Having shown that no man in his senses can be an atheist, unless he assume
that he comprehends the universe in his mind, with all its abstract
essences and principles, which assumption would be to make himself
omnipresent and eternal, a god in fact; and having seen that the
proposition of the divine existence and perfections is demonstrable from
the universe, as far as it is known in all its general laws and in all its
parts, we proceed from these prefatory considerations to other matters
still more intimately introductory to our design.
It is essentially preliminary to a clear and forcible display of the
reasonableness and certainty of our faith in Jesus Christ as the author of
immortality to man, that we ascertain the proper ground on which the
modern skeptic, of whatever creed, stands when he avows his opposition to
the gospel. That we may duly estimate the strength of his opposition, we
must not only enumerate his objections or arguments, but we must exactly
ascertain the exact position which he occupies. Does he stand within a
fortified castle, or in the open field? Presents he himself to our view in
a stronghold, well garrisoned with the invincible forces of logic, of
science, and of fact? or defies he armies and the artillery of light,
relying wholly upon himself, his own experience, without a shield, without
an ally, without science, without history, and consequently a single fact
to oppose?
That we may, then, truly and certainly ascertain his precise attitude,
before we directly address him, we shall accurately survey his whole
premises. Does he say that he _knows_ the gospel to be false? No, he can
not; for he was not in Judea in the days of the evangelical drama. He,
therefore, could not test the miracles, or sensible demonstrations, by any
of his senses; nor prove to himself that Jesus rose not from the dead.
Speaking in accordance with the evidence of sense, of consciousness, and
of experience, he can not say that he _knows_ the gospel to be a cunningly
devised fable. He has not, then, in all his premises _knowledge_, in its
true and proper meaning, to oppose to the Christian’s faith or hope. What
remains?
Can he say, in truth, that he _believes_ the gospel to be false? He can
not; because belief without testimony is impossible; and testimony that
the gospel facts did not occur is not found extant on earth in any
language or nation under heaven. No contemporaneous opposing testimony has
ever been heard of, except in one instance, the sleeping and incredible
testimony of the Roman guard, which has a lie stamped indelibly on its
forehead: “His disciples stole his dead body while we were asleep.” He
that can believe this is not to be reasoned with. We repeat it with
emphasis, that no living man can say, according to the English Dictionary,
that he _believes_ the gospel to be false.
Alike destitute of knowledge and of faith to oppose to the testimony of
apostles, prophets, and myriads of contemporaneous witnesses, what has the
skeptic to present against the numerous and diversified evidences of the
gospel? Nothing in the universe but his _doubts_. He can, in strict
conformity to language and fact, only say, he doubts whether it be true.
He is, then, legitimately no more than an inmate of Doubting Castle. His
fortification is built up of doubts and misgivings, cemented by antipathy.
Farther than this the powers of nature and of reason can not go.
How far these doubts are rational, scientific, and modest, may yet appear
in the sequel; meanwhile, we only survey the premises which the infidel
occupies, and the forces he has to bring into the action. These, may we
not say, are already logically ascertained to be an army of doubts only.
Some talk of the immodesty, others of the folly, others of the
maliciousness of the unbeliever; but not to deal in harsh or uncourteous
epithets, may we not say, that it is most unphilosophic to dogmatize
against the gospel on the slender grounds of sheer dubiety. No man,
deserving the name of a _philosopher_, can ever appear among the crusading
forces of pamphleteers and declaimers against the faith of Christians, for
two of the best reasons in the world; he has nothing better to substitute
for the motives, the restraining fears to the wicked, and the animating
hopes to the righteous, which the gospel tenders; and he has nothing to
oppose to its claims but the weakness and uncertainty of his doubts.
Franklin was a philosopher, but Paine was a madman. The former doubted,
but never dogmatized—never opposed the gospel, but always discountenanced
and discouraged the infidel; the latter gave to his doubts the authority
of oracles, and madly attempted to silence the Christian’s artillery by
the licentious scoffings of the most extravagant and unreasonable
skepticism.
Modesty is the legitimate daughter of true philosophy; but dogmatism,
unless the offspring of infallible authority, is the ill-bred child of
ignorance and arrogance. Every man, then, who seeks to make proselytes to
his skepticism by converting his doubts into arguments, is anything but a
philosopher or a philanthropist.
One of the most alarming signs of this age is the ignorance and
recklessness of the youthful assailants of the Bible. Our cities, villages
and public places of resort are thronged with swarms of these Lilliputian
volunteers in the cause of skepticism. Apprenticed striplings, and sprigs
of law and physic, whose whole reading of standard authors on general
science, religion, or morality, in ordinary duodecimo, equals not the
years of their unfinished, or just completed minority, imagine that they
have got far in advance of the vulgar herd, and are both philosophers and
gentlemen if they have learned at second hand, a few scoffs and sneers at
the Bible, from Paine, Voltaire, Bolingbroke, or Hume. One would think,
could he listen to their impudence, that Bacon, Newton, Locke, and all the
great masters of science, were very pigmies, and that they themselves were
sturdy giants of extraordinary stature in all that is intellectual,
philosophic and learned. These would-be baby demagogues are a public
nuisance to society, whose atheistic breath not unfrequently pollutes the
whole atmosphere around them, and issues in a moral pestilence among that
class who regard a fine hat and a cigar as the infallible criteria of a
gentleman and scholar.
These creatures have not sense enough to doubt, nor to think sedately on
any subject; and therefore, we only notice them while defining the ground
occupied by the unbelievers of this generation. They prudently call
themselves skeptics, but imprudently carry their opposition to the Bible,
beyond all the bounds embraced in their own definitions of skepticism. A
skeptic can only _doubt_, never _oppugn_ the gospel. He becomes an
atheist, or an infidel, bold and dogmatic, as soon as he opens his mouth
against the Bible.
Were we philosophically to class society as it now exists in this country
in reference to the gospel, we should have believers, unbelievers, and
skeptics. We would find some who have voluntarily received the apostolic
testimony as true; others who have rejected it as false; and a third class
who simply doubt, and neither receive nor reject it as a communication
from heaven. But, though, unbelievers, while they call themselves
skeptics, often wage actual war against the faith and hope of Christians,
still their actual rejection of the gospel has no other foundation than
pure aversion to its restraints and some doubts as to its authenticity.
The quagmire of their own doubts, be it distinctly remembered, is the sole
ground occupied by all the opponents of the gospel, whether they style
themselves antitheists, atheists, theists, unbelievers, or
skeptics.—_Alexander Campbell, in 1835._
INFIDELITY, AND THE FRENCH AND AMERICAN REVOLUTIONS IN THEIR RELATIONS TO
THOMAS PAINE.
Infidels can not free themselves from the bands which tie the universe to
its God. Every effort has been fruitless. Not one writer among all their
hosts has been lucky enough to avoid the use of Christian terms that are
in direct antagonism with their speculation and positions. It will be
interesting to review, occasionally, their literature.
Speaking of Thomas Paine, Mr. Ingersoll says: “Every American with the
DIVINE mantle of charity, should cover all his faults.” What use has Col.
Ingersoll or any other infidel for the word DIVINE? The term is thus
defined: Pertaining to the true God; (from the Latin DIVINUS; from DEUS, a
god) proceeding from God; appropriated to God; or celebrating His praise;
excellent in the supreme degree; apparently above what is human; godlike;
heavenly; holy; sacred; spiritual. As a noun: one versed in divine things
or divinity; a theologian; a minister of the gospel; a priest; a
clergyman. _Zell’s Encyclopedia._
Again, Mr. Ingersoll says, “Upon the head of his father, GOD had never
poured the DIVINE petroleum of _authority_.” So much the better for the
race. What would infidels do if they had the authority? “Hume is called a
model man, a man as nearly perfect as the nature of human frailty will
permit.” He maintained that pleasure or profit is the test of morals; that
“the lack of honesty is of a piece with the lack of strength of body;”
that “suicide is lawful and commendable;” that “female infidelity, when
known, is a small thing; when unknown, nothing;” “that adultery must be
practiced if men would obtain all the advantages of this life; and that if
generally practiced it would, in time, cease to be scandalous, and if
practiced frequently and secretly would come to be thought no crime at
all.”
Lord Herbert taught that the “indulgence of lust and anger is no more to
be blamed than thirst or drowsiness.”
Voltaire contended “for the unlimited gratification of the sexual
appetites, and was a sensualist of the lowest type; nevertheless he had
the amazing good sense to wish that he had never been born.”
Rousseau was, by his confession, a habitual liar and thief, and debauchee;
a man so utterly vile that he took advantage of the hospitality of friends
to plot their domestic ruin; a man so destitute of natural affection that
he committed his BASE-BORN children to the charity of the public. To use
his own language, “guilty without remorse, he soon become so without
measure.”
Thomas Paine was, according to the verdict of history, “addicted to
intemperance in his last years, given to violence and abusiveness, had
disreputable associates, lived with a woman who was not his wife, and left
to her whatever remnant of fortune he had.”
What would such godless infidels give us if the Almighty God should “pour
the petroleum of authority upon their heads?” But, in all candor, what use
has Col. Ingersoll for the _idea of authority coming from God_? Can’t he
keep in his own ruts. “The DIVINE petroleum of authority was never poured
upon the head of _Thomas Paine’s father_.” Well, so much the better for
the reputation of God. But why does Mr. Ingersoll use the term God, and
have so much to say of Him? Let us hear him. He says, whoever is a friend
of man is also a friend of God—if there is one. Yes! “IS THERE IS ONE.”
This reminds me of an old infidel who was struggling with the cramp colic,
and just as a minister was approaching his bedside he turned himself over
in the bed and said, O Lord, if there is any Lord, save my soul, if I’ve
got any soul. The minister walked out. What is the condition of those
minds which modify their declarations with the saying “if there is any
Lord,” “if there is one,” “if I’ve got any soul.” How much more manly is
it to own the great universal and instinctive or inate truth, that there
is a Master, God, or great first Living Intelligence, and cease acting
foolishly.
Once more, the colonel, speaking of Thomas Paine’s work, says, “He was
with the army. He shared its defeats, its dangers, and its glory. When the
situation became desperate, when gloom settled upon all, he gave them the
‘Crisis.’ It was a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, leading the
way to freedom, honor and glory.” What use has the colonel for such
language? From whence did it come? Is he sitting upon the bones of Moses
and making grimaces at the old prophet while he is adopting his sentences?
Infidels blaspheme the name of Moses, and abuse his hyperboles and his
facts as well, and, at the same time, go to his quiver to get their very
best arrows.
“At the close of the Revolution no one stood higher in America than Thomas
Paine.”—_Ingersoll._
“At that time the seeds sown by the great infidels were beginning to bear
fruit in France.”—_Ingersoll._
_Well, well._ To what “mount” have we come at last? Paine sailed to France
in 1787. “He was elected to represent the Department of Calais in the
National Convention, and took his seat in that radical assembly in 1792.”
At this time Col. Ingersoll’s church had everything its own way in France.
There was no God to respect or devil to fear. “Free thought” ruled—its
reign was a reign of night. The goddess of reason was the “twin sister of
the Spanish Inquisition.” The soldiers were in power, and great hearts
were made to bleed. Three hundred and sixty-six men in the National
Convention voted for the death of the king. Three hundred and fifty-five
voted against his execution. It is true that Tom Paine was one of the
three hundred and fifty-five. A year after the king’s execution Tom was
put into prison, and remained there nearly two years. When he was released
he wrote the second part of the Age of Reason, and in 1802 he came back to
America. What he did for American liberty was done while he was a Quaker,
and before he wrote his detestable works against the Bible. Let some bold
infidel produce just one noble public act that Paine did for our country
after he avowed himself an infidel. _Will it be done?_
The leaders of the French revolution were the disciples of Rousseau,
Voltaire and Diderot. They were atheists, or infidels. Tom Paine was one
of their number, participated in their deliberations, helped to get up the
constitution they enacted. What they did is what the infidels of the
United States wish to have done. They wiped out Christianity by vote, and
forbade the utterance of the name of God to their children. They abolished
the Lord’s day, and made the week to consist of _ten_ instead of seven
days. They took the bells from the churches and cast them into cannons.
Chaumette, a leader in the convention, came before the president “leading
a courtesan with a troop of her associates.” He lifted her veil, and said,
“Mortals! recognize no other divinity than Reason, of which I present to
you the loveliest and purest personification.” The president bowed and
rendered devout adoration. The same scene was reënacted in the cathedral
of Notre Dame, with increased outrages upon God and common-sense. Wrong
was reputed right, and the distinction between vice and virtue was
banished.
From this time, and onward, the test of attachment to the government was
contempt for religion and decency. Those suspected of disloyalty were
gathered; one thousand and five hundred women and children were shut up in
one prison, without fire, bed, cover, or provisions, for two days. Men
escaped by giving up their fortunes, and women escaped by parting with
their virtue.
Seventeen thousand perished in Paris during this reign of infidel terror.
This ungodly abrogation of religion in France cost the nation three
million of lives—_think of it!_ France’s most dark and damning record was
the fruit of the tenets of the men that Col. Ingersoll lauds to the
heavens. They were the fruits of the labors of the men with whom Tom Paine
sat, and believed, and voted. “His faith was their faith.”
“It was the Quaker Paine who worked for our independence, and not the
infidel Paine. He did nothing in the interests of our national liberty
after he avowed his irreligious principles.” Neither was he the first to
raise the voice in favor of national liberty. Ten years before he wrote
his work entitled “Common Sense,” at the suggestion of Franklin and Dr.
Benjamin Rush, which was in 1776, Patrick Henry’s voice was heard amid the
assembled colonists in Virginia. He said: “Cæsar had his Brutus, Charles
I. his Cromwell, and George III.—” Just then some one cried out,
“Treason!” After a pause, Henry added,—“may profit by their example.”
Years before Tom Paine came to America, even in 1748, it went to record
that American legislatures were tending to independence. “They were
charged with presumption in declaring their own rights and privileges.”
Our independence was predicted near at hand from 1758 and onwards. In
1774, before Paine came from England, the word freedom was ringing out
upon the air. “James Otis was hailing the dawn of a new empire” in 1765.
In this year there were utterances of such sentiments as tended to evolve
the declaration of 1776, and these were heard all over the land from
Boston to Charleston, S. C. In 1773 “Samuel Adams insisted that the
colonies should have a congress to frame a bill of rights, or to form an
independent state, an American commonwealth.” The North Carolinians
renounced their allegiance to the king of England in the Mecklenberg
declaration, which was made in May, 1775. But Paine’s little book,
suggested by Dr. Benjamin Rush and Franklin, and called “Common Sense,”
was published in 1776. Hildreth, writing of the year 1802, says that
“Paine, instead of being esteemed as formerly, as a lover of liberty,
whose pen has contributed to hasten the Declaration of Independence, was
now detested by large numbers as the libeler of Washington.” In 1795 the
_Aurora_ put out the following language, which seems to be that to which
Hildreth alludes: “If ever a nation was debauched by a man, the American
nation was debauched by Washington; if ever a nation was deceived by a
man, the American nation has been deceived by Washington. Let the history
of the federal government instruct mankind, that the mask of patriotism
may be worn to conceal the foulest designs against the liberties of the
people.” This, gentle reader, was from the pen of the man whom Mr.
Ingersoll would immortalize if he could.
William Carver addressed a private letter to Thomas Paine, dated Dec. 2,
1806, and published in the New York _Observer_ Nov. 1, 1877, in which we
have the following revelations: “A respectable gentleman from New Rochelle
called to see me a few days back, and said that every body was tired of
you there and that no one would undertake to board and lodge you. I
thought this was the case, as I found you at a tavern in a most miserable
situation. You appeared as if you had not been shaved for a fortnight, and
as to a shirt, it could not be said that you had one on, it was only the
remains of one, and this likewise appeared not to have been off your back
for a fortnight, and was nearly the color of tanned leather; and you had
the most disagreeable smell possible, just like that of our poor beggars
in England. Do you remember the pains I took to clean you? That I got a
tub of warm water and soap, and washed you from head to foot, and this I
had to do three times before I could get you clean? You say also that you
found your own liquors during the time you boarded with me, but you should
have said, ‘I found only a small part of the liquor I drank during my stay
with you; this part I purchased of John Fellows, which was a demijohn of
brandy containing four gallons, and this did not serve me three weeks.’
This can be proved, and I mean not to say anything I can not prove, for I
hold this as a precious jewel. It is a well-known fact that you drank one
quart of brandy per day, at my expense, during the different times that
you have boarded with me, the demijohn alone mentioned excepted, and the
last fourteen weeks you were sick. Is not this a supply of liquor for
dinner and supper? Now sir, I think I have drawn a complete portrait of
your character, yet, to enter upon every minutia, would be to give a
history of your life, and to develop the fallacious mask of hypocrisy and
deception under which you have acted in your political, as well as moral,
capacity of life.” So much for the apostate Quaker’s character after the
close of the American revolution.
Mr. Lecky, an infidel, says, “It was reserved for Christianity to present
to the world an ideal character, which through all the changes of eighteen
centuries has filled the hearts of men with an impassioned love, and has
shown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments, and
conditions; has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the
highest incentive of practice: amid all the sins and failing; amid all the
priestcraft, the persecution and fanaticism which have defaced the church,
it has preserved IN THE CHARACTER OF ITS FOUNDER AN ENDURING PRINCIPLE OF
REGENERATION.” If such be the fountain let the stream continue to flow.