A VINDICATION OF THE AGE OF REASON, &c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Wakefield has been at ſome pains, with the ſuperaddition of a formidable trio of Latin quotations, to ſhow us the juſtice of the Moſaic doctrine of viſiting the ſins of the fathers upon the children ^*, even unto the [45] third and fourth generation, (and it is a mercy the vengeance ſtops there!) which forms ſuch a prominent feature in the two tables of the commandments, written, we are told, by the expreſs ſinger of God. Now we [46]cannot but lament, when we peruſe Mr. Wakefield's arguments on this ſubject, that any capacity, not ‘conſtitutionally defec⯑tive,’ ſhould be capable of forming ſuch derogatory ideas of that great Almighty Being, who is emphatically ſtyled the Foun⯑tain of all Goodneſs, and the Father of Mer⯑cies; whom John, by the happineſt perſoni⯑fication, calls Love itſelf; we cannot but lament, that any capacity, not "conſtitu⯑tionally defective," ſhould entertain ſuch un⯑worthy, I had almoſt ſaid blaſphemous, no⯑tions of the benevolent Author of Nature, as to aſcribe to the Deity attributes and pro⯑penſities which the moſt lawleſs tyrant would bluſh to own to. The God whoſe omnipo⯑tence is competent to puniſh ſin in its re⯑moteſt ramifications, has mercy to nip the growing evil in the bud; or ſhall we boaſt the wiſdom and humanity of modern civi⯑lized legiſlature, which profeſſes to aim ra⯑ther at the prevention than puniſhment of crimes, and impiouſly ſuppoſe, that Eternal Juſtice and Unerring Wiſdom ſhould act upon a plan diametrically oppoſite; upon a prin⯑ciple which fiends muſt contemplate with [47]execration? Reaſon revolts at the horrid diabolical idea!

I have before had occaſion to remark upon the illiberality of Mr. Wakefield's attack, which diſplays itſelf in a very conſpicuous manner in various paſſages of his work; and I cannot diſmiſs the preſent ſubject with⯑out obſerving, that his application of the viſiting ſyſtem to the late rigorous and un⯑merited ſufferings of Mr. Paine, (ſee page 22) ſeems to carry with it, notwithſtanding his boaſted ſympathy and regret, an air of triumph and exultation, that calls to my mind in lively colours the treatment which Job received in his affliction from his three pretended friends and comforters: ‘Re⯑member, I pray thee, who ever periſhed, being innocent? or where were the righ⯑teous cut off?’ (Job, iv. 7.)

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

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

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

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

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

‘The numerous circumſtances inter⯑ſperſed through the Goſpel narratives and in the Acts of the Apoſtles, appertaining to the geography of countries, the poſi⯑tions of rivers, towns, and cities; public tranſactions of much notoriety and ac⯑count in thoſe days; the dreſs, cuſtoms, [55]manners, languages of nations and indi⯑viduals; political characters of eminence, and their conduct, in connection with a moſt potent and enlightened empire, with a vaſt multiplicity of detached occur⯑rences and facts not neceſſary to be ſpeci⯑fied at large; all theſe circumſtances, I ſay, probable in themſelves, and of fide⯑lity unimpeached, challenge (to ſpeak with moderation) as large a portion of credibility to theſe books, conſidered in the ſimple character of hiſtorical ^* teſti⯑monials, [56]as can be claimed for any writ⯑ings whatever, received as genuine, and equally ancient and multifarious. Now, no mean preſumption ariſes in favour of the moſt extraordinary tranſactions alſo, blended in the ſame texture of narrative, by hiſtorians of ſo credible a character with reſpect to the reſt of their relations; but when thoſe extraordinary facts are found to have ſo intimate an incorpora⯑tion with the common and unſuſpicious occurrences of theſe hiſtories, as to ad⯑mit of no detachment, but to ſtand or fall with the main body of the compo⯑ſitions, ſo that one part depends upon another for conſiſtency and ſupport, I cannot ſee how any hiſtorical probability of the authenticity of theſe extraordinary [57]events can riſe higher than in ſuch an inſtance.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘I might advance alſo, in aid of theſe re⯑marks,’ (to give the whole of Mr. Wake⯑field's arguments) ‘that mankind are moſt evidently placed here in a ſtate of proba⯑tionary imperfection: that, inſtead of cer⯑tainty for our guide, we are compelled to truſt, on moſt occaſions, to a degree of probability infinitely diverſified; and that ſome of our nobleſt and moſt refined ex⯑cellencies both moral and intellectual, ſpring from a forbearance and candour, from a diffidence, and docility, and lowlineſs of underſtanding, which diſ⯑putable evidence is beſt calculated to gene⯑rate and foſter. Beſides, that exerciſe and agitation of our mental powers, which is invariably produced by the delays and dif⯑ficulties intervening propoſitions of this nature, and the attainment of moral cer⯑tainty, in a painful diſquiſition of evidence and a long deduction of particulars, con⯑tribute eſſentially to the quickneſs, the clearneſs, the vigour and general ſalubrity of our underſtandings; juſt as the water [68]of a river is meliorated and refined by a winding obſtructed paſſage over ſand and gravel.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another inſtance of groſs error and miſ⯑take occurs in Mr. Wakefield's reply to our Author's ſtrictures on the hiſtory of the cre⯑ation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our adventurer has now got a conſiderable number of ſubjects, for whom he has no⯑thing to do but provide a place to ſettle in. As it was neceſſary to violate all the laws of [120]of juſtice and humanity, in ſeizing upon the territories of other ſtates, (for none were willing to reſign their lands up to him) he pretends that the grant he had received from God of certain pleaſant lands which ſuited his purpoſe, not only authorized the invaſion of thoſe lands, but moreover enjoined him to butcher and totally extirpate the original in⯑habitants, ſparing neither men, women, nor children. Thus, by an alledged commandment from the Almighty, are the hearts of the Iſraelites ſteeled to all the cruelties and enor⯑mities which they afterwards perpetrated.

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

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

Let us now turn our eye to the Chriſtian Syſtem:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

London, October 10, 1795.