisfactory seems incontrovertible; because the witnesses were thirty-six in number, unimpeached in character, and thought sufficient by Philip the Fair, King of France, and all his leading nobility. He proposed that Boniface should be arraigned, though dead, for heresy, and that his bones should be disinterred and burned, according to the modern fashion established by the Roman Church. It may seem strange, however, that even if Boniface and Cajetan had held such sentiments, they should have been so foolish as to utter them in the presence of so many. To this two answers may be given. First, that the influence of the philosophy which we have already noted in the University of Paris was so prevalent, that the clergy and the upper ranks of the laity were generally infected with it, and religion was looked upon, by nearly all, as a thing of policy, necessary to keep the vulgar in order, but only professed by the higher classes, as it was in heathen Rome, ‘for the sake of appearances.’ Unhappily, there are many proofs too strong to be doubted that this infidel philosophy was rife among the priesthood; and perhaps there is no other way of accounting for the manifest fact that the church, like the state, was governed for so many ages by the machinery of force and fear, as if there was no inward conscience to appeal to, except among a few pious souls, here and there—enough to perpetuate the church, according to the promise of Christ, but not enough to affect the general sentiment.”
1315. “The year 1308 was marked by the resolution of Pope Clement V. to take up his residence at Avignon. Two years afterward, he appointed three cardinals to examine the witnesses against the former pope, Boniface VIII., and Cardinal Cajetan; and the testimony taken on the occasion proved them both to have been downright atheists. It was in substance as follows:
1316. “Nicholas, a priest and canon of the cathedral, &c., on oath, said, that being at Naples, under the pontificate of Celestin V., viz.A. D.1274, in the house of Marin Sichinulfe, where Cardinal Benedict Cajetan dwelt, he entered the chamber of the cardinal in the suite of the Bishop of Fricenti, and found there a clerk disputing with him, in presence of several persons, upon the questions, which was the best law or religion, that of the Christians, of the Jews, or of the Saracens? and who those were that best observed their own? Then the cardinal said, What are all these religions? They are the inventions of men. We need not put ourselves to any trouble, except for this world, since there is no other life but the present. He said also, on the same occasion, that this world has had no beginning, and would not have an end. Nicholas, Abbot of St. Benedict, &c., deposed to the same fact, adding that the Cardinal Cajetan had said that the bread was not changed in the sacrament of the altar, and that it was false that it was the body of Jesus Christ; that there is no resurrection; that the soul dies with the body; that this was his opinion and that of all men of letters, but that the simple and ignorant thought otherwise. The witness being asked if the cardinal did not thus speak jestingly, replied that he said these things seriously and in good faith.
1317. “Manfred, a lay citizen of Lucca, said, that in the year 1300, before Christmas, being in the chamber of Pope Boniface, in presence of the ambassadors of Florence, of Boulogne, and of Lucca, and many other persons, a man, who appeared to be the Pope’s chaplain, told his holiness of the death of a certain knight who had been a wicked man, and therefore it was necessary to pray for him, that Jesus Christ might have pity on his soul. Upon which Boniface treated him as if he were a fool; and after having spoken injuriously of Jesus Christ, he added: This knight has already received all the good and evil he can have, and there is no other life than this, nor any other paradise or hell than what is in this world. The witness testified to another discourse of Boniface, which modesty does not allow of our reporting; and another witness recited a story about him still more impious than the foregoing.
1318. “‘What remains of this information,’ says Fleury, ‘comprehends the depositions of thirteen witnesses, all to a similar effect. Another information which appeared the following year contained the evidence of twenty-three witnesses to the same facts, with others equally scandalous. But as the affair was never brought to judgment, it is superfluous to enter into any further details.’
1319. “Now here is a very extraordinary and powerful evidence to prove that at least one pope, and he a very distinguished one, Boniface VIII., and one cardinal, of high reputation, were not only infidels themselves, but claimed to be of the same class with ‘all men of letters.’ That the testimony was satisfactory seems incontrovertible; because the witnesses were thirty-six in number, unimpeached in character, and thought sufficient by Philip the Fair, King of France, and all his leading nobility. He proposed that Boniface should be arraigned, though dead, for heresy, and that his bones should be disinterred and burned, according to the modern fashion established by the Roman Church. It may seem strange, however, that even if Boniface and Cajetan had held such sentiments, they should have been so foolish as to utter them in the presence of so many. To this two answers may be given. First, that the influence of the philosophy which we have already noted in the University of Paris was so prevalent, that the clergy and the upper ranks of the laity were generally infected with it, and religion was looked upon, by nearly all, as a thing of policy, necessary to keep the vulgar in order, but only professed by the higher classes, as it was in heathen Rome, ‘for the sake of appearances.’ Unhappily, there are many proofs too strong to be doubted that this infidel philosophy was rife among the priesthood; and perhaps there is no other way of accounting for the manifest fact that the church, like the state, was governed for so many ages by the machinery of force and fear, as if there was no inward conscience to appeal to, except among a few pious souls, here and there—enough to perpetuate the church, according to the promise of Christ, but not enough to affect the general sentiment.”
1320. While the silence of the Pentateuch respecting immortality throws the authority of the “word of God,” so called, against the endowment of the human soul with that all-important attribute, the language of the decalogue is inconsistent with the unity of the divine power. The words, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” implies that there were other gods who might be acknowledged; since if there were none other, the proper words would be—Thoucansthave no other God but me, or—Thereis no other Godbut me.
1321. Again, when Jehovah alleges himself to be jealous, of whom could he be jealous, if there was no other God to excite the sentiment of jealousy? Can any one conceive God to be jealous of an idol, when he must perceive that whatever worship may be bestowed on idols, is actually intended for the true God? (1245, 1246.) Could Adam have been jealous when there was no other man in existence to be jealous of?
1322. In the Introduction the ends to be answered by religion were stated, (page 18.) Several of the foregoing pages have been designed to show that Scripture does not fulfil these objects, being almost silent as respects immortality, using doubtful language respecting the unity of the divine power. Moreover, Jehovah is described as wrathful, jealous, and vindictive; as sanctioning the massacre, spoliation, and extirpation of neighbouring nations.[26]The fruits of the religion of Moses were two sects, of whom one did not believe in a future state of rewards and punishments; the other, although professing such a belief, (according to the barbarous idea of Josephus,) were not as moral as the unbelievers, (750,1098.) Moreover, as respects the New Testament, the precepts on which it laid the most stress, those against pecuniary cupidity and resistance of wrong, have been not only neglected, but acted upon inversely; so that rapacity and aggression have been the predominant features of the conduct of Christians, unworthily so called, toward each other, but especially toward those who have been of a different religious belief. In one trait, however, the words of Christ, already cited, have been fully carried out: “I come as a sword.”[27]
1323. It may be seen from the passages quoted, that prior to the promulgation of Christianity, people of various religious sects were willing to live in harmony; but that after its promulgation there was much discord, and that those who should have been especially influenced by Christianity (the priesthood) were the foremost in vice!
1324. It is conceived that either on the one side the evidence of Christianity could not have gone home to the soul of those who so grossly violated its monitions, or that the rewards held out by it had not been presented under an aspect sufficiently inviting to counteract the fleeting allurements of this temporal world. It is conceived that Scripture is from beginning to end, from the Pentateuch to the Gospel of John, too worldly, as first exhibited in the promise oflandsto the Jews, and lastly ofjudgeshipsto the apostles. The Old Testament, of necessity, can treat of nothing but worldliness, since there is throughout scarcely any reference to heaven; and some of the Psalms would accord better with the curses of a devil, than with the prayers of a sincere Christian. The cix. Psalm contains this language:
1325. “When he shall be judged, let him be condemned; and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath, and let the strangers spoil his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Let them be before the Lord continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth. Because that he remembered not to show mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart. As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him. As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil unto his bones. Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually. Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the Lord, and of them that speak evil against my soul.”
1325. “When he shall be judged, let him be condemned; and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath, and let the strangers spoil his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Let them be before the Lord continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth. Because that he remembered not to show mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart. As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him. As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil unto his bones. Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually. Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the Lord, and of them that speak evil against my soul.”
1326. Under these circumstances, wherefore should there be any alarm for the consequences of replacing belief in Scripture by belief in Spiritualism, if the evidence of this be, as we think, vastly more reliable, and the morality far more consistent with that followed in practice by great and good men of ancient and modern times.
1327. Moreover, the basis of probation, upon which the morality of Scripture is built, is manifestly acastle in the air, since it involves this contradiction, that an omnipotent, omniscient, and prescient Deity, who can make his creatures what he wishes them to be, and must know what they are, has to resort to trial to learn that which he knows before the process is undertaken, as well as he can possibly after its accomplishment. This demonstration alone overturns the whole probationary superstructure existing in the minds of sectarians.
1328. Meanwhile, the communications which I have submitted involve the idea of progression, and convey infinitely more knowledge of futurity than the Old and New Testaments taken together.
1329. I am aware how much it is a part of the existing system of education to imbue a confident faith in whatever tenets may be taught, and how little it is possible, in consequence, to have any arguments fairly considered which bear against the educational impressions. It may be seen in the instance of the interesting lady to whom I owe the kind letter, (1163,) how much more anxious such persons are to teach than to listen. She had, as she supposed, listened to an exposition of my views, of which the foundation had already been described in a published letter, with an effort to compare the heaven and hell of Scripture with those of Spiritualism; yet in all confidence of victory, this excellent creature brings me a letter written by one whom she considers to have a first-rate intellect, and who begins by assuming what I most emphatically deny, and of which the argument is just as good for Mohammedanism as for Christianity, provided the Koran be assumed as the word of God in lieu of the Bible, and Mohammed as the vicegerent of God instead of Christ. This may be considered as the argument of an eminent Episcopalian in favour of the truth of Christianity, while in those cited from Hughes and Breckinridge we have the arguments of an eminent Romanist on one side, and an eminent Calvinist on the other. The one objects to the basis of “fallible” men as the rule of faith; the other, to any inference derived from a gospel by “fallible” men. Breckinridge does not recollect that there is nothing more fallible than the traditions, compilations, and translations of fallible men, nor how skeptical all those who sustain the truth of Scripture on this evidence, are of any other evidence of the same kind which conflicts with Scripture.
1330. If the reader will look at the letters of Amasa Holcomb and my replies, (690,) he will see an exemplification of the difficulty in which many were placed, who had no other evidence of a future state beside that afforded by Scripture. Let him apply to the human evidence of antiquity no less skepticism than is now applied to the human evidence of Spiritualists, and then estimate the weight of testimony in favour of the Scriptures. Let him fairly consider the internal evidence against Scripture, as briefly sketched in this work or elsewhere, and then say whether he can conscientiously condemn Mr. Holcomb or myself for conscientiously disbelieving Scripture.
1331. Let it be considered whether belief in Christianity is not at the present time a consequence of morality, rather than its cause; whether it is not, with ninety-nine in a hundred, the consequence of early impressions, which have associated the Christian religion and morals inseparably on the conscience; without, however, inducing in any one of the individuals thus influenced any idea that the precepts of Christ are to be carried out inpractice. It would be manifestly preposterous to look for this where the clergy, who were the teachers, did not practically obey the precepts, but went ahead in the race of iniquity, whichever way the current might lead, and almost everywhere as desirous of wealth, and power, and worldly distinction as other men. The imperfection of the evidence of scriptural truth, on which the belief in it rests, or that false moral sense derived from education, which makes the person affected just as tenacious of one creed as of another, whether it be Judaic, Christian, or Mohammedan, causes the faith thus arising to yield whenever the moral sense is impaired on which it rests. Not being supported by reason, as soon as the educational conscientiousness on which it was founded is blunted, any faith built upon it forms no barrier. The individual perceives that his opinions were not formed by himself, but imparted, and would have been different, had he been born of different parents. Thus faith rests upon morality, not morality upon faith; and when morality goes, faith ceases to be a barrier. But meanwhile those who abandon morality, find in their educational impressions one which is a salvo to them, however sinful. They find that Christ died for those who believe in his divinity or in his divine mission, and of course, that by closing their ears and eyes to all evidence or argument impeaching Christianity, and continuing to cherish the early impressions made by their teachers, they may be redeemed from future punishment; whereas, as Dr. Berg alleged in his debate with Barker, “A sinner cannot be saved out of Christ.”
1332. But one consequence of this interested, bigoted belief is, that animosity which, it was foretold by Christ, would cause such horrible discord, and would make his advent equivalent to a severing of all the dearest ties between relatives and friends, the superior and his subordinates. As at this time any idea of a religion would be scouted with indignation which should not make a future state of rewards and punishments the primary object, it is inconceivable to me wherefore the Old Testament should be an object of veneration to those whose thoughts areheavenward. How could there be any thing but worldliness where nothing but the things of the world were objects of desire—no heaven beyond.
1333. From what has been urged, is it not manifest that, in the first place, it is of great importance that the evidence of a future state should be placed on a firmer footing than on recorded and translated traditions, or on the decretals of a most profligate priesthood? Would it not be one of the greatest imaginable blessings that those who have not the consolation of believing in immortality, should have that consolation, and those who already believe in a future state of existence, should have a better knowledge of that state, than that given by Josephus, sanctioned by Christ, even as collated by the pious and learned clergyman, Dr. Harbaugh? (750.)
1334. If Christ had nothing but the vicinity of the fire prepared for the devil and his angels, agreeably to Josephus, and his story of Dives andLazarus, or imaginary worldly appointments, or lying in the grave till thelast day,—if these are all the grounds that Christians have had to build upon as respects future happiness, is it to be wondered at that the priesthood of the Middle Ages, who best knew the defect of gospel evidence, how little they themselves were to be trusted, and how illusory was the promise made to the apostles of judgeships, (743,) should, of all others in society, be the least restrained by fear of future punishment?
1335. A prevalent calumny against human nature has been, that men remain wilfully reckless as respects religious truth; or that they remain in error designedly, and not because they mistake it for truth. But it is notorious, that as respects the laws of man, those who make it their business to violate them take great care to make themselves acquainted with the laws which it is their object to break. None but an idiot would expect the law to be less severe in proportion as he should keep himself ignorant of its provisions. No banditti in the Russian empire would expect the less to go to Siberia because they should deny the reigning czar to be the sovereign. They would not expect to escape his power by enthroning apretendedczar, and paying him honour. Such conduct would be too absurd, even for fools to pursue; yet it is upon such erroneous views that three thousand Israelites were surprised and assassinated for worshipping the golden calf; and that eminent clergymen do not consider it as blasphemy against the paternal God, described by Seneca (1224) to represent him as sanctioning this horrible butchery.[28]
1336. The truth is, the selfishness of the worst men makes it quite as much an object with them, as with good men, to know to what punishments they may become liable, or what advantages they will be entitled to hereafter. Self-interest makes every man anxious to know that which deeply affects his future existence. Is there any one who would not wish to learn whether his soul is to rot in the coffin with its fleshy integuments, or to have another and eternal existence, happy or wretched according to his deportment in this world?[29]
1337. Those who really wish to serve the cause of true religion, and human welfare here and hereafter, should not expect that harsh words or measures will promote these objects. If, from want of due consideration, they uphold that which is repulsive to the human heart and understanding, and turn a deaf ear to facts and reasoning, which would produce a more beneficial issue, they will really be amenable to the blame which they so unjustly lavish upon those whom they calumniate as “Infidels,” while they themselves are really infidels to their professed principles. The Bible itself made me an unbeliever in its authenticity, and makes unbelievers of many who read it attentively and fearlessly, after their reason is matured.
1338. Nothing could serve the cause of true religion and true morality more than a belief in a future state of reward and punishment, without having that book made an appendage to the instruction.
1339. In order to form an idea of the Deity, we must consider the extent of the universe over which he rules, and the magnificence and multiplicity of the bodies which it comprises. Alpha Centauri, a star of the Centaur, a constellation in the southern hemisphere, is the nearest of the fixed stars; it nevertheless is nearly twenty thousand million of miles from the earth. Light, flying at the rate of two hundred thousand miles in a second, to come from that star, would take three years and three months to reach the earth.
1340. A star in the constellation of the Swan, known as “61 Cygni,” is another among the few whose distance is sufficiently small to allow it to be measured. This is nearly three times as far as Alpha Centauri; so that it would take light nine years to come from “61 Cygni” to the earth. This star appears single to the naked eye, but, seen through a telescope, appears like two stars, which according to Mitchell, are six thousand millions of miles apart.
1341. But the stars which enter into the nebula of Orion are so remote, that light, to come from one of them, would require ninety-two thousand years. Suppose an imaginary right line to be extended from a star in Orion so as to pass through the centre of this planet, and to reach a star on the other side as remote as that first mentioned; of course, the distancebeing doubled, it would require light twice the time to perceive it, or one hundred and eighty-four thousand years. Suppose a spherical space of which that line forms a diameter, or we may suppose a larger sphere, including all the nebula visible by the Rosse telescope. It is estimated that there are in all not less than one hundred millions of stars visible with the aid of that magnificent instrument, each of which is a sun with its planets; so that we have reason to suppose that there are an hundred millions of solar systems. Some of the suns are, like Sirius, estimated to give sixty-three times as much light as our sun emits. Our planet is to Jupiter as one to twelve hundred; to Saturn, as one to one thousand; to the sun, as one to one million four hundred thousand. It is hardly to be seen by the naked eye from Jupiter, and would be invisible to any human eye situated upon any planet more remote than Jupiter. To the whole of the sidereal creation, it is as a globule of water in the ocean, and the inhabitants are as animalcules in that globule.
1342. Having thus prepared his mind with a proper conception of the vastness of the attributes of the Deity, and the degree of the comparative importance of the human race in the divine mind, as it surveys the whole creation, let the reader take up the book of Genesis, and compare the impressions which that alleged word of God would convey with those which the preceding facts and considerations would induce. It may be expedient that the reader, while under the sublime impression of the majesty and magnificence of the Deity, as displayed in his works, should consider what evidence there is of any entity having the relation to him of a female; and if it be irrational to suppose a commensurate being of the other sex, let the reader consider how this Supreme Deity could have a son? The existence of a son requiring both a father and mother, it may be well to think how a male without a female god could have a son. He may take into view the opinions of Newton, that God cannot be presumed to have organs. Doubtless it will be perceived that this all-pervading, magnificent being cannot require eyes to see, ears to hear, a nose to smell, a tongue to speak, or a mouth to eat, legs with which to walk, or arms with which to strike. Of course he will not consider him as having a person made of those organs, as in the instance of his creature, man. He will agree with Newton, that it were absurd to ascribe even one person to God, and would be still more so to ascribe three persons. Again, if three persons be essential to God, he being eternal, the three persons must be eternal, and of course neither can bear the relation of a son to the other; nor can thecoevalHoly Ghost proceed from two of the trio, forming the third person, who, by the premises, existedbeforehe came into hissubsequentexistence, as alleged by the contradictory conclusion. If the individuals composing the Godhead have any distinct will or reason, the admission of the trinity amounts to polytheism; and if they have not severally independent natures and reason, then the association of the idea of three persons is useless. Is it notidolatrous thus to associate with the Deity effete masses of spiritual matter, under the name ofpersons, and worship the imaginary monster thus created as the true God? Still more, is it not monstrous to represent that those who cannot adore this imaginary idol, arewilfullyincredulous?
1343. I have said that the account of the creation, given in the Pentateuch, is inconsistent with geological facts. Much sophistry has been employed to escape from this truth. Thus eminent geologists have striven to reconcile the alleged creation of the world in six days, to mean actually six eras, each of immense duration; yet Scripture representing that the day succeeding those so employed, should be kept holy as a Sabbath, and this being viewed in the Decalogue as a period of twenty-four hours, precludes the assignment of any longer duration to each of the six days, actually occupied by the Creator in performing his great work.
1344. To enable the reader to judge how far the facts ascertained by geological investigation, can be reconciled with the scriptural account, I shall here quote them, as stated by Professor Hitchcock, in his work entitled “Religion of Geology,” page 19. It should be known to the reader that this author is among those who assume the Bible to be the word of God upon the same grounds as the clergyman, (1182.)
1345. “Under these circumstances, all that I can do, is to state definitely what I apprehend to be the established principles of the science that have a bearing upon religious truth, and refer my hearers to standard works on the subject for the proof that they are true. If any will not take the trouble to examine the proofs, I trust they will have candour and impartiality enough not to deny my positions.
1346. “The first important conclusion to which every careful observer will come is, that the rocks of all sorts which compose the present crust of the globe, so far as it has been explored, at least to the depth of several miles, appear to have been the result of second causes; that is, they are now in a different state from that in which they were originally created.
1347. “It is, indeed, a favourite idea with some, that all the rocks and their contents were created, just as we now meet them, in a moment of time; that the supposed remains of animals and plants, which many of them contain, and which occur in all states, from an animal or plant little changed, to a complete conversion into stone, were never real animals and plants, but only resemblances; and that the marks of fusion and of the wearing of water, exhibited by the rocks, are not to be taken as evidences that they have undergone such processes, but only that it has pleased God to give them that appearance; and that, in fact, it was as easy for God to create them just as they now are as in any other form.
1348. “It is a presumption against such a supposition, that no men, who have carefully examined rocks and organic remains, are its advocates. Not that they doubt the power of God to produce such effects, but they deny the probability that he has exerted it in this manner; for throughout nature, wherever they have an opportunity to witness her operations, they find that when substances appear to have undergone changes, by means of secondary agencies, they have in fact undergone them; and, therefore, the whole analogy of nature goes to prove that the rocks have experienced great changes since their deposition. If rocks are an exception to the rest of nature,—that is, if they are the effect of miraculous agency,—there is no proof of it; and to admit it without proof is to destroy all grounds of analogical reasoning in natural operations; in other words, it is to remove the entire basis of reasoning in physical science. Every reasonable man, therefore, who has examined rocks, will admit that they have undergone important changes since their original formation.
1349. “In the second place, the same general laws appear to have always prevailed on the globe, and to have controlled the changes which have taken place upon and within it. We come to no spot, in the history of the rocks, in which a system different from that which now prevails appears to have existed. Great peculiarities in the structure of animals and plants do indeed occur, as well as changes on a scale of magnitude unknown at present; but this was only a wise adaptation to peculiar circumstances, and not an infringement of the general laws.
1350. “In the third place, the geological changes which the earth has undergone, and is now undergoing, appear to have been the result of the same agencies—viz. heat and water.
1351. “Fourthly. It is demonstrated that the present continents of the globe, with perhaps the exception of some of their highest mountains, have for a long period constituted the bottom of the ocean, and have been subsequently either elevated into their present position, or the waters have been drained off from their surface. This is probably the most important principle in geology; and though regarded with much skepticism by many, it is as satisfactorily proved as any principle of physical science not resting on mathematical demonstration.
1352. “Fifthly. The internal parts of the earth are found to possess a very high temperature; nor can it be doubted that at least oceans of melted matter exist beneath the crust, and perhaps even all the deep-seated interior is in a state of fusion.
1353. “Sixthly. The fossiliferous rocks, or such as contain animals and plants, are not less than six or seven miles in perpendicular thickness, and are composed of hundreds of alternating layers of different kinds, all of which appear to have been deposited, just as rocks are now forming, at the bottom of lakes and seas; and hence their deposition must have occupied an immense period of time. Even if we admit that this deposition went on in particular places much faster than at present, a variety of facts forbid the supposition that this was the general mode of their formation.
1354. “Seventhly. The remains of animals and plants found in the earth are not mingled confusedly together, but are found arranged, for themost part, in as much order as the drawers of a well-regulated cabinet. In general, they appear to have lived and died on or near the spots where they are now found; and as countless millions of these remains are often found piled together, so as to form almost entire mountains, the periods requisite for their formation must have been immensely long, as was taught in the preceding proposition.
1355. “Eighthly. Still further confirmation of the same important principle is found in the well-established fact, that there have been upon the globe, previous to the existing races, not less than five distinct periods of organized existence; that is, five great groups of animals and plants, so completely independent that no species whatever is found in more than one of them, have lived and successively passed away before the creation of the races that now occupy the surface. Other standard writers make the number of these periods of existence as many as twelve. Comparative anatomy testifies that so unlike in structure were these different groups, that they could not have coexisted in the same climate and other external circumstances.
1356. “Ninthly. In the earliest times in which animals and plants lived, the climate over the whole globe appears to have been as warm as, or even warmer than, it is now between the tropics. And the slow change from warmer to colder appears to have been the chief cause of the successive destruction of the different races; and new ones were created, better adapted to the altered condition of the globe; and yet each group seems to have occupied the globe through a period of great length; so that we have here another evidence of the vast cycles of duration that must have rolled away even since the earth became a habitable globe.
1357. “Tenthly. There is no small reason to suppose that the globe underwent numerous changes previous to the time when animals were placed upon it; that, in fact, the time was when the whole matter of the earth was in a melted state, and not improbably also even in a gaseous state. These points, indeed, are not as well established as the others that have been mentioned; but, if admitted, they give to the globe an incalculable antiquity.
1358. “Eleventhly. It appears that the present condition of the earth’s crust and surface was of comparatively recent commencement; otherwise the steep flanks of mountains would have ceased to crumble down, and wide oceans would have been filled with alluvial deposits.
1359. “Twelfthly. Among the thirty thousand species of animals and plants found in the rocks,[30]very few living species have been detected; and even these few occur in the most recent rocks, while in the secondarygroup, not less than six miles thick, not a single species now on the globe has been discovered. Hence the present races did not exist till after those in the secondary rocks had died. No human remains have been found below those alluvial deposits which are now forming by rivers, lakes, and the ocean. Hence geology infers that man was one of the latest animals that was placed on the globe.
1360. “Thirteenthly. The surface of the earth has undergone an enormous amount of erosion by the action of the ocean, the rivers, and the atmosphere. The ocean has worn away the solid rock, in some parts of the world, not less than ten thousand feet in depth, and rivers have cut channels through the hardest strata, hundreds of feet deep and several miles long; both of which effects demand periods inconceivably long.
1361. “Fourteenthly. At a comparatively recent date, northern and southern regions have been swept over and worn down by the joint action of ice and water, the force in general having been directed toward the equator. This is called thedriftperiod.
1362. “Fifteenthly. Since the drift period, the ocean has stood some thousands of feet above its present level in many countries.
1363. “Sixteenthly. There is evidence, in regard to some parts of the world, that the continents are now experiencing slow vertical movements—some places sinking, and others rising. And hence a presumption is derived that, in early times, such changes may have been often repeated, and on a great scale.
1364. “Seventeenthly. Every successive change of importance on the earth’s surface appears to have been an improvement of its condition, adapting it to beings of a higher organization, and to man at last, the most perfect of all.
1365. “Finally. The present races of animals and plants on the globe are for the most part disposed in groups, occupying particular districts, beyond whose limits the species peculiar to those provinces usually droop and die. The same is true, to some extent, as to the animals and plants found in the rocks; though the much greater uniformity of climate that prevailed in early times permitted organized beings to take a much wider range than at present; so that the zoological and botanical districts were then probably much wider. But the general conclusion, in respect to living and extinct animals is, that there must have been several centres of creation, from which they emigrated as far as their natures would allow them to range.
1366. “It would be easy to state more principles of geology of considerable importance; but I have now named the principal ones that bear upon the subject of religion. A brief statement of the leading truths of theology, whether natural or revealed, which these principles affect, and on which they cast light, will give an idea of the subjects which I propose to discuss in these lectures.
1367. “The first point relates to the age of the world. For while it has been the usual interpretation of the Mosaic account that the world was brought into existence nearly at the same time with man and the other existing animals, geology throws back its creation to a period indefinitely but immeasurably remote. The question is, not whether man has existed on the globe longer than the common interpretation of Genesis requires,—for here geology and the Bible speak the same language,—but whether the globe itself did not exist long before his creation; that is, long before the six days’ work, so definitely described in the Mosaic account? In other words, is not this a case in which the discoveries of science enable us more accurately to understand the Scriptures?
1368. “The introduction of death into the world, and the specific character of that death described in Scripture as the consequence of sin, are the next points where geology touches the subject of religion. Here, too, the general interpretation of Scripture is at variance with the facts of geology, which distinctly testify to the occurrence of death among animals long before the existence of man. Shall geology here, also, be permitted to modify our exposition of the Bible?
1369. “The subject of deluges, and especially that of Noah, will next claim our attention. For though it is now generally agreed that geology cannot detect traces of such a deluge as the Scriptures describe, yet upon some other bearings of that subject it does cast light; and so remarkable is the history of opinions concerning the Noachian deluge, that it could not on that account alone be properly passed in silence.”
1370. “Are not the hairs of your head all numbered?—Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature?” Luke xii. 7, 25.
1371. May it not be consistently inquired, who, without God’s assistance, can make his passions less ardent? his counteracting reason or conscientiousness more competent to restrain them? Who, prior to his sublunary existence, had the option, whether he should be born a Jew, a Gentile, or a Christian; whether in the Roman, Grecian, Episcopalian, or dissenting churches; whether his progenitors should be Chinese, Hindoos, Europeans, negroes, or savages? Who has, through his own previous choice, been brought up, on the one hand, by ignorant and vicious, or on the other, by virtuous and well-educated, parents? Can any soul be alleged to be responsible for entering the body of an infant begotten by idolaters, and thus subjected to the curse of the commandment? Or can a soul be deemed to have any merit because it came into the world as the progeny of parents orthodox in their own estimation, and happy in the belief that while myriads are to suffer to eternity in another world, for errors or crimes arising from causes beyond their control, a few are to be made eternallyhappy, notwithstanding their admitted sinfulness, by virtue of a bigoted confidence in the pre-eminent ability of their parents, their priests, or of themselves to learn tenets of which the great majority of mankind are ignorant? Humility in profession is associated with a towering and overbearing presumption in practice toward all who differ with them in creed: hence an effort to instruct others at the expense of millions spent in missions, while they have no better evidence of the accuracy of their own knowledge than a fallible human conviction.
1372. If two persons, A. and B., were organized exactly alike, educated precisely in the same way, and subjected to the same temptations or incentives, would they not act alike? Would not their acting differently prove that they were not alike in all respects?
1373. It may be said that they are free agents, being endowed with free-will; but if they be perfectly alike and similarly situated, (agreeably to the premises,) their free-will must be perfectly similar; and if not, let it be allowed to be, through God’s will, perfectly similar. Is it in their power to alter the nature of their will, any more than “the colour of their hair.”
1374. If any other being act differently from these, does it not follow that he is differently organized, educated, or situated from them; and that the diversity in one or all of these respects must be proportionable to the degree in which his actions and morals differ from those of A. and B.
1375. But it may be inquired, where is the merit of virtue, or the demerit of vice, if they be the consequences of causes over which we have no control? The reply is, that virtue is an endowment due to the will of Deity, just as the difference between the different races of mankind and the various genera of animals, or between individuals of the same species, must be due to that volition. An analogous idea of the necessity of God’s help to virtue is insisted upon by some of our most respectable and numerous Christian sects. It places virtue in man, so far as it may exist, upon the same basis as in God. It has always been held by all Christians that God can do no wrong; that vice is inconsistent with his nature. The more, then, a man is by nature and education incapable of being vicious, the greater his natural aptitude for virtue, the more he approaches its most perfect exemplification.
1376. But how can the punishment of the wicked be justified under this view of their case? I answer, that it can only be justified in self-defence, for the reformation of the offender, or to prevent the repetition of injury where no other means can be employed, just as killing wild beasts, noxious insects, or our enemies in warfare is justified.
1377. Punishment, unless with a view to prevention or reformation, seems to me diabolic. It seems irreconcilable with the injunction to return good for evil, that the Deity from whom it proceeds should return evil for evil,in excess; that he should, for finite and transient sins, award eternal punishment.
1378. The inference that omniscience and omnipotence could create myriads of beings, foreseeing that they must be subjected to extreme misery for an unlimited time, is irreconcilable with all goodness and omniscience. But it may be demanded, does not the fear of future punishment make mankind more virtuous? The man who avoids a felony solely through fear of future punishment is not the less wicked; he is only a more prudent, or a more cowardly villain. That piety to God and philanthropy are virtues, is most evident; but then these incentives must be disinterested. If Abraham could believe that shedding his son’s blood upon the altar would gratify the Deity, in order to make it a pious or virtuous act, it should have been unaccompanied by any expectation of benefit to himself. He must have had a conception of the Deity fully as bad as that of any heathen, to suppose that the sacrifice would be agreeable to him.