Chapter 28

Will not any event arriveFor which both will and power strive?Must not any result obtainWhich power unites with will to gain?

Will not any event arrive

For which both will and power strive?

Must not any result obtain

Which power unites with will to gain?

1931. I answer these queries in the affirmative, and of course consider the theology of Revelation as involved in a contradiction, so far as it represents anomnipotent and prescientGodas wishing any creed to be adopted which has not been adopted.

1932. As a corollary to these axioms, it results that God never has performed any miracle for the purpose of conveying a knowledge of the true religion; simply because all that have been alleged to have come from God have only produced religious discord. Of course God, foreseeing the failure of those miracles, would not have resorted to them.

Did God a special creed require,Each soul would he not with that creed inspire?

Did God a special creed require,

Each soul would he not with that creed inspire?

1933. This I answer affirmatively. The truth of the affirmative is as clear to my mind as any of Euclid’s axioms.

1934. Another conclusion I consider as inevitable: that no document can be substantiated by the facts of which it furnishes the sole evidence.

1935. In this predicament I place the Bible, the Koran, the Shaster, or Veda, and the Zendavesta, or any religious record of antiquity.

1936. Manifestly, a record made by man can have no higher authority than that of the men whose testimony it records, and those by whom it was recorded.

1937. If we are to judge of the Jewish priesthood by the example afforded by Samuel, we have no more reason to trust a Hebrew pontiff than a Romish pope, (1091.) Bishop Hopkins has sufficiently shown how far priests are to be trusted, (1296.) What would be said of any book, alleged to be due to Divine inspiration, if it had, agreeably to its own authority, an origin no more reliable than the allegation of a priestthat it had been found in a temple or church, there being no other evidence of its not having been forged by the priest, or his accomplices, than his own allegation? What better evidence would there be of the sacred origin of such a document, than there is of the Book of Mormon—the Bible brought forward by Joe Smith? Yet the following quotation will show that there was no Bible in use in Judea in the reign of Josiah, 350 years after the reign of David, and just before the Babylonian captivity; and that, in consequence, idolatry had to a great extent superseded the true worship.

1938. Under these circumstances, the high priest alleged a copy of the Bible to be found, and sent it by a scribe to the king. This monarch had lived in such ignorance of the existence of this holy code, that he was thrown into a state of such deep penitence for the sinful omissions arising from his ignorance, as to rend his clothes by way of expressing his sorrow. Moreover, orders were forthwith given to have the abuses abated, which had been introduced solely through ignorance.

1939. I view this evidence of the highest importance at this time, when such men as Mahan, and the anonymous author of the parodied letter, (1182,) are appealing to the Bible as the inspired word of God, and thus making God sanction a catalogue of atrocious crimes and indecencies, and when this imposture is to sit as an incubus on those truly moral impressions which the blessed spirits of the immortal Washington and other worthies, as well as my honoured father, would communicate for the amelioration of the religion and morals of mankind. I repeat, that I consider it of immense importance that attention should be called to the questionable foundation on which these pretensions to inspiration are erected. I shall, therefore, not only quote a portion of these pretendedwords of God, but also that part of a chapter in the Book of Josephus which narrates the same all-important occurrence more fully and satisfactorily, though giving the same evidence essentially.

1940. “And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the Lord given by Moses. And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. And Shaphan carried the book to the king, and brought the king word back again, saying, All that was committed to thy servants, they do it. And they have gathered together the money that was found in the house of the Lord, and have delivered it into the hand of the overseers, and to the hand of the workmen. Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Abdon the son of Micah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah a servant of the king’s, saying, Go, inquire of the Lord for me, and for them that are left in Israel, and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found; for great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in this book. And Hilkiah, and they that the king had appointed, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvath, the son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college:) and they spake to her to that effect. And she answered them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Tell ye the man that sent you to me, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah: because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be poured out upon this place, and shall not be quenched. And as for the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the Lord, so shall ye say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel concerning the words which thou hast heard; because thy heart was tender, and thou didst humble thyself before God when thou heardest his words against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, and humbledst thyself before me, and didst rend thy clothes, and weep before me; I have even heard thee also, saith the Lord. Behold, I will gather thee to thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered to thy grave in peace, neither shall thine eyes see all the evil that I will bring upon this place, and upon the inhabitants of the same. So they brought the king word again. Then the king sent and gathered together all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem. And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, great and small: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood in his place, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book. And he caused all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it. And the inhabitants of Jerusalem did according to the covenant of God, the God of their fathers. And Josiah took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the Lord their God. And all his days they departed not from following the Lord, the God of their fathers.”

1941. “The repairs of the temple being completed, and all expenses defrayed, Hilkiah, in conformity to the king’s orders, took out the money for the purpose of converting it into vessels for the use of the temple; and, upon removing the gold, happened to discover the sacred books of Moses. This he took out and gave to Shaphan, the king’s secretary, to peruse, who, upon reading them over, went to the king, accompanied by Hilkiah, who told him that he had executed all his commands relative to the reparation of the temple, and at the same time presented the book to him in great form, assuring him what it was, and where they had found it.1942. “The king ordered Shaphan to read a part of the contents, which being done, he rent his robes, in dread of the heavy curses denounced against a wicked generation. In the height of his affliction, he desired the secretary, with Hilkiah, and several priests who were present, to go to the prophetess Huldah, the wife of Shallum, a man of eminence, and unite their endeavours to prevail upon her to make intercession with God for pardon toward himself and his subjects. He told them there was great reason to apprehend that the vengeance of Heaven would fall upon the present generation as a punishment for the iniquity of their progenitors, and particularly their neglect and contempt of the laws of Moses; and that, without obtaining a reconciliation, they should be dispersed over the face of the earth, and terminate their lives in misery.1943. “Hilkiah, with those who were appointed to accompany him, immediately repaired to the prophetess, and having related the cause of the king’s affliction, and his earnest desire of her intercession with Heaven in behalf of him and his subjects, she bade them return him this answer: That the sentence already pronounced was not to be recalled on any supplication or intercession whatever. That the people were to be banished from their own country, and punished for their disobedience with the loss of all human comforts. That the judgment was irrevocable, for their obstinately persisting in their superstitious and idolatrous practices, notwithstanding so many warnings to a timely repentance, and the menacing predictions of the prophets, if they persevered in their abominations.1944. “This unchangeable decree was to show, by the event, that there is a just and overruling Disposer of all things, and the predictions which he delivered by the means of the prophets will be infallibly verified, as the certain indications of his whole will respecting mankind. The prophetess added, ‘Tell the king, however, that, in consideration of his own pious and virtuous example, the judgment shall be averted from the people during his days; but that the day of his death shall be the eve of their final destruction.’1945. “As soon as Josiah received this message from the prophetess, he immediately despatched messengers to the several cities within his dominions, commanding all the priests and Levites, and men of all ages and conditions, to repair with the utmost speed to Jerusalem. These orders being obeyed, and the people assembled, the king went to the temple, where, in the hearing of the whole multitude, he caused the laws of God, as contained in the books of Moses, to be distinctly read; after which he bound himself and the people, with their universal consent, by a most solemn oath, strictly to observe every article contained in the sacred books, respecting the laws and religion established by Moses. This solemn oath was followed by prayers and oblations for the divine blessing and protection.1946. “The king strictly enjoined the high priest to take a particular account of the plate and vessel in the temple, and to cast out so many of them as they should find to have been dedicated by any of his ancestors to idolatrous services. Those that were found were reduced to dust, and in that state thrown into the air. All the priests were likewise put to death, that were not of the flock of Aaron.1947. “Having effected this reformation in Jerusalem, Josiah made a progress throughout his whole dominions, where he destroyed all the relics of Jeroboam’s superstition and idolatry, and burnt the bones of false prophets, upon the very altar which that impious king had set up. Of thiswe have taken notice before, as well as the intervention of the prophet, with a prediction in the hearing of the multitude, at the time when Jeroboam was offering sacrifice, ‘That one of the race of David, Josiah by name, was to do this.’ The prediction was verified, by the event, three hundred and fifty-one years after it was foretold.1948. “So ardent was the zeal of Josiah for extending the great work of reformation, that he went in person to several of the Israelites who had escaped the Assyrian bondage, in order to dissuade them from continuing in superstition, and prevail with them to embrace the pure religion of their forefathers, according to the long established custom of their country. Nor did he rest here, but caused the towns and villages to be searched for the discovery of any remains of idolatrous practices that might lie concealed. The very figures of the horses over the porch of the temple, which their forefathers had dedicated to the sun, and all the monuments to which the people had ascribed divine honour, were, by his special order, taken away and destroyed.1949. “Having thus purged the whole nation from idolatry, and fully restored the true worship of the one only and true God, he called an assembly of the people at Jerusalem, for the purpose of celebrating the passover, the time for that festival being near at hand. On this occasion the king gave out of his own store, for paschal sacrifices, thirty goats, a thousand lambs, and three thousand oxen. The heads of the priests presented to the others of the sacerdotal order two thousand six hundred lambs, and the chief of the Levites gave to their tribes five thousand lambs, and five hundred oxen. A solemn sacrifice was made of these victims, according to the precepts of Moses, and the ceremony was performed under the direction of the priests. From the time of the prophet Samuel to that day, there had never been a festival celebrated with equal solemnity; for this had the allowed preference, because the whole was conducted in strict conformity to the very letter of the laws, and the precise mode of their forefathers. Josiah, after the accomplishment of a work of such moment and importance to the nation in general, enjoyed his government in honour, peace, and plenty, till he closed his life.”—Book 10, page 153.

1942. “The king ordered Shaphan to read a part of the contents, which being done, he rent his robes, in dread of the heavy curses denounced against a wicked generation. In the height of his affliction, he desired the secretary, with Hilkiah, and several priests who were present, to go to the prophetess Huldah, the wife of Shallum, a man of eminence, and unite their endeavours to prevail upon her to make intercession with God for pardon toward himself and his subjects. He told them there was great reason to apprehend that the vengeance of Heaven would fall upon the present generation as a punishment for the iniquity of their progenitors, and particularly their neglect and contempt of the laws of Moses; and that, without obtaining a reconciliation, they should be dispersed over the face of the earth, and terminate their lives in misery.

1943. “Hilkiah, with those who were appointed to accompany him, immediately repaired to the prophetess, and having related the cause of the king’s affliction, and his earnest desire of her intercession with Heaven in behalf of him and his subjects, she bade them return him this answer: That the sentence already pronounced was not to be recalled on any supplication or intercession whatever. That the people were to be banished from their own country, and punished for their disobedience with the loss of all human comforts. That the judgment was irrevocable, for their obstinately persisting in their superstitious and idolatrous practices, notwithstanding so many warnings to a timely repentance, and the menacing predictions of the prophets, if they persevered in their abominations.

1944. “This unchangeable decree was to show, by the event, that there is a just and overruling Disposer of all things, and the predictions which he delivered by the means of the prophets will be infallibly verified, as the certain indications of his whole will respecting mankind. The prophetess added, ‘Tell the king, however, that, in consideration of his own pious and virtuous example, the judgment shall be averted from the people during his days; but that the day of his death shall be the eve of their final destruction.’

1945. “As soon as Josiah received this message from the prophetess, he immediately despatched messengers to the several cities within his dominions, commanding all the priests and Levites, and men of all ages and conditions, to repair with the utmost speed to Jerusalem. These orders being obeyed, and the people assembled, the king went to the temple, where, in the hearing of the whole multitude, he caused the laws of God, as contained in the books of Moses, to be distinctly read; after which he bound himself and the people, with their universal consent, by a most solemn oath, strictly to observe every article contained in the sacred books, respecting the laws and religion established by Moses. This solemn oath was followed by prayers and oblations for the divine blessing and protection.

1946. “The king strictly enjoined the high priest to take a particular account of the plate and vessel in the temple, and to cast out so many of them as they should find to have been dedicated by any of his ancestors to idolatrous services. Those that were found were reduced to dust, and in that state thrown into the air. All the priests were likewise put to death, that were not of the flock of Aaron.

1947. “Having effected this reformation in Jerusalem, Josiah made a progress throughout his whole dominions, where he destroyed all the relics of Jeroboam’s superstition and idolatry, and burnt the bones of false prophets, upon the very altar which that impious king had set up. Of thiswe have taken notice before, as well as the intervention of the prophet, with a prediction in the hearing of the multitude, at the time when Jeroboam was offering sacrifice, ‘That one of the race of David, Josiah by name, was to do this.’ The prediction was verified, by the event, three hundred and fifty-one years after it was foretold.

1948. “So ardent was the zeal of Josiah for extending the great work of reformation, that he went in person to several of the Israelites who had escaped the Assyrian bondage, in order to dissuade them from continuing in superstition, and prevail with them to embrace the pure religion of their forefathers, according to the long established custom of their country. Nor did he rest here, but caused the towns and villages to be searched for the discovery of any remains of idolatrous practices that might lie concealed. The very figures of the horses over the porch of the temple, which their forefathers had dedicated to the sun, and all the monuments to which the people had ascribed divine honour, were, by his special order, taken away and destroyed.

1949. “Having thus purged the whole nation from idolatry, and fully restored the true worship of the one only and true God, he called an assembly of the people at Jerusalem, for the purpose of celebrating the passover, the time for that festival being near at hand. On this occasion the king gave out of his own store, for paschal sacrifices, thirty goats, a thousand lambs, and three thousand oxen. The heads of the priests presented to the others of the sacerdotal order two thousand six hundred lambs, and the chief of the Levites gave to their tribes five thousand lambs, and five hundred oxen. A solemn sacrifice was made of these victims, according to the precepts of Moses, and the ceremony was performed under the direction of the priests. From the time of the prophet Samuel to that day, there had never been a festival celebrated with equal solemnity; for this had the allowed preference, because the whole was conducted in strict conformity to the very letter of the laws, and the precise mode of their forefathers. Josiah, after the accomplishment of a work of such moment and importance to the nation in general, enjoyed his government in honour, peace, and plenty, till he closed his life.”—Book 10, page 153.

1950. After the Pentateuch had been viewed as the word of God, made known to a people as their peculiar inheritance, lifting them, in their own estimation, above the rest of mankind, as God’s chosen people, this code being the sole authority for theirbloodyandrapaciouscourse toward their neighbours, is it credible that such a document, had it ever existed, could have become both obsolete and forgotten?[45]Yet we have no alternativebut to admit this absurdity, or to conclude that the Bible has no better authority than the Book of Mormon; the one being no more than the other the work of a designing priesthood and would-be rulers.

1951. What credit would be given to any work having no better authority for divine origin than that of the allegation that some pope had found it in a cathedral or in the Vatican, and had sent it to some monarchical bigot as the mislaid testament of the Almighty, given by inspiration through some ancient predecessor of his holiness?

1952. It may be difficult to conceive that Hilkiah and his associates, in writing a book, as proceeding by inspiration from Jehovah, could have fabricated any facts so derogatory to an immaculate Deity as those mentioned under the authority of Moses. How impious must have been their conceptions, to represent him as authorizing them to borrow trinkets of the Egyptians, in order to purloin them; the sanctioning the cold-blooded murder of three thousand people for religious error; the slaughtering of whole nations, even to their suckling babes, as in the case of the Midianites, Canaanites, and Amalekites, with the setting aside virgins for the fate from which the Roman Virginius relieved his daughter by his dagger! It is difficult to conceive that an idea, so derogatory of God, could have been entertained by hischosenpeople. Yet, on the other hand, inasmuch as theywere written, there must have been some mind so impious as to have originated them; and it may be a less wonder that such fabricators should have existed in a cruel and barbarous age of the world, than that, in the present age of superior morality and civilization, they should find endorsers in the professed ministers of the Being whom they have thus misrepresented.

1953. Mr. Mahan alleges: “Every reader will agree with us in the assumption that the incorruptible God has never performed and never will perform a miracle in attestation of that which is unreal or untrue. A religion really and truly attested by divine miracles must therefore be admitted to be true.”

1954. To this very admissibletruism, I add that an omnipotent andprescientGod could not have any occasion to perform miracles in attestation of any thing, since, by the premises, his will must be carried out without miracles. That any thing should, even for an instant, be contrary to his will, is inconsistent with his foresight and omnipotency. It would be a miraclethat any thing counter to his will should exist.

1955. The next postulate of Mr. Mahan is: “No religion attested as true by divine miracles can be false.”

1956. Was this proposition ever impugned? No one would resist the unquestionable dictates of God, however conveyed, whether by miracles or any other means. The question is not whether a religionattested by divine miracles should be accredited, but whether there were ever any miracles, attesting any religion, performed; and if so, what religion hasthe peculiar merit of having been thus attested?Millions, who believe in other religions, deride those miracles of revelation which Mr. Mahan would adduce; and Protestants do not admit many which the Romish Church sanctions. For one, I deny that any miracle has ever been performed with the view of attesting any religion whatever. No miracle could be necessary to attest the will of Omnipotence any more than to enable a man to wave his hand. But, admitting that it ever has been necessary, no miracle has ever been resorted to for the purpose in question, since none has answered the desired end. This would not have been the case had miracles been resorted to byprescientomnipotence.

1957. A miracle, as defined by this author, on page 345 of his work, is an event “whose existence and characteristics can be accounted for but by a reference to the direct and immediate interposition of creative power, as their exclusive cause.”

1958. I reassert that, where omnipotence and prescience are concerned, such interposition could, in no case, be requisite. The miracle would be, that there could be any thing so contrary to omnipotent will as to require any miraculous interference to set it right!

1959. Instead of assuming, with orthodoxy, that our heavenly Father isquiteomnipotent, spirits hold that his powers are only such as this magnificent and almost infinite universe involves; consequently, there is no necessity on their part to admit that every thing must be exactly as God wishes it to be. They are not obliged to consider him as allowing mischievous ignorance, sin, and misery to exist, while by afiathe could correct them; and still less are they involved in the necessity of supposing that, while able to make every thingperfect, he, from choice, makes them imperfect, and yet has had to resort to drowning his creatures by a great flood, and subjecting whole nations to degrading captivity; authorizing one nation to massacre another, even to each suckling babe, for wrongs done centuries before.

1960. By Spiritualism, the Deity is represented as operating by general laws, from which, consistently with his attributes, he cannot deviate, having to perform no miracle to attain his ends; and that through these laws he is incessantly acting for the good of mankind; and the whole universe is progressing under his benign controlling influence.

1961. Thus we have the two systems, that of progression last mentioned, and that of probation above objected to; which last, being in diametric opposition to an axiomatic truth, is, on this account alone, manifestly absurd.

1962. But, admitting that miracles could, without inconsistency, be supposed to be resorted to by prescient omnipotence, in order to produce or prevent some consequence of a general law, in the making or carrying out of which an all-wise and all-powerful being inconsistently displays a want of wisdom and foresight, it must be perfectly clear that a prescientbeing would resort to such miracles as would produce the desired effect; not such as would be only partially seen or believed, and would become a new source of discord. Omnipotence could certainly devise miracles which could be seen and be believed in by all men; and which would so impress their minds, as to make them believe in what they should hear and see. By a single fiat, God, if as omnipotent as represented in Scripture, could make all his people of one mind. He would not send them a “sword to separate father from child, mother from daughter, mother-in-law from daughter-in-law,” and to makethe subordinates of each household rise in rebellion against their master. A prescient God would not perform miracles of such doubtful character as, for want of evidence, to oblige one of the miracle-makers to enforce a belief in them by treacherous and cruel assassination, as did Moses. God would require no evidence of his miracles but such as could be recorded in the minds of believers. He would not have the records of his will so situated, as to be liable to be confounded with the fabrications of priestcraft. If devils were to be cast out, he would not have drowned a herd of swine, merely to give those immortal miscreants a ducking.

1963. So far are the miracles narrated in the gospel from commanding my credence, that the account of them proves to me, that the Evangelists were men without discretion, in recording any thing so absurd andincredible, and souselessto themain object, of giving aknowledge of God, and of themeans of reaching a future happy state.

1964. How absurd to represent God as performing miracles remotely and indirectly bearing upon his object, instead of exercising his omnipotent power universally, effectually, and at once!

1965. If God were to adopt any miraculous means to make his will known, they would not be such as would fail in attaining their end. None but an idiot would resort to measures foreknown to be incompetent to the object for which they should be devised. As no miracles that have been alleged to have been performed have been productive of general conviction of the truth of the creed which they have been alleged to support, it follows that they could not have had a divine origin. A prescient God would not have resorted to incompetent miracles.

1966. This reverend author is likewise of opinion that nothing but miracles can be appealed to as evidence of the divine origin of Christianity or of any other religion.

1967. When miracles are appealed to by different sects, in support of their conflicting pretensions, it must result that, if religion is to be founded only on miracles, that religion only can be recognised as true whose miracles are so pre-eminently evident as to abrogate all others that conflict with it. But it is notorious that the miracles brought forward by each sect are denied, if not ridiculed, by others. Appealing to miracles is, in fact, appealing to the human evidence on which they depend. In likemanner, any religion which rests on assumed inspiration, rests, in fact, on the evidence proving that the inspiration claimed ever took place.

1968. But are we to believe in all miracles which have been alleged by men to have happened? Are we to believe any book to be inspired, because men, who contradict each other, alleged it to be inspired? and if several books are alleged to be inspired, how are we to choose between them? Is a man’s choice of these books to be governed by his education? If brought up in Turkey, is he to believe that the Koran is the word of God; if in Christendom, the gospel? If all who surround him were to treat it as impious to doubt thata bookis the word of God, is he to submit to this dictation, or is he to exercise his own judgment, and examine whether the Bible of the Christian, and the miracles on which it rests, are not more likely to be true than the Koran and the miracles on which it rests? But if, after having examined both of these works, he finds that the miracles on which they rest are, in both cases, entirely dependent on human testimony, and that this testimony is disputed on one side by the Mohammedans, and on the other by the Christians, and that each party only admits such miracles to be true as harmonize with his own religion; that miracles told by profane writers rather tend to discredit than to corroborate the occurrences with which they are associated,—will not the inference naturally arise that the belief in miracles is the result of religion, not religion the result of belief in miracles?

1969. An analogous result may be perceived in relation to any extraordinary manifestation in Spiritualism. Scarcely any one will believe that the spirit hand (1513) has been seen and felt at Koons’s establishment in Ohio, unless previously a convert to Spiritualism. Thus he does not become a spiritualist by reading the account of that manifestation, but believes the manifestation because he has been converted to Spiritualism. Did the truth of that manifestation rest upon the evidence of only one set of eye-witnesses, even spiritualists had not believed in it. As miracles have ever been alleged to have been seen only by very few persons, and have never been of a nature to be seen by a succession of observers, I cannot conceive why any man, in any age or time, could be reasonably expected to display a credulity, the inverse of that now exhibited, as respects this spiritual manifestation. Scarcely any person, without being an eye-witness of the fact, has been brought to believe that tables move without human contact. By recurrence, the reader may perceive that in my letter of February 3, 1854, I use this language in my letter to Mr. Holcomb:You believe that tables move without contact, because you have seen them so moved; I am skeptical, because I have never seen them moved without contact, though I have been at several circles, (698.)

1970. When I stated to my friend, Professor Henry, the experiment illustrated byplate 3, with the utmost precision, made twice on two different evenings, he said: “I would believe you as soon as any man in the world, but I cannot believe that.” Yet the result of that experiment was nothing more than the fact of bodies moving when uninfluenced by any apparent mortal agency, accompanied by a demonstration of a governing reason; a result which has been established again and again by myself with the greatest precision, and by many other investigators. Evidently, if this had never been repeated, it would have been treated as a mental hallucination on my part by my comrades in science and all the rest of the community.

1971. Such is the difficulty of inducing credence, in enlightened minds, of any thing which is inconsistent with those laws of nature with which they have become familiar. Clearly, in the present advanced state of the human mind, no miracles would be believed on hearsay testimony.

1972. It seems as if facts, incredible at first view, are always believed when they are confirmed by being seen by independent and disinterested and intelligent observers sufficiently often, and under such modifications, as to make all such observers believe in them. We are willing to believe in a mysterious fact asoneof agenus, but not when isolated. If I may judge by the incredulity with which my observations in Spiritualism have been met by those who had previously considered me reliable, I should deem it utterly impossible among intelligent, well-educated people of the present day to induce a belief in an isolated miracle; and, as respects ignorant, bigoted sectarians, the difficulty to obtain credence would be at least as great.

1973. Were our heavenly Father now to cause miracles to be performed as wonderful and as isolated as those mentioned in Scripture, as no one would know any thing of them direct from God, excepting those by whom they might be witnessed, it would only cause the narrators of them to be ridiculed, as those spiritualists were ridiculed who first asserted their belief in spiritual manifestations. In order, therefore, that miracles should be believed in by an enlightened community, belief would have to be instilled by education or supported by reiterated observation, since, in enlightened communities, no miracles would be believed in but those which should come within these conditions.

1974. There is not a single miracle mentioned in the gospel which tends to throw light upon the alleged object of Christ’s mission. The object of their performance was mainly to prove his supernatural power to those who should believe in them, and thus to cause him to be accredited as a missionary from God. So far from their ever having had an effect of this kind on my mind, gospel miracles tended only to destroy my confidence in the veracity or discretion of their narrators, upon the same principle that spiritualists have lost weight with their intelligent friends by mentioning manifestations which were considered by these as incredible.

1975. I can foresee a great triumph for spiritualists, sooner or later, inthe world to come, if not in this; but this result will not flow from the conversion of their skeptical friends to a belief in the manifestations which may have been viewed by the narrators, as described. The conversion of skeptics will arise from their own observation, with the concurrent testimony of many reliable witnesses, all tending to the verification of analogous phenomena.

1976. The miracles of Scripture never have had nor never can have this species of corroboration, and of course will make but little progress among people educated under conflicting impressions. In this age of bigotry in favour of all educational mysteries and extreme skepticism as to innovations, the last thing which could obtain credence would be miracles of the nature of those which Mr. Mahan assumes to be theonlyfoundation for religious belief.

1977. It has already been urged that Moses was,by his own account, a worldly man, who, as I conceive, was guilty of a misrepresentation in alleging that the Creator of the hundred millions of solar systems comprised in this universe (1342) made him and his people especially the object of a partiality, authorizing them to plunder and extirpate all the neighbouring people: moreover, that Moses was worldly-minded in theextreme, and so intent upon acquiring lands in this world, as to neglect his opportunities, if he had any, of learning from Jehovah, in frequent alleged intercourse with him, any information respecting the immortality of the soul, (1091,1098,1271.) My attention has been recently turned to the 24th chapter of Exodus. It is there mentioned that Moses, with more than seventy elders of Israel, went up the mount, and there had an interview with the God of Israel, when “they saw God.” It is then stated that “The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering. And this is the offering which you shall take of them, gold, silver, and brass, and blue and purple, fine linen, and goats’ hair,” &c.[46]

1978. There are then two or three chapters occupied with the specification of the various valuable articles of gold, and precious wood, and stones, required by anomnipotent God to furnish a tabernacle. Such is the misuse made by this pretended missionary of God, of the opportunity of learning thatwhich is above all price. How many thousands of human beingshave been willing to lay down their lives for religious truth!—and yet this pretended favourite of Jehovah, by his own account, spent his time in getting baubles, making the Almighty his agent. It may be that the whole is a fable, and that the account originated in the time of Hilkiah, when the Pentateuch was acknowledged to have been found accidentally. But if Moses and the elders really ascended the mount, and represented themselves as seeing God, and receiving those directions, evidently they were all a set of impostors, who resorted to this mode of obtaining furniture for the tabernacle.

1979. Among the errors propagated industriously by fanatical sectarians, is that of representing the Old and New Testament as of inestimable importance, as the only source of our knowledge of a future state of existence, of which heathen writers are mentioned as deficient. In refutation of the calumny thus promulgated, I deem it expedient to quote the following sentiments ascribed by Xenophon to Cyrus, King of Persia, inaddressing his children:

1980. “Think not, my dearest children, that when I depart from you, I shall be no more: remember that my soul, even while I lived among you, was invisible; yet by my actions you were sensible it existed in this body. Believe it, therefore, existing still, though it still be unseen. How quickly would the honours of illustrious men perish after death, if their souls performed nothing to preserve their fame! For my part, I could never think that the soul, which, while in a mortal body, lives, when departed from it, dies; or that its consciousness is lost when it is discharged out of an unconscious habitation; on the contrary, it most truly exists when it is freed from all corporeal alliance.”

1981. Let this be compared with the inexcusable inattention of Moses, taking his own narrative to be true, in communicating with God about every thing else, almost, excepting that which concerns immortal life. If the despicable criminality of Abraham in putting his wife at the pleasure of two heathen kings successively, andtheir repugnanceto have violated his connubial rights, be taken as a fit test of comparative morality, if these sentiments of King Cyrus be compared with those of the Jewish lawgiver as respects immortality, the chosen people of God were much below some neighbouring heathens both in morality and religion.

1982. This inference will be fortified by comparing the portraiture of the Deity as given by Moses (1140) and Samuel, (1091,) with that given by Seneca, (1224.)

1983. Much has been said in Scripture and by its votaries against idolatry, but I do most seriously consider the Old Testament as a more pernicious idol than any image or statue can be in the nature of things.

1984. An image or statue does not speak; it suggests nothing cruel, unjust, or indecent to the worshipper; neither do any of the objects usually treated as idols. It must evidently be an error to accuse idolaters of contemplating the inert image to which they kneel, as their God. They must see that it neither does nor can do any thing. They must perceive that, fixed in one place, the image cannot have that ubiquity or efficacy, essential to divine power. It follows that the object of adoration must be an invisible power associated with the idol, which may occupy the image only when invoked. In every temple devoted to Jupiter there might be a statue of Jupiter, and yet it was never held that there was more than one Jupiter. From the verses subjoined, from Pope’s translation of the Iliad, it appears that Homer gave to Jupiter a supremacy which made the other deities bear to him no higher relation than that which the archangels do to God, according to Christianity:

1985. “Let down our golden everlasting chain,Whose strong embrace holds heaven, and earth, and main;Strive all, of mortal or immortal birth,To drag by this the Thunderer down to earth.Ye strive in vain. If I but lift this hand,I heave the heavens, the ocean, and the land;For such I reign, unbounded and above,And such are men and gods compared to Jove.”

1985. “Let down our golden everlasting chain,

Whose strong embrace holds heaven, and earth, and main;

Strive all, of mortal or immortal birth,

To drag by this the Thunderer down to earth.

Ye strive in vain. If I but lift this hand,

I heave the heavens, the ocean, and the land;

For such I reign, unbounded and above,

And such are men and gods compared to Jove.”

1986. But when a book is made the word of God, which patronizes men as belonging to achosenseed who are guilty of cruelty, robbery, fraud, massacre in cold blood, it becomes a more active and mischievous idol than any dumb beast, image, or statue can be. An idolater worships a silent idol as the representative of God. The idol cannot say, “I am a jealous God: I wax hot in my wrath.”

1987. Mr. Mahan urges, that the sufferings undergone by martyrs to Christianity is evidence of its truth, whereas, it seems to me that it only proves the conviction of the parties, which, if displayed by a dervise or a fakir, would be called bigotry. But if suffering in a cause is evidence in its favour, there have been sufferers on the other side, as well as on that which this author has undertaken to uphold. It is but fair, if those who suffer for one side should have their suffering held up as proof of their conscientiousness, the same conscientiousness should be conceded to those who have suffered for the other. The author of the pages I am about to quote, the Rev. Robert Taylor, was, for want of a better answer to his publication, condemned to Oakam Jail, in England, for one year. It was there he wrote his Diagesis, copies of which may be had of Mr. Curtis,No. 34 Arch street, as well as other books which may assist readers to form an opinion for themselves. I shall quote some pages from this work, which, being studied after reading Mahan’s arrogant allegations, will make good the old saying, that “One story is good until another is told.”

1988. “The ordinary notion, that the four gospels were written by the persons whose names they bear, and that they have descended to us from original autographs of Matthew and John, immediate disciples, and of Mark and Luke, contemporaries and companions, of Christ, in like manner as the writings of still more early poets and historians have descended to us from the pens of the authors to whom they are attributed, is altogether untenable. It has been entirely surrendered by the most able and ingenuous Christian writers, and will no longer be maintained by any but those whose zeal outruns their knowledge, and whose recklessness and temerity of assertion can serve only to dishonour and betray the cause they so injudiciously seek to defend.1989. “The surrender of a position which the world has for ages been led to consider impregnable, by the admission of all that the early objection of the learned Christian Bishop,Faustusthe Manichean, implied, when he pressed Augustine with that bold challenge which Augustine was not able to answer, that,[47]‘It was certain that the New Testament was not written by Christ himself, nor by his apostles, but a long while after them, by some unknown persons, who, lest they should not be credited when they wrote of affairs they were little acquainted with, affixed to their works the names of apostles, or of such as were supposed to have been their companions, asserting that what they had written themselves was writtenACCORDING TOthose persons to whom they ascribed it.’1990. “This admission has not been held to be fatal to the claims of divine revelation, nor was it held to be so even by the learned Father himself who so strenuously insisted on it, since he declares his own unshaken faith in Christ’smysticalcrucifixion, notwithstanding.1991. “Adroitly handled as the passage has been by the ingenuity of theologians, it has been made rather to subserve the cause of the evidences of the Christian religion than to injure it. Since, though it be admitted that the Christian world has ‘all along been under a delusion’ in this respect, and has held these writings to be of higher authority than they really are; yet the writings themselves and their authors are innocent of having contributed to that delusion, and never boreonthem, norinthem, any challenge to so high authority as the mistaken piety of Christians has ascribed to them, but did all along profess no more than to have been written, as Faustus testifies, notBY, butACCORDINGto, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and by persons of whom indeed it is not known who or what they were, nor was it of any consequence that it should be, after the general acquiescence of the church had established the sufficient correctness of the compilations they had made.1992. “And here thelongo post tempore(the great while after) is a favourable presumption of the sufficient opportunity that all persons[48]had,of knowing and being satisfied that the gospels which the church received were indeed all that they purported to be; that is, faithful narrations of the life and doctrines of Christaccordingto what could be collected from the verbal accounts which his apostles had given, or by tradition been supposed to have given, and, as such, ‘worthy of all acceptation.’1993. “The objection of Faustus becomes from its own nature the most indubitable and inexceptionable evidence, carrying us up to the very early age, the fourth century, in which he wrote, with a demonstration that the gospels were then universally known and received under the precise designation, and none other, than that with which they have come down to us, even as the gospels, respectively,accordingto Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.1994. “Of course there can be no occasion to pursue the inquiry into the authenticity of the Christian Scriptures lower down than the fourth century.1995. “1.Though, in that age, there was no established canon or authoritative declaration that such and none other than those which have come down to us were the books which contained the Christian rule of faith.1996. “2. And though ‘no manuscript of these writings now in existence is prior to the sixth century, and various readings which, as appears from the quotations of the Fathers, were in the text of the Greek Testament are to be found in none of the manuscripts which are at present remaining.’—Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 160.1997. “3. And though many passages which are now found in these Scriptures were not contained in any ancient copies whatever.1998. “4. And though ‘in our common editions of the Greek Testament areMANYreadings which exist not in a single manuscript, but are founded onMERE CONJECTURE.’ —Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 496.1999. “5. And though ‘it is notorious, that the orthodox charge the heretics with corrupting the text, and that the heretics recriminate upon the orthodox.’—Unitarian New Version, p. 121.2000. “6. And though ‘it is an undoubted fact that the heretics were in the right in many points of criticism where the Fathers accused them of wilful corruption.’—Bp. Marsh, vol. ii. p. 362.2001. “7. And though ‘it is notorious that forged writings under the names of the apostles were in circulation almost from the apostolic age.’—See 2 Thess. ii. 2,quoted in Unitarian New Version.[49]2002. “8. And though, ‘not long after Christ’s ascension into heaven, several histories of his life and doctrines, full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders, were composed by persons whose intentions, perhaps, were not bad, but whose writings discovered the greatest superstition and ignorance.’—Mosheim, vol. i. p. 109.2003. “9. And though, says the great Scaliger, ‘They put into their Scriptures whatever they thought would serve their purpose.’[50]2004. “10. And though, ‘notwithstanding those twelve known infallible and faithful judges of controversy, (the twelve apostles,) there were as many and asdamnableheresies crept in, even in the apostolic age, as in any other age, perhaps, during the same space of time.’—Reeve’s Preliminary Discourse to the Commonitory of Vincentius Lirinensis, p. 190.2005. “11. And though there were in the manuscripts of the New Testament, at the time of editing the last printed copies of the Greek text, upward ofONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSANDvarious readings.”—Unitarian New Version, p. 22.2006. “12. And though ‘the confusion unavoidable in these versions (the ancient Latin, from which all our European versions are derived) had arisen to such a height, that St. Jerome, in his Preface to the Gospels, complains that no one copy resembled another.’—Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 119.2007. “13. And though the Gospels fatally contradict each other; that is, in several important particulars, they do so to such an extent as no ingenuity of supposition has yet been able to reconcile: after Marsh, Michaelis, and the most learned critics, have stuck, and owned the conquest.2008. “14. And though the difference of character between the three first Gospels and that ascribed to St. John is so flagrantly egregious, that the most learned Christian divines and profoundest scholars have frankly avowed that the Jesus Christ of St. John is a wholly different character from the Jesus Christ of Matthew, Mark, and Luke; and that their account and his should both be true is flatly impossible.[51]2009. “15. And though such was the idolatrous adulation paid to the authority of Origen, that emendations of the text which were but suggested by him were taken in as part of the New Testament; though he himself acknowledged that they were supported by the authority of no manuscript whatever.—Marsh, in loco.2010. “16. And though, even so late as the period of the Reformation, we have whole passages which have been thrust into the text, and thrust out, just as it served the turn which the Protestant tricksters had to serve.2011. “17. And though we have on record the most indubitable historical evidence of a general censure and correction of the Gospels having been made at Constantinople, in the year 506, by order of the Emperor Anastasius.[52]2012. “18. And though we have like unquestionable historical evidence of measureless and inappreciable alterations of the same having been made by our own Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, for the avowed purpose ofaccommodating them to the faith of the orthodox.”[53]

1989. “The surrender of a position which the world has for ages been led to consider impregnable, by the admission of all that the early objection of the learned Christian Bishop,Faustusthe Manichean, implied, when he pressed Augustine with that bold challenge which Augustine was not able to answer, that,[47]‘It was certain that the New Testament was not written by Christ himself, nor by his apostles, but a long while after them, by some unknown persons, who, lest they should not be credited when they wrote of affairs they were little acquainted with, affixed to their works the names of apostles, or of such as were supposed to have been their companions, asserting that what they had written themselves was writtenACCORDING TOthose persons to whom they ascribed it.’

1990. “This admission has not been held to be fatal to the claims of divine revelation, nor was it held to be so even by the learned Father himself who so strenuously insisted on it, since he declares his own unshaken faith in Christ’smysticalcrucifixion, notwithstanding.

1991. “Adroitly handled as the passage has been by the ingenuity of theologians, it has been made rather to subserve the cause of the evidences of the Christian religion than to injure it. Since, though it be admitted that the Christian world has ‘all along been under a delusion’ in this respect, and has held these writings to be of higher authority than they really are; yet the writings themselves and their authors are innocent of having contributed to that delusion, and never boreonthem, norinthem, any challenge to so high authority as the mistaken piety of Christians has ascribed to them, but did all along profess no more than to have been written, as Faustus testifies, notBY, butACCORDINGto, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and by persons of whom indeed it is not known who or what they were, nor was it of any consequence that it should be, after the general acquiescence of the church had established the sufficient correctness of the compilations they had made.

1992. “And here thelongo post tempore(the great while after) is a favourable presumption of the sufficient opportunity that all persons[48]had,of knowing and being satisfied that the gospels which the church received were indeed all that they purported to be; that is, faithful narrations of the life and doctrines of Christaccordingto what could be collected from the verbal accounts which his apostles had given, or by tradition been supposed to have given, and, as such, ‘worthy of all acceptation.’

1993. “The objection of Faustus becomes from its own nature the most indubitable and inexceptionable evidence, carrying us up to the very early age, the fourth century, in which he wrote, with a demonstration that the gospels were then universally known and received under the precise designation, and none other, than that with which they have come down to us, even as the gospels, respectively,accordingto Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

1994. “Of course there can be no occasion to pursue the inquiry into the authenticity of the Christian Scriptures lower down than the fourth century.

1995. “1.Though, in that age, there was no established canon or authoritative declaration that such and none other than those which have come down to us were the books which contained the Christian rule of faith.

1996. “2. And though ‘no manuscript of these writings now in existence is prior to the sixth century, and various readings which, as appears from the quotations of the Fathers, were in the text of the Greek Testament are to be found in none of the manuscripts which are at present remaining.’—Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 160.

1997. “3. And though many passages which are now found in these Scriptures were not contained in any ancient copies whatever.

1998. “4. And though ‘in our common editions of the Greek Testament areMANYreadings which exist not in a single manuscript, but are founded onMERE CONJECTURE.’ —Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 496.

1999. “5. And though ‘it is notorious, that the orthodox charge the heretics with corrupting the text, and that the heretics recriminate upon the orthodox.’—Unitarian New Version, p. 121.

2000. “6. And though ‘it is an undoubted fact that the heretics were in the right in many points of criticism where the Fathers accused them of wilful corruption.’—Bp. Marsh, vol. ii. p. 362.

2001. “7. And though ‘it is notorious that forged writings under the names of the apostles were in circulation almost from the apostolic age.’—See 2 Thess. ii. 2,quoted in Unitarian New Version.[49]

2002. “8. And though, ‘not long after Christ’s ascension into heaven, several histories of his life and doctrines, full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders, were composed by persons whose intentions, perhaps, were not bad, but whose writings discovered the greatest superstition and ignorance.’—Mosheim, vol. i. p. 109.

2003. “9. And though, says the great Scaliger, ‘They put into their Scriptures whatever they thought would serve their purpose.’[50]

2004. “10. And though, ‘notwithstanding those twelve known infallible and faithful judges of controversy, (the twelve apostles,) there were as many and asdamnableheresies crept in, even in the apostolic age, as in any other age, perhaps, during the same space of time.’—Reeve’s Preliminary Discourse to the Commonitory of Vincentius Lirinensis, p. 190.

2005. “11. And though there were in the manuscripts of the New Testament, at the time of editing the last printed copies of the Greek text, upward ofONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSANDvarious readings.”—Unitarian New Version, p. 22.

2006. “12. And though ‘the confusion unavoidable in these versions (the ancient Latin, from which all our European versions are derived) had arisen to such a height, that St. Jerome, in his Preface to the Gospels, complains that no one copy resembled another.’—Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 119.

2007. “13. And though the Gospels fatally contradict each other; that is, in several important particulars, they do so to such an extent as no ingenuity of supposition has yet been able to reconcile: after Marsh, Michaelis, and the most learned critics, have stuck, and owned the conquest.

2008. “14. And though the difference of character between the three first Gospels and that ascribed to St. John is so flagrantly egregious, that the most learned Christian divines and profoundest scholars have frankly avowed that the Jesus Christ of St. John is a wholly different character from the Jesus Christ of Matthew, Mark, and Luke; and that their account and his should both be true is flatly impossible.[51]

2009. “15. And though such was the idolatrous adulation paid to the authority of Origen, that emendations of the text which were but suggested by him were taken in as part of the New Testament; though he himself acknowledged that they were supported by the authority of no manuscript whatever.—Marsh, in loco.

2010. “16. And though, even so late as the period of the Reformation, we have whole passages which have been thrust into the text, and thrust out, just as it served the turn which the Protestant tricksters had to serve.

2011. “17. And though we have on record the most indubitable historical evidence of a general censure and correction of the Gospels having been made at Constantinople, in the year 506, by order of the Emperor Anastasius.[52]

2012. “18. And though we have like unquestionable historical evidence of measureless and inappreciable alterations of the same having been made by our own Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, for the avowed purpose ofaccommodating them to the faith of the orthodox.”[53]

2013. The silence of Josephus respecting Christ induced some Christians to concoct the pious fraud of interpolating in his history a notice of the career and crucifixion of Christ, but subsequent Christian writers have detected and exposed the interpolation; so that the history alluded to, written soon after Christ’s death by the distinguished Hebrew, contains no notice of those events; and, from the following passage in Gibbon, it appears that it did not awaken much attention among the Romans. Yet Mahan, assuming the opposite to be true, urges it as evidence of the evangelical account, that the phenomena drew universal attention.

Back to Index Next