_Proposition of Mr. Mahan._
1926. “Evidence that the Scriptures are given by inspiration of
the Spirit of God, as contrasted with the evidence, that the spirit
manifestations are from the spirits of men.”
1927. The Rev. Mr. Mahan, not satisfied with endeavouring to refute
Spiritualism directly, devotes some pages of his work to the object of
bearing it down by the weight of Scriptural superiority, both as to the
evidence, and its moral tendencies. This renders the expediency of the
strictures which I have made, or may make, on the other side of the
question, unquestionable.
1928. There are several truths, which I deem to be axiomatic, which
are irreconcilable with the truth of Revelation, (18 to 20.) Merely
to state them is to refute Mr. Mahan’s allegation above cited. With
readers who will not admit the axioms to which allusion is made, I must
agree to differ. (See page 34.)
1929. In the first place, I have represented it as a contradiction to
allege that an omnipotent, omniscient, and prescient God can subject
any thing to probation, (1380.)
1930. In the next place, I hold that an _omnipotent_ God cannot wish
men to have any religion, without that object being effected.
Will not any event arrive
For which both will and power strive?
Must not any result obtain
Which power unites with will to gain?
1931. I answer these queries in the affirmative, and of course consider
the theology of Revelation as involved in a contradiction, so far as it
represents an _omnipotent and prescient_ God _as wishing any creed to
be adopted which has not been adopted_.
1932. As a corollary to these axioms, it results that God never has
performed any miracle for the purpose of conveying a knowledge of
the true religion; simply because all that have been alleged to have
come from God have only produced religious discord. Of course God,
foreseeing the failure of those miracles, would not have resorted to
them.
Did God a special creed require,
Each soul would he not with that creed inspire?
1933. This I answer affirmatively. The truth of the affirmative is as
clear to my mind as any of Euclid’s axioms.
1934. Another conclusion I consider as inevitable: that no document can
be substantiated by the facts of which it furnishes the sole evidence.
1935. In this predicament I place the Bible, the Koran, the Shaster, or
Veda, and the Zendavesta, or any religious record of antiquity.
1936. Manifestly, a record made by man can have no higher authority
than that of the men whose testimony it records, and those by whom it
was recorded.
_Of the origin of the Books of Moses no higher evidence exists,
according to the testimony of the Bible itself, than that of an
obscure priest and a fanatical king._
1937. If we are to judge of the Jewish priesthood by the example
afforded by Samuel, we have no more reason to trust a Hebrew pontiff
than a Romish pope, (1091.) Bishop Hopkins has sufficiently shown how
far priests are to be trusted, (1296.) What would be said of any book,
alleged to be due to Divine inspiration, if it had, agreeably to its
own authority, an origin no more reliable than the allegation of a
priest that it had been found in a temple or church, there being no
other evidence of its not having been forged by the priest, or his
accomplices, than his own allegation? What better evidence would there
be of the sacred origin of such a document, than there is of the Book
of Mormon—the Bible brought forward by Joe Smith? Yet the following
quotation will show that there was no Bible in use in Judea in the
reign of Josiah, 350 years after the reign of David, and just before
the Babylonian captivity; and that, in consequence, idolatry had to a
great extent superseded the true worship.
1938. Under these circumstances, the high priest alleged a copy of the
Bible to be found, and sent it by a scribe to the king. This monarch
had lived in such ignorance of the existence of this holy code, that he
was thrown into a state of such deep penitence for the sinful omissions
arising from his ignorance, as to rend his clothes by way of expressing
his sorrow. Moreover, orders were forthwith given to have the abuses
abated, which had been introduced solely through ignorance.
1939. I view this evidence of the highest importance at this time,
when such men as Mahan, and the anonymous author of the parodied
letter, (1182,) are appealing to the Bible as the inspired word of
God, and thus making God sanction a catalogue of atrocious crimes
and indecencies, and when this imposture is to sit as an incubus
on those truly moral impressions which the blessed spirits of the
immortal Washington and other worthies, as well as my honoured father,
would communicate for the amelioration of the religion and morals
of mankind. I repeat, that I consider it of immense importance that
attention should be called to the questionable foundation on which
these pretensions to inspiration are erected. I shall, therefore, not
only quote a portion of these pretended _words of God_, but also that
part of a chapter in the Book of Josephus which narrates the same
all-important occurrence more fully and satisfactorily, though giving
the same evidence essentially.
_Scriptural Account of the Finding of the Books of Moses by Hilkiah,
the High Priest._—2 Chron. xxxiv.; 2 Kings xxii.
1940. “And when they brought out the money that was brought into the
house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the
Lord given by Moses. And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the
scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord.
And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. And Shaphan carried the
book to the king, and brought the king word back again, saying, All
that was committed to thy servants, they do it. And they have gathered
together the money that was found in the house of the Lord, and have
delivered it into the hand of the overseers, and to the hand of the
workmen. Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the
priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And
it came to pass when the king had heard the words of the law, that he
rent his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah, and Ahikam the son
of Shaphan, and Abdon the son of Micah, and Shaphan the scribe, and
Asaiah a servant of the king’s, saying, Go, inquire of the Lord for
me, and for them that are left in Israel, and in Judah, concerning
the words of the book that is found; for great is the wrath of the
Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept
the word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in this book.
And Hilkiah, and they that the king had appointed, went to Huldah the
prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvath, the son of Hasrah,
keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college:)
and they spake to her to that effect. And she answered them, Thus
saith the Lord God of Israel, Tell ye the man that sent you to me,
Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and
upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written
in the book which they have read before the king of Judah: because
they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that
they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands;
therefore my wrath shall be poured out upon this place, and shall not
be quenched. And as for the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of
the Lord, so shall ye say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel
concerning the words which thou hast heard; because thy heart was
tender, and thou didst humble thyself before God when thou heardest
his words against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof,
and humbledst thyself before me, and didst rend thy clothes, and weep
before me; I have even heard thee also, saith the Lord. Behold, I will
gather thee to thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered to thy grave
in peace, neither shall thine eyes see all the evil that I will bring
upon this place, and upon the inhabitants of the same. So they brought
the king word again. Then the king sent and gathered together all the
elders of Judah and Jerusalem. And the king went up into the house of
the Lord, and all the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, great and small:
and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant
that was found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood in his
place, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord,
and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes,
with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the
covenant which are written in this book. And he caused all that were
present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it. And the inhabitants
of Jerusalem did according to the covenant of God, the God of their
fathers. And Josiah took away all the abominations out of all the
countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all that
were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the Lord their God. And
all his days they departed not from following the Lord, the God of
their fathers.”
_Account of the Finding of the Books of Moses, by Josephus._
1941. “The repairs of the temple being completed, and all expenses
defrayed, Hilkiah, in conformity to the king’s orders, took out the
money for the purpose of converting it into vessels for the use of the
temple; and, upon removing the gold, happened to discover the sacred
books of Moses. This he took out and gave to Shaphan, the king’s
secretary, to peruse, who, upon reading them over, went to the king,
accompanied by Hilkiah, who told him that he had executed all his
commands relative to the reparation of the temple, and at the same
time presented the book to him in great form, assuring him what it
was, and where they had found it.
1942. “The king ordered Shaphan to read a part of the contents, which
being done, he rent his robes, in dread of the heavy curses denounced
against a wicked generation. In the height of his affliction, he
desired the secretary, with Hilkiah, and several priests who were
present, to go to the prophetess Huldah, the wife of Shallum, a man
of eminence, and unite their endeavours to prevail upon her to make
intercession with God for pardon toward himself and his subjects. He
told them there was great reason to apprehend that the vengeance of
Heaven would fall upon the present generation as a punishment for
the iniquity of their progenitors, and particularly their neglect
and contempt of the laws of Moses; and that, without obtaining a
reconciliation, they should be dispersed over the face of the earth,
and terminate their lives in misery.
1943. “Hilkiah, with those who were appointed to accompany him,
immediately repaired to the prophetess, and having related the cause
of the king’s affliction, and his earnest desire of her intercession
with Heaven in behalf of him and his subjects, she bade them return
him this answer: That the sentence already pronounced was not to
be recalled on any supplication or intercession whatever. That the
people were to be banished from their own country, and punished for
their disobedience with the loss of all human comforts. That the
judgment was irrevocable, for their obstinately persisting in their
superstitious and idolatrous practices, notwithstanding so many
warnings to a timely repentance, and the menacing predictions of the
prophets, if they persevered in their abominations.
1944. “This unchangeable decree was to show, by the event, that there
is a just and overruling Disposer of all things, and the predictions
which he delivered by the means of the prophets will be infallibly
verified, as the certain indications of his whole will respecting
mankind. The prophetess added, ‘Tell the king, however, that, in
consideration of his own pious and virtuous example, the judgment
shall be averted from the people during his days; but that the day of
his death shall be the eve of their final destruction.’
1945. “As soon as Josiah received this message from the prophetess,
he immediately despatched messengers to the several cities within his
dominions, commanding all the priests and Levites, and men of all
ages and conditions, to repair with the utmost speed to Jerusalem.
These orders being obeyed, and the people assembled, the king went
to the temple, where, in the hearing of the whole multitude, he
caused the laws of God, as contained in the books of Moses, to be
distinctly read; after which he bound himself and the people, with
their universal consent, by a most solemn oath, strictly to observe
every article contained in the sacred books, respecting the laws
and religion established by Moses. This solemn oath was followed by
prayers and oblations for the divine blessing and protection.
1946. “The king strictly enjoined the high priest to take a particular
account of the plate and vessel in the temple, and to cast out so
many of them as they should find to have been dedicated by any of his
ancestors to idolatrous services. Those that were found were reduced
to dust, and in that state thrown into the air. All the priests were
likewise put to death, that were not of the flock of Aaron.
1947. “Having effected this reformation in Jerusalem, Josiah made a
progress throughout his whole dominions, where he destroyed all the
relics of Jeroboam’s superstition and idolatry, and burnt the bones of
false prophets, upon the very altar which that impious king had set
up. Of this we have taken notice before, as well as the intervention
of the prophet, with a prediction in the hearing of the multitude,
at the time when Jeroboam was offering sacrifice, ‘That one of the
race of David, Josiah by name, was to do this.’ The prediction was
verified, by the event, three hundred and fifty-one years after it was
foretold.
1948. “So ardent was the zeal of Josiah for extending the great work
of reformation, that he went in person to several of the Israelites
who had escaped the Assyrian bondage, in order to dissuade them from
continuing in superstition, and prevail with them to embrace the pure
religion of their forefathers, according to the long established
custom of their country. Nor did he rest here, but caused the towns
and villages to be searched for the discovery of any remains of
idolatrous practices that might lie concealed. The very figures of
the horses over the porch of the temple, which their forefathers had
dedicated to the sun, and all the monuments to which the people had
ascribed divine honour, were, by his special order, taken away and
destroyed.
1949. “Having thus purged the whole nation from idolatry, and fully
restored the true worship of the one only and true God, he called an
assembly of the people at Jerusalem, for the purpose of celebrating
the passover, the time for that festival being near at hand. On this
occasion the king gave out of his own store, for paschal sacrifices,
thirty goats, a thousand lambs, and three thousand oxen. The heads
of the priests presented to the others of the sacerdotal order two
thousand six hundred lambs, and the chief of the Levites gave to
their tribes five thousand lambs, and five hundred oxen. A solemn
sacrifice was made of these victims, according to the precepts of
Moses, and the ceremony was performed under the direction of the
priests. From the time of the prophet Samuel to that day, there had
never been a festival celebrated with equal solemnity; for this had
the allowed preference, because the whole was conducted in strict
conformity to the very letter of the laws, and the precise mode of
their forefathers. Josiah, after the accomplishment of a work of such
moment and importance to the nation in general, enjoyed his government
in honour, peace, and plenty, till he closed his life.”—Book 10, page
153.
_If the Pentateuch had been previously known to the Jews, it is
incredible that it could have become_ obsolete _and_ forgotten _prior
to the alleged discovery of it in the Temple, in the reign of Josiah_.
1950. After the Pentateuch had been viewed as the word of God, made
known to a people as their peculiar inheritance, lifting them, in their
own estimation, above the rest of mankind, as God’s chosen people, this
code being the sole authority for their _bloody_ and _rapacious_ course
toward their neighbours, is it credible that such a document, had it
ever existed, could have become both obsolete and forgotten?[45] Yet
we have no alternative but to admit this absurdity, or to conclude
that the Bible has no better authority than the Book of Mormon; the one
being no more than the other the work of a designing priesthood and
would-be rulers.
1951. What credit would be given to any work having no better authority
for divine origin than that of the allegation that some pope had
found it in a cathedral or in the Vatican, and had sent it to some
monarchical bigot as the mislaid testament of the Almighty, given by
inspiration through some ancient predecessor of his holiness?
1952. It may be difficult to conceive that Hilkiah and his associates,
in writing a book, as proceeding by inspiration from Jehovah, could
have fabricated any facts so derogatory to an immaculate Deity as
those mentioned under the authority of Moses. How impious must have
been their conceptions, to represent him as authorizing them to borrow
trinkets of the Egyptians, in order to purloin them; the sanctioning
the cold-blooded murder of three thousand people for religious error;
the slaughtering of whole nations, even to their suckling babes, as
in the case of the Midianites, Canaanites, and Amalekites, with the
setting aside virgins for the fate from which the Roman Virginius
relieved his daughter by his dagger! It is difficult to conceive
that an idea, so derogatory of God, could have been entertained by
his _chosen_ people. Yet, on the other hand, inasmuch as they _were
written_, there must have been some mind so impious as to have
originated them; and it may be a less wonder that such fabricators
should have existed in a cruel and barbarous age of the world, than
that, in the present age of superior morality and civilization, they
should find endorsers in the professed ministers of the Being whom they
have thus misrepresented.
1953. Mr. Mahan alleges: “Every reader will agree with us in the
assumption that the incorruptible God has never performed and never
will perform a miracle in attestation of that which is unreal or
untrue. A religion really and truly attested by divine miracles must
therefore be admitted to be true.”
1954. To this very admissible _truism_, I add that an omnipotent
and _prescient_ God could not have any occasion to perform miracles
in attestation of any thing, since, by the premises, his will must
be carried out without miracles. That any thing should, even for an
instant, be contrary to his will, is inconsistent with his foresight
and omnipotency. It would be a miracle _that any thing counter to his
will should exist_.
1955. The next postulate of Mr. Mahan is: “_No religion attested as
true by divine miracles can be false._”
1956. Was this proposition ever impugned? No one would resist the
unquestionable dictates of God, however conveyed, whether by miracles
or any other means. The question is not whether a religion _attested by
divine miracles should be accredited, but whether there were ever any
miracles, attesting any religion, performed; and if so, what religion
has the peculiar merit of having been thus attested?_ Millions, who
believe in other religions, deride those miracles of revelation which
Mr. Mahan would adduce; and Protestants do not admit many which the
Romish Church sanctions. For one, I deny that any miracle has ever been
performed with the view of attesting any religion whatever. No miracle
could be necessary to attest the will of Omnipotence any more than to
enable a man to wave his hand. But, admitting that it ever has been
necessary, no miracle has ever been resorted to for the purpose in
question, since none has answered the desired end. This would not have
been the case had miracles been resorted to by _prescient_ omnipotence.
1957. A miracle, as defined by this author, on page 345 of his work,
is an event “_whose existence and characteristics can be accounted
for but by a reference to the direct and immediate interposition of
creative power, as their exclusive cause_.”
1958. I reassert that, where omnipotence and prescience are concerned,
such interposition could, in no case, be requisite. The miracle would
be, that there could be any thing so contrary to omnipotent will as to
require any miraculous interference to set it right!
1959. Instead of assuming, with orthodoxy, that our heavenly Father
is _quite_ omnipotent, spirits hold that his powers are only such as
this magnificent and almost infinite universe involves; consequently,
there is no necessity on their part to admit that every thing must be
exactly as God wishes it to be. They are not obliged to consider him as
allowing mischievous ignorance, sin, and misery to exist, while by a
_fiat_ he could correct them; and still less are they involved in the
necessity of supposing that, while able to make every thing _perfect_,
he, from choice, makes them imperfect, and yet has had to resort to
drowning his creatures by a great flood, and subjecting whole nations
to degrading captivity; authorizing one nation to massacre another,
even to each suckling babe, for wrongs done centuries before.
1960. By Spiritualism, the Deity is represented as operating by general
laws, from which, consistently with his attributes, he cannot deviate,
having to perform no miracle to attain his ends; and that through these
laws he is incessantly acting for the good of mankind; and the whole
universe is progressing under his benign controlling influence.
1961. Thus we have the two systems, that of progression last mentioned,
and that of probation above objected to; which last, being in diametric
opposition to an axiomatic truth, is, on this account alone, manifestly
absurd.
1962. But, admitting that miracles could, without inconsistency, be
supposed to be resorted to by prescient omnipotence, in order to
produce or prevent some consequence of a general law, in the making or
carrying out of which an all-wise and all-powerful being inconsistently
displays a want of wisdom and foresight, it must be perfectly clear
that a prescient being would resort to such miracles as would produce
the desired effect; not such as would be only partially seen or
believed, and would become a new source of discord. Omnipotence could
certainly devise miracles which could be seen and be believed in by all
men; and which would so impress their minds, as to make them believe in
what they should hear and see. By a single fiat, God, if as omnipotent
as represented in Scripture, could make all his people of one mind. He
would not send them a “_sword to separate father from child, mother
from daughter, mother-in-law from daughter-in-law_,” and to make
_the subordinates of each household rise in rebellion against their
master_. A prescient God would not perform miracles of such doubtful
character as, for want of evidence, to oblige one of the miracle-makers
to enforce a belief in them by treacherous and cruel assassination,
as did Moses. God would require no evidence of his miracles but such
as could be recorded in the minds of believers. He would not have the
records of his will so situated, as to be liable to be confounded with
the fabrications of priestcraft. If devils were to be cast out, he
would not have drowned a herd of swine, merely to give those immortal
miscreants a ducking.
1963. So far are the miracles narrated in the gospel from commanding my
credence, that the account of them proves to me, that the Evangelists
were men without discretion, in recording any thing so absurd and
_incredible_, and so _useless_ to the _main object_, of giving a
_knowledge of God_, and of the _means of reaching a future happy state_.
1964. How absurd to represent God as performing miracles remotely
and indirectly bearing upon his object, instead of exercising his
omnipotent power universally, effectually, and at once!
1965. If God were to adopt any miraculous means to make his will known,
they would not be such as would fail in attaining their end. None but
an idiot would resort to measures foreknown to be incompetent to the
object for which they should be devised. As no miracles that have
been alleged to have been performed have been productive of general
conviction of the truth of the creed which they have been alleged to
support, it follows that they could not have had a divine origin. A
prescient God would not have resorted to incompetent miracles.
1966. This reverend author is likewise of opinion that nothing but
miracles can be appealed to as evidence of the divine origin of
Christianity or of any other religion.
1967. When miracles are appealed to by different sects, in support of
their conflicting pretensions, it must result that, if religion is to
be founded only on miracles, that religion only can be recognised as
true whose miracles are so pre-eminently evident as to abrogate all
others that conflict with it. But it is notorious that the miracles
brought forward by each sect are denied, if not ridiculed, by others.
Appealing to miracles is, in fact, appealing to the human evidence
on which they depend. In like manner, any religion which rests on
assumed inspiration, rests, in fact, on the evidence proving that the
inspiration claimed ever took place.
1968. But are we to believe in all miracles which have been alleged
by men to have happened? Are we to believe any book to be inspired,
because men, who contradict each other, alleged it to be inspired?
and if several books are alleged to be inspired, how are we to choose
between them? Is a man’s choice of these books to be governed by his
education? If brought up in Turkey, is he to believe that the Koran is
the word of God; if in Christendom, the gospel? If all who surround
him were to treat it as impious to doubt that _a book_ is the word
of God, is he to submit to this dictation, or is he to exercise his
own judgment, and examine whether the Bible of the Christian, and the
miracles on which it rests, are not more likely to be true than the
Koran and the miracles on which it rests? But if, after having examined
both of these works, he finds that the miracles on which they rest are,
in both cases, entirely dependent on human testimony, and that this
testimony is disputed on one side by the Mohammedans, and on the other
by the Christians, and that each party only admits such miracles to be
true as harmonize with his own religion; that miracles told by profane
writers rather tend to discredit than to corroborate the occurrences
with which they are associated,—will not the inference naturally arise
that the belief in miracles is the result of religion, not religion the
result of belief in miracles?
1969. An analogous result may be perceived in relation to any
extraordinary manifestation in Spiritualism. Scarcely any one will
believe that the spirit hand (1513) has been seen and felt at Koons’s
establishment in Ohio, unless previously a convert to Spiritualism.
Thus he does not become a spiritualist by reading the account of that
manifestation, but believes the manifestation because he has been
converted to Spiritualism. Did the truth of that manifestation rest
upon the evidence of only one set of eye-witnesses, even spiritualists
had not believed in it. As miracles have ever been alleged to have been
seen only by very few persons, and have never been of a nature to be
seen by a succession of observers, I cannot conceive why any man, in
any age or time, could be reasonably expected to display a credulity,
the inverse of that now exhibited, as respects this spiritual
manifestation. Scarcely any person, without being an eye-witness of
the fact, has been brought to believe that tables move without human
contact. By recurrence, the reader may perceive that in my letter of
February 3, 1854, I use this language in my letter to Mr. Holcomb: _You
believe that tables move without contact, because you have seen them
so moved; I am skeptical, because I have never seen them moved without
contact, though I have been at several circles_, (698.)
1970. When I stated to my friend, Professor Henry, the experiment
illustrated by plate 3, with the utmost precision, made twice on
two different evenings, he said: “I would believe you as soon as
any man in the world, but I cannot believe that.” Yet the result
of that experiment was nothing more than the fact of bodies moving
when uninfluenced by any apparent mortal agency, accompanied by
a demonstration of a governing reason; a result which has been
established again and again by myself with the greatest precision,
and by many other investigators. Evidently, if this had never been
repeated, it would have been treated as a mental hallucination on my
part by my comrades in science and all the rest of the community.
1971. Such is the difficulty of inducing credence, in enlightened
minds, of any thing which is inconsistent with those laws of nature
with which they have become familiar. Clearly, in the present advanced
state of the human mind, no miracles would be believed on hearsay
testimony.
1972. It seems as if facts, incredible at first view, are always
believed when they are confirmed by being seen by independent and
disinterested and intelligent observers sufficiently often, and under
such modifications, as to make all such observers believe in them. We
are willing to believe in a mysterious fact as _one_ of a _genus_, but
not when isolated. If I may judge by the incredulity with which my
observations in Spiritualism have been met by those who had previously
considered me reliable, I should deem it utterly impossible among
intelligent, well-educated people of the present day to induce a belief
in an isolated miracle; and, as respects ignorant, bigoted sectarians,
the difficulty to obtain credence would be at least as great.
1973. Were our heavenly Father now to cause miracles to be performed as
wonderful and as isolated as those mentioned in Scripture, as no one
would know any thing of them direct from God, excepting those by whom
they might be witnessed, it would only cause the narrators of them to
be ridiculed, as those spiritualists were ridiculed who first asserted
their belief in spiritual manifestations. In order, therefore, that
miracles should be believed in by an enlightened community, belief
would have to be instilled by education or supported by reiterated
observation, since, in enlightened communities, no miracles would be
believed in but those which should come within these conditions.
1974. There is not a single miracle mentioned in the gospel which
tends to throw light upon the alleged object of Christ’s mission.
The object of their performance was mainly to prove his supernatural
power to those who should believe in them, and thus to cause him to
be accredited as a missionary from God. So far from their ever having
had an effect of this kind on my mind, gospel miracles tended only to
destroy my confidence in the veracity or discretion of their narrators,
upon the same principle that spiritualists have lost weight with their
intelligent friends by mentioning manifestations which were considered
by these as incredible.
1975. I can foresee a great triumph for spiritualists, sooner or
later, in the world to come, if not in this; but this result will
not flow from the conversion of their skeptical friends to a belief
in the manifestations which may have been viewed by the narrators,
as described. The conversion of skeptics will arise from their own
observation, with the concurrent testimony of many reliable witnesses,
all tending to the verification of analogous phenomena.
1976. The miracles of Scripture never have had nor never can have this
species of corroboration, and of course will make but little progress
among people educated under conflicting impressions. In this age of
bigotry in favour of all educational mysteries and extreme skepticism
as to innovations, the last thing which could obtain credence would
be miracles of the nature of those which Mr. Mahan assumes to be the
_only_ foundation for religious belief.
1977. It has already been urged that Moses was, _by his own account_,
a worldly man, who, as I conceive, was guilty of a misrepresentation
in alleging that the Creator of the hundred millions of solar systems
comprised in this universe (1342) made him and his people especially
the object of a partiality, authorizing them to plunder and extirpate
all the neighbouring people: moreover, that Moses was worldly-minded
in the _extreme_, and so intent upon acquiring lands in this world, as
to neglect his opportunities, if he had any, of learning from Jehovah,
in frequent alleged intercourse with him, any information respecting
the immortality of the soul, (1091, 1098, 1271.) My attention has been
recently turned to the 24th chapter of Exodus. It is there mentioned
that Moses, with more than seventy elders of Israel, went up the mount,
and there had an interview with the God of Israel, when “_they saw
God_.” It is then stated that “_The Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering. And
this is the offering which you shall take of them, gold, silver, and
brass, and blue and purple, fine linen, and goats’ hair_,” &c.[46]
1978. There are then two or three chapters occupied with the
specification of the various valuable articles of gold, and precious
wood, and stones, required by an _omnipotent God to furnish a
tabernacle_. Such is the misuse made by this pretended missionary of
God, of the opportunity of learning that _which is above all price_.
How many thousands of human beings have been willing to lay down
their lives for religious truth!—and yet this pretended favourite of
Jehovah, by his own account, spent his time in getting baubles, making
the Almighty his agent. It may be that the whole is a fable, and that
the account originated in the time of Hilkiah, when the Pentateuch was
acknowledged to have been found accidentally. But if Moses and the
elders really ascended the mount, and represented themselves as seeing
God, and receiving those directions, evidently they were all a set of
impostors, who resorted to this mode of obtaining furniture for the
tabernacle.
_Great Importance attached to a Belief in Immortality by Cyrus the
Great, King of Persia, as contrasted with the recklessness of Moses
respecting the same Belief._
1979. Among the errors propagated industriously by fanatical
sectarians, is that of representing the Old and New Testament as of
inestimable importance, as the only source of our knowledge of a
future state of existence, of which heathen writers are mentioned as
deficient. In refutation of the calumny thus promulgated, I deem it
expedient to quote the following sentiments ascribed by Xenophon to
Cyrus, King of Persia, in _addressing his children_:
1980. “Think not, my dearest children, that when I depart from you,
I shall be no more: remember that my soul, even while I lived among
you, was invisible; yet by my actions you were sensible it existed in
this body. Believe it, therefore, existing still, though it still be
unseen. How quickly would the honours of illustrious men perish after
death, if their souls performed nothing to preserve their fame! For
my part, I could never think that the soul, which, while in a mortal
body, lives, when departed from it, dies; or that its consciousness is
lost when it is discharged out of an unconscious habitation; on the
contrary, it most truly exists when it is freed from all corporeal
alliance.”
1981. Let this be compared with the inexcusable inattention of Moses,
taking his own narrative to be true, in communicating with God about
every thing else, almost, excepting that which concerns immortal life.
If the despicable criminality of Abraham in putting his wife at the
pleasure of two heathen kings successively, and _their repugnance_
to have violated his connubial rights, be taken as a fit test of
comparative morality, if these sentiments of King Cyrus be compared
with those of the Jewish lawgiver as respects immortality, the chosen
people of God were much below some neighbouring heathens both in
morality and religion.
1982. This inference will be fortified by comparing the portraiture of
the Deity as given by Moses (1140) and Samuel, (1091,) with that given
by Seneca, (1224.)
_The Worship of a Book, Idolatry._
1983. Much has been said in Scripture and by its votaries against
idolatry, but I do most seriously consider the Old Testament as a more
pernicious idol than any image or statue can be in the nature of things.
1984. An image or statue does not speak; it suggests nothing cruel,
unjust, or indecent to the worshipper; neither do any of the objects
usually treated as idols. It must evidently be an error to accuse
idolaters of contemplating the inert image to which they kneel, as
their God. They must see that it neither does nor can do any thing.
They must perceive that, fixed in one place, the image cannot have
that ubiquity or efficacy, essential to divine power. It follows that
the object of adoration must be an invisible power associated with the
idol, which may occupy the image only when invoked. In every temple
devoted to Jupiter there might be a statue of Jupiter, and yet it
was never held that there was more than one Jupiter. From the verses
subjoined, from Pope’s translation of the Iliad, it appears that Homer
gave to Jupiter a supremacy which made the other deities bear to him no
higher relation than that which the archangels do to God, according to
Christianity:
1985. “Let down our golden everlasting chain,
Whose strong embrace holds heaven, and earth, and main;
Strive all, of mortal or immortal birth,
To drag by this the Thunderer down to earth.
Ye strive in vain. If I but lift this hand,
I heave the heavens, the ocean, and the land;
For such I reign, unbounded and above,
And such are men and gods compared to Jove.”
1986. But when a book is made the word of God, which patronizes men as
belonging to a _chosen_ seed who are guilty of cruelty, robbery, fraud,
massacre in cold blood, it becomes a more active and mischievous idol
than any dumb beast, image, or statue can be. An idolater worships a
silent idol as the representative of God. The idol cannot say, “_I am
a jealous God: I wax hot in my wrath_.”
1987. Mr. Mahan urges, that the sufferings undergone by martyrs to
Christianity is evidence of its truth, whereas, it seems to me that
it only proves the conviction of the parties, which, if displayed
by a dervise or a fakir, would be called bigotry. But if suffering
in a cause is evidence in its favour, there have been sufferers on
the other side, as well as on that which this author has undertaken
to uphold. It is but fair, if those who suffer for one side should
have their suffering held up as proof of their conscientiousness, the
same conscientiousness should be conceded to those who have suffered
for the other. The author of the pages I am about to quote, the Rev.
Robert Taylor, was, for want of a better answer to his publication,
condemned to Oakam Jail, in England, for one year. It was there he
wrote his Diagesis, copies of which may be had of Mr. Curtis, No. 34
Arch street, as well as other books which may assist readers to form an
opinion for themselves. I shall quote some pages from this work, which,
being studied after reading Mahan’s arrogant allegations, will make
good the old saying, that “One story is good until another is told.”
1988. “The ordinary notion, that the four gospels were written by the
persons whose names they bear, and that they have descended to us
from original autographs of Matthew and John, immediate disciples,
and of Mark and Luke, contemporaries and companions, of Christ, in
like manner as the writings of still more early poets and historians
have descended to us from the pens of the authors to whom they are
attributed, is altogether untenable. It has been entirely surrendered
by the most able and ingenuous Christian writers, and will no longer
be maintained by any but those whose zeal outruns their knowledge,
and whose recklessness and temerity of assertion can serve only to
dishonour and betray the cause they so injudiciously seek to defend.
1989. “The surrender of a position which the world has for ages been
led to consider impregnable, by the admission of all that the early
objection of the learned Christian Bishop, FAUSTUS the Manichean,
implied, when he pressed Augustine with that bold challenge which
Augustine was not able to answer, that,[47] ‘It was certain that the
New Testament was not written by Christ himself, nor by his apostles,
but a long while after them, by some unknown persons, who, lest they
should not be credited when they wrote of affairs they were little
acquainted with, affixed to their works the names of apostles, or
of such as were supposed to have been their companions, asserting
that what they had written themselves was written ACCORDING TO those
persons to whom they ascribed it.’
1990. “This admission has not been held to be fatal to the claims of
divine revelation, nor was it held to be so even by the learned Father
himself who so strenuously insisted on it, since he declares his own
unshaken faith in Christ’s _mystical_ crucifixion, notwithstanding.
1991. “Adroitly handled as the passage has been by the ingenuity of
theologians, it has been made rather to subserve the cause of the
evidences of the Christian religion than to injure it. Since, though
it be admitted that the Christian world has ‘_all along been under
a delusion_’ in this respect, and has held these writings to be of
higher authority than they really are; yet the writings themselves and
their authors are innocent of having contributed to that delusion,
and never bore _on_ them, nor _in_ them, any challenge to so high
authority as the mistaken piety of Christians has ascribed to them,
but did all along profess no more than to have been written, as
Faustus testifies, not BY, but ACCORDING to, Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John; and by persons of whom indeed it is not known who or what
they were, nor was it of any consequence that it should be, after the
general acquiescence of the church had established the sufficient
correctness of the compilations they had made.
1992. “And here the _longo post tempore_ (_the great while after_)
is a favourable presumption of the sufficient opportunity that all
persons[48] had, of knowing and being satisfied that the gospels
which the church received were indeed all that they purported to be;
that is, faithful narrations of the life and doctrines of Christ
_according_ to what could be collected from the verbal accounts which
his apostles had given, or by tradition been supposed to have given,
and, as such, ‘_worthy of all acceptation_.’
1993. “The objection of Faustus becomes from its own nature the most
indubitable and inexceptionable evidence, carrying us up to the very
early age, the fourth century, in which he wrote, with a demonstration
that the gospels were then universally known and received under the
precise designation, and none other, than that with which they have
come down to us, even as the gospels, respectively, _according_ to
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
1994. “Of course there can be no occasion to pursue the inquiry into
the authenticity of the Christian Scriptures lower down than the
fourth century.
1995. “1. _Though_, in that age, there was no established canon or
authoritative declaration that such and none other than those which
have come down to us were the books which contained the Christian rule
of faith.
1996. “2. And though ‘no manuscript of these writings now in existence
is prior to the sixth century, and various readings which, as appears
from the quotations of the Fathers, were in the text of the Greek
Testament are to be found in none of the manuscripts which are at
present remaining.’—_Michaelis_, vol. ii. p. 160.
1997. “3. And though many passages which are now found in these
Scriptures were not contained in any ancient copies whatever.
1998. “4. And though ‘in our common editions of the Greek Testament
are MANY readings which exist not in a single manuscript, but are
founded on MERE CONJECTURE.’ —_Marsh’s Michaelis_, vol. ii. p. 496.
1999. “5. And though ‘it is notorious, that the orthodox charge the
heretics with corrupting the text, and that the heretics recriminate
upon the orthodox.’—_Unitarian New Version_, p. 121.
2000. “6. And though ‘it is an undoubted fact that the heretics were
in the right in many points of criticism where the Fathers accused
them of wilful corruption.’—_Bp. Marsh_, vol. ii. p. 362.
2001. “7. And though ‘it is notorious that forged writings under the
names of the apostles were in circulation almost from the apostolic
age.’—See 2 Thess. ii. 2, _quoted in Unitarian New Version_.[49]
2002. “8. And though, ‘not long after Christ’s ascension into heaven,
several histories of his life and doctrines, full of pious frauds and
fabulous wonders, were composed by persons whose intentions, perhaps,
were not bad, but whose writings discovered the greatest superstition
and ignorance.’—_Mosheim_, vol. i. p. 109.
2003. “9. And though, says the great Scaliger, ‘They put into their
Scriptures whatever they thought would serve their purpose.’[50]
2004. “10. And though, ‘notwithstanding those twelve known infallible
and faithful judges of controversy, (the twelve apostles,) there
were as many and as _damnable_ heresies crept in, even in the
apostolic age, as in any other age, perhaps, during the same space of
time.’—_Reeve’s Preliminary Discourse to the Commonitory of Vincentius
Lirinensis_, p. 190.
2005. “11. And though there were in the manuscripts of the New
Testament, at the time of editing the last printed copies of the
Greek text, upward of ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND various
readings.”—_Unitarian New Version_, p. 22.
2006. “12. And though ‘the confusion unavoidable in these versions
(the ancient Latin, from which all our European versions are derived)
had arisen to such a height, that St. Jerome, in his Preface to the
Gospels, complains that no one copy resembled another.’—_Michaelis_,
vol. ii. p. 119.
2007. “13. And though the Gospels fatally contradict each other; that
is, in several important particulars, they do so to such an extent
as no ingenuity of supposition has yet been able to reconcile: after
Marsh, Michaelis, and the most learned critics, have stuck, and owned
the conquest.
2008. “14. And though the difference of character between the
three first Gospels and that ascribed to St. John is so flagrantly
egregious, that the most learned Christian divines and profoundest
scholars have frankly avowed that the Jesus Christ of St. John is a
wholly different character from the Jesus Christ of Matthew, Mark, and
Luke; and that their account and his should both be true is flatly
impossible.[51]
2009. “15. And though such was the idolatrous adulation paid to the
authority of Origen, that emendations of the text which were but
suggested by him were taken in as part of the New Testament; though he
himself acknowledged that they were supported by the authority of no
manuscript whatever.—_Marsh, in loco._
2010. “16. And though, even so late as the period of the Reformation,
we have whole passages which have been thrust into the text, and
thrust out, just as it served the turn which the Protestant tricksters
had to serve.
2011. “17. And though we have on record the most indubitable
historical evidence of a general censure and correction of the Gospels
having been made at Constantinople, in the year 506, by order of the
Emperor Anastasius.[52]
2012. “18. And though we have like unquestionable historical evidence
of measureless and inappreciable alterations of the same having been
made by our own Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, for the avowed
purpose of _accommodating them to the faith of the orthodox_.”[53]
_Evidence of Josephus and Gibbon_ vs. _Mr. Mahan_.
2013. The silence of Josephus respecting Christ induced some Christians
to concoct the pious fraud of interpolating in his history a notice of
the career and crucifixion of Christ, but subsequent Christian writers
have detected and exposed the interpolation; so that the history
alluded to, written soon after Christ’s death by the distinguished
Hebrew, contains no notice of those events; and, from the following
passage in Gibbon, it appears that it did not awaken much attention
among the Romans. Yet Mahan, assuming the opposite to be true, urges
it as evidence of the evangelical account, that the phenomena drew
universal attention.
2014. “How shall we excuse,” says Gibbon, “the supine inattention
of the pagan and philosophic world to those evidences which were
presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to
their senses? This miraculous event, which ought to have excited the
wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without
notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the
lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced
the immediate effects or received the earliest intelligence of the
prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded
all the great phenomena of nature—earthquakes, meteors, comets, and
eclipses—which his indefatigable curiosity could collect; both one and
the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the
mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe.” (Gibbon,
vol. ii. chap. xv. p. 379.)
_The Worshippers of the Golden Calf more righteous than their
Assassins._
2015. The example is set in the Old Testament of attributing the worst
motives to every one who does not concur with the accusers in religious
opinions. I conscientiously believe that the Israelites who made the
golden calf were at least as righteous in their worship as those who
treacherously and cruelly massacred them in obedience to an order
strangely represented as sanctioned by Jehovah: “_Put every man his
sword by his side, and go in and out of the camp, and slay every man
his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbour; and
the children of Levi did according to the words of Moses, and there
fell of the people on that day about three thousand men._”
2016. Obviously, the only way in which those who, with Mr. Mahan,
can find any pretence for ascribing this horrible sanguinary order
to the inspiration of God, is by treating idolatry as so wicked as
to be punished, not only in the immediate transgressor, but in his
offspring to the third and fourth generation. Is it not a fairer way
of viewing this affair to infer that Moses and his partisans were
covetous, unprincipled men, who did not hesitate at _swindling_,
_lying_, _massacre_, or any measures requisite to give him and them
ascendency? Was there ever a greater analogy between the measures of
any two evil-doers than those of Mohammed and Moses, both professing
communion with God, which we now know could not have taken place, and
both pleading his commands to exercise the most horrible intolerance at
home, as well as cruel rapacity abroad?
2017. Mohammed appears to have been more successful than Moses in
convincing his followers of his mission. There seems to have been a
great distrust of Moses, which he artfully always ascribes to the
impiety of the unbelievers; like all other religious impostors,
identifying his word with that of God. Nothing but his inability to
convince the skeptics of the divine origin of his mission could have
induced them to worship idols in opposition to his remonstrance; and
the fact that Aaron assisted them in casting the golden calf, can
only be explained by his participation in the heresy. Does not this
alleged conduct on the part of Aaron render the whole affair so absurd
as to throw doubt over the whole history? Moses, while killing the
malcontents, could hardly avoid punishing their ringleader. Moreover,
how could one who would assist in idolatrous worship, be fit to hold
the office of high-priest, into which he was soon afterward installed
with great pomp?
2018. It is perfectly clear, to my mind, that a pagan who sincerely
worships any thing as his God, really worships God. He stands in the
same relation to his God that a debtor stands to his real creditor when
paying a forged draft.
2019. Wicked priests have raised a cry against idolaters, as the real
thief strives, by calling after some innocent person within view, to
divert the hue and cry from himself. As an exemplification of this
species of wickedness, I quote here a speech made to the Emperor
Constantius by Julius Firmicius Maternus, (Taylor’s Diagesis, page 144:)
2020. (Addressing the Emperor Constantius.) “Take away, take away,
in perfect security,” exclaims this self-called Christian priest, “O
most holy emperor, take away all the ornaments of their temples. Let
the fire of the mint or the flames of the mines melt down their gods.
Seize upon all their wealthy endowments, and turn them to your own use
and property. And, O most sacred emperor, it is absolutely necessary
for you to revenge and punish this evil. You are commanded by the
law of the Most High God to persecute all sorts of idolatry with the
utmost severity; hear and commend to your own sacred understanding
what God himself commands. He commands you not to spare your son
or your brother; he bids you plunge the avenging knife even into
the heart of your wife that sleeps in your bosom; to persecute your
dearest friend with a sublime severity; and to arm your whole people
against these sacrilegious pagans, and tear them limb from limb. Yea,
even whole cities, if you should find this guilt in them, must be cut
off. O most holy emperor, God promises you the rewards of his mercy,
upon condition of your thus acting. Do, therefore, what he commands,
complete what he prescribes.”
2021. It should be recollected that this diabolical address was made
to the Christian son and successor of Constantine. Can there be a more
shocking picture of the mischievous consequences of the example and
doctrines of Moses as respects idolaters? Certainly, Constantius was
not any better for his Christianity, when he could listen, without
indignation, to such wicked suggestions!
2022. It is alleged that in the city of Thessalonica the Emperor
Theodosius put to death all the pagans that breathed, in obedience to
Christianized Mosaic intolerance, which in modern times was carried out
in the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s day, and the Inquisition. Such
were the effects of the propagation of Christianity, with the appendage
of the Pentateuch to the swordlike attributes with which Christ endowed
himself: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I come not
to send peace, but a sword!” Matt. x. 34.
2023. Shakspeare truly makes one of his characters say that whosoever
takes away the good name of another commits a more wicked theft than
one who takes a purse. But in this portrait of the effect of calumny
there is one important feature omitted, which is sometimes the most
injurious: I allude to the pain of mind created by a false accusation.
If, as I have before urged, it be wrong to hurt the flesh by a blow, is
it not wrong to hurt the soul by calumny? The sting of the fangs of the
viper, no less than the paw of the lion, may give a mortal infliction;
but no less painful may be the effect of a false human tongue. Is it
not as great a wrong to wound a man’s soul as his flesh? Yet there
never has been any hesitation on the part of sectarians to express any
painful opinion as to heretics or idolaters. The word _infidel_, so
much more deserved by themselves for their violation of the precepts
they profess, is used as a matter of course, and, coupling with an
error in worship a heinous sinfulness, the idolater is always in the
wrong. But reasonably, upon the grounds which have been advanced in the
preceding portion of this work, (1245,) idolatry may be an imputation
against the intellectual pretension, but not against the integrity, of
the worshipper; and for one I consider the propensity to the worship
of idols displayed throughout the whole of the Jewish history, and
even by Solomon the “_Wise_,” as a strong proof that there never was
sufficient evidence presented to the Jews of the divine origin of the
books of Moses, or any others represented as conveying God’s holy word.
2024. It is not doing as we would be done by to accuse any worshipper
of bad motives, for the reasons which I have above given; and when it
is considered how unwilling people are to part with their property,
the fact that the Israelites gave their gold ornaments to enable Aaron
to cast a golden calf, shows that they sincerely believed that their
worship would be acceptable to some deity who had the best claim to
their acknowledgment. If they mistook the object, it must have been
an error of the understanding, which it would have been evidently
more reasonable to have corrected by reasoning and evidence, than by
punishment.
2025. While such eminent men as Mahan, and the learned Goliah of my
mundane guardian spirit, will hold up this, to my mind, barbarous and
preposterous Pentateuch as the word of God, I am obliged to meet them
upon the ground thus stated; but there are other highly respectable
clergymen, who concur in questioning that the Pentateuch existed
until after the return of the Jews from their captivity; and there is
evidence, agreeably to the quotations I have made, that this alleged
work of divine inspiration, or _word of God_, as stated in the Second
Book of Chronicles, and 22d chapter of the Second Book of Kings, has
no better foundation than the word of the priest Hilkiah and his
accomplices.
2026. The Rev. Mr. Norton, in a laborious investigation, shows that,
according to internal evidence, almost all the important facts
stated in Genesis and Exodus are inconsistent with each other or the
circumstances under which they are alleged to have happened.
2027. Mr. Mahan conceives that the willingness of the believers in the
gospel to sacrifice their lives in testimony of the sincerity of their
conviction proves the truth of revelation. Wherefore, then, does not
their exposure to the slaughtering sword of the partisans of Moses
prove the sincerity of the Israelites in their worship of their idol?
No wise knave would do any thing so absurd. History shows that many of
those who have been most willing to make sacrifices for their belief
have been great fanatics. Their willingness to suffer only proves the
intensity of their belief, not the truth of the miracles which they
believe.
2028. Having first assumed, contrary to the fact, that the mission
of Christ was generally accredited in the contemporaneous pagan
communities, Mr. Mahan claims this to be evidence of the facts stated
by the evangelists.
2029. But if the belief in a mission by contemporaries is evidence in
its favour, is not the disbelief of contemporaries evidence on the
other side? Is not the fact that Moses could only expel idolatry from
the Hebrews by the sword, a proof that he was unable to convince them
by any adequate evidence of his claims to inspiration?
2030. This surmise, respecting the inadequacy of the facts and
reasoning which Moses had to advance in favour of his pretensions
as a missionary of Jehovah, appears to be fully justified in the
history given by Josephus. From the following language, which this
distinguished Jewish historian alleges to have been held by one of the
Israelites, it is evident that Moses was then viewed as no better than
Mohammed or any of the usurping popes of Christendom. While Protestants
sanction such religious despots as Moses and Samuel, they ought not to
complain of the papal despots of Christendom, (note to 1091.)
_Just denunciation of the religious imposture and usurpation of Moses,
by noble-minded Israelites._[54]
2031. “Corah, an Hebrew of great wealth and influence, and famous for
his eloquence, becoming jealous of the dignity to which Moses had
attained, raised a clamour against him among the Levites who were of
the same tribe, by suggesting to them, in an occasional harangue,
‘That it redounded to their dishonour thus tamely to suffer Moses,
under pretence of the divine command, to retain unlimited authority,
vest the priesthood in his brother Aaron without their suffrages,
and bestow places of honour and profit at pleasure.’ He added, ‘that
these measures were the more oppressive and grievous as founded on
the arts of sophistry and insinuation; that those who are conscious
of deserving posts of dignity endeavour to obtain them not by force,
but mild persuasion; that it was the interest of a state to check
the ambition of such aspiring individuals, before they acquired an
influence that might prove destructive.’ He demanded by what authority
Moses had conferred the priesthood on Aaron and his sons, enforcing
his own title as superior to theirs, both by descent and property.”
2032. In consequence of this, Moses addresses the following prayer,
which certainly is as remote from the sentiments which the precepts of
Christ would call for, as any which can be imagined:
2033. “Testify thy wonted kindness to the Hebrews by inflicting
condign punishment on Dathan and Abiram, for suggesting that thy
purposes are opposed by my arts. Visit these detractors from thy glory
with exemplary vengeance. Let the earth on which they tread swallow
them up, _with their families_ and substance, to the manifestation of
thy power, and as an example to posterity not to think unworthily of
the Majesty of heaven.”
2034. Mr. Mahan urges that those who sacrificed their lives for a cause
must have had good reason for their course. What are we, then, to think
of Zimri the Hebrew, who used the following language to Moses, and
was, as well as those who concurred with him in opinion, murdered in
consequence, not after trial, but by Lynch law, as will appear from the
sequel?[55]
2035. “‘Moses, you are at liberty to contend for the use and
observance of your own laws, which have obtained a sanction and
authority by long custom alone, or you would have been brought to
merited disgrace and punishment, and found, to your cost, that the
Hebrews were not to be deluded by your arts. I will never subject
myself to your tyrannical decrees, assured that, under a pretext of
regard to religion and law, you seek to enslave us, and establish a
supreme authority over us, by denying us those liberties to which
all free-born men have an undoubted right. Was there a more grievous
oppression during the whole course of an Egyptian bondage than
the power you usurped of punishing every man by laws of your own
formation? You particularly deserve punishment for abrogating and
annulling those customs, laws, and privileges which are authorized
and established by the common consent of nations, and preferring
the suggestions of your fancy to rules so generally followed and
rationally founded. Conscious that I have done nothing wrong, I now
frankly declare, in this assembly, that I have married a strange
woman. This I confess with an honest boldness, and would do the same
in the face of the world. I also worship the gods whom thou hast
forbidden to be worshipped, as I do not hold myself bound to submit
to your arbitrary sway either in matters of law or religion, but
must assert the liberty of investigating the truth for myself, and
directing my own personal concerns.’
2036. “Zimri, in this speech, delivered the general sentiment of the
whole faction, while the multitude silently waited the issue of his
presumptuous conduct, for they apprehended much confusion would ensue.”
2037. But one of Moses’s partisans did not allow this noble asserter
of the rights of human nature to survive this bold stand long, as will
appear from the rest of the narrative, which thus proceeds:
2038. “His contumacy and flagrantly insolent behaviour to Moses
raised the resentment of one Phineas to the highest degree. He was a
youth eminent for the dignity of his family, his singular prowess, and
his personal virtues. Eleazar the high-priest being his father, he
was nearly allied to the great lawgiver. Sensible that to suffer such
indignity to pass with impunity would bring both the religion and the
laws of the Hebrews into contempt, he determined to make an example of
the ringleader of the faction, as his exalted rank would cause that
example to have a greater influence on the minds of the people. His
resolution being equal to his zeal, he repaired, without delay, to the
tent of Zimri, and at one stroke slew both him and Cobi his wife. This
resolute act excited an emulation among those of his contemporaries
who still maintained a regard for the honour of their country, to
avenge themselves on those who had done it violation; inasmuch that
they fell most furiously upon the faction, and put great numbers of
them to the sword.”
2039. Where is the true-hearted son of Columbia who would not have been
among those who fell with Zimri, for the right of choosing his wife and
his religion according to his own judgment?
_Remarkable observance of the Golden Rule by Moses, in his last advice
to the Israelites._[56]
2040. “‘Wherefore, to avoid this danger of apostasy from the worship
of the God of your fathers, suffer not any of your enemies to live
after you have conquered them; but esteem it highly conducive to
your interest to destroy them all, lest, if you permit them to live,
you become infected by their manners, and thereby corrupt your own
institutions. I do further exhort you to overthrow their altars,
temples, groves, and indeed to exterminate their nations with fire and
sword. By these means alone the permanency of your happy constitution
can be secured to you.’”
2041. Let these sentiments of Moses be compared with those of the great
Cyrus, in which he justly adverts to the immortality of the soul. Moses
was always worldly, and, as respects the lives of neighbouring pagans,
so called, displayed no better morality than Thuggism on a great scale.
_Straining at Spiritual Gnats, while swallowing Scriptural Camels._
2042. The question is put, Wherefore can spirits cause tappings on
or tilting of tables, only when a medium is present? To those who
believe in the Old Testament as the word of God, it may be in point to
inquire, Wherefore the mere elevation of the hands of Moses, on a hill
remote from the field of battle, enabled the Israelites to overcome
their enemies, when the opposite result ensued when the hands of the
veracious prophet were lowered, as agreeably to verses 11 and 12,
chapter xvii. of Exodus?
2043. “And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel
prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. But
Moses’s hands were heavy, and they took a stone and put it under him,
and he sat thereon, and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one
on the one side and the other on the other side; and his hands were
steady until the going down of the sun.”
2044. It follows from the verses in question that the skill, strength,
or courage of every Jewish combatant varied with the elevation or
depression of the arms of Moses above or below a mean horizontal plane.
2045. Surely, the peculiar influences thus exercised by the author of
the Pentateuch is at least as incredible as that by which the presence
of a medium enables spirits to move ponderable bodies, when otherwise
they could not move them. The influence ascribed to Moses is alleged to
have been witnessed only on one occasion, whereas that attributed to
media has been seen in a multiplicity of instances by living witnesses
of good character, who will attest to the facts, as well as the media
themselves.
2046. But, independently of the incredibility of this Mosaic miracle
as an isolated fact discordant with the laws of nature and human
experience, is it not incredible on account of its inconsistency with
the just and humane idea of God which the truly pious entertain,
that he should give this assistance to the Jews in their unchristian
warfare? This reasoning is at least as applicable to the alleged
arrestation of the sun, (involving that of the rotary motion of the
earth,) in order that Joshua might make a further slaughter of the
vanquished Canaanites. For this slaughter the prominent excuse seems
to have been that Moses, wishing to possess the territory of the
Canaanites, professed to have the authority of God for extirpating them
as idolaters, agreeably to the following language, which is represented
by Mr. Mahan and others as the word of God, (Deut. viii. 16, 20, 22:)
2047. “And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God
shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither
shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.
Moreover, the Lord thy God will send the hornet among them, until
they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed. And
the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and
little; thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the
field increase upon thee.”
_The Evidence which is insufficient to establish the Iniquity of a
Sinner cannot be sufficient to establish the Divine Authority of a
Book._
2048. “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity
or any sin: at the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall
the matter be established,” (Deut. xix. 15.)
2049. Agreeably to the preceding quotation from Scripture, one witness
is not sufficient to convict a man of any iniquity. Two witnesses,
at least, are necessary to establish guilt. But if a single witness
be insufficient to establish the iniquity of a man, how is it to be
established, on the evidence of the priest Hilkiah alone, that the
manuscript, which, as he represented, he had found in the temple, was
the inspired code of Moses, or, as Mahan and others would have it, the
word of God?
2050. Should the righteousness of a religious code be established by
evidence insufficient to establish the iniquity of an individual?
_A fortiori_, when, by proving the righteousness of a code, a whole
generation was to be convicted of iniquity, was the evidence of one
individual sufficient, especially when the iniquity thus to be adjudged
was to draw down the unquenchable wrath of God, agreeably to Huldah the
prophetess?
_Word of God, impiously so called, or the Golden Rule inverted by God’s
alleged Commands._
2051. “When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then
proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of
peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people that
is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall
serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make
war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy
God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male
thereof with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little
ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil
thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself: and thou shalt eat the spoil of
thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou
do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are
not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people
which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt
save alive nothing that breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy
them, namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the
Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath
commanded thee,” (Deut. xx. 10-17.)