Produced by David Widger
WATSON REFUTED
BEING AN ANSWER TO THE APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
IN A SERIES OF LETTERS TO THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFF.
By Samuel Francis, M.D.
Pudet me humani generis, cujus mentes et aures talia fern
potuerunt.
--Div. Augustin.
LONDON:
PRINTED and PUBLISHED BY R. CARLILE, 55, FLEET STREET
ADVERTISEMENT.
I had written a considerable part of another work, containing strictures
on religion. The appearance of the Bishop of Llandaff's pamphlet, and
the number of editions that have been published for the purpose of
encouraging its sale among the poorer classes, induced me to take up the
pen expressly in answer to this publication, that I might undeceive
the multitude, and show that, under the imposing title of a Bishop,
Dr. Watson has been guilty of the most gross misrepresentations, and,
whether intentionally or from ignorance, has deceived his readers,
while, under the pretence of meekness, he triumphs in the detection of a
few errors, committed by a man who does not pretend to be a Theologian,
or to be possessed of any great learning. He has uniformly passed
over the weighty arguments of the Age of Reason, and stopped at a few
immaterial inaccuracies. I hope, in the following sheets, to show, that
the learned Professor of Divinity has committed errors in the Natural
Sciences and History, which would be inexcusable in any author; but,
when coming from a dignified Clergyman, who wishes to dictate to the
nation, their detection cannot fail to show to the public, how necessary
it is for men to employ their faculty of reason, and not to yield it to
those whose profession is to teach things they acknowledge to be above
reason, and incomprehensible. I shall, as soon as my other avocations
permit, give the world a tract upon religion in general, with strictures
on the Jewish and Christian systems. For this reason, I shall not, in
the present pamphlet, enter deeply into any abstract reasoning, but
confine myself chiefly to the detection of the errors contained in the
Apology for the Bible.
S. F.
London, Aug. 15,
1790,
WATSON REFUTED
LETTER I.
MY LORD,
You have thought it not inconsistent with your dignity as a Bishop, to
oppose the _Age of Reason by Thomas Paine_, and I, as a member of the
community, find myself called upon to expose your reasoning, and stop
the career of error. You disclaim controversy; but if your candour
is any thing more than a vain boast, I entertain hopes of seeing the
defender of Christianity again step forward to answer my arguments, if
he deems them of sufficient weight to disturb his quiet. I am sincerely
glad to find a dignified churchman begin a dispute with men, whom
formerly the pious members of the Church would have deemed fit victims
for the fire or the gallows; at the same time, I feel deep regret, that
the Bishop has not yet altogether laid aside the clerical passion for
the extermination of the heterodox. I hope, says Dr. Watson, that
there is no want of charity in wishing, that Mr. Paine's life had been
terminated long before his publication. This may be consistent with
Christian charity, but nature and reason teach us ugly unbelievers
another doctrine: and, however inveterate I may be against those of
the clergy who persecute and deceive the multitude, I confess, that the
death of a person, whom I conceive to be acting for what he thinks the
public good, would give me no pleasure; and the Bishop allows the purity
of Mr. Paine's motives. The wish of the philosopher is, let reason guide
us, and all parties have freedom of debate. No dogmatical dictates of
bigotted priests, no passive obedience to the mandates of inquisitors,
nor to the persecutions so often fomented by churchmen. To the progress
of letters, during this century, we owe the mildness and condescension
of clergymen: till philosophy taught us, the clergy never discovered,
that persecutions for heresy and witchcraft, or inquisitions and popery,
were horrid institutions. Dares Dr. Watson affirm, that freedom of
inquiry was ever suffered on religious subjects? that people were
allowed to examine the grounds of the doctrines taught by the Church?
No, Sir, your predecessors of all beliefs have ever persecuted
philosophers and inquirers into truth, both in science and in religion.
Neither Galileus nor Rousseau escaped the malevolence of the opposers
of science; and in the Bible they found authorities for their inveterate
opposition to the progress of truth and knowledge. The New Testament
informs us, that the wisdom of God is foolishness to man, that human
learning produces nothing but pride 1, and that the poor in spirit gain
the kingdom of heaven.
1 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of
the world, and not after Christ." Colos. ii. 5, 8.
"Cum sit nobis divinis literis traditum cognitiones
philosophorum stultas esse, ad ipsum re et argumentis
docendum et; ne quit bouesto sapieutiæ nomine inductus, aut
inanis eloquentiæ splendore deceptus, humanis malet quam
divinis credere."
Lactantius, Inst. lib. i. chap. 2.
Under these and other similar pretences, have barbarous priests led
their credulous followers to massacres in the name of their God; by
means of that touchstone word, _Faith_, they made the multitude forget
that their leaders were but men. Now, Sir, we have grown bolder:
knowledge being no longer confined to clerical seminaries, priests are
not kings. The church totters; and a single pamphlet, you say, "has
unsettled the faith of thousands." Now, that you cannot stifle reason,
you pretend to liberality of sentiment.
The natural historian, or the astronomer, fears not the publication of
opinions contrary to his own, except from a scholastic habit, learned in
the clerical seminaries, which still disgrace almost every country. The
chemist eagerly peruses all theories; the divine alone refuses to argue
with his opponents, and trembles at the very name of reason. I differ in
my philosophical opinions from Mr. Paine; my principles extend so much
farther than his, that I suspect I come under the class which you are
pleased to call madmen, and every clergyman would affect to despise, but
dare not argue with, before an unprejudiced tribunal. These, Sir, are
the effects of superstition, and the cunning policy of the Church. The
Bible is hardly suffered to be read in Catholic countries. The English
reformers could not go so far; their revolution sprung from a dawn of
philosophy. The English clergy, however, would confine us to the
reading of that unintelligible farrago, and the still more insufferable
commentaries upon it. So did the scholastics with Aristotle; their
bigotted partiality to this author was nearly of the same force with the
priestly attachment to the Bible. They retarded science; but the motives
of the clergy are stronger. By the Bible they live; and it is not
uncommon to hear the parson deride in private what he preaches from the
pulpit.
But to your first letter.
After the pious wish for Thomas Paine's death, you proceed to state
how miserable the adoption of his doctrines would render the "unhappy
virtuous." Fear not such a dire event: the _pious_ are few in number,
and of those, few have the courage to open a book controverting their
opinions, and which, they are taught to believe, contains nothing but
blasphemies But, should chance lead them to a detection of their errors,
they would only become less devout, and more useful citizens. Freed from
the prospect of hell and heaven, they will have leisure to think of
this world, in which they live somewhat like hermits, loving only their
priests, and ready to sacrifice victims to credulity.
You say, that guillotine massacres were not the effect of the Popish
religion, but of the disbelief of this system. This deserves some
consideration. It is not true, that the majority of the people of Paris
were unbelievers. No, Sir, they swore to the miracles of Abbe Paris,
and were as ready to give testimony to the wonderful cures and prodigies
operated by his intercession, as the Jews or Christians have been
to vouch for theirs. The fact is this: the lively disposition of the
French, the unintelligibility of their religion, and the shameful
conduct of the priests, turned their attention to the more serious
object of politics; but this event could not immediately change the
nature of the murderers of the Protestants on St. Bartholomew's day.
Does your Lordship imagine, that the peasants of La Vendee are models of
morality? If you think so, I must undeceive you. Nothing but ignorance
prevails in that district; like the ancient crusaders, they are led
solely by their priests, who, by means of certain words which early
habits and superstition have made their followers respect, and, together
with want of communication with the rest of France, have inflamed them,
and driven them to slaughter: even miracles have not been wanting in
that part of the country; but in this, as in many other instances, they
have disappeared, on the arrival of incredulous troops, whose hearts are
perhaps hardened by God, like the Egyptians of old. Since God diminishes
men's faith in proportion as he gives them human wisdom, let us not
endeavour to controvert this heavenly will, by endeavouring to make
the enlightened people of the eighteenth century so credulous as in the
former days of ignorance. The Bishop allows, that the higher classes
of every country all lean towards infidelity; they are more guided by
reason, and reason is the avowed enemy of faith, it being the criterion
of faith, that it contains natural impossibilities. It is unfortunate
that so many sects pretend to faith, and differ so much among
themselves; and that to explain their faiths, they use the weapons of
reason against one another. This of itself proves, that faith is but
a cant word, since the faithful argue about what comes not under human
knowledge. Thus all religious sectaries, whether Christians, Jews,
Mahometans, Boodzoists, or Bramins, as staunchly believe contradictory
doctrines, while, in the inquiries that depend on their reason, we find
that, wherever men have long been civilized, they have, in astronomy,
in physics, or ethics, come in general to the same conclusions. The
language of the philosopher is understood in Pekin as well as in Rome;
but the religious fanatics of every country differ in their opinions,
and consider all but themselves as dreamers and impostors. The Bramin
laughs at the story of Noah and the ark, the stopping of the sun, and
the incarnation of God; while the Christian shows the same contempt for
the incarnation of Vishnu, and other articles of the Braminical
faith. The exercise of reason alone shows us the true limits of our
intellectual faculties. Ignorance of this is the cause of all reveries
in science, as in religion; it is only superstition that incites men to
launch beyond their conceptions.
You accuse of infidelity all those who commit crimes against society.
When we answer, that the Jewish and Christian religions have deluged
the world with blood, you reply, that it is not as being Jews and
Christians, but because they were wicked. At the same time, I hope you
allow, that the Spartans, the Athenians, the Romans, the Chinese, did
not commit half the atrocities which disgrace Jewish history, the aera
of the crusades and the Christian persecutions, of the invasion of
America, the massacres of heretics, &c. The candid observer must
therefore conclude, that right and wrong is not confined to sects; that
the Christian religion, whatever its precepts may be, has not been able
to prevent crimes, while nations who knew not so much as the name of
Moses or Christ, produced a Confucius, an Aristides, a Socrates, an
Epaminondas, a Cincinnatus. Among these nations, who knew not the Lord
Jehovah, we find Archimedes, Epicurus, Demosthenes, Plato, Aristotle,
Cicero, while the chosen people of God, and their successors, the
Christians, borrowed their language, the very names of their gods, and
the little science they knew, from these despised infidels. It was not
the oracle of Delphos, the augurs, or the sybils, that enlightened the
Greeks and Romans. The rabble credited them, as the ignorant Jews and
Christians did their prophets and apostles. In short, morals cannot be
invented; there cannot be two systems of morality. The precepts must be
directed to principles existing in the heart of man. Ignorance conceals
from nations the rule of conduct, in the same manner that it prevents
them from knowing geometry; the moment they study either, they are put
in the road of truth. No wonder, then, that in the times of the greatest
oppression, when frightened into certain doctrines by the stories
of nurses and parents, many learned men should not have been able
to conquer their first prejudices. You certainly know the time when
astrology and the philosopher's stone were in fashion; the believers
in these reveries were men of science. Van Helmont, Stahl, Boyle,
and innumerable others were possessed of this madness. You can be no
stranger to the numerous wretches that suffered for witchcraft and
necromancy, and, upon the very brink of death, confessed they were
guilty.
The next reflection the Doctor makes, is respecting gospel moderation,
for which purpose he quotes, "Who art thou that judgest another man's
servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth." Yet has this been
done by all Christian rulers; and the clergy are at this moment,
in express defiance of this maxim, about to send missionaries to
disseminate principles that have ever produced internal dissensions, and
without which infidels have lived in perfect happiness. It is, perhaps,
an excess of piety; but cool observers pretend, that it is the high
priest, not the High God, that they are going to preach: to fill their
knapsacks is the first object of these pilgrims, and their God is
made subservient. Unluckily for the Bishop, he could not adduce a more
detestable maxim, to show his charity, than that which I have just
quoted: it is the pivot of Oriental despotism; it teaches passive
obedience to all classes; the father is the tyrant of his children, the
nabob of his subjects, the emperor of all: it is a maxim whose tendency
is to root in men's minds, that we are the property of one another, and
may be inherited as cattle. To those of my readers who are pleased with
it, I wish a thorough experience of its effects.
The remainder of your first letter contains observations to which I
perfectly accede. Your conclusion against Thomas Paine is perfectly
fair. Any apparent deviation from moral justice in the world must prove
as much against the goodness of God, as a similar inconsistency in his
immediate actions and commands proves against revealed religion. My
Lord, we are in the abyss of error; your question with Thomas Paine
is about the comparative absurdity of the two Opinions. The deistical
notions of your adversary do not agree with his reasonable tenets; but
I readily grant, that, to a religious person, nothing is incredible; and
that the greater the inconsistencies, the more sublime the system.
But let me ask your Lordship, what you conclude against one, who, like
myself, is not a Deist? and repeats, with the first philosopher of the
age, that there are only four possible hypotheses upon the causes of the
universe: 1st. That they are purely good. 2dly. That they are malicious.
3dly. That they are a mixture of good and evil. And, lastly, That they
neither possess benevolence, nor any other passions. The two first
hypotheses are equally contradicted by daily experience, the mixture of
good and evil is too apparent: the third is denied, by the steadiness of
the laws of nature: the last, then, only is admissible.
You next proceed to justify several actions of the Jews, which you and
the Bible are pleased to call God's commands. I must decline following
your reasoning; for the very existence of such crimes as the Jews
ascribe to their enemies, and which, they say, were so repugnant to
God, would of themselves prove against the goodness of that Being. His
frequent threats, and the extermination of so many miserable nations, is
a poor expedient; like that of a man, who, attempting to make a machine,
and foiled in his endeavours, gloried in breaking it in a thousand
pieces. How much more ridiculous is that sublime Artificer, who employs
the same means which impotence or malevolence give rise to in his
wretched children. I am glad you have no recourse to the silly causes of
atheism, as given by that illustrious dreamer, Plato.
The world has too long been imposed upon by ridiculous attempts to
vilify atheists, and show their nonexistence. That name has been a cant
word, like Jacobin in France, and Whig and Tory in England, which
every person applies to his neighbour as it best suits him. In Catholic
countries, all who dare think are heretics; among Protestants, they
are atheists. Being a word of opprobrium, it has ever been used as a
powerful engine in the hands of the clergy. The question is upon the
truth of systems, not upon the character of those who profess them. If
this were the discrimination, and the palm given to that religion that
has had the greatest number of honest men, the Christian system would
certainly lose the contest.
The Bishop seems to think, that savages have not so perfect a notion of
God as we imagine: religion, he supposes, begins as it were in express
revelation. This is but the fancy of a clergyman, unsupported by
any proofs; but at least it shows, that the Bishop involuntarily
acknowledges, that reason alone can hardly give us the idea of a ruling
Being. The savage, it is true, does not discourse in a metaphysical
jargon; he wants expressions: but I wish the Doctor would inform me in
what our Catechism definition of God is clearer than the notions of the
rudest savage, who, trembling at the approach of thunder and violent
convulsions of nature, or enjoying the genial sun and fertilizing
inundations, imagines all the world to be animated with his own
passions. The thunder is a mark of wrath, while the blessings are signs
of a propitious genius. To conciliate these imaginary beings, to avert
their wrath, is the grand object of superstition. Schoolmen conceal,
under their mystical jargon, the real materials which their gods are
made of; they conceal that the Supreme Artificer is the offspring of
fancy, the figurative and unphilosophical symbol of nature, to which
they give human dispositions: in all religious systems men are the
type of their gods. Your letter concludes with a remark sufficiently
extraordinary, that most Deists of your acquaintance disbelieve the
mysterious conversations of God, his miracles, and such other stories,
because they are too wonderful, and against the order of nature. Your
reply is curious: because we never have seen the like of them, does it
follow that they are untrue? Give me leave to tell you, my Lord, that
you have forgotten the rules of logic: you know, that in all cases, but
of demonstration, the philosopher does nothing but weigh probabilities.
Any thing that is conceivable is possible: but are we therefore to
believe in the existence of witches or necromancers? Are we to give
credit to the world having sprung from an egg? That Mahomet divided the
moon? That the sun stood still? That astrology is a science? Yet what
reason have we to disbelieve them? The respective supporters of these
opinions may say with the Doctor, that nothing can be too wonderful, and
that, because these things have not happened in our time, it does not
follow they should be untrue. I acknowledge, with the Doctor, that
many Deists admit a Being as inconceivable as any religious mystery;
therefore it may seem ridiculous in them to stop their credulity; since
we call God just, when nothing but a concatenation of causes and effects
can be perceived in the world; when we proclaim him benevolent,
while the world is full of vice, while millions perish in misery, and
continual calamities befal mankind; while, in short, most men have the
gloomy prospect of damnation before them. These are greater miracles
than an universal deluge, making a woman from a rib, or God's
countenancing the atrocious murders of Jews. He that will believe one
wonder, has no plea for doubting the rest.
LETTER II.
MY LORD,
Your second letter begins with some nice distinctions between
authenticity and genuineness. The whole reasoning seems to amount to
this, that a book may be authentic, although not genuine, and _vice
versa_. To this proposition we were no strangers; but piety makes
your Lordship forget some other considerations. When the proofs of
authenticity depend in a great measure upon the genuineness of a
book, then the authenticity falls to the ground the moment we prove it
spurious. Thus the Jews strenuously maintained, that the Pentateuch had
been written by an inspired man at a particular time. But if Moses is
shown not to have written these books, I trust you will not declare
them authentic, without other very solid proofs. When a whole nation
is proved to be mistaken respecting the author of a work, we ought not
hastily to credit their legends. Moreover, logic teaches us, that in
proportion as events are incredible, they require a stronger testimony
to prove that they have actually taken place. A battle may have been
fought, a city may have been destroyed, but miracles being against the
order of nature, no testimony can be strong enough to prove them, we
must again appeal to faith. It is so much easier for men to be deceived
or imposed upon, or for persons designedly to mislead their credulous
followers, that unless it were more miraculous that a man should be
mistaken, than that the miracle happened, we ought not to give credit
to such fables. If we drop this rule of logic, we shall readily believe
prodigies of all sorts, whether wrought by Moses, Jesus Christ, Mahomet,
St. Antony of Padua, or any modern wonder-workers, witches, magicians,
astrologers, or magnetisers. Mr. Paine no where asserts, that because
a book is not genuine, it must be false; but certainly he might assert
this of the Bible. You say, that if the works of Titus Livius had been
ascribed to another, they would nevertheless be true; how would you
ascertain it? If the whole Roman nation supposed them to have been
written by a particular author at a certain time, and should we be
enabled to point out many passages evidently written in a posterior
age, would you, without any other proofs, join in the assent to the
authenticity of the history, upon a tradition so vague, and already
proved false in so material a point? Although I am no Bishop, I would
only imagine, that as to probable events contained in such spurious
books, there might have been some grounds for them; but I would receive
them with great caution; and, at any rate, never would I establish a
system of history, much less of religion, upon the productions of an
ignorant people: in all cases, events related against the order of
nature are to be considered as the reveries of dark ages. To elucidate
your principles, you mention Anson's voyage, written by Robins, under
the name of Walter, to prove that a spurious work may contain a true
history; but, my Lord, do you forget, that this was written at a time
when the whole nation knew that Lord Anson had made such a voyage, and
every man in his fleet could testify the particulars of it? But if
our posterity, four or five centuries hence, should discover a book
purporting to be written by a Mr. Walters, detailing the voyage of
Admiral Anson, and if in that book they should meet a passage speaking
of the late revolution in France, or of the author's death and burial,
would not that strike at the authenticity of the whole? Would any part
be believed that was not corroborated by the evidence of respectable
contemporary authors? All that could be inferred would be from the
nature of the events related, such as the accurate description of
countries, and such other particulars as marked either the period of the
observations, or their truth: in the first case, they might suspect the
work to be interpolated; in the second, they would value it only for
the accuracy of information. It is different with scientifical and
historical works: a spurious book of science may contain truths, they
stand for themselves, they are the same at all times and places. Not so
in history: the truth here depends on the universal consent of nations,
on the testimony of authors of credibility confronted with each other,
and in all cases relating things probable. When we read in a Chinese
history, that the goddess Amida peopled the world by bearing male
children from under one arm, and females under another, or, in the
Mahometan writers, that the trees spoke to the founder of that sect,
would a man credit any circumstance, however probable, related in
such histories, without the strongest collateral proofs? And should
we further discover, that these histories detailed events posterior
to their author's death, would not this make the whole still more
improbable? Your remark upon this subject is singular: you say, that if
Joshua, Samuel, or Moses, declared themselves the authors of the works
ascribed to them, then to prove these books spurious would at once
destroy their genuineness and authenticity. I would reason thus: Moses
does not say, that he was the author of the Pentateuch; why then do
we believe that he wrote it? You would, no doubt, answer, that the
tradition of the Jews proclaims him such. I retort, that if the
genuineness of a book may be proved by tradition, we ought as much to
argue against the authenticity of a work, from having proved the general
belief of its genuineness to be founded on error, as if the author had
said, I am the author of this book. This we shall, in the sequel, prove
to be the case with the books of the Old Testament. The addition of
an express declaration of Moses would add no authenticity to the
Pentateuch, since it is as easy to forge a work where the author speaks
in the first as in the third person.
Your next remark is concerning miracles. I have already observed, that
no testimony can give them belief. You maintain, that the degree and
kind of evidence for the prodigies recorded in the Bible exceeds that
for any other wonders. How this happens I am unable to comprehend. I
know they are contained in a book composed by the priests of the
most credulous and ignorant nation that perhaps ever existed; and the
authority of these unknown and obscure persons, is all the evidence
we have for crediting their stories. An English Bishop tells his
countrymen, that the miracle of the sun standing still is better
supported than the prodigies of Abbe Paris, Mesmer, and the late Labre
at Rome, than the numerous Indian, Chinese, and Popish miracles, of
which a great part are attested by magistrates, divines, physicians, and
the most enlightened classes of society; while the wonderful repast of
the angels with Abraham, or the marvellous tale of Jonah's three days'
residence in the belly of a fish, depends upon the authority of a book
which we shall prove to be spurious, to have been lost for several ages,
and to be compiled, if not altogether composed, by some Jewish scribes,
who were, as they themselves acknowledge, the only men versed in the
scriptures of the nation. I thought you would have known sacred history
better than at the present day to make such unsupported assertions.
Have you forgotten the wonders of the magicians of Pharaoh? Do you not
recollect the express acknowledgment of Moses himself, that there may
be miracles and prophecies performed by men who adored not the Lord
Jehovah? Does he not say, in chap. xiii. of Deuteronomy, "If there arise
among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or
a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto
thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, &c.--that prophet, or that
dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death, _because he hath spoken to you
to turn away from the Lord your God_." It is not because he is a false
prophet, but because he is not a prophet of Jehovah. Does not this
at once show the grossness of the conceptions of the Jews, and the
sophistical mode of arguing of their legislator? For I would ask, How
did Moses prove himself the oracle of God? Or how did Jesus Christ
show himself the Son of God, but by their pretended miracles? Why then
believe the testimony of a miracle in one instance, and not in another?
But the Jews certainly imagined, that there were several gods, and that
they quarrelled with each other, as kings are used to do; therefore it
was natural that one set of prophets should try to exterminate another,
and be as inveterate against them as the Lord Jehovah was against Baal,
or other rival gods. If the reader imagines I speak at random when I
say, the Jews believed in other gods, I refer him to Judges, chap.
xi. ver. 23, 34, where it is said, "So now the Lord God of Israel hath
dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel, and shouldst
thou not possess it? Wilt thou not possess that which _Chemosh thy god_
giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive
out from before us, them will we possess." There cannot be a fairer
parallel.
I can hardly imagine a Bishop ignorant of the augurs, oracles, and
sybils of the Greeks and Romans, and of the implicit belief these
nations had in them; the truth of their prophecies was fully as well
established as the prophecies of the Jews. Neither were miracles
uncommon among the heathens. You have, no doubt, read St. Ambrose and
Origen, and have found in the works of these and other fathers, that
the only difference between the miracles of the Christians and infidels,
was, that the former were operated by God, and the latter by the devil;
and could I be satisfied that Satan took up Jesus Christ to the top of
that high mountain, (now unknown to geographers) from whose pinnacle all
the world could be seen, this would surprise me as much as to see Jesus
Christ, or any other wonder-worker, bringing a dead man to life. I am
ashamed to have inveighed so long against silly prejudices; but I
could not avoid calling upon your Lordship, to point out the difference
between gospel-miracles and the ridiculous tales believed in all dark
ages, and of which we find so copious collections in the works of the
first fathers. The axiom of philosophers, that no human testimony can
establish the credibility, of miracles, you have left unanswered. You
say it has been confuted an hundred times: had you given the confutation
of it, we would have been able to ascertain the truth of your assertion.
You are writing for the multitude, and being a dignitary of the church,
ought to furnish the people with arms to oppose reason. Perhaps the
unsuccessful attempt of Dr. Campbell has deterred you from at least
recapitulating the principal answers to this proposition. Till you can
prove that the great mass of mankind are not very fallible and easily
deceived by any impostor, or that they are disposed and capable to
examine the truth of reports spread about prodigies, you will never be
able to persuade men of sense, that events impossible are to be believed
upon the testimony of those who not only are, but have constantly been,
the slaves of credulity in all countries.
You then show, that Mr. Paine's objections to the genuineness are not
new. This is true; and I am surprised you have quoted so few supporters
of his opinions. Your attempt to prove the genuineness of the
Pentateuch, by direct evidence, is ridiculous. What! Maimonides, ten
centuries after the destruction of the Jews, a Jew himself, and writing
at a period so remote from the supposed date of the books of the
Old Testament, is, by Dr. Watson, called a direct evidence of the
genuineness of the Pentateuch. Juvenal, a poet, who in more than one
place ridicules the credulity of the Jews, says, that they believe in
Moses--so do the Europeans allow that the Indians believe in Brama.--We
question not the general traditions of the Jews, but the credit they
deserve; and I shall next proceed to show, that the books of the
Pentateuch are spurious, and undeserving of credit. The name of
Moses and the Jews were unknown to the famous Phoenician historian
Sanchoniato, of whom Eusebius has preserved us some extracts; he has
never mentioned a word about this famous legislator: had he done so,
Eusebius was too strenuous an advocate _for_ Christianity not to have
recorded it. The books of the Jews were concealed from all the world
before the famous Greek translation made at the instance of Ptolemy
Philadelphia. Josephus himself acknowledges, that no heathen knew
the Jewish books, which he endeavours to explain, by some miraculous
interference of God to keep them from the impious. It is evident, that
the insignificance and ignorance of the Jews were sufficient to screen
them for a long time from the search of philosophers. Upon the early
history of the Jewish nation, however, we have the testimony of several
of the ancient writers. Manetho, and Chaeremon, Egyptian historians,
give the most unfavourable account of this nation. Lisimachus does not
favour them any more; and, although he differs about the name of the
king who expelled them from Egypt, yet he agrees in calling them a set
of men infected with leprosy, and the meanest of the subjects of the
king of Egypt. Diodorus Siculus is as hard upon these wretched Jews. In
short, the opinion of their being the vilest and most ignorant of men,
has prevailed among all antiquity. All the writers about them agree in
stating that they never produced any work in science; indeed, that they
never improved any branch of useful knowledge. Many of these authors
mention Moses as a priest of Heliopolis, who led them out of Egypt, and
gave them a religion. Diodorus Siculus informs us, that the God of Moses
was Jau, or Jahouh, which is the true pronunciation of Jehovah; and
Plutarch (de Iside) says, that the Thebans adored this God, and had not
images in their temples, because Jau signified the general principle of
life, the soul of the world.
Strabo, in his Geography, book 16, informs us, that Moses, who was an
Egyptian priest, taught his followers to worship the God Jahouh, without
representing it by emblems. This was the God of the Thebans, the soul of
the world. The Jews have even preserved the name of Tsour, or giver of
forms, and commonly translated by the word creator in chap. xxxii. of
Deuteronomy. Herodotus affirms, that the Jews or Syrians of Palestine
borrowed circumcision from the Egyptians. Diodorus says the same; and
even Philo and Josephus do not deny it. A great many other rites
were copied by the Jews from this nation. It is, therefore, of great
consequence to ascertain the age in which the Jewish books were written;
for if we can prove that all the fundamental points of their religion
were copied from their masters the Egyptians, or borrowed from the
Babylonians during the captivities, then the reader will judge of
the truth of the clerical opinion, that a handful of hordes were the
favourite people of God; that a set of ignorant and credulous vagabonds
taught science to the Chinese, Indians, and Egyptians, and preserved
nothing among themselves but some ridiculous accounts of their origin,
and a collection of absurd prodigies. If we succeed in pointing out
from what sources Jewish mythology is derived, there will be but
little difficulty in unravelling the principal fables contained in the
Pentateuch and other Jewish books. We are pretty well acquainted with
the allegories of the heathen mythologies.
I am ready to grant that several of Mr. Paine's objections are not
valid, and often trifling; but I declare, once for all, that I do not
think myself bound to follow Mr. Paine in every instance. I shall direct
my remarks, rather to disprove your reasoning, than to defend every
objection of your opponent; at the same time, I shall avoid repeating
what he has advanced, and you have not disproved. The chief proofs
against the genuineness of the Pentateuch have been overlooked by Mr.
Paine. I shall state them briefly.
First. It was believed, by all the best informed old fathers of the
church, that the Jewish books had been absolutely lost during the
captivity, and that Esdras had written them from inspiration; or, that
he collected the Pentateuch, and all other canonical books, out of
whatever records he could find, and put them together. 1 In either case,
their authority is greatly invalidated; and the more so, as the fourth
book of Esdras, adopted by the Greek church, and generally deemed
authentic, says expressly, that Esdras dictated the holy books during
forty successive days and nights, to five scribes, who were continually
writing. This tale shows sufficiently the general belief that he was
the restorer of the long lost books of the law. In our second book
of Nehemiah, or, properly speaking, Esdras, it is said, that Ezra, or
Esdras the scribe, who was above all the people, brought the book of the
law to the people, and then the people rejoiced much in being instructed
in the law of God, that when they found there the commandment of the
Lord ordering the Jews to perform the feast of the booths, there was
great gladness, "and all the congregation of them that were come again
out of the captivity made booths, and sat under booths: for, since the
days of Joshua the son of Nun, unto that day, had not the children of
Israel done so.". If the Jews had even forgotten a feast, the memory
of which every father would transmit to his son, is this not an evident
proof that they had no books in the captivity? Again, in chap. vii. of
the 1 book of Esdras, it is said, that Esdras "had very great skill,
so that he omitted nothing of the law and commandments of the Lord, but
taught all Israel the ordinances and judgments."
1 Porro Esdram sancti patres docent iostanratorem suisse
sacrorum librorum, quod non ita intelligendum est, quasi
scripturæ sacræ omnes perierint in eversione civitatis, et
templi Nabuchodonosor, et ab Esdra divinitas inspirato
reparatæ fuerint, ut fabulatur auctor, L, IV. Esdræ C. XIV.
Sed quod Scripturas Mosis, et prophetarum in varia volimina
descriptas, et in varia loca dispenreas, et tempore
captivitatis non diligenter conservatas, Esdras summa
diligentia collectas ordinaverit, et in unum quasi corpus
redigerit. Bellarmin de Script. Ecclesiast. page 22.
Can any man, after this, doubt that Esdras is the compiler of all the
books which the Jews had not known for many centuries? And are we, who
laugh at the Catholic councils, to trust to the word of a Jewish scribe?
it is further stated in 2 Chronicles, chap. xxiv. ver. 15, that Hilkiah
the priest found a book of the law of God _given_ by Moses, and sent it
by Saphan to king Josias, who heard it read, which shows that it must
have been very short; and, by the context, it would appear to have
been the law strictly speaking; another proof that these records were
altogether scattered, and are all without authority, since it was so
easy to forge them among a people who seemed to preserve no more than
a traditional law. Again, although, in the older Jewish books, such as
Kings and Chronicles, we find the name of Moses often mentioned, yet no
word answering to the five books of Pentateuch is to be found. The Code
of laws of Moses seems to have been forgotten; for Solomon ornamented
the temple with calves, in express contempt of that law, and this while
he was the favourite of God, and the wisest man in the world. The very
confusion that pervades the books ascribed to Moses, shows them to
have been compilations. Jerome, who was one of the most learned of the
fathers, confesses that he dares not affirm that Moses is the author
of the Pentateuch; he even adds, that he has no objection to allow that
Esdras wrote the books in question. 1
1 Sive Mosen dicere volueris auctorem Pentateuchi, sive
Esdram ejuadem iustauratorem operis, non recuso. Hieronim.
Op. Tom. IV. p. 134. Apud Edit. Paris 1706,
Secondly. We know that no canon of books ever existed among the Jew's
till the time of the synagogue under the Maccabees. Before their reign,
there had never existed among the Jews any such council; and, if the
word occurs in the Pentateuch, it is a fault of the transcribers and
composers, who lived when there was a synagogue, and is not to be
understood in any other acceptation than a collection of priests. The
Pharisees of the second temple chose the books they thought best among
a multitude of forgeries. The Talmud relates, that this synagogue
were about to reject the Book of Proverbs, Ezekiel's prophecies, and
Ecclesiastes, because they imagined these writings contradictory to the
law of God; but a certain Rabbin having undertaken to reconcile them,
they were preserved as canonical. A prodigious number of forged Books
of Daniel, Esdras, and of the Prophets, were then in circulation; and
to distinguish the genuine from the false works became absolutely
necessary. This doubt and uncertainty conspires to render the decision
of the synagogue very doubtful; particularly, as we shall show in the
sequel, that many passages of the Prophecies are written evidently about
the time of this choice of sacred books, and inserted in them, probably
by some cunning priest, as the oracles of Sybil were forged to suit
Cæsar.
Thirdly. The similarity of the mysteries of the Jews to those of the
Babylonians, is too glaring not to let us see the origin of Genesis in
particular. The creation in six days is a perfect copy of the Gahans,
or Gahan-bars, of Zoroaster; the particulars of each day's work are
literally the same. The serpent was famous among the Babylonians. The
mythological deluge of Ogyges and Xissuthrus, are symbols of changes
arising on earth, as they imagined, from the revolutions of the heavenly
bodies. These, a little ornamented by the historical narration of
Deucalion's inundation related by Berosus, is the pattern of Noah's
flood; the ark of Osiris and emblematical dove and raven were Egyptian
hieroglyphics. The man and the woman in Paradise is a mere copy of
Zoroaster's first pair. The original sin is Pandora's box. The Talmud of
Jerusalem says expressly that the Jews borrowed the names of the angels,
and even of their months, from the Babylonians. The Elohim, or Gods,
(not God), are said in Genesis to have created the world. It was not
Jehovah, but the genii or gods that are in the Hebrew called makers of
the world. And these are the very genii, who according to Sanchoniatho,
were by Mercury excited against Saturn.
Fourthly. We ask, in what language was the Pentateuch written, if it
really was the work of Moses? It is known that Hebrew is a dialect of
the Phenician, and that the Jews spoke Egyptian for a very long time
before they adopted the language of the people among whom they dwelt. In
Psalm lxxxi. we learn that the Jews were surprised to hear the language
of the people beyond the Bed Sea. If, therefore, Moses, or any person of
that age, is the author of the Pentateuch, it is evident that the
Hebrew books are mere translations. What degree of credit does a nation
deserve, who have been able to take for originals books that were in the
face of them translations? Is it right to persecute men, as priests have
done while they had power, for refusing to give credit to this tissue of
contradictory and absurd fables?
Fifthly. In the books of the Old Testament, we find abundant proofs that
they have been written in an age greatly posterior to that of Moses. In
Genesis, chap. xii. ver. 6, we find these words, "And the Canaanite was
then in land." This implies another period when the Canaanite was not
in the land, which, we learn from the Bible, did not happen till after
David, and could not therefore be written by Moses. The beginning of
Deuteronomy is certainly not written by him; for he never passed the
Jordan; he died upon Mount Nebo, to the eastward of it. The English
translation has in chap. i. v. 5, of this book, said, "on this side
of the Jordan," for "on that side," which is in the original. The
translator has taken similar liberties very often. In chap. xxxiii. we
find this expression, "There never was in Judea so great a prophet
as Moses," and such could be pointed out in many places. Here needs no
comment to show that such passages could only be written in a posterior
age, and when there had been several prophets after Moses. Thomas Paine
mentions many other passages, which I shall consider when I come to your
next letter.
The above considerations would be sufficient to invalidate the
genuineness and authenticity of any historical book: but here we find
that the credulity of bigots requires less proof for the authority of
a work, which, according to them, is the fountain of faith, than
for Ossian's poems, or any other book of no consequence. If a common
historical work contains fables, impossible events, and anachronisms;
if its age is not ascertained; if we are certain that it was unknown for
many centuries; if we are even ignorant whether it is an original or a
translation, who would give the slightest credit to such a book? Yet are
enlightened nations led by the testimony of the Jews, a people credulous
beyond measure, extremely ignorant, almost continually in slavery, and
dispersed. This is the nation that pretends to give an account of the
creation, and, with a vanity peculiar to an insignificant people, to
assume the supremacy among nations, and arrogate to themselves the
exclusive protection of Jehovah, and dare make their Adam the common
stock of mankind. You allow, my Lord, that several passages have been
interpolated in the Pentateuch. No person in the least acquainted with
the history can deny that it has suffered great alterations; 1 and I
have already noticed the opinion of the best informed fathers of the
church upon the non-existence of the Pentateuch, several centuries prior
to Esdras. I now beg to be informed, how we are to decide, if Hilkiah,
in the reign of Josias, collected from tradition, or some old book he
found in a chest, the precepts of the law? and whether the other famous
scribe, Esdras, did not compile from hearsay, and some imperfect and
scattered manuscripts of no authority, together with a great many
Babylonish traditions, those venerable five books of Moses? We are
informed, in one of the books that bears his name, that Esdras was
the wisest of his cotemporaries, and therefore a very fit and probable
person to write books out of old legends.
1 Multa in Hebraicis et Græcis codicibus vitia esse
ostendimus. Malta mendacia in rebus minutis, eorum pars
uliqua non exigua nostra editione vulgata extat.---Marian
pr. edit. vulg. cap. 21.
If the books of the Old Testament were composed at so late a period, no
wonder then that we find all the mysterious part of them so much like
the religion of the ancients, and particularly of the Babylonians, and
the historical part made up of heterogeneous matters, which in our days,
unassisted by any profane writer of that age, we can make nothing of. I
shall mention a few of the most striking points of resemblance between
the Jewish and other mysteries. Abraham, the most famous of their
patriarchs, has ever been celebrated in India. This they seem to have
brought from their native country, Arabia. We have already noticed,
that their account of the creation is exactly copied from Zoroaster, who
says, that the world was made in six periods of time, called by him the
thousands of God and of light, meaning the six summer months; in the
first, God made the heavens; in the second, the waters; in the third,
the earth; in the fourth, trees; in the fifth, animals; and in the
sixth, man. The Etrurians and the Hindoos have very similar traditions
of the highest antiquity, which, though they were emblems at first
perfectly understood, astronomers afterwards converted them into
periods, comprehending as many years as was required for different
revolutions of the planetary system.