OF THE PECULIAR MORALITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,
AS IT AFFECTS INDIVIDUALS.
I have already expressed my respect for the character of Jesus. And
I again declare, that I request it may be distinctly understood, that
by nothing that I have said do I intend to impeach, or to deprecate
his moral character. Whatever may have been his defects, or
whatever were his foibles, they must have been the faults of his
mind, not of his heart. For, though he may hare been a mistaken
enthusiast; yet I do firmly believe, That, with such a character as
he is represented to have possessed, he could not have been either
a hypocrite, or a wilful impostor. And if it be replied, that I have,
by some observations on his conduct, indirectly impeached the
perfection of his moral character; I answer, that if so, it is certainly
my misfortune, but it may not be his fault. To explain this
observation, I request the reader to recall to mind, that Jesus wrote
nothing himself! that the only accounts we have of him, are
contained in books, probably apocryphal, certainly not generally
known till after the middle of the second-century from his birth.
The gospels now extant do not appear to have been known to
Justin Martyr; and the earliest fathers, in their writings, generally
quote traditions concernng Jesus, instead of histories. Since these
things are so, who knows, but that the authors of the histories of
him now extant, have attributed to him words and actions of which
he was guiltless. We know how prone mankind are to invent
falsehoods concerning eminent men; for instance, Mahomet
expressly disclaimed the power of working miracles, and yet the
writings of his early followers ascribe hundreds to him. Why may
it not be possible then, since Jesus wrote nothing himself, that
these books ascribe to him words and actions he neither spake nor
performed? God grant that this may one day be proved! For I
should rejoice to find the meek, gentle, and amiable man of
Nazareth proved guiltless of the follies and impieties attributed to
him in the New Testament as I find it, and to reason concerning the
works and words of Jesus, as I find them there expressed, yet I
would earnestly request the reader to consider me willing and
desirous to exempt the author, or rather the cause of the Christian
religion, from the reproach of the sentiments I am bound by my
regard for one God, and his attributes, to express for the system
itself. Yes! I can in my own mind separate Jesus from his religion
and his followers. I read with admiration many of his beautiful
parables. I shall ever contemplate his mildness, and benevolence
with respect; and I peruse, with pity, the recital of his sufferings,
and cruel death. All this I have done, and I believe I shall ever do;
but I cannot! I cannot, in effect, deny the one living and true God,
and renounce my reason, and common sense, by believing all the
contradictory and strange doctrines contained in the New
Testament.
Having unburthened my mind upon this subject, and frankly
expressed my sentiments and feelings with regard to the character
of Jesus; I hope I may now be allowed (without incurring the
charge of maliciously exposing him, or the twelve apostles, to
reproach) to state my opinions with regard to the merit of the
moral maxims, ascribed to him and them, in the New Testament.
And I again caution the reader, that he is not obliged to lay to his,
or their, charge, the mischievous consequences that originated
from acting upon these maxims and principles, since it is by no
means impossible that they may have been falsely ascribed to him
and to them.
Now then, let us attend to the subject of the chapter, viz., the moral
maxims ascribed to Jesus. These moral maxims consist of 1st,
Those which were adopted by him from the Old Testament. 2d,
Those of which he himself is described as the author. With the
consideration of those of the first class I shall not trouble the
reader, but shall devote this chapter to the examination of those
which are supposed to have originated from him. These are, 1st,
Do to others what you would that others should do to you. 2d,
Resist not the injurious person; but if a man smite thee on one
cheek, turn to him the other also. 3d, If a man ask thy cloak, give
him thy coat also. 4th, If thou wouldest be perfect, sell all that
thou hast, and give to the poor; and come follow me. 5th, Unless
a man hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and
possessions, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
6th, Take no thought for the morrow.
With regard to the first of these maxims, it does not belong to
Jesus, as the author. It is found in the book of Tobit, chapter iv.
15, and it was a maxim well known to the Rabbins. It is found in
the Talmud verbatim. What thou wouldest not have done to thee,
do not thou to another. (Tal. Bab. Schabbat. fol. 31.) So also
Hillel addressed a proselyte thus, What is hateful to thee, do not
thou to thy neighbour. Several other expressions of Jesus were, it
appears from the Talmud, proverbial expressions in use among the
Jews. For instance, the original of that saying recorded Matthew
vii. 2. With whatsoever measure ye mete, &c., is found in the
Talmud of Babylon (Sanhedrim fol. 100, Sotah, chapter 4, 7, 8,9.)
With whatsoever measure any one metes it shall be measured to
him. So also the original of that expression of Cast out the beam
out of thine own eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to cast the
mote out of thy brothers eye is to be found in the Talmud*.
What is called by Christians the Lords Prayer, is merely a few
clauses taken from Jewish prayers, and put together. Very many
instances of a similar nature to these might be produced; but, as I
must be brief, the reader is referred for further satisfaction to the
works of Lightfoot, where he will learn, by extracts from Jewish
writings, the source, and meaning of many more of the sayings of
Jesus.
I now proceed to the most disagreeable part of the subject, viz.:
The consideration of the other maxims mentioned, which, it must
be allowed, do belong to Jesus, or at least to the New Testament,
since they are the peculiar moral principles of Christianity, and the
honour of them can be challenged by, I believe, no other religion.
These precepts are so extremely hyperbolical, that they are not,
and cannot be perfectly observed by any Christian, who does not
detach himself completely from the business of society; and these
maxims, (which, as I said before, are the only parts of the morality
of the New Testament, which are not borrowed,) never have been
obeyed by any but the primitive Christians; and by the Monks, and
Anchorets; for even the Quakers and Shakers, eminent as they are
in Christian morality, have never been able to come quite up to the
self denial required by the New Testament.
Indeed, the moral maxims peculiar to Christianity are
impracticable, except by one who confines his wealth to the
possession of a suit of clothes, sad wooden platter, and who lives
in a cave, or a monastery. They bear the stamp of enthusiasm upon
their very front, and we have always seen, and ever shall see, that
they are not fit for man: that they lift him out of the sphere in
which God designed him to move; that they are useless to society,
and frequently produce the most dangerous consequences to it. In a
word, in these maxims we find commands, the fulfillment of
which, is impossible by any man who is a husband, a father, or a
citizen.
It is an outrage to human nature, and to common sense, to order a
virtuous man, in order to reach perfection, to strip himself of his
property; to offer the other cheek to receive a new outrage; not to
resist the most unjust violence, injury, and insult; not to defend
himself, or his property, when sued at the law; to quit his house
and goods, and to hate his parents, and brethren, and wife, and
children, for the sake of Jesus; to refuse and reject innocent
pleasures; to deny himself lawful enjoyments, appointed by the
Creator to make the existence of man a blessing to himself and
others.
Who does not see in these commands the language of enthusiasm
of hyperbole? These maxims! are they not directly fitted to
discourage, and debase a man? to degrade him in his own eyes, and
those of others? to plunge him into despair? And would not the
literal fulfillment of them prove destructive to society? What shall
we say of that morality which orders the heart to detach itself from
objects, which God, and reason, and nature order it to love? To
refuse to enjoy innocent and lawful happiness,--what is it but to
despise the benefits of God? What real good can result for society
from these melancholy virtues, which Christianity regards as
perfections? Will a man become more useful to society when his
mind is perpetually inquieted by imaginary terrors, by mournful
thoughts, which prevent him from fulfilling the duties he owes to
his family, his country and those with whom he is connected?
It may be safely said, that enthusiasm is the base of the morality of
Christianity; I say, the morality of Christianity, meaning thereby,
not the morality of those called Christians, but the morality
expressed, and required in the New Testament. The virtues it
recommends, are the virtues caricatured, and rendered extravagant;
virtues which divide a man from his neighbour, and plunge him in
melancholy, and render him useless, and unhappy In this world we
want human virtues, not those which make a man a misanthrope.
Society desires, and wants virtues that help to maintain it, which
gives it energy and activity. It wants virtues which render families
industrious, and united; and which incite, and enable every one to
obtain lawful pleasures, and to augment the general felicity. But
the peculiar virtues of the New Testament, either debase the mind
by overwhelming fears, or intoxicate it with visionary hopes, both
which, are equally fitted to turn away men from their proper duties.
In truth, what advantages can society derive from those virtues
styled by Christians, Evangelical? which they prefer to the social
virtues, the real and the useful, and without which, they assert, a
man cannot please God, Let us examine these vaunted perfections,
and let us see of what utility they can be to society, and whether
they really merit the preference which is given them by their
advocates.
The first of these Christian virtues, which serves as a base for all
the others, is faith. It consists in believing the truth of dogmas, of
absurd fables, which Christianity (according to the catechisms)
orders its disciples to believe--dogmas, as absurd and impossible
as a square circle, or a round triangle--from which we see, that
this virtue exacts an entire renunciation of common sense; an
assent to incredible facts, and a blind credulity in absurd dogmas,
which, yet, every Christian is required to believe, under pain of
damnation.
This virtue, too, though necessary to all men, is, nevertheless, the
gift of heaven! the effect of special grace. It forbids doubt and
examination; it forbids a man the right to exercise his reason; it
deprives him of the liberty of thinking, and degrades him into a
bearded baby.
This faith vanishes when a man reasons; this virtue cannot sustain
a tranquil scrutiny. And this is the reason why all thorough going
Christians are naturally, and, consequently, the enemies of science.
This miraculous faith, which believeth all things, is not given to
persons enlightened by science and reflection, and accustomed to
think. It is not given but to those who are afraid to think, lest they
should offend God.
The next Christian virtue which flows from the first, is hope,
founded upon the promises which the New Testament makes to
those who render themselves miserable in this life. It nourishes
their enthusiasm, it makes them forget the things that are on earth,
and reach forward unto the things which are in another world. It
renders them useless here below, and makes them firmly believe
that God will recompense in heaven, the pains they have taken to
make themselves miserable on earth. How can a man, occupied
with such expectations of heavenly happiness, concern himself at
all with, or for, the actual and present happiness of those around
him, while he is indifferent as to his own? And how can he help
this, when he believes that friendship with the world is enmity
with God?
The third virtue is charity. We have elsewhere said, that if
universal love or charity means only general benevolence, and a
desire to makes others happy, and to do them good, all this is
commanded by reason and the ancient revelation; but if by this
precept it is commanded to love those who hate, oppress or insult
us, we do not at all scruple to assert, that the thing is impossible,
and unnatural. For, though we can abstain from hurting our
enemy; or even can do him good, we cannot really love him. Love
is a movement of the heart, which is governed and directed by the
laws of our nature, to those whom we think worthy of it, and to
those only.
Charity, considered as general benevolence of disposition, is
virtuous and necessary. It is nothing more than a feeling which
interests us in favour of our fellow beings. But how is this feeling
consistent with the peculiar doctrines of the gospel? According to
its maxims, it is a crime to offer God a heart, whoso affections are
shared by terrestrial objects. And besides, does not experience
show, that devotees obliged by principle to hate themselves, are
little disposed to give better treatment to others?
We should not be surprised that maxims, originating with
enthusiasm, should aim at, and have the effect of, driving man out
of himself. In the delirium of its enthusiasm, this religion forbids a
man to love himself. It commands him to hate all pleasures but
those of religion, and to cherish a long face. It attributes to him as
meritorious, all the voluntary evils he inflicts upon himself. From
thence originate those austerites, those penances, destructive to
health; those cruel privations by which the inhabitants of the
monastic cell kill themselves by inches, in order to merit the joys
of heaven. Now, how can good sense admit that God delights in
seeing his creatures torment themselves?
It may be said to all this, perhaps, that this is mere declamation, for
Christians now a days do not torment themselves, but live as
comfortable as others. To this I answer that Christianity is to be
judged not by what Christians do, but by what it commands them
to do. Now, I presume it will not be denied that the New Testament
commands its professors to renounce the world, to be dead to the
world, to crucify the flesh with its passions, and desires.
Certainly these directions were literally complied with by the
primitive Christians; and, in doing so, they acted consistently. In
those times, the deserts, the mountains, the forests were peopled
with perfect Christians; who withdrew from the world, deprived
their families of support, and their country of citizens, in order to
lead unmolested the divine life. It was the New Testament
morality that spawned those legions of monks and cenobites, who
thought to secure the favour of heaven, by burying their talents in
the deserts, and devoting themselves to inaction and celibacy.
And at this very day we see these very same things in those
Christian countries, which are truly faithful to the principles of
their religion.
In fine, Christianity seems from the first, to have taken pains to set
itself in point blanc opposition to nature, and reason. If it admits
and includes some virtues ordered and appointed by God, good
sense, and universal experience; it drives them beyond their
bounds into extravagance. It preserves no just medium, which is
the point of perfection. Voluptuousness, adultery and debauchery
are forbidden by the laws of God and reason. But Christianity not
content with commanding, and encouraging marriage, as did the
Old Testament, must forsooth go beyond it, and therefore
encourages celibacy, as the state of perfection God says, in
Genesis, it is not good that man should be alone. I will make a
companion for him. And he blessed all his creatures, saying,
increase and multiply. But the gospel annuls this law, and
represents a single life to be most pleasing, to the very being,
whose very first command was, increase and multiply! It advises
a man to die without posterity, to refuse citizens to the state, and to
himself, a support for his old age.
It is to no purpose to deny that Christianity recommends all this; I
say, it substantially does! and I boldly appeal,--not to a few
Protestant Divines,--but to the New Testament; to the Homilies
of the Fathers of the Church; to the History, and Practice of the
Primitive Christians; to the innumerable Monasteries of Europe,
and Asia; to the immense multitudes who have lived, and died
hermits; and, finally, (because I know very well, the Protestant
divines attribute these follies to the influence of Platonism,
Pythagoranism, and several other isms upon pure Christianity) I
appeal to living evidence now in the world, to the only
thoroughgoing Christians in it, viz., to the Society of the Shakers,
who I maintain, and can prove, to be true, genuine imitators of the
Primitive Christians, and a perfect exemplification of their
manners, and modes of thinking. I adduce them the more
confidently, because, being simple, and unlearned, their character
has been formed by the spirit of the New Testament, and perfectly
represents the effects of its principles fully carried out, and acted
upon. They never heard of Platonism, or of Pythagoras in their
lives, and, consequently, the polemic tricks, and evasions, which
have been, as hinted just now, resorted to by Protestant divines, to
shift from the shoulders of Christianity to those of Plato or
Pythagoras, the obnoxious principles we have been considering,
are of no use in this case, as, whatever the characters of these
Shakers may be, they were formed by the New Testament, and by
nothing else; and I believe, that every scholar in ecclesiastical
history, who reads Browns history of the Shakers, will be
immediately and powerfully struck with the resemblance
subsisting between them, and the Christians of the two first
centuries.
As examples of the effects of those precepts of Christian morality,
which command us to hate father, and mother, and sister, and
brother, for the Bake of Jesus, take the following extracts from the
history referred to.
According to their faith, natural affection must be eradicated; and
they say they must love all equally alike, as brothers, and sisters in
the gospel. It would exceed the limits of this work to give a
particular account of the various schemes that have been contrived,
to destroy all natural affection and social attachment between man
and wife, parent and child, brothers and sisters; especially towards
such as have left the society. Two instances that occurred about
this time, as specimens of others, may suffice. A mother, who had
renounced the faith, (i. e. left the society,) come to Niskeuna to
see, her daughter. Eldress Hannah Matterson told the daughter to
go into the room to her carnal mother, and say, What do you
come here for? I dont want you to come and see me with your
carnal affections! The mother being grieved, replied, I did not
expect that a daughter of mine would ever address me in that
manner.
The daughter, in obedience to what she was taught, replied again,
You have come here with your carnal fleshly desires, and I don't
want to see you, and left her mother.
Some time after, one Duncan Shapley, who had belonged to the
society, called to see Abigail, his sister, at Niskeuna, whom he had
not seen for six or seven years; but he was not admitted: he waited
some time, being loath to go away without seeing her. At last she
was ordered to go to the window and address him in the language
of abuse and scurrility. The words she made use of, it would be
indecent to mention. For this she was applauded, and that in the
authors hearing, when he belonged to the society.
This man gives a very curious account how the elders treated
their babes, in their spiritual nursery; but I shall notice only one or
two examples, which illustrate what I have advanced concerning
the natural hostility of the spirit of the New Testament towards
science. I know of several, who, soon after they joined the
Church, have been counselled by the Elders to dispose of their
books; and have accordingly done it. Elder Ebenezer being at my
house one day, on seeing a number of books, he said--Ah!
Thomas must put away his books if he intends to become a good
believer.
As an instance of its effects upon the human understanding, take
the following:--A short time after, being at a believers house,
at eleven oclock at night, they all having retired to rest, and I
laying awake in a dry well finished room, in which was a stove and
fire, there fell a large drop of water on my temples; on
examination, I could not discover where the water came from. I
told the believers of it in the morning.
One said, Ah! it is a warning to you respecting your unbelief.
I then assigned some inconclusive reason, how the drop might
have become formed in the room, and its falling.
One replied, Ah! that is the way you render a natural reason for
the cause of every thing, and so reason away your faith and
yourself out of the gospel.
As another proof, that genuine Christianity discourages marriage,
and considers celibacy as the only state of perfection, the Shakers
allow of no marriages at all.
Thus you see that, among these people, to become a good
believer, you must insult your parents, revile your brother, depise
learning, and never render a natural reason for any thing, lest
you should reason away your faith, and yourself out of the
gospel.