But though our author?s history of these extraordinary facts is neither consistent with reason, and probability, nor with the other histories of the same event; it proceeds in pretty strict conformity to the manner in which it sets out. For to convince us still more fully that the author was totally ignorant of the mode of computing time in use among the Jews, and habituated to that in use among the Greeks and Romans? He reckons the Sabbath to last till day light on Sunday morn, and says, (chapter xxviii.), ?that in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn, towards the first day of the week,? the two Marys before mentioned, came, (not as in Luke, to embalm the body, for, with a guard round the sepulchre, that would have been impracticable, but) to see the sepulchre. ?Whilst they were there, the author tells us, there was another great earthquake, and an angel descended, rolled away the stone, and sat upon it, at whose sight, the soldiers trembled, and were frighted to death. But to prevent the like effect of his appearance upon the women, he said unto them, fear not ye, for I know that ye seek Jesus who was crucified. That the women as well as the soldiers were present at the descent of this angel, appears not only from there being n.o.body else, by whom these uncommon circ.u.mstances could have been related, but also by the p.r.o.noun personal ye, inserted in the original Greek, which in that language is never done, unless it be emphatically to mark such a distinction, or ant.i.thesis, as there was on this occasion, between them and the Roman guard. Here, however, the author is inadvertently inconsistent with himself, as well as with the other evangelists; and forgetting that the sole intent of rolling away the stone, was to open a pa.s.sage, absolutely necessary to the body of Jesus to come forth out of the sepulchre; and that if he had risen and come forth after the angel had rolled it away, both the women and the soldiers must have seen him rise, he makes the angel bid them look into the sepulchre, to see--that he was not there! and tell them that he was already risen; and that he was gone before them into Galilee, where they should see him! In their way, the author adds, Jesus himself met the women, and said, ?be not afraid, go tell my brethren to go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.? He says that the eleven apostles went into Galilee, to an appointed mountain, and saw him there; notwithstanding that some of them were so incredulous, as not to believe even the testimony of their own senses.
In the interim, whilst the women were going to the apostles, the author tells us, ?some of the watch;? some strictly disciplined Roman soldiers left their station to bring an account of what had pa.s.sed, not to the Governor their General, nor to any of their own officers--but to the chief priests of the Jews! that they a.s.sembled a council of the elders upon the occasion, and after deliberating what was to be done, induced the soldiers, by large bribes, to run the risk of being put to death themselves, upon the highly improbable chance of the Jewish rulers having influence sufficient with the Roman Proconsul to prevail on him to submit to the indelible infamy of neglecting the discipline of the army under his command, to such a degree, as to suffer an entire guard of soldiers avowedly to sleep upon their station, without any notice being taken of it! and to say ?his disciples came and stole him away whilst we slept.? This incredible story is another instance how necessary it is, that those who do not adhere closely to the truth, should have extraordinary good memories to enable them to keep clear of absurdities, or palpable contradictions in their narrations.
For, consider the circ.u.mstances. How were the tongues of these soldiers to be restrained among the inquisitive inhabitants of a large city, (at that time too, greatly crowded on account of the paschal feast,) not only in their way to the chief priests; but also during the whole time while the priests a.s.sembled the Sanhedrim, and were deliberating what was to be done? And if that part of the watch, who, the author says, came to inform the chief priests, were poltroons enough for the sake of a bribe to undergo so shameful a disgrace to themselves, as well as to hazard the resentment of their General, how could they undertake that all their comrades who remained at the sepulchre would do the same? and to what purpose could the Jewish council bribe some, without a possibility of some one knowing how the rest of the corps would act? And even supposing all these difficulties surmounted, and that the whole guard had agreed, and persisted in saying, ?his disciples stole him away while we slept,? of what service could that be to the Jewish rulers? For if the guards were asleep, they could be no evidence to prove that the body was taken away; and it might be just as probable that he might rise to life again while the watch was asleep, as it was if no watch had been set.
In a word, it appears from the numbers of Latin words in Greek characters, which this book contains; from the numerous geographical blunders; and the author?s evident ignorance of the customs of the Jews: from the form of Baptism enjoined at the conclusion, which was not in use in the first century, as appears from the form mentioned as then used in the Acts; from the Roman Centurion?s being made to call Jesus ?a Son of a G.o.d,? which words in the mouth of a Pagan could only mean that he must be a DemiG.o.d, like Bacchus, Hercules, or Esculapius: it is clear that this Gospel is the patched work composition of some convert from the Pagan schools. At any rate, his gospel flatly contradicts the others in several important particulars in the history of the Resurrection.
For he represents the apostles as being commanded by the Angel and by Jesus, to go to Galilee, in order to see him; and that they went there, and saw him on a mountain. Yet it is said by the other Evangelists, see Luke, ch. 24, and Acts 1, that he appeared on the saw day of the resurrection to Peter at Jerusalem; to two other disciples as they went to Emmaus; and on the succeeding night to this whole congregation of the Disciples, not in Galilee, but in Jerusalem, and that by his express command the apostles did not go into Galilee, but remained at Jerusalem till the feast of Pentecost.
But as this author differs from the other Evangelists, so they also differ among themselves. And the latter part of the last chapter of Mark is so irreconcilable to the other historians of the resurrection, that in many Ma.n.u.scripts it is found omitted. And that gospel ends in them, at the eighth Terse of the last chapter. And Mr. West, in his attempted reconciliation of their accounts of the resurrection, is obliged to make a number of postulates, to take a number of things for granted, which might be denied: and after elaborately arranging the stage for the performance, he sets the women, and the disciples a driving backwards, and forwards, from the city to the sepulchre, and from the sepulchre to the city, and so agitated that they forgot to know each other when they cross in their journeys.
Notwithstanding his great ingenuity in reconciling contradictions, in which he beats Surenhusius himself, he makes but a sorry piece of work of it after all. He had much letter have let it alone; for his work upon the resurrection which he calls ?the main fact of Christianity,? displays these contradictions in so glaring a light, that the very laboured ingenuity of his methods of reconciliation, inevitably, suggests ?confirmation strong? to the keen-eyed reader, of that irreconcilability which the author endeavors to refute. What rational man therefore can reasonably be required to believe the story of a resurrection pretended to have been seen and known, only by the party interested in making it believed! when in their testimony even, they do not agree but contradict each other?
There is really an immense number of discrepancies and contradiction in the New Testament which the ac.u.men of learned Christians has of late discovered, and pointed out to the world.
And Mr. Evanson, in his work on ?the Dissonance of the four Evangelists,? has collected a ma.s.s enough, I should think, to terrify the most determined Reconciliator that ever lived. It is a little remarkable, that Mr. Evanson has a.s.serted, and has proved, the spuriosness of the Gospel ascribed to John, which Semler spared, in the general wreck which he made of the authenticity of the other books of the New Testament. Mr. Evanson says, in his examination of it, what has been said before, that the speeches ascribed to Jesus in it, are most incoherent, contradictory, and falsified by well known facts. And indeed the author of the book itself, sterns to be sensible of this; for he very naturally represents the Jews repeatedly accusing Jesus of being mad. ?He hath a devil, and is mad, (say they to the mult.i.tude) why hear ye him??
and so in other places. Mr. Evanson considers this work as the composition of a converted Platonist or of a? Platonizing Jew; the latter we think to be the most correct opinion; since it is evident that the author of that gospel had the works of Philo at his fingers?
ends, which is more than can be supposed of John. As Semler excepted the Gospel of John only, so Mr. Evanson excepts the Gospel of Luke only from the charge of spuriousness: though he says that it is grossly corrupted, and interpolated. From these corruptions and interpolations, he endeavours to purify it; in which attempt wo think he has had very indifferent success. In short, his work has proved, (what he did not himself contemplate) that the providence of the G.o.d of truth has taken care, that so many absurdities and contradictions, should be contained in these books of the New Testament which were written to establish a mistake, as must I conceive, satisfy any man, who has them once pointed out to him, that the doctrine of those books is not, and cannot be from G.o.d.
But it may be still asked, ?how did this notion of the resurrection of Jesus become current?? ?How can you account for the apostles believing such a thing?? We answer sincerely--we cannot absolutely ascertain. The Jews of that age have left no doc.u.ments upon this business. The origin of the Christian religion is so extremely obscure, that Josephus takes no notice of it at all, (for the pa.s.sage relating to Christian affairs now found in Josephus are notorious interpolations.) And it is evident from the Chronological, and other mistakes about Jesus, in the Talmud, that the curiosity of the learned Jews had never been interested by Christianity, till so long after Jesus, that the memory of him, and his, was almost entirely lost among that nation. And it appears from the last chapter of the Acts, that when Paul was received by the Jews at Rome, he had not been considered by the Jews of Jerusalem as of sufficient importance, as to cause them to warn their brethren of the Dispersion concerning him; for these Jews tell Paul, on his enquiring, that they had not received any letters concerning him from Jerusalem. So that we can offer nothing but conjecture, to solve the difficulty.
It has been said by some, (and it is by no means an hypothesis dest.i.tute of plausibility) that Jesus was indeed crucified, but did not actually die on the cross. It is evident that Pilate was extremely desirous to save his life; and is it impossible that the Roman soldiers, who crucified him, had secret orders? Consider the cisc.u.mstances. He was crucified at our nine in the morning, and was taken from the cross at about three in the afternoon. Now, crucifixion is not a death which kills men in six hours, and men have been known to have lived fastened to the cross for more than two days. Consider, besides, that when the soldiers gave the coup de grace to the two robbers, that they did not break the legs of Jews. This, the author of the Gospel according to John says, they did, in order to fulfill a prophecy; but I leave it to my reader, whether it is not more likely that they did so in order to fulfill secret orders? But to make up for that omission, the author adds, that they pierced Jesus with a spear. Now, besides that this is not mentioned by the other Evangelists, the very manner in which this circ.u.mstance is mentioned, and eagerly affirmed by him, looks as if the author was aware of the likelihood of a suspicion of the fact we are trying to prove probable, and that he wrote this in order to obviate it. And after all, the gospel according to John was certainly not written by him, and, therefore, what the author of it observes, may be true, or not. You will observe also, reader, that the body of Jesus was given by Pilate to his friends immediately; a favour never vouchsafed by the Romans in such a case, except ?speciali gratia.? You will observe also, that the body was taken down by his friends, no doubt with great care; probably was washed from the blood, and rubbed perfectly dry; and was deposited in the cave or sepulchre, with a large quant.i.ty of spices, and aromatics. Now suppose that Jesus only swooned on the cross, and that his naked body, after being cleansed as aforesaid, was laid in the new sepulchre where the air was cool and fresh, wrapped in a considerable quant.i.ty of dry linen, together with many spices, and aromatics, what could be more opportune, or proper, to stimulate his drowsed senses, and recall the unfortunate sufferer to life?
Suppose then, that on awaking from his trance, he disengaged himself, and took himself away as secretly as possible, might not all this have happened? Is it impossible? And does it not look plausible? It is not improbable that he might after this have shewed himself privately to his particular disciples; for you will recollect, reader, that the appearances of Jesus to his disciples after his crucifixion were to them, only, and for the most part in the night. And it is by no means impossible, that the twelve apostles, who were, I doubt not, well meaning men, though extremely simple and credulous; I say it is thus by no means impossible, that they might have believed sincerely, that their master had risen from the dead. This hypothesis must not be considered only as the brain work of an unbelieving sceptic; for it has been (in its main principle) advanced, and elaborately defended by Dr. Paulus the professor of divinity in the princ.i.p.al University in Bavaria.
It is true, that it may be said, that this is all hypothesis, and mere conjecture. We allow it; it is true; and we a.s.sert that the account given by the Evangelists is no better, nay, worse than conjecture, as it is a mere forgery of the second century! For no man, we think, who knows all that has been made known by biblical critics, in later years, will now seriously contend for the literal truth of that account. [See Appendix A.]
If all this will not satisfy the man that ?believeth all things,? our last resource is to demy the act of this resurrection. And this we can do with perfect sang froid, as we know very well that it cannot be proved; for the only testimony in favour of it, are the four evangelists; four witnesses, the like of whose written testimony, with reference thereto, (being as contradic-tory as that is,) to say no more, certainly would not, we believe, be received in a modern court of justice, to settle the fact about a debt of five dollars. And if it be still urged, that such a story is unparalleled, and therefore respectable; we say that it is not unparalleled; as we have an account of a false Messiah, who applied the prophecies to himself, had a forerunner, and more than two hundred thousand followers, who publicly acknowledged him for the Messiah, raised contributions, and supported him magnificently. He too, quoted the prophets as speaking concerning him, and was said to have worked divers miracles, and was ultimately put to death by the order of the Grand Seignor at Constantinople; yet nevertheless was said to have been, seen again by certain of his followers, who wrote books in favour of that fact, and of his Messiahship. Many learned Rabbins enrolled themselves as his disciples, and wrote controversial works in his cause, as Paul did. And to conclude, his party was not entirely extinct within a very few years. Yet, notwithstanding all this, he was an impostor; and no man now believes the stories of his miracles, or his resurrection; notwithstanding that both are affirmed by more recent, more learned, and more respectable testimony than is, or can be, offered, in favour of the Messiahship of Jesus. The name of this famous impostor was Shabathai Tzevi, and his history is given by Basnage, in his history of the Jews, [and by other writers of Jewish history. See on this subject the Sepher Torath Hakenaoth, page 2. The learned Mr. Zedner has extracted the life of Shabetai Tsebi from tins book, and published it, with a German translation, in his Auswahl historischer Stucke aus Hebraischen Schriftstellern, Berlin, 1840.--D.]
I wish the Christian reader to peruse carefully, and cooly, that account; and if he then persists in believing the history given by the evangelists; with such faith as his, he certainly ought to be able to move mountains; and I have no doubt at all, that with such a good natured understanding as his, if he had found in his New Testament the story of Jonah misquoted, and and by a small transposition a la mode de Surenhusius, representing that ?Jonah swallowed the whale!? this st.u.r.dy ?confidence in things not seen,?
would, I doubt not have enabled him without difficulty to swallow the prophet with the whale in his belly.
CHAPTER XVII.
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 p.r.o.ne 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? G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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 cla.s.s 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 brother?s eye is to be found in the Talmud*.
What is called by Christians ?the Lord?s 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 Anch.o.r.ets; 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d? 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 a.s.sert, a man cannot please G.o.d, 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 a.s.sent to incredible facts, and a blind credulity in absurd dogmas, which, yet, every Christian is required to believe, under pain of d.a.m.nation.
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 G.o.d.
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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d??
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 a.s.sert, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sions, 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 sp.a.w.ned those legions of monks and cen.o.bites, 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 mult.i.tudes 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 Brown?s 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 don?t 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 author?s 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 ill.u.s.trate 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!