you take care to observe, that this was not owing to their religion.
Impertinent assertion! Was not Saul dethroned because he was humane
enough not to cut Agag in pieces? Did not the Lord Jehovah love the man
after his own heart, who put the miserable inhabitants of Rabah
under saws, axes, and arrows of iron; who made them pass through the
brick-kiln? Did not this Jehovah approve the base murder of Adonias? Was
it the same Jehovah who said to Jonah, that he was not so unjust as to
sacrifice the whole city of Nineveh for their sins, because there were
thousands in it who did not know between good and evil; and who yet, the
Jews tell us, commanded the extermination of whole nations, without
even sparing the little children? Did not the plagues which he sent to
Pharaoh and David fall upon thousands of innocent individuals? At least,
do not the Jewish books affirm it? Such horrors could only be respected
by the Jews; such absurd miracles could only be credited by the most
ignorant of men. You pretend, that the partiality of God to the Jews
proceeded from their being the only nation that believed in the unity of
God, and who have preserved their belief on this head unshaken till
the present day. Are you in earnest, can you assert this before men of
common information? Do you take Englishmen for idiots to be deceived by
your assertions? Are you ignorant of the adoration of the Ethiopians? Do
you forget that the wise men among the heathens said, _Colitur forma
pro Jove?_ Did you never peruse any account, of the Chinese, or of the
Hindoos? Do they not admit one supreme agent, an all-wise, intelligent,
&c. being, and whose inferior agents they represent by symbols? The
Hindoos have even all the metaphysical refinement of our divines; and
their definition of God is fully as perspicuous as that given in our
Catechism. I have avoided to give long extracts in this pamphlet; but,
that the authority of an English Bishop may not be a presumption to many
that I am making false assertions, I shall transcribe a passage from
a commentary upon the Reig Beid, a book unquestionably of the remotest
antiquity.
"Glory be to Goneish! that which is exempt from all desires of the
senses, the same is the mighty Lord. He is simple, and than him there
is nothing greater. Brehm, (the spirit of God), is absorbed in
self-contemplation; the same is the mighty Lord who is present in every
part of space. Brehm is one, and to him there is no second; such is
truly Brehm. His omniscience is self-inspired, and its comprehension
includes all possible species," &c. It is true, we are not here told
that God is a jealous God, that he visiteth the iniquities of the father
even unto the fourth generation. I could adduce fifty passages from the
Greeks and others to prove my position, but it is needless. The point
is still to know whether these notions make men better, whether they are
founded on truth, and, indeed, whether all gods are not the work of the
fancy of man, nature allegorised. _Primus in orbe Deos fecit timor_,
says the philosopher; can you disprove it? I suspect not, and that all
the subtle reasoning of divines destroy themselves. The world is the
ultimate of human reason. We adore the idols either of our hands or
of the brain, and mistake them for existences. The region of chimeras
exists beyond the universe; our prattling upon it is but a play of
words. Jehovah himself, when he said, I am that I am, called himself
pretty plainly Pan, or the great whole.
But if the unity of God be the only gracious belief in the eyes of
the Creator, I do not see that Christians are entitled to his favour,
because they make him three. What was the belief of the Jews? Had
they any very refined ideas of their God? They thought him corporeal,
incessantly speaking and moving among men, jealous, revengeful,
powerful, whose angels ate with Abraham, who himself strove to kill
Moses in a public house; they imagined him repenting of his deeds; and,
in all respects, a poor contemptible being, the offspring of Jewish
fancy. He is throughout the Bible an Asiatic Sultan, who, like the
merciful God of Mahomet, puts to the sword, and smites with plagues
thousands, as a tribute to his infinite mercy. I refer the reader to
the collection of extracts from the Bible, in a subsequent letter, for
proofs of my assertions. The Jews admitted, besides other gods, such as
Chemosh, several beings subordinate to God, but superior to man, as
the serpent which tempted the mother of mankind. They had exterminating
angels and cherubims, the Elohim or Genii that made the world, &c.
But why dwell upon such topics, when it is evident that all the Jewish
mythology is of Chaldean origin, and our theology a copy of that of
Plato?
You proceed in your attempt to reconcile the justice of God with his
goodness, and, in the height of your reverie, you imagine that the
sufferings of the Jews were parts of a grand scheme for the general
good of mankind. What, and when are we to see the good effects of their
barbarities? We may see reason counteracting the evil of superstition,
rendering men humane; but I apprehend, that, if your reasoning was
generally adopted, every highwayman would be much inclined to think
himself sent by Providence for good and wise purposes, and if chance
should bring about a happy event at the end of his career, which he
thought the consequence of his deeds, he would triumph in his crimes,
and, like Moor in the Robbers, exclaim, "If for ten I have destroyed,
you make but one man blest, my soul may yet be saved!" This has been the
language of persecutors. They destroy mankind to make them happy in the
next world--tortures, burning, and beheading, are but purifications. The
worst is, that the famous divine scheme of general good, has never been
one jot more advanced than when the Jews were enduring the greatest
calamities, and committing atrocities. I count not the effects of
reason, for faith is alone the godly faculty; reason destroys it. I
close my observations upon this subject with repeating the old question
of Epicurus, which your brethren have as yet left unanswered; either
God can prevent evil and does not choose it, or he chooses it and wants
power to avert calamities from his creatures. In the first instance, he
is a malevolent despot, a character we ought to abhor; in the second,
we see him an impotent and secondary being, which raises our contempt.
Reconcile this with his infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, and show
us that he is not formed after the image of man, or else let unbelievers
hold their opinions in peace.
LETTER V.
Your fifth letter begins with stating the importance of the concession
of Thomas Paine, that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are genuine. You
triumph, and think it a silent acknowledgment of the reality of the
prophecies mentioned in those books. Stop, my Lord, your _alma-mater_
surely has not taught you to draw such conclusions. In a genuine book
there may be contained incredible events, as in Tacitus, Suetonius,
and almost all existent histories. It is your duty to prove that the
prophecies there related are not among those popular stories which
are apt to gain general credit, whether they are or are not forgeries
written after the events. Before we know when Jeremiah wrote, and what
is the meaning of the writings under his name, no man is warranted to
triumph at the testimony of the Jews after the captivity; since it is
a point, in which all parties agree; that their canon and books were
compiled at that period, and nobody ever questioned the credulity of
the Jews. You proceed to state your notions of the history of the Old
Testament; it is all a matter of opinion; and, as you do not support it
by any proofs, we must still continue to regard the contradictions and
impostures contained in the Old Testament as proofs of its having
been the work of ignorant fanatics. I pass over your effusions: that
metaphysical disquisitions teach us the limits of our faculties, I
strenuously maintain; and if you mean nothing else, we are agreed. That
our notions of time and place are not the bugbears which the scholastics
would persuade us, is to me unquestionable; that both in science and
religion we affix no ideas to many words, I grant; that certainty in
philosophical disquisitions is not easily found, I also allow; but, that
a man tired with the arduous task of reasoning, of discerning between
truth and falsehood, should seek in polemics or superstition a
consolation for his ignorance, I consider as a proof of the impaired
state of his faculties; he is like the thirsty traveller, who, burnt
by the scorching sun, seeks to relieve his distress by drinking of the
first water he meets, without regarding its purity. Your acknowledgment
that it is possible even for a Bishop to err in matters of religion,
gives me real pleasure. To consider our creed as a matter that admits of
doubt, is a great step in the road of truth. You say, "May God forgive
him that is in an error." Your wish is humane; but, if God be the
Creator of mankind, he cannot be offended at the conclusions we may
draw, after having employed the faculties he has given us. I wish too
that mankind should forgive them that are in an error; but, I hope,
they will recollect the long sway of superstition, and its danger to
mankind; may they decide in favour of that system which is conformable
to reason, and has the greatest tendency to improve society!
You next proceed to show the propriety of the angel ordering Moses to
pull off his shoes, which you say is a mark of reverence to God. Is it
then by such ridiculous customs that you reconcile your omnipotent
and all-wise God? Too long have men substituted rites for morality. O
superstition! that makes the Asiatics eat the excrements of the lama,
the Papists devour their God; that persuades all Christians that water
washeth away sin; and, that if a child happens to die before his face is
sprinkled, he must inevitably suffer everlasting torments: led by
this, men despise society, and tremble at ceremonies invented by their
priests.
I shall not go at great length into the particular contradictions which
are found in the enumeration of the families that returned from Babylon.
There certainly are great mistakes in the sums; and where precision was
to be expected more than in any thing preserved in the record of the
people of God, we find them committing the most gross errors, even when
they attempt to be peculiarly exact. It is curious, that the individual
sums are altogether different in the different accounts, and, therefore,
that there must have been a much greater number of errors than you would
persuade your readers.
You come to the book of Job; and confine your remarks to disprove the
objection of Mr. Paine, drawn from the name Satan, which, he says, is
there for the first and only time mentioned in the Bible. Your answer,
that it is repeatedly to be found elsewhere in the Old Testament, is
just but it certainly does not prove Job to be a Jewish book. We know
that _Sathan_, as well as the names of all the angels, are Chaldean; and
as I have already shown, that the Scriptures are compilations written
after the captivity, it is not wonderful that this name, together with
many others, should be found in the Hebrew Bible. As you say nothing in
favour of the book of Job, I shall only observe, that it is not only the
opinion of Abenezra, but even of Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, that
it is not a Hebrew book, the idiom being in many instances altogether
different from the style of that language, and very frequently bearing
marks of its Arabic and Syriac origin, as the reader may see in his
preface to Job in the Vulgate edition of the Bible. The resemblance
between Job's Satan and Momus is so striking, that we cannot help
recognising the author to have been a Gentile; and thus are the Jews
deprived of a book, which, at least, contains no murders, and shows
more knowledge than that nation ever possessed. Your remark as to
the generality of the belief of a benevolent and a malevolent being,
certainly does not prove that the Gentiles borrowed this notion from the
Jews; you ought to have known history better, and that the wars of
the Gods and angels formed part of the creed of many nations, not only
before a book of the Bible existed, but even before the birth of Moses.
Dionysius and Osiris had already fought against the evil genii: the
famous Vishnu has been from the highest antiquity the enemy of Chiven.
That the numerous mythological systems which have ever existed, sprang
from the report of the fathers of the Jewish nation, may appear probable
to a clergyman; it is but a pious whim; to me it is a proof, that all
religious systems have sprung from the fancy of men. The philosophers
among the heathens understood by the evil and bad genii nothing more
than the influence of the good or bad seasons, which, personified
by ignorant or cunning priests, have by the vulgar been deemed real
personages. Besides, where do you find in the Pentateuch any accounts of
the Devil? I only see the serpent, an emblem I have already said, copied
from the Egyptians, but by the Jews considered a real snake, which
talked and walked upright. It was but a poor imitation of the Ahrimanes
of Zoroaster.
Concerning the utility of prayers, and the tendency of those of the
Jews, I shall say nothing. It is a certain fact, that Solomon, the
wisest of men, and who made excellent prayers, killed his brother; while
many of those heathen tribes, abhorred by the Jews, had no other crime
than to adore images; and, if superstition among them sometimes produced
the abominable practice of human sacrifices, they never carried their
piety so far as to exterminate whole nations. Besides, the Jews had
not even a pretence to despise their neighbours for offering human
sacrifices. The case of Jephtha shows plainly that this barbarity was
common among God's people. I am utterly surprised at your misplaced
exclamations upon the morality of the heathens. Far be it from me to
stand forward as the patron of heathenish superstition; it is the mother
of ours, and I abhor the common stock; but, my Lord, you ought not
to confound the rites of the Greeks with their morals. The Athenians
possessed virtues which we in vain look for among the despicable Jews.
They possessed knowledge, and their philosophers had more sense than
to believe the tales of the priests. Epicurus taught peaceably, and was
revered by all, while the vulgar of his country firmly believed their
mythology. Such an instance never happened among the Jews. Jehovah would
quickly have sent a plague among Epicurus and his followers, or ordered
his priests "to kill every one his neighbour and his friend, and hang
them up before the sun." Your holy brethren would think nothing of a
burning match on the occasion; if it were in your power, atheists would
not exist long. But you talk so confidently of the adoration of
images among the Gentiles, that we would imagine the Jews were all
philosophers. Do you forget their reverence to the holy of holies, which
none could approach; the ark of the covenant, and the calves? Or has the
story of the five golden mice, for looking at which fifty thousand and
three score and ten Israelites were smote by the Lord, escaped you?
Your rhapsody upon the sublimity of Bible composition, and its
superiority to all profane writers, is a proof of the strength of early
imbibed prejudice. I lament to see a man of your learning think so much
like an old woman. The proverbs, to be sure, are wonderful compositions,
and prove the great gift of wisdom bestowed by God upon Solomon! What
indeed can be more sublime than the following, which I beg leave to
add to the specimens given by your Lordship! "The horse leech hath two
daughters, crying, Give, give. There are three things that are never
satisfied, yea four things say not it is enough; the grave, and the
barren womb, the earth that is not filled with water, and the fire that
saith not it is enough."--"There be three things which are too wonderful
for me, yea four which I know not; the way of an eagle in the air, the
way of a serpent upon the rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the
sea, and the way of a man with a maid."--"There be three things which
go well, a greyhound, an he-goat also, and a king."--"It is the glory
of God to conceal a thing, but the honour of kings is to search out a
matter."--"When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently
what is before thee, and put a knife to thy throat if thou be a man
given to appetite."--"Buy the truth, and sell it not."--"A whore is a
deep ditch, and a strange woman is a narrow pit."--Excellent Solomon!
Hear also this wise king in Song of Songs. "How beautiful are thy feet
with shoes, O prince's daughter! The joints of thy thighs are like
jewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman; thy-navel is like a
round goblet which wanteth not liquor; thy belly is like a heap of wheat
set about with lilies; thy two breasts are like two young roes that are
twins; thy neck is as a tower of ivory; thine eyes like the fish pools
in Heshbon, by the gate of Bath-rabbim; thy nose is as the tower of
Lebanon, which looketh towards Damascus." Whether this alludes to one
of Solomon's concubines, or our mother, the church of Jesus Christ,
the expressions are equally applicable, beautiful, and simple; they are
worthy of a man "wiser than Ethan the Ezrehite, and Heman, and Chalcol,
and Darda, the sons of Mehol," who, I dare say, were wise men. Upon the
whole, I agree with you, that Solomon, the illustrious offspring of the
man after God's own heart and the virtuous Bathsheba, was not "a witty
jester." As to what you call his "sins and debaucheries," these holy
books were certainly not written with a view to make us avoid them.
Solomon is set before us as a pattern of wisdom and goodness; and the
number of his wives and concubines is exultingly recorded as a proof of
his greatness, as much as his treasures, which exceed all conception,
and the number of his horses, which exceed all belief.
Your pious belief in the inspired prophecies of Isaiah, is natural to a
superstitious and credulous mind. The philosopher who doubts before
he gazes, sees in what you call prophecies nothing else but scraps of
history or legend. He receives with diffidence all predictions. He is
aware of the great ease with which forgeries may be passed among the
vulgar for prophecies. When pretended predictions are made, they are
altogether overlooked; even the ignorant think not of them till they are
said to be accomplished; the learned despise them in both instances;
and it is not till after their authenticity has gained a sort of general
belief, that the philosopher thinks of enquiring when and how they were
made. At this period he can find no evidence of their history, but from
the credulous who have been imposed upon by them. Besides, no prophecy
is ever direct, it always has an equivocal meaning, and is explained to
suit the events which have happened. Religious enthusiasts write in such
a mystic language upon the sins of mankind, and the judgements that are
to come upon them, and in so general and ambiguous terms, that it is
easy for a subtle interpreter, or a visionary fanatic, to explain them
according to his own system. Have not the bears of the Apocalypse
been made to signify by turns, the Pope and the Devil? Has not the New
Jerusalem been sometimes taken for a real flying town, seen in the air
by the first fathers of the church, as Tertullean informs us? Do not
other divines tell us that it means the kingdom of heaven? Have not
scripture divines, even in the first ages of the church, pretended that
the verses of Virgil, _Jam redit et Virgo, redeunt Sa-tumia regna, jam
nova progenies ccelo demittitur alto;--natte mets vires, mea magna
potentia solus, and talia perstabat memorans, fixusque manebat_, were
clear prophecies of the Virgin Mary, and Jesus Christ? It might be worth
enquiring at this time, whether the Roman Bard was inspired by the
Holy Ghost? Lastly, I may ask, does your Lordship believe in the many
prophecies that have of late appeared of the French revolution?
But we have more reasons to declare the pretended clear prophecies of
the Bible to be fables. In many instances they are so accurate, and so
unlike these passages which we know to have been written previous to the
events to which they are applied, or those which are not yet
fulfilled, that no philosopher can pronounce them to have been written
historically. Thus, we find Jacob announce to his twelve sons, the
heads of the twelve tribes of Israel, the fate of their posterity; the
situation of the district to be occupied by the Israelites in the land
of Canaan, two hundred years before Joshua parcelled out this land in
lots to the Israelites; the kind of life the different tribes would
lead; the small number of the posterity of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, as
well as the power of Judah; all which are related as exactly as if the
patriarch had seen the throne of David and Solomon with his own eyes.
Some of the supposed predictions of Isaiah and Daniel, are even more
minutely correct. You have treated the question of the genuineness and
date of works very lightly; you think it is of no great consequence to
ascertain the genuineness of the different books of the Bible. Let us
for a moment suppose, that by some accident, the age of Virgil had been
forgotten, or the sixth book of his Æneid been ascribed to a writer of
the age of Æneas; would not the Romans be entitled to regard, as a most
wonderful prophecy, the lively representation given by Anchises of the
future heroes of the republic, the two Cæsars, and the young Marcellus?
To resume our subject: I remind you of the passage already quoted from
Bellarminus, that it was the opinion of the fathers of the church, that
the Prophets, among other books, had been collected and arranged
by Esdras. I have also stated the selection of genuine works by the
synagogue, during the reign of the Maccabees, when the Talmud says that
the forgeries of Daniel, Esdras, &c. were prodigious. The destruction
by Antiochus Epiphanus of the already broken Jewish books, written by
Esdras, may be collected from what is said in Maccabees, chap. i. ver.
56 and 57. "And when they had rent in pieces the books of the law which
they found, they burnt them with fire, and whosoever was found with
any of the books of the Testament, or if any consented to the law, the
king's commandment was, that they should put him to death."