whose great crime was to defend their own country, and to adore their
own gods instead of the God of the Jews. When a man makes an apology for
such conduct, we only can answer by an appeal to the feelings of men,
from which alone we derive notions of humanity. It was natural for the
adorers of a Phenician Jehovah to be the enemies of the Babylonish Baal:
both these gods sprang from the wild fancies of men. The jealous God of
the Jews, the all-wise, omnipotent, and benevolent, could not convert
the worshippers of another god, without exterminating whole nations,
even to the little children; but this barbarous mandate came from the
priests, who have in all countries, and all systems of Religion, adopted
this method of conversion. You state, that Moses "gave an order that
the boys and women should be put to death; but, that the young maidens
should be kept alive for themselves;" and, that you "see nothing in the
proceeding, but good policy combined with mercy. The young men might
have become dangerous avengers of what they would esteem their country's
wrongs; the mothers might have again allured the Israelites to the
love of licentious pleasures, and the practice of idolatry, and brought
another plague upon the congregation; but the young maidens, not being
polluted by the flagitious habits of their mothers, not likely to create
disturbance by rebellion, were kept alive:" and you add, that "the
women children were not reserved for the purposes of debauchery, but
of slavery; a custom (you acknowledge) abhorrent from our manners, but
every where practised in former times, and still preserved in countries
where the benignity of the Christian religion has not softened the
ferocity of human nature." Is extermination an example of the mercy of
priests and their gods, "whose justice is subservient to mercy," "whose
punishments originate in his abhorrence to sin,"--and whose commands
to massacre, to butcher, and to exterminate, "are only benevolent
warnings?"--You dare Mr. Paine to prove, that the young women were kept
for debauchery; and you triumphantly add, "that if he does, you will
allow Moses to be the horrid monster he describes him, and the Bible a
book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy." Do you think, that consigning
to slavery thirty-two thousand maids, is consistent with the benignity
of God? I do not hesitate to consider this worse than merely making them
the partners of licentious pleasures. But, in what consisted the wonted
wisdom of a God, whom you describe as ever solicitous to lessen the
influence of sin? Let me ask you, if the young women were not as liable
to incite the passions of the Jews as their mothers, and whether their
slavery would not increase the opportunities for debauchery? Could it
be consistent with humanity, much less with the mercy of an all powerful
God, to put to death all the boys of a nation, merely because they might
in time revenge the insolent invaders of their country? Were all the
male children already polluted from their birth? It would have been easy
for them to convert them to another religion, but to your God it was
impossible. The bloody invaders of America pursued not another plan,
even after "the benignity of the Christian religion softened the
ferocity of human nature." Have these Christian invaders any where
respected the chastity of women when they made them slaves? And have
the Jews, God's chosen nation, at any period, either while under his
protection, or since he abandoned them, shown themselves more virtuously
inclined than other people; were they ever prevented by the striking
manifestations of his mercy, his power, and his justice, from going away
to adore other gods, and falling into all sorts of wickedness? In
short, if the Bishop rests his defence of Moses and the Bible upon this
passage, I am willing to appeal to the judgement of all mankind. If any
person can believe it consistent with the benevolence of omnipotence, to
sacrifice whole nations to be massacred and plundered by a few hordes of
bloody Jews; if he can think this to be part of a grand scheme for
the good of mankind, he must give up all pretensions to reason, common
sense, and humanity. But it is time the world should see, that this holy
book the Bible, "which, in weight of authority, and extent of utility,
exceeds all the libraries of the philosophers," contains pretences for
all bad actions, and stifles the laws of humanity and morality. Upon
this book have inquisitors, crusaders, and religious men, founded
pretences for the most diabolical persecutions, avowedly undertaken for
the express purpose of unrooting infidelity, and for the glory of the
Lord. Every man who reads the word of God is warranted to reason thus:
God has ordered murder and robbery; he has instigated his favourite
people to exterminate whole nations; therefore I can do no better than
to imitate the Almighty; and every crusader may pretend to have the same
authority from God as Moses; and miracles are never wanting to prove it.
Because Abraham was a pimp, and his wife a prostitute, so may any person
be, without losing the patronage of the God of Abraham. Every man, in
short, may imitate the meek Moses, the humane David, without fearing
to incur the displeasure of the Almighty. Thus Ravaillac thought he was
doing as holy a deed, when he attempted the life of Henry; as Dominic,
or Torquemada, when butchering the wretched heretics, who had the
misfortune to fall a prey to their bloody zeal. The whole Old Testament
is so filled with barbarous stories, that if they did not excite
laughter by their improbability, they would freeze the blood in, the
veins of any man endowed with humanity. What an irksome task have those
undertaken, who have attempted to reconcile the horrible crimes of the
Jews with the mercy and wisdom of the Creator? Has ferocity forsaken
Christians as you insinuate? Have the modern religious fanatics yielded
in cruelty to the Jews? Those two religions have successively inundated
the earth with the blood of innocent victims. Have not the followers of
Christ constantly preached passive obedience to the church, have they
not frequently relieved the people of their oaths, and have they not
fomented most of the civil wars that laid waste all Europe? It is well
that priests have not been able to persuade mankind of late, that the
minister was the oracle of God. The pride and foolishness of science has
put this out of their power; they cannot lead nations as they did the
Jews; we are not so easily persuaded of the immediate manifestations of
God's commands to the priest. We know science too well to believe that
the pillar of fire that went before the Israelites was God himself. We
might have shown the people, that a pan with red-hot substances would
have the appearance of a fire by night, and a cloud of smoke by day, a
custom practised, from time immemorial, by the caravans. Although, my
Lord, the wisdom of God may be foolishness to man, I acknowledge I am
neither fond of crediting absurdities, nor have I so much faith as to
take the work of priests for supernatural mandates of Providence; when
they speak in their usual senseless and unintelligible language, I
conclude that it is either to dazzle the ignorant multitude, or I look
upon their dreams as the consequence of dire superstition, the first
effect of which is to make us unacquainted with ourselves, under the
imposing aspect of familiarising us with imaginary beings. At the
conclusion of my remarks upon the Old Testament, I shall give a few
extracts from those books, wherein my readers may see the character of
the Jews and their God in glaring colours, and judge whether any honest
man would not tremble at the thoughts of having done as much injustice,
and committed such atrocities as this Jehovah.
LETTER IV.
You enter again upon your favourite topic, genuineness and authenticity.
I shall not repeat what I have already said. I confess my great surprise
at your laying such stress upon the most trifling and false of your
arguments. You now strive to prove, that a book may contain a true
history, although it should be anonymous. Pray, my Lord, do you think,
that to prove a book spurious, when it is believed to be genuine, is a
demonstration of the truth of the contents? You thus leave us uncertain
whether Joshua be a genuine book. You have sadly confused yourself in
the maze you have created. To put it beyond a doubt that the sun stood
still, you appeal to the book of Jasher, which Joshua mentions in the
following words, "Is not this written in the book of Jasher?" And in
like manner, you refer to other books frequently quoted as authorities
in the Bible. Does your zeal blind you so far as not to let you
perceive, that this very argument may with redoubled strength be
retorted against you? for if an author, who is said to write his own
history, appeals to another book for a proof of his actions, that
book must be of much greater authority than his own: we cannot avoid
believing the writer of the work alluded to had better information. In
short, the book appealed to contains the only authentic testimony. Now,
permit me to ask you, who could be better authority than Joshua himself,
writing at a time when we must suppose many of his soldiers who had
witnessed the miracle were alive? What is this anterior book which
Joshua respects so much? Was it written by himself, then it would
be idle to quote it; and, at any rate, whoever had written it, it is
evident that the author of the book of Joshua has no proofs of his
own, but rests solely upon the book of the Holy, or of Jasher. This
circumstance proves clearly, that the writer of the Book of Joshua
composed his book out of some more ancient memoirs, which being lost, we
can say no more of their authority than for that of any old tales. You
talk of the public records of the Jews as confidently as a Member of
Parliament speaks of the papers in the Tower. Do you know at what period
the Jews began to keep written records, and do you also know, whether
those that were kept existed when the books of the Old Testament were
compiled? Had you been instructed in these particulars, and had you
been not altogether divested of candour, you might have informed your
readers, that, previous to the time of kings, we have not a shadow of
proof of the existence of any historical records among the Jews. We, no
doubt, read, that there was a book of the law of Moses, in which Joshua
wrote something too respecting the renewal of a covenant. This seems to
be the only written record among the Jews, and it contained nothing
but religious precepts, or the law, strictly speaking. In Joshua, chap.
viii. ver. 31, we read, "As Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the
children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses
and ver. 32, He wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses,
which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel and ver. 35,
He read all the words of the law, the blessings, and curses, according
to all that is written in the book of the law of the Lord, and there was
not a word of all that Moses commanded which Joshua read not before the
congregation of Israel." We know, likewise, that this law was written
in the circumference of an altar composed of twelve stones. This is the
only book either Moses or Joshua were ever said to have written; the
writers of the Pentateuch, and of the other books, certainly never meant
to inscribe them to Moses, Joshua, &c.; they bore the names of books of
Moses, of Joshua, Judges, &c. because they treated of these personages.
What then do you infer from the quotation of books by the Bible authors,
except that they all wrote in very modern times, when they wanted the
corroboration of more ancient books, whose date and authority we are
equally strangers to? This book of the law, which you so triumphantly
mention as a book written and existing a few years after Moses, turns
out to be nothing more than what is contained in Exodus, chap. xx. to
chap. xxiv. to which Joshua added some detail about the third covenant
of God.
I beg the reader will observe, that the writer of the Book of Joshua
does not mention the second, third, or any other book of Moses, but
simply notices the book of the law of God. Now this great book
was written upon twelve stones, and in Exodus we find the precise
commandment of Moses to build the altar, and to read the commandments at
the feast of tabernacles; so that it contained not one line of history,
and could have no authority. It was a law written upon stones, which
Moses, in Exod. chap. xxiv. v. 7, is said to have read to the people:
"And he took the book of the covenant, and read it in the audience of
the people." This covenant, and particularly the repetition of it after
the disobedience of the Jews, is the only part of the Scriptures that
Moses ordered to be preserved with a religious care. Nothing of the most
important parts of Genesis or the other five books is ever mentioned in
the commandments of the law of God: the writer of the law certainly knew
not that the Pentateuch existed. Had Moses written such a work, would he
have failed to recommend to the Levites to keep the precious records of
mankind, the sublime account of the creation? Did not the whole of the
faith of the Jews depend on their being acquainted with the history of
their forefathers, who were under the immediate protection of God? The
ten commandments every person knows from the light of nature; no nation
has ever mistaken them; but the origin of mankind is a subject of great
darkness, and which the Jews ought to have preserved most carefully.
Certain, however, it is, that excepting a few rites, the Jews lost not
only their books, but even the recollection of their feasts, during
their captivity. The other books referred to in the Bible prove, that
those left are mere collections of borrowed stories, and pretended
abridgements of books of greater authority, which are unfortunately
lost, and leave a wide field for scepticism, particularly upon
improbable or contradictory accounts. As to the belief that the books of
the Old Testament are inspired, it is a tale, which, after what we have
stated, even a child would laugh at.
You next seriously endeavour to corroborate the ridiculous miracle of
the sun and moon standing still. You are as unsuccessful in historical
as in scientifical arguments. The story in question is so stupid, that
the bare mention of it marks a man's credulity, so as to render him the
object of compassion. That an ignorant fanatic should attempt to defend
such absurdities, would be a matter of no surprise; but to witness a
Regius Professor of Divinity, a natural philosopher, bring forward facts
from profane history to prove the truth of so bare-faced a lie, denotes
at least your want of prudence. I cannot persuade myself that you
seriously believed what you wrote; I cannot think you capable of falling
at once into the most gross astronomical and historical error. I shall
state the matter briefly. There was a tradition in all antiquity, and
particularly among the Egyptians, relating to that motion of the
earth's axis which has been observed by astronomers, and whose complete
revolution round the four cardinal points takes up no less than
9,160,000 years. In the course of this revolution, it necessarily
happens, that the sun will rise where it sets, that north will be south,
and so on. The Egyptian priests pretended that this revolution had
taken place in their country without changing the climate, while the
Babylonians maintained, in the time of Alexander, that 140,000 years had
elapsed since their first astronomical observations. This, no doubt, was
the time that must have elapsed since the earth moved north and south.
The Egyptian priests, long before Herodotus, had lost their knowledge
of astronomy, which accounts for their mistake. It is evident, that the
displacement of the earth's axis must be accompanied by the heaviest
gravitating matter, and, therefore, what is now land, has been and will,
in the course of ages, become sea. Now, my Lord, what has the Egyptian
tradition to do with the sun stopped by the robber Joshua? What
connection has the stoppage of the sun, or rather the earth's motion,
with the sun rising where it sets? Were the thing possible, the sun
would nevertheless rise in the east. Besides, does Joshua say the sun
changed its course? Had this been the case, (I am ashamed even of the
supposition), how could the earth change its axis in an hour, without
shattering the whole globe, without inundating vast tracts of country,
and tearing others asunder to reestablish the equilibrium of gravity?
Study and consider; do not attempt to ridicule the little learning of
Thomas Paine, when you fall into such absurdities. Read Chinese history,
and you will find that their careful astronomers did not perceive the
long day and night. It was probably the sun of Judea only that altered
its course; they did not seem to be enlightened by the same luminary.
Those who believed that heaven was made of crystal, could find no
difficulty in crediting this silly story. I have insisted so much upon
this, because you ought to know the common principles of astronomy, and
somewhat of history. Here again you appeal to the book of Jasher:
it deserves no more consideration. To deem an appeal to a lost book
evidence of a prodigy, because the author affirms it, is a degree of
credulity which may gain the kingdom of heaven; but, in the republic of
letters, such believer will pass for a very contemptible reasoner.
These are the miracles, and the histories, better attested than the
History of the Twelve Knights Of Charles the Great, and such other
foolish tales. Surely, none can believe that 19,000 men fought against
the Midianites, and murdered a prodigious number, without having lost a
man, and disbelieve the famous battles of the knights, in many of which
six men fought several thousands; the conversation of the devil with
Cromwell, or the miraculous appearance of God to almost all the knights
and warriors among the Catholics. The sacred phial of Rheims, and the
chapel of Loretto, were both conveyed in a manner you know well, and
which few men in the two countries dare controvert. They too appeal to
their books of Jasher. The tale of making the sun stand still has not
even the merit of novelty; this luminary had long before stopt his
career, out of respect to Bacchus. Neither is the shower of hail-stones
new, for Jupiter of old sent a shower of hail upon the rebellious sons
of Neptune.
As to Joshua having written the book that goes under his name, we
have, besides what has been stated, the strongest evidence against the
genuineness of this performance. The death of Joshua is recorded in
chap. xxiv. and it is related exactly in the same style as what precedes
it. The writer even mentions several events posterior to the death of
the son of Nun. You have passed over the arguments of Thomas Paine drawn
from this passage, "The Jebusites dwelt with the children of Judah at
Jerusalem unto this day." It was natural for you to overlook a passage,
which demonstrates that the book of Joshua was not written until after
David, when, and not before, the conquest of the Jebusites took place.
It is beyond a doubt, that they never dwelt with the Jews in the time of
Joshua, since, in the first part of the above quoted passage, he says,
"As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of
Judah could not drive them out." How then did the Jews inhabit Jerusalem
in the days of Joshua? I refer the reader to the Age of Reason, and to
an answer to it by Mr. David Wilson, for further information, on this
head. In the latter, he will be amazed at the weak subterfuges used by
the author to evade the strength of the objection by Mr. Paine. But this
is not the only event related in Joshua, which did not take place till
some time after his death. Almost the whole of chap. xvii. contains
facts of this nature. Where the portion of Manasseh is described, it is
said, in ver. 12, "Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the
inhabitants of those cities, but the inhabitants would dwell in that
land." It is added, "And it came to pass, when the children of Israel
waxed strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute; but did not
utterly drive them out." Now this certainly did not take place during
the life of Joshua, for in the very same chapter, he promises those of
the tribe of Manasseh success against the Canaanites. In the preceding
chapter, v. 10, there is a passage of the same kind, "And they (the
Ephraimites) drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the
Canaanites dwelt among the Ephraimites unto this day, and some under
tribute." This needs no comment: let any person ask himself when this
came to pass, and they will at once find out the credit due to books
containing such shameful anachronisms and falsehoods. In chapter first
of Judges, purporting to contain the history of the Jews after Joshua,
the reader will find a faithful copy of the passages quoted, not
excepting the taking of Jerusalem. Let himc ompare ver. 8, 27, 28, 29,
and following, with the detail of distribution of lots to the tribes,
in chap. xvi. and xvii. of Joshua the same events are told in the very
words, and apply to two different periods. This is a strong instance of
the disorder that pervades the whole of these books, and how undeserving
of credit, even in the most probable events, is what you call sacred
writ. We are constantly reading over accounts of the same events,
sometimes said to be written by dead men, and never marking time; for
_it came to pass_, which is the Bible phrase, does not fix the period
when the event took place. These books bear all the marks of being the
productions of some persons at a very late period, and to have suffered
great interpolations. Joshua is, in the face of it, a continuation of
Deuteronomy, Judges of Joshua, and so on through the remainder.
You pass on to Judges. It requires neither great knowledge nor ingenuity
to discover, that this book is an unconnected farrago put together by
some unknown person. You do not attempt to say any thing in its favour.
Sad falling off from the paths of faith! Formerly it would have been
a heresy to assert that Judges was a book of no authority: now, even a
Bishop has nothing to say in its defence. You then proceed to Ruth,
and endeavour to blot out the apparent infamy of her conduct, with what
success, I leave the reader to judge, after he has perused her
history. Next follow your subtle distinctions between the inspired and
non-inspired part of the Bible, which may be very intelligible to an
inspired Bishop, but cannot fail to appear a mere dream to a man in his
senses. Notwithstanding Austin and your other brethren, this distinction
rests upon nothing but fancy. Your request is very moderate. "Receive
the Bible," you say, "as composed by upright and well-informed, though
in some points, fallible men, (for I exclude all fallibility _when they
profess to deliver_ the word of God), and you must receive it as a book
revealed to you in many parts by the express will of God, and, in other
parts, relating to you the ordinary history of the times." Bravo!
A Catholic is as reasonable in his demands. He only asks a little
credulity to believe the inspired when _they profess to be so_. It is
truly a childish request, begging the question at every word. To believe
the Bible to be inspired is the grand point. The reasoning you employ is
in perfect consonance with the absurdity of your wishes. You disbelieve
a history if you find it inconsistent, but revere it, and swear by the
author, if he wrote by inspiration. Swedenburgh could not wish more
faith in his adherents. You say _receive it_, as the inquisitors said
_imprimatur_; but philosophers weigh the ground of their belief; they
detect the Bible writers, prophets, and inspired men, in palpable
contradictions in history; and you will obstinately insist on our
believing the most improbable of all their stories, because their
absurdity persuades the faithful that they were revealed by their God in
dreams.----You have acknowledged yourself, in a subsequent letter, that
the history and mystery of the Bible are so interwoven, that if one
falls the other cannot be maintained. Why did God mingle his important
and sublime precepts with such ridiculous trash, so as to induce mankind
to disbelieve them both? Suppose I should meet a peasant coming from a
fair, pretending he had seen the king with his guards, and if I should
find this to be untrue, would I not deserve to be laughed at, if I
credited that he had wrestled with a spirit, or that he was carried up
to heaven? This, however, is the case with the Bible. Here we are told
that the sun stood Still to protract the bloodshed of that villain
Joshua, while, in another place, we read that a city was taken 370 years
before that event. Your vaunted prophets were soothsayers, psalmists,
and orators, who were generally employed in writing the public records.
It is a word applied in the Bible to holy men. These prophets, like the
augurs of the heathen, were often detected in falsehoods, and, in the
time of Samuel, it would appear, by the Bible itself, that to raise
ghosts was a trade as common as that of tailors in our days.
You now come to Samuel. You are candid enough to acknowledge with
Hartley, that he could not have been the author of the second book,
nor of most of the first that go under his name, yet this has been the
opinion of the church; and I know of no direct proofs that he wrote the
remainder: by what logic do you or Hartley conclude, that Samuel wrote
any part of the books ascribed to him? An author is proved not to have
written most part of a work ascribed to him, who then would, without
direct proofs, proclaim him the writer of some small passage, or any
particular part of the work? Who but a clergyman would build a system
upon a mutilated, spurious, and insignificant collection of absurdities
and wonders? It is, I allow, probable that Samuel wrote something: your
quotations prove no more; but what this was, we are, I presume, equally
unacquainted with. That the scribes also composed some records of the
lives of their kings, I will not deny. The question is, what degree of
credit does the mutilated, contradictory, and fabulous collection, said
to be made out of these records, deserve?
In the time of Charles the Great, some persons probably recorded his
actions. Is this a reason for any man to believe the fabulous legends we
have of him, written in the dark centuries? The legends of the Egyptian
and Greek gods, and their collection of oracles, were not only credited
by whole nations, but proclaimed true by councils much wiser than the
synagogue. The records of the saints were undoubtedly made few years
after their death, in ages far more enlightened, after the invention of
the press, written by the then most learned men of society, (the monks),
who certainly were not inferior to the Jewish scribes, yet these legends
contain often nothing but collections of absurdities and miracles. Read
the _Flores Sanctorum_ of the Romish church, and you there will find
miracles in every page, and the lives of saints a tissue of prodigies. I
need not add, that very few learned men among the Papists give credit to
the absurdities contained in these books. It is even the opinion of the
best informed men, that the monks have written lives of saints who never
existed.