MANY and virulent are the Replies which have appeared to Mr. Paine's Age of Reason. It was not, indeed, to be expected that a work of this description, which struck immediately at the very root of priest-craft, should remain long unanswered. No sooner was the challenge given, than a "whole host of witnesses" started up in defence of that system, from whence (as Deme­trius in a similar case observed to his colleagues at Ephesus) they derive their wealth. Men who had long been in the habit of fattening in luxurious ease upon the spoils and contributions of credulity, bigotry, and superstition, were justly apprehensive, lest the investigation of truth should at length open the eyes of the community at large, and discover in all its na­kedness the fallacy of that system, by virtue of [Page 6]which they domineered over the souls and con­sciences of mankind, and which "brought no small gain unto the craftsmen."

Hence the Age of Reason no sooner made its appearance, than the toosin of alarm was sounded throughout the whole Hierarchy. Re­ligion was now declared to be threatened with as great, and even greater dangers than those which were supposed at a former period to me­nace the state, in consequence of the publication of the Rights of Man. Every disgraceful epi­thet of abuse was conferred with liberal hand upon the author: the titles of Deist, Atheist, In­fidel, the Apostle of Beelzebub, the Agent of Lu­cifer, with an infinite variety of the like op­probrious terms, now succeeded to the appel­lations of Jacobin, Leveller, Anarchist, Revolu­tionist, Rebel, &c. which had formerly been given to Mr. Paine on the score of his politics. Not only the clergy of the established church, but the leading men of every religious sect, had equal interest at stake, and were equally concerned in providing an antidote against the baneful influence of this deleterious poison: for the moment the way to God was laid open to every man alike; the moment neither masters of the ceremonies, nor court etiquette—neither [Page 7]priests, nor religious forms—were necessary to introduce man to his Maker; that moment, they readily foresaw, must inevitably put an end to their lucrative traffic, and totally anni­hilate the vast revenues they received for acting as ambassadors of Christ, and instilling into the minds of the people spiritual knowledge and heavenly comfort. Replies, Answers, and Re­futations of the Age of Reason, and its diaboli­cal doctrines, were therefore published in abun­dance; many of which, however, by their futi­lity, and total want of argument, have produced the very reverse of that effect, which their respective writers hoped to bring about; in­asmuch as their incapacity to refute the doc­trines they attacked, served at once to show their own imbecility, and the impregnable strength of the fortress against which their puny efforts were directed.

It cannot be expected, nor indeed will the limits I have prescribed to the present work permit it, that I should enter into a minute, elaborate, examination of every petty Reply to which the Age of Reason has given birth. Their name may truly be denominated Legion, "for they are many;" and a serious refutation of some of them is, perhaps, a moral impossibility. The [Page 8]wild, incomprehensible ravings of a Hunting­ton, and other mystical writers, are beneath the dignity of Criticism; and to cope with such men with the weapons of sound argument and plain reason, would be, to adopt the language of their favourite Apostle, "fighting like one that beateth the air."

For these reasons I shall confine my strictures chiefly to what I conceive the two most res­pectable publications that have appeared in our language on this interesting subject. These are—1. AN EXAMINATION OF THE AGE OF REASON, by Gilbert Wakefield; and, 2. AN ANSWER TO MR. PAINE'S AGE OF REASON, by the celebrated Dr. Priestley.

Both these gentlemen appear to agree nearly in their religious as well as in their political sentiments; and yet the manner in which they conduct their attack upon the Age of Reason furnishes a striking contrast. Mr. Wakefield but too often indulges himself in a spirit of acrimony, which, if not downright illiberality, borders, I am sorry to say, immediately upon it. He acknowledges, in the very outset of his career, that ‘the Work which he has under­taken to examine (see page 2) is entitled to particular respect, not only from the genius [Page 9]of the Author, but also from the singular circumstances of its composition:’ but he soon loses sight of this respect, and descends to invective and abuse ^*, which are quite un­worthy of the high literary reputation Mr. Wakefield deservedly enjoys. The field of literary dispute, we apprehend, lies open to every man; but let him wield none but lawful weapons, even truth and sound argument, and not turn the sacred Academic Grove into the sanguine Field of Mars!

Another objection I have to the general cha­racter of Mr. Wakefield's Work, is the strong vein of egotism which pervades many parts of it. Mr. Wakefield, contemplating himself as ‘a delicate bird, delighting in strawberries and the choicest fruits,’ (see page 66) may bridle his neck, and survey with fond self-complacency his gay plumage—may hold in sovereign con­tempt Thomas Paine, and every other author, who, by differing from him in opinion, mani­fests himself to be ‘a crow, who prefers car­rion and putrescence, and finds a feast in a [Page 10]rotten carcase;’ but surely he might have modestly left his readers an opportunity of draw­ing this flattering comparison in his favour.

"Ad populum phaleras"—to imitate Mr. Wakefield's constant practice of introducing quotations from Latin and Greek authors on the most trifling occasions ^*; a practice which, [Page 11]though it may serve to impress the common class of readers with a stupendous idea of the Author's learning, has, in the eyes of men of sense, an air of pedantry, that more than any thing else has contributed to bring the name of scholar into disrepute.

Quite the reverse is Dr. Priestley's mode of proceeding in this literary warfare. He con­ducts himself with becoming dignity; argues in a fair, candid, and manly manner; never descends to personalities, but confines himself strictly to the subject of dispute, which he treats with great ingenuity, and at the same time with a plainness, which forms, as I before observed, a striking contrast to the ostentatious display of learning exhibited by Mr. Wake­field.

One observation more I must beg leave to premise before I enter upon my intended Vin­dication of the Age of Reason in the aggregate; to wit, that I do not set out (and I hope I shall not fall into this error in the course of my dis­quisitions) with a predetermination to defend my author at all events, whether right or wrong; or to vindicate indiscriminately every posi­tion laid down by Mr. Paine, because I have once been induced to take up the cudgels in [Page 12]his defence; or as though I deemed every as­sertion advanced by Mr. Paine infallible. On the contrary, I propose to treat the subject with due candour; and, much as I admire the general purport of the work under consideration, shall readily subscribe to the justice and validity of any censure bestowed upon particular passages, (and such passages I am well aware there are,) where hardy assertion and specious sophistry supply the place of sound argument and know­ledge. It is not the personal cause of Mr. Paine, but the cause of what I conceive to be the Truth, that I wish to espouse: from the free discussion and investigation of which no consideration upon earth ought to deter a rational being. To inves­tigate, and boldly avow, the Truth, as far as the measure of reason wherewith we are endowed by the all-wise Author of Nature enables us to ascertain it, is a duty which man owes both to himself, and to society at large; and whoever shrinks back from the task, whoever neglects to discharge this part of his moral obligations, is either a traitor or a coward.

I proceed now to an examination of the work I have undertaken to defend.

After briefly stating the reason which induced him to anticipate the time he had originally pro­posed [Page 13]to himself for the publication of his reli­gious sentiments, Mr. Paine proceeds to a sum­mary recapitulation, or confession of his creed. This may be said to consist of two parts—the one positive; the other negative. To the former part the staunchest advocate of Christianity, I apprehend, cannot have the smallest objection to make: it accords with th [...] [...]enets of every religious denomination in the [...]sent Christian world that has come within my knowledge: it professes a belief in one God; a hope of hap­piness beyond this life; inculcates the natural equality of man, which, in the sense [...]re im­plied, the proudest upstart of aristocra [...] will not, I flatter myself, take upon him to deny; and concludes with a definition of religious du­ties, which may be considered as a concise, but energetic comment upon the golden rule, ‘Do unto others as ye would that others should do unto you.’

With the second or negative part, the case is widely different. Here Mr. Paine attacks, with one bold decisive blow, the whole order of Priesthood, of every religious system, from the times of Moses to the present day; and not only the Priesthood, but the followers and dis­ciples of every religion and sect, that does, or [Page 14]ever did exist in the whole world. His words are these:

‘I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any other church that I know of—My own mind is my own church.’

‘All national institutions of churches, whe­ther Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.’

This may be considered as a general chal­lenge to the zealous sticklers of every church establishment. From such, therefore, we must not look for a ready assent to this part of our Author's creed. The doctrines of faith, what­ever the religion may be in which we are edu­cated, whether the Jewish, Christian, Turkish, or Pagan systems, forming, generally speaking, the first lesson instilled into the infant mind, at a time when the reasoning faculties may be almost said to lie dormant, naturally make a deep im­pression; and, being familiarised to us by con­stant repetition, we adopt them without exami­nation; we receive them upon trust; subscribe to them as a matter of course; and if, after­wards, [Page 15]as we advance in years, and our reason attains to its proper growth, we are led to weigh, to prove, and examine, the religion we profess, which, by the bye, is not done, upon a very moderate calculation, by one in ten thou­sand, we have unfortunately, exclusive of the task, the arduous task, of separating Truth from Error, a powerful host of prejudices and assump­tions to combat with. For my own part, I am free to confess, that this blind acquiescence in the opinions of others, this easy indifference with which mankind in general sit down con­tented with the religion of their ancestors, whether Jews, Christians, Turks, or Pagans, furnishes, in my mind, no mean argument against the truth of any of them; or, in other words, against their divine origin. A religion, professing to be derived immediately from the Almighty, and written by divine inspiration, ought to flash conviction in the face of every one who hears or reads it. But this we do not find to be the case with any known religion in the world. Add to this, that I do not see, that peace, morals, social order, and the rights of humanity, are better respected and maintained under governments professing the Christian faith, than where the blindest Idolatry prevails. [Page 16]Nay, I am bold to assert, that the remote and Pagan empire of Japan, might, in this respect, furnish a pattern for the most enlightened and religious state (if a religious state there be) in Christendom ^*. But this is a topic which I pro­pose to discuss more fully when I come to treat of the intimate connexion between religion and morals; on which occasion I shall not omit to say a few words on the stale, but just maxim, as Mr. Wakefield very properly terms it, and which he accuses Mr. Paine of having most egregiously violated— ‘ ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia.’

Meanwhile, I cannot but remark upon the ready acquiescence with which Mr. Wakefield subscribes to every part of our Author's creed, that makes in favour, and I might emphatically add, as far too as it makes in favour, of his own political creed.

"All national institutions of churches," writes Mr. Paine,— ‘whether Jewish, Chris­tian, [Page 17]or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.’

How eagerly does Mr. Wakefield, who probably, in consequence of his unfortunate schism from the doctrines of the established Church of England, sees no prospect of ob­taining the mitre, subscribe his Yea and Amen, to this just remark ‘concisely and pregnantly expressed!’ He immediately becomes more violent in his reprobation than our Author himself; and launches out into a general in­vective against national churches, without the smallest discrimination or exception.

‘ National Churches (see page 10) are that hay and stubble, which might be removed without any difficulty or even danger of con­fusion (this ipse dixit assertion of Mr. Wake­field, by the bye, will, I fear, by the venerable bench of bishops be pronounced equally hardy with any with which he taxes Mr. Paine ^*)’ ‘from the fabric of religion by the gentle hand of Reformation, but which the infa­tuation of ecclesiastics will leave to be de­stroyed [Page 18] by fire. National Churches are that impure incrustation, which has envelloped, by gradual concretion, the diamond of Chris­tianity; nor can, I fear, for the reason just now stated, the genuine lustre be recovered, but by such violent effort of restitution, as the separation of substances, so long and closely connected, must inevitably require.’

The happy simile of hay and stubble in this beautiful conglomeration of metaphors we find is taken from the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, where the apostle speaks of a build­ing to be raised; and from his boast of having himself wrought, as a wise master-builder, upon the foundation, it should seem that the erection of this building was a work of use and necessity. Now, if the words of the apostle have any re­ference at all to national establishments, we ap­prehend, that the hay and stubble must apply to corrupt establishments that will not stand the test; such, for instance, as the Church of Rome, in the eyes of the Protestant clergy, and which therefore are threatened with destruction by fire; whilst the gold, the silver, and the precious stones, (as for the wood, I do not insist upon that, but will give it to Mr. Wakefield, to share the fate of his hay and stubble) by a parallel chain of rea­soning [Page 19]may be supposed to designate and point out a pure, uncorrupted establishment, cleared from the errors and superstitions of the Church of Rome, such as our divines pronounce the pre­sent national Church of England to be. And as by the fire, which, the apostle tells us, is doomed to try every man's work, the awful phaenomena and awards of the day of judgment are generally understood to be meant, in which day the ‘ele­ments shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein, (of course the hay and the stubble) shall be burnt up ^*,’ we are very sorry to think that Mr. Wakefield has no nearer prospect of getting rid of this self-same worthless hay and stubble, and sub­stituting his gold and silver and precious stones in their stead, than at the very moment when the end of all things shall take place.

Were I as ready to lay hold of every oppor­tunity of finding fault with Mr. Wakefield's expressions, as this gentleman appears to be in the case of Mr. Paine, I might possibly dis­cover a flaw in his Diamond of Christianity, which, to quote his own words, ‘the impure incrustation of National Churches has, by gradual concretion, enveloped to that de­gree, [Page 20]that the genuine lustre cannot (he fears) be recovered, but by such violent effort of restitution, as the separation of substances, so long and closely connected, must inevitably require.’

Now, if we compare the religion founded by Christ to a Diamond (and I take it for granted that every sincere believer and professor of it must regard it in this light as a jewel of the first water, as ‘the pearl of great price, more precious than the golden wedge of Ophir’) it seems no more than fair to conclude, that this Diamond was not put into our hands by the Almighty in its rough incrusted state, for man to cut and hack at pleasure (such an idea would indeed fall little short of blasphemy), but rather in a state of the utmost purity, po­lished to the highest degree of perfection, and, like the God from whom it professes to origi­nate, without spot or blemish. A diamond in this state, once separated from its incrustation, and properly polished, might, we apprehend, venture to defy all the impurities in nature, and could, perhaps, never be incrusted over again, either by sudden or gradual concretion; inasmuch as the hardness of its substance, added to the finished polish of its superficies, would [Page 21]resist the impression of every foreign body that had a tendency to sully and debase it. And therefore, as Mr. Wakefield's Diamond of Christianity has, according to his own confes­sion, lost its purity and polish by the impure incrustation of National Churches, we cannot class it among the genuine productions of Gol­conda's mine, but rather conceive it to be a kind of factitious or mock diamond; a kind of com­position-work, like the faux brillants, or Temple Diamonds, which crafty and interested jew­ellers so well know how to palm upon their credulous customers for the genuine produce of Golconda or Peru.

Again, let me put the question to Mr. Wake­field, how he can, consistently with this gene­ral and furious invective against all national establishments, speak so highly of the Jewish Dispensation ^*, which, we apprehend, was to all intents and purposes a national church in the [Page 22]strictest sense of the word;—a church dressed out with far more " trumpery ^*," to make use of Mr. Wakefield's own expression in allusion to the church of England; and a hundred times more oppressive and despotic, than any national Church we know of in the Christian world? If Mr. Wakefield thinks it a sore and grievous hardship, that a difference in certain points of doctrine, termed Articles of Faith, from the tenets of the established church of England, should debar a man from the privileges of [Page 23]preaching in the pale of that particular church; must it not appear much more arbitrary and unjust, that a man, assenting in every respect to the religious tenets of the Church, should be incapacitated from exercising the sacred functions of the priesthood, on no other score than some personal deformity, or casual defect, under which he unhappily labours: such, for instance, as a ^* flat nose; an unfortunate lame­ness in the hands or feet ^†; a crooked or hump back; a diminutive stature; a squint, or cast in [Page 24]the eye; an impure habit of the blood; or a scro­phulous eruption; or, lastly, a certain misfor­tune to which the priests of the present day are, perhaps, ten times more exposed, in conse­quence of the prevalence of a certain fashion­able disorder, than they seem to have been in the times of Moses? Must not, I say, misfor­tunes and calamities like these furnish, in the eye of every sensible and dispassionate enquirer, a far weaker argument for excluding a man from the sacred function, than an avowed schism from the religious tenets of the church, whose minister he desires to be? Unless, indeed, as probably may be the case, Mr. Wakefield has an eye to the loaves and fishes, and provided he is indulged the privilege of eating of the shew-bread ^*, and partaking of the Holy and Most Holy, will readily consent to turn the sacred office into a sinecure!

But lest the above remarks, which have only in view to point out the inconsistency of Mr. Wakefield's arguments, and the readiness with which he attempts to throw the blame of all the corruptions, which, according to his own [Page 25]confession, have crept into religion, upon the shoulders of the established church, instead of tracing them back to their true source, the very principles of Christianity itself, as we shall in the sequel endeavour to show; lest, I say, the above remarks should lead to misconception, and render me suspected of being the secret or avowed advocate of any one particular church-establish­ment whatever; I take this opportunity of tes­tifying my full and hearty execration of them all, in the concluding words of Mr. Paine's creed:

‘All national institutions of churches appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and mo­nopolize power and profit.’

In proof of which assertion, if a self-evi­dent axiom like this, plain as the sun in its me­ridian splendour, can require any proof, I need only refer my reader to the uniform practice of priests through all ages and in all countries; from the sons of Eli, who could not keep their three-pronged flesh-books out of the seething-pot, while the meat was boiling, to the good shep­herds of the present day, who, if the unfortu­nate sheep are already so closely shorn, that they cannot yield wool sufficient to discharge the fees [Page 26]of office, make no scruple (for their ‘mouth is always open, and their heart enlarged ^*’) of excommunicating them at once from the pale of the church, and the benefits of salvation! I need only refer them to the page of history for the vast estates taken from the church under our pious Defender of the Faith, Henry VIII. of England; to the more recent events of the French Revolution, and the immense treasures which the church has been made to refund in a neighbouring nation; I need only refer them, lastly, to the eagerness with which people of all descriptions strive to get into sacred orders, an eagerness which in some countries, and espe­cially in Spain, is carried to such an incredible excess, that the number of pastors and shep­herds seems to be in a fair way of rising to par with the sheep of the flock over whom they are, by divine grace, and the express calling of God, appointed to preside.

Leaving, however, the clergy for the present at least, in the full exercise and enjoyment of their sacerdotal privileges, that we may not "muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out [Page 27]the corn:" ^* (and certainly, as long as we con­template ourselves as Christ's Vineyard, it is no more than just, that these Husbandmen should " have power to eat and to drink," for " prun­ing and lopping us: or, viewing ourselves in the light of God's husbandry (1. Cor. iii. 9.) we must allow the labourer that ‘ ploweth and thresheth us in hope (1. Cor. ix. 10) to be worthy of his hire)’—leaving, I say, the "Clergy, and those that ‘ wait at the altar, to be partakers of the altar; to reap of our carnal things, in return for the spiritual things which they have sown unto us; and to fatten on the things of the temple,’ I recur to the text of my author.

‘Every national Church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their Apostles, and Saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.’

It is at this passage, that Mr. Wakefield may be said to commence his attack upon our author. [Page 28]Hitherto we have beheld him subscribing with the readiest acquiescence to every position advanced by Mr. Paine: but he now takes up the cudgels with a vengeance, and boldly de­clares Mr. Paine's statement to be ‘not only vague and frivolous, but nonsensical and erroneous in the extreme.’

In support of this assertion, Mr. Wakefield presents us with a species of argument, which I have not the smallest hesitation to pronounce infinitely more ‘vague, and frivolous, and erroneous,’ than one half of the statements in Mr. Paine's book, which his antagonist, without any show of reason, declares to be ‘not only the essence but the very quintessence of all weakness and absurdity.’

‘The system of Jesus Christ, (Mr. Wake­field writes, page 14) proceeds upon the very supposition, here instituted as in direct contradiction to it, that the way to God is open to every man alike; which might be proved, as every body knows, by many pas­sages of most explicit purport in the Christian scriptures.’

Nothing can well be more vague and incon­clusive than this mode of reasoning. Mr. Paine says, and says truly, (for all historical evidence [Page 29]is decidedly on his side) that every national religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals; and this palpable asser­tion Mr. Paine supports by instancing the ex­amples of the founders of the Jewish, Christian and Turkish religions, who certainly did, for we have their own words for it, (if any faith may be placed in the written biographies of these heavenly messengers) lay claim to divine delegation. Surely Mr. Wakefield cannot mean to call facts of such historical notoriety in question, when he pronounces our author's statement to be "frivolous, nosensical, and erroneous?" Hi [...] cen­sure, therefore, if it have any weight at all, must apply to the inference our author draws from this statement, that the very act of granting a divine mission to any favoured individual, or admitting such a mission to be granted, is in itself a plain, though tacit acknowledgment, that the way to God is not open to every man alike," but that we stand in need of mediators, plenipotentiaries, advocates, and ambassadors, to transact our busi­ness, and arrange preliminaries for us; and that God is really a consuming fire, (Deut. iv. 24. Heb. xii. 29.) dwelling in the light, which no man can approach unto, (1 Tim. vi. 16,) but [Page 30]only through the medium ^* of these privileged agents or proxies, who are empowered to treat and act for us on all occasions by procuration.

To the divine mission of Moses and Jesus Christ Mr. Wakefield himself bears testimony in the most unequivocal terms:

‘Our inference from these indubitable posi­tions (see page 17) is clearly some degree of supernatural communication, which we style Revelation, to the founders of Judaism and Christianity, Moses and Jesus.’

Moses, we are assured (and it is allowed by the Jews themselves) was but a man, as we are, however highly favoured and distinguished [Page 31]by the Almighty, according to scriptural ac­count. So was Jesus Christ likewise, accord­ing to Mr. Wakefield's creed ^*; and yet he [Page 32]boldly charges Mr. Paine with error and ab­surdity, and asserts that the Christian system pre­supposes that ‘the way to God is open to every man alike;’ whereas the very reverse may easily be proved ‘by many passages of most explicit purport in the Christian scriptures,’ and by the express declarations of Christ him­self. If the way to God be actually, and of a truth, open to every man alike, (which it no doubt is, though priests would fain persuade us to the contrary) why does Christ (who himself, according to Mr. Wakefield's doctrine was but a mere man) arrogate to himself the exclusive right and power of granting passports to man­kind to walk in this way? ‘No man cometh unto the Father but by me.’ (John xiv. 6.) Why does he, in the same chapter and verse, declare himself to be this way? Why does he roundly assert, that man can have no knowledge of the Deity, but through his revelation? ‘No man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.’ (Matt. xi. 27.) Wherefore are we directed [Page 33]by his apostles, to look up to Christ as the me­diator of the new covenant, (Heb. xii. 24.) through whose blood a new and living way has been opened unto us into the holiest of all? (Heb. x. 19, 20.) ‘Through whom we have access unto the Father.’ (Eph. ii. 18, and iii. 12. Rom. v. 2.) who is our "advocate" with God, (1 John, ii. 1.) and ‘who ever liveth to make intercession for us?’ (Heb. vii. 25.) To what purpose can all these admonitions, all these exhortations tend, if the system of Jesus Christ proceeds (as Mr. Wakefield assures us it positively does proceed) upon the supposition that ‘the way to God is open to every man alike?’ Why are we then directed to look up to Christ, or to any other man, as our only hope of eternal life and happiness, with the denouncement of a terrible curse, an everlasting Anathema Maranatha against us if we do not believe in this author and finisher of our faith, as Christ is emphatically styled? (Heb. xii. 2.) Can this, let me put the question to every can­did and impartial enquirer, can this be recon­ciled with Mr. Wakefield's hardy assertion, that the way to God, by the Christian system, is thrown open to every man alike? Certainly it cannot; and therefore the charge of error, in­consistency, [Page 34]and absurdity recoils, in the pre­sent instance, from Mr. Paine upon his anta­gonist.

Mr. Wakefield next attacks our author's de­finition of the word Revelation, in its scriptural or religious sense; but his attack is so impotent, and, at the same time, so ill-conducted, that I cannot possibly characterize it more aptly, than by asking, in Mr. Wakefield's own words, ‘Can any thing in reality be more feeble and inefficient, than this objection?’ It would amply justify the insertion of the Latin quota­tion, which Mr. Wakefield has so successfully introduced on this occasion, were I ambitious of enriching my page with classical allusions. Mr. Paine observes:

‘As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word Revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion,’ (and it is in this sense solely that Mr. Paine considers it; and therefore Mr. Wakefield's attempt at sarcasm, in his case of the Village Dame and her horn-book (see page 51), is totally irrevalent, and at best but a con­ceited quibble) "means something commu­nicated immediately from God to man."

[Page 35]"No one will deny or dispute" (can any thing be more candid than this concession?) ‘the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But, admit­ing, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is reve­lation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be revelation to all those persons. It is re­velation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.’

"This statement also," exclaims Mr. Wake­field, with all the self-sufficiency of a Peda­gogue,— ‘is inaccurate, fallacious, and incon­clusive.’ That I deny; and till Mr. Wakefield can produce me some more satisfactory proof than mere assertion, I shall not abide by his ipse dixit. Indeed, in all what Mr. Wakefield has advanced upon this subject, I cannot trace so much as the shadow of an argument. He jumbles together a few crude, superficial ob­servations on the mission of Moses, and his cre­dentials, which, however, unhappily make di­rectly against his own cause. The miracles [Page 36]said to have been wrought by Moses in proof of his mission, supposing them to be authentic, (a circumstance, by the bye, which Mr. Wake­field does not take upon himself to warrant ^*) cannot be looked upon as competent and satis­factory evidence; inasmuch, as many of them were performed with equal success by the Egyp­tian Sorcerers of Pharaoh's court: whence it should seem, that if any inference is to be drawn from this display of supernatural agency, it amounts to no more than this, that Moses, who is expressly said to have been ‘learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, ^†’ [Page 37](Acts vii. 22) had excelled his masters, and was become a greater adept in magic than themselves. As to those mischievous miracles which Moses was empowered to perform, and which the magicians of Pharaoh's court in vain essayed to imitate; such, for instance, as the plague of lice; the murrain of beasts; the sore and grievous plague of blains and blisters; the plague of hail; of locusts; of palpable darkness; but more particularly the destruction of all the first-born in Egypt, both of man and beast; I reserve my remarks upon this plaguy subject to a future opportunity; only observing in this place, that it appears very extraordinary, that Moses should be commissioned to preface his first introduction to Pharaoh with a palpable falsehood. ‘The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us; and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the Lord, our God;’ (Exod. iii. 18) when it is evi­dent from the 8th verse of the same chapter, ‘I am come down to deliver my people out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amo­rites, [Page 38]and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites;’ (which places were cer­tainly more than "three day's journey" distant from the abode of the Israelites); when it is evident, I say, that it was never intended they should stop in the wilderness; much less return back to the land of Goshen. Hence it should seem, that falsehood and prevarication are to be reckoned among the credentials of the mission of Moses! But to proceed.

"It is a contradiction in terms and ideas," (continues Mr. Paine) ‘to call any thing a revelation, that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communica­tion. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him: and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was no revelation made to me; and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.’

These, together with Mr. Paine's former remarks on the subject of Revelation, in the religious acceptation of the word, appear to me to contain such a clear, just, and masterly defi­nition [Page 39]of the term, that, had I not positive evi­dence to the contrary before my eyes, I should hardly believe it possible for any man to dissent from him. And yet we find, that this, as little as other passages of Mr. Paine's book, can es­cape censure, and even misrepresentation.

Dr. Priestly, after pronouncing his argu­ments to be ‘ truly curious, and as he believes quite original,’ (see page 44.) gives us a very unfair and partial statement of the case.

‘On this principle, it is not incumbent on Mr. Paine to believe what any person may tell him, and he may give credit to nothing but what he sees himself; in which case his faith will be reduced to a very small com­pass indeed. His pretence to a contradiction in terms is a mere quibble. We do not say, that the revelation made immediately to Moses or to Christ is strictly speaking a reve­lation to us; but if we see sufficient reason to believe that the revelation was made to them, are, properly speaking, believers in revela­tion; and if the revelation, whatever it be, relate to the whole human race, as well as to the person to whom it was immediately made, all mankind, Mr. Paine himself in­cluded, [Page 40]will find themselves under an equal obligation to respect it.’

In this exemplification the Doctor allows himself a greater latitude of construction than we conceive ourselves bound to concede to him. Had Mr. Paine, in stating his own individual rejection of revelation, attached any degree of blame to those of an opposite opinion, he would have been guilty of uncharitableness and in­justice, by usurping that controul over the opinion of others, which he very properly re­fuses to submit to himself. But this is far from being the case; Mr. Paine does not be­tray the remotest disposition or desire to aim at such despotic sway over the souls and con­sciences of men ^*. He contents himself with assigning his reasons for not believing certain recorded facts and tenets, without insinuating the slightest degree of censure against those who, viewing things in a different light, deem themselves bound to place implicit faith and confidence therein. He very modestly says: ‘I did not see the angel, and therefore I have a right not to believe his appearance. The [Page 41]revelation was not made to me, and there­fore it cannot be incumbent upon me to be­lieve it.’ And, speaking of mankind in ge­neral, he does not say, ‘they act wrong in believing it,’ but merely, ‘they are not obliged to believe it.’

As the liberty of thought is not, and indeed, cannot be, obnoxious to that restraint which arbitrary power frequently imposes upon our words and actions, every man, we apprehend, has a right to the most unlimited freedom of opinion in his own individual capacity. It is, indeed, his birth-right, and perhaps of all his just and numerous rights, the only one which the lawless hand of despotism cannot invade. On this principle, therefore, instead of deem­ing Dr. Priestley's statement of the case any argument against the justice of Mr. Paine's remarks, we are clearly of opinion, ‘that it is not incumbent on Mr. Paine, nor upon any other man, to believe what any person may tell him,’ if he has, or conceives him­self to have, good and grounded reason for withholding his faith. And, though by refusing to credit any transaction which he does not see with his own eyes (here the Doctor, by the bye, carries his proposition to a much [Page 42]greater length than Mr. Paine's ^* statements will warrant; as our author only refuses his faith to supernatural and miraculous events, which militate directly against the ordinary and established course of nature) though by refusing to credit any transaction which he does not see with his own eyes, a man no doubt will reduce his faith and knowledge to a very small compass indeed; still we cannot conceive such a refusal, however un­reasonable, to be culpable, immoral, and cri­minal to that degree as to merit the punish­ment of eternal perdition, which however, by the Christian system, is flatly denounced [Page 43]against every one who disbelieves a single word, or even an iota of the scriptures ^*.

Mr. Paine is further accused of quibbling, because he styles it a contradiction in terms to call any thing a revelation that comes to us at second-hand; but I apprehend that the charge of quibbling will be found in the present instance to fall with greater weight and justice upon the party who brings this crimination against him. "We do not (argues Dr. Priestley) ‘say, that the revelation made immediately to Moses or to Christ is, strictly speaking, a reve­lation to us;’ and yet he immediately subjoins— ‘If we see sufficient reason to believe, that the revelation was made to them, we are, properly speaking, be­lievers in revelation: and if the revela­tion, whatever it be, relate to the whole human race, as well as to the person to whom it was immediately made, all mankind, Mr. Paine himself included, will find themselves under an equal obli­gation [Page 44]to respect it.’ Can any thing, let me appeal to the reader's candour, favour more strongly of quibble and subterfuge than this? By a parallel argument, I might prove the obligation the whole English nation, and let me add, the whole human race at large, is under to respect and believe in the won­derful revelations lately made to that en­lightened Prince of modern prophets, Mr. Richard Brothers!

Mr. Wakefield has been at some pains, with the superaddition of a formidable trio of Latin quotations, to show us the justice of the Mosaic doctrine of visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children ^*, even unto the [Page 45] third and fourth generation, (and it is a mercy the vengeance stops there!) which forms such a prominent feature in the two tables of the commandments, written, we are told, by the express singer of God. Now we [Page 46]cannot but lament, when we peruse Mr. Wakefield's arguments on this subject, that any capacity, not ‘constitutionally defec­tive,’ should be capable of forming such derogatory ideas of that great Almighty Being, who is emphatically styled the Foun­tain of all Goodness, and the Father of Mer­cies; whom John, by the happinest personi­fication, calls Love itself; we cannot but lament, that any capacity, not "constitu­tionally defective," should entertain such un­worthy, I had almost said blasphemous, no­tions of the benevolent Author of Nature, as to ascribe to the Deity attributes and pro­pensities which the most lawless tyrant would blush to own to. The God whose omnipo­tence is competent to punish sin in its re­motest ramifications, has mercy to nip the growing evil in the bud; or shall we boast the wisdom and humanity of modern civi­lized legislature, which professes to aim ra­ther at the prevention than punishment of crimes, and impiously suppose, that Eternal Justice and Unerring Wisdom should act upon a plan diametrically opposite; upon a prin­ciple which fiends must contemplate with [Page 47]execration? Reason revolts at the horrid diabolical idea!

I have before had occasion to remark upon the illiberality of Mr. Wakefield's attack, which displays itself in a very conspicuous manner in various passages of his work; and I cannot dismiss the present subject with­out observing, that his application of the visiting system to the late rigorous and un­merited sufferings of Mr. Paine, (see page 22) seems to carry with it, notwithstanding his boasted sympathy and regret, an air of triumph and exultation, that calls to my mind in lively colours the treatment which Job received in his affliction from his three pretended friends and comforters: ‘Re­member, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent? or where were the righ­teous cut off?’ (Job, iv. 7.)

Mr. Paine's strictures on the miraculous ^* [Page 48]and immaculate conception of Christ, as they have an obvious tendency to promote the cause of Unitarianism, meet with little or no animadversion from our two Unitarian divines. Mr. Wakefield expressly acknow­ledges, that ‘the immaculate conception of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit consti­tutes no essential article of his creed, and therefore he leaves the vindication of it to the orthodox sons of the establish­ment.’ Doctor Priestley follows him nearly on the same ground; and as it is their common interest to reason the divinity of Christ fairly out of the Bible, they both of them have recourse to supposed errata, and spurious interpolations to invalidate the plain and positive testimonies which we find [Page 49]on record in the scriptures in favour of the Godhead of Jesus Christ. The two first chapters of the Gospel of St. Matthew are peremptorily rejected, because there is no possibility of softening down their evidence, which makes immediately against the Uni­tarian system: The same fate, for the same reason, is awarded against the two first chap­ters of the Gospel of St. Luke, and thus they hope at once to get over a difficulty which must otherwise prove an insurmountable stumbling-block and rock of offence in their way. But their hopes are far too sanguine; and they have no alternative, but either to­tally to reject all faith in the revelation, or concede this point. The miraculous birth of Christ does not depend upon the single testimony of St. Matthew, or St. Luke, as its only vouchers; it stands plainly predicted (I am arguing on the principle of a belief in revelation) in the prophecies of Isaiah, where it is expressly said, and men­tioned emphatically as a sign or miracle, a sign which the Lord himself should give after it had been submitted to Ahab, to ask a sign of the Lord God, either in the depth be­neath, or in the height above: ‘Behold, [Page 50]a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel.’ (Isaih, viii. 14.) So likewise in the Epis­tle to the Hebrews, we find Christ declared to be a High Priest, after the Order of Mel­chisedec; as being ‘without father, without mother,’ (in as far as he was not engen­dered after the ordinary course of nature) ‘without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.’

It would be endless to animadvert upon all the absurdities and inconsistencies to which a partial belief in the word of God, as the Scrip­tures are styled, must necessarily and invari­ably lead. The man who subscribes to the adulteration or interpolation of a part, by that very concession invalidates my faith in the whole. The same right by which he presumes to reject any obnoxious passages that militate against the system which he has been led to adopt, authorizes me to do the same by any part which does not accord with my ideas; and this right of rejection and dis­crimination being once admitted and establish­ed, it becomes a very easy task, ‘such and so various are the tastes and opinions of men,’ to argue and fritter away the whole. [Page 51]And although "one defect of demonstration" (as Mr. Wakefield observes) ‘has not im­paired the general truth of the Newtonian philosophy,’ the application of this pro­position to Religion and the word of God will not hold good. Newton, and every other philosopher, however enlightened and intel­ligent, as men, are liable to error; and there­fore claim, as such, our indulgence: but the writings which we emphatically honour with the name of God's Word; and which we pro­fess to believe in, as given by divine inspira­tion, ^*, for our rule of faith and conduct: these, we apprehend, ought to bear the stamp of divinity in every page, in every line, in every word; ought by their purity and per­fection to distinguish themselves from the works of man, of which imperfection ever remains the prominent characteristic. And therefore, wherever this infallible criterion of perfection is wanting, I am certainly justified in not [Page 52]receiving such a mass of incongruity and im­perfection as the transcript of the omniscient mind. Or, shall charges of interpolation and perversion, which, in judicial proceedings, in the case of a will or covenant for instance, would, if proved, totally abrogate and disannul the validity of the instrument;—shall, I say, charges such as these, in a case of far greater magnitude and moment, in a case which con­cerns at once the honour of the Deity, and the happiness of the whole human race, be disregarded as nugatory, futile, and irrevalent?

Viewing things in this light, it will per­haps be asked, why I should make choice of two Unitarian publications for the subject of my disquisitions, in preference to so many Treatises written on the same topic, by the zealous and avowed partizans of the Established Church? To this demand I make answer, that as the Unitarian Creed appears to ad­mit of much greater latitude of construction, together with an almost unlimited freedom of rejection, with respect to whatever mili­tates against its own system in the Scriptures, I conceived that any conviction brought home against the professors and advocates of this faith, must infallibly carry with it double [Page 53]weight and authority, and ultimately conduce more to the Cause of Truth, and the Triumph of Reason, than my labours would have done, had I attacked the followers and disciples of the good old way, who, from their implicit assent to ‘that monstrous farrago of absurdi­ties and contradictions, concentrated with most ingenious and comprehensive brevity in the Creeds denominated the Athanasian and Nicene,’—(I quote Mr. Wakefield's own emphatic words) are infinitely more vulnerable. Besides, as we are expressly told by Mr. Wakefield, in the Introduction to his Work, ‘that Christianity cannot be vindi­cated adequately and consistently against Deism, by any votary of systems and esta­blishments,’ it should seem unmanly to direct our assault against that quarter from which the least resistance is to be expected. I enter now upon the most serious part of my Defence.

As the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is made by the Apostles themselves the grand test and criterion of his divine mission, and of the truth of the Christian religion; for, ‘if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your Faith is vain also;’ (1 Cor. xv. 14.) [Page 54]it will naturally be expected, that our Cham­pions of the Faith should reserve their most formidable batteries for the bold aggressor who dares to lift his impious hand against this strong hold of their hope. Hence I was led to apprehend a redoubtable display of heavy artillery and weighty arguments in an­swer to Mr. Paine's bold attack upon the authenticity of this important and funda­mental article of the Christian creed; but not a little was I disappointed!

"I shall confine myself (writes Mr. Wakefield, page 26) ‘to one only argu­ment, which appears to my mind inca­pable of confutation upon any principles of philosophy or experience; and will indeed, admit of no dispute, but upon positions subversive of all historical testi­mony whatsoever, and introductory of universal scepticism.’

‘The numerous circumstances inter­spersed through the Gospel narratives and in the Acts of the Apostles, appertaining to the geography of countries, the posi­tions of rivers, towns, and cities; public transactions of much notoriety and ac­count in those days; the dress, customs, [Page 55]manners, languages of nations and indi­viduals; political characters of eminence, and their conduct, in connection with a most potent and enlightened empire, with a vast multiplicity of detached occur­rences and facts not necessary to be speci­fied at large; all these circumstances, I say, probable in themselves, and of fide­lity unimpeached, challenge (to speak with moderation) as large a portion of credibility to these books, considered in the simple character of historical ^* testi­monials, [Page 56]as can be claimed for any writ­ings whatever, received as genuine, and equally ancient and multifarious. Now, no mean presumption arises in favour of the most extraordinary transactions also, blended in the same texture of narrative, by historians of so credible a character with respect to the rest of their relations; but when those extraordinary facts are found to have so intimate an incorpora­tion with the common and unsuspicious occurrences of these histories, as to ad­mit of no detachment, but to stand or fall with the main body of the compo­sitions, so that one part depends upon another for consistency and support, I cannot see how any historical probability of the authenticity of these extraordinary [Page 57]events can rise higher than in such an instance.’

When I find such lame subterfuge and so­phistry usurp the place of sound argument, I cannot but congratulate Mr. Paine on his triumph. If the resurrection of Christ stands upon no better basis than this, rotten is its sup­port, and it must inevitably fall to the ground. Mr. Wakefield, we apprehend, will not refuse to the books of Livy, the same internal symp­toms of genuineness and authenticity which he ascribes to the Gospel narratives as far as appertains to the ‘geography of countries, the positions of rivers, towns, and cities; public transactions of much notoriety and account; the dress, customs, manners, languages of nations, individuals, &c.’ which he expatiates upon so ably, as ‘chal­lenging as large a portion of credibility to the Gospel narratives as can be claimed for any writings whatever, received as genuine, and equally ancient and multi­farious,’ and yet were I to argue upon the principle laid down in this proposition by Mr. Wakefield himself, and from the ‘credi­bility of the common and unsuspicious occur­rences of this history to infer no mean pre­sumption [Page 58]in favour of the most extraor­dinary transactions also, recorded by the historian,’ I might undertake to prove the authenticity of all the prodigies and marvellous events related by Livy; such, for instance, as the prophetic denunciation of the ox ^* belonging to the Consul Cn. Domi­tius, "ROMA CAVE TIBI," which furnishes indeed no unworthy counterpart to the story of Balaam's Ass, or the tears shed by the image of the goddess Juno Sospita ^† at La­nuvium, which not improbably may have furnished many a serviceable hint to the wonder-workers ^‡ of the Greek and Romish [Page 59]churches; or lastly, the foaling of a mule ^*, at Reate, which, perhaps, is not more re­pugnant to the ordinary course of nature, than the immaculate conception and delivery of a virgin in Bethlehem!

[Page 60]As little can Mr. Wakefield hope to estab­lish the truth of the Resurrection of Christ by instancing the unconquered perseverance with which the apostles persisted in profes­sing and preaching this doctrine, in spite of ‘ridicule, contempt, persecution, poverty; bodily chastisements, imprisonment, and death’—Mr. Wakefield is not aware how strongly and directly this argument makes against himself. Reasoning upon the very same principle, I will easily prove ‘that monstrous farrago of absurdities and con­tradictions, concentrated, with most in­genious and comprehensive brevity in the creeds denominated the Athanasian and Nicene,’ and which is so tough of digest­ion to Mr. Wakefield's stomach; all this I will easily prove to be the ‘ Truth as it is in Christ Jesus,’ (Ephes. iv. 21) inasmuch as many thousands of sincere professors, and among these bishops themselves, have suffered the most cruel and ignominious death, rather than renounce their faith in these creeds. In­deed, I am fearful, that in matters of religion there cannot possibly be a more fallacious criterion to ascertain the truth, than the [Page 61]stubborn pertinacity with which men adhere to their opinion.

But by far the weakest place in Mr. Wake­field's defence of the resurrection is the fol­lowing passage, in which he attempts to invalidate the force of the objections raised by Mr. Paine, on the plea of this miracle not being accompanied with that degree of publicity, which the nature of the case so well admitted of, and which the magnitude of the fact, if true, demanded.

‘The resurrection of a dead person from the grave, (writes Mr. Paine) and his as­cension through the air, is a thing very dif­ferent, as to the evidence it admits of, from the invisible conception of a child in the womb. The resurrection and ascen­sion, supposing them to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular demonstra­tion, like that of the ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon-day to all Jerusalem at least. A thing, which every body is re­quired to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal: and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only evi­dence that could give sanction to the for­mer [Page 62]part, the whole of it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead of this, a small number of persons, not more than ^* eight or nine, are introduced, as proxies for the whole world, to say, they saw it, and all the rest of the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection; and, as they say, would not believe, without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I: and the reason holds equally good for me, and every other person, as for Thomas.’

In this statement of our author, whatever Mr. Wakefield may affect to think or say to [Page 63]the contrary, I discern nothing but just and manly argument. It is an established rule in the moral as well as physical world, that the means should be adequate to the end, and it is upon this principle that Mr. Paine reasons in the present instance. The re­surrection of Christ, as I before observed, forming the grand test of the truth of Chris­tianity: to substantiate and blazon abroad the fact beyond the power of controversy, becomes an object of the first magnitude. As the belief required in it extends to all, Mr. Paine stands justified in requiring that the evidence of it should be accompanied with a competent degree of publicity. The nature of the fact admitted of such public demonstration; the magnitude of the object demanded it; and yet—this public demon­stration is withheld:—the only evidence, which would at once have rendered all the eternal wranglings since maintained upon the subject unnecessary; which would have com­pletely baffled all the alledged machinations of the enemies of Christ to suppress the truth and invalidate its force; and which would have procured Christianity a decisive triumph over scepticism and infidelity; this [Page 64]only full, satisfactory, incontrovertible, irre­fragable evidence is not granted. And why not granted? Because, forsooth, its place in the eyes of Mr. Wakefield, is better supplied by ‘corroborating coincidencies, collateral cir­cumstances, by probabilities of the highest kind, by indissoluble connexions,’ et hoc genus omne; all of which, by the bye, not­withstanding the inconceivable magnitude of the object; notwithstanding the incalcu­lable interest at stake, do not amount to the same degree of positive conviction, which impresses on the mind of the geometer the ‘equality of the three angles of a triangle to two right angles.’ ^*

We concede, indeed, to Mr. Wakefield, that in occurrences of common life the con­curring testimony of credible and disinter­ested witness may be considered as compe­tent evidence in matters of plain fact, which do not militate against the established order of things. Thus, for instance, to pursue Mr. Wakefield's own argument, when I first heard of the ascension of Lunardi from [Page 65]the Artillery ground, in a balloon, I felt myself no more disposed to call in question the truth of the report, (notwithstanding, from the circumstance of my being abroad at the time, I did not enjoy the advantage of being an eye-witness of the fact,) than Mr. Wake­field could possibly do, who, we find, was present on that memorable occasion. But, had I been ignorant of the principle on which balloons are constructed; had I never heard or read of the properties of air; had the experiment been made in some remote, far distant part of the globe, before only a few select friends, and in only one or two solitary instances, and never afterwards repeated or attempted; had this, I say, been the case, and any one had told me, under such circum­stances, that a man had been seen to ascend to a prodigious height in the air, and to pursue his aerial excursion for a considerable number of miles with incredible velocity; in that case, the faith of the relator of this marvellous account, supposing him to have been at the same time an eye-witness of the fact, would, I fancy, exceed mine by many an "evanescent infinitesimal of efficacy." ^*—And, [Page 66]though no lapse of time will probably, with respect to the former case, (the actual ascension of Lunardi, in a balloon, from the Artillery ground) destroy a credibility so well founded and established, with reasonable men; nothing, I apprehend, short of actual inspection and ocular demonstration, would attach faith with thinking minds to the latter. Neither would, I presume, any man's refusal to credit such an ascension, under the above circumstances, without positive and ocular proof, draw down upon him the stigma of universal scepticism, though Mr. Wakefield is pleased to insinuate this charge against Mr. Paine, when he talks of the man, ‘who is resolved to believe no transaction, but upon ocular and manual demonstration, and who, therefore, is com­pelled to bely his own theory in every movement of his life.’

Before I dismiss the subject of the resur­rection, as far as concerns Mr. Wakefield's strictures in favor of it, I must slightly re­mark upon a most curious and extraordinary argument, indeed, (see page 33) which he brings forward, to justify our being left, in this, confessedly highly momentous and in­teresting, [Page 67]affair, to ‘trust to degrees of pro­bability infinitely diversified’ (or, in other words, being left in the dark!), ‘instead of having positive certainty for our guide.’

‘I might advance also, in aid of these re­marks,’ (to give the whole of Mr. Wake­field's arguments) ‘that mankind are most evidently placed here in a state of proba­tionary imperfection: that, instead of cer­tainty for our guide, we are compelled to trust, on most occasions, to a degree of probability infinitely diversified; and that some of our noblest and most refined ex­cellencies both moral and intellectual, spring from a forbearance and candour, from a diffidence, and docility, and lowliness of understanding, which dis­putable evidence is best calculated to gene­rate and foster. Besides, that exercise and agitation of our mental powers, which is invariably produced by the delays and dif­ficulties intervening propositions of this nature, and the attainment of moral cer­tainty, in a painful disquisition of evidence and a long deduction of particulars, con­tribute essentially to the quickness, the clearness, the vigour and general salubrity of our understandings; just as the water [Page 68]of a river is meliorated and refined by a winding obstructed passage over sand and gravel.’

Of all the wretched sophistry I ever re­member to have met with, on this, or, I might add, on any other subject, the present furnishes the most conspicuous, and I think, the most contemptible instance! Are there not matters enough of "disputable evidence" to generate and foster our candour and for­bearance, our diffidence and docility, in the Book of Nature, without borrowing from the sacred pages of Revelation? Or, if we stand in need of ‘exercise and agitation of our mental powers, to contribute to the quick­ness, the clearness, the vigour, and general salubrity of our understandings;’ might not the time and talents which have been spent in the ‘painful disquisition of evidence and a long deduction of particulars,’ to ascertain the truth of the resurrection, have been far more profitably employed, upon researches which have a more immediate reference to the happiness and improvement of man in his present state? We verily think they might; and maugre the profound know­ledge and deep metaphysical reasoning contained [Page 69]in Mr. Wakefield's remarks, they appear to us in reality designed for little more, than to serve as a vehicle to the author to display his extensive reading and ready acquaintance with the Poets of the Augustan age.

The remarks (for I cannot call them argu­ments) advanced by Doctor Priestley, concern­ing the evidence of the resurrection, carry with them still less weight and conviction than Mr. Wakefield's strictures. He notices the error into which Mr. Paine has fallen with respect to the number of persons who are said to have been witnesses of Christ's ascen­sion, and which error I have already had oc­casion to remark upon. But we do not find any thing new or striking in his observations. A general challenge, indeed, is thrown out to all, who entertain any doubts upon the subject, ‘to propose any other circumstances that would have made the Resurrection more credible than it now is at this dis­tance of time;’ but, as this challenge has been anticipated by Mr. Paine himself, and the proposal or requisition made, which would have rendered its evidence incontrovertible, and of course have established its credibility [Page 70]beyond the reach of suspicion or doubt, we deem it unnecessary to tread over again the beaten track.

As my design is, not so much to write a panegyric upon Mr. Paine's work, as to ex­amine, and, if I can, refute the objections which have been made to it, I pass over most of his propositions which I do not find attacked by his opponents. Hence I shall not dwell upon the masterly picture he has drawn of his Satanic Majesty, who, I am happy to per­ceive, from the readiness with which Mr. Wakefield gives him up, (and I congratulate my readers upon the pleasing prospect) seems to be in a fair way of bidding us Adieu, and returning once more to the bottomless pit, where I sincerely hope the Angel with the key and the great chain in his hand (Rev. xx. 1. sqq.) will take good care of him, and bind and fasten him up or down, it matters little which, at least a thousand years ^*.

[Page 71]The account given us by Mr. Paine of the Origin of Christianity has been severely cen­sured and attacked by Dr. Priestley, who pronounces it to be ‘the most curious ro­mance he ever met with.’ With all de­ference to superior abilities, I cannot but conceive Doctor Priestley to be too hasty in this judgment; and though he particu­larly prides himself on his dates, in oppo­sition to Mr. Paine's practice, who, he tells us, ‘does not deal in dates, any more than in quotations, writing wholly from memory,’ (see page 63) it should seem that Mr. Paine, without the help of a book, has even with respect to his dates, not erred so widely from the truth, as Dr. Priestley's strictures would at first sight tempt us to imagine.

‘The writings ascribed to the men called Apostles,’ (Mr. Paine observes) ‘are chiefly controversial; and the gloominess of the subject they dwell upon, that of a man dying in agony on the cross, is better suited to the gloomy genius of a monk in his cell, by whom it is not impossible they were written, than to any man breathing the open air of the creation.’

[Page 72]This latter remark of Mr. Paine furnishes his formidable antagonist with a most desirable opportunity of triumph, as he apprehends; but, unfortunately, his triumph is premature, as I shall endeavour to prove from his own statement of the case.

"As these books, written by Apostles, or Apostolical men," (does Dr. Priestley, by this distinction, mean to signify his assent to the doubt started by our ^* Author, relative to the certainty of the books of the New Testament being written by the persons whose names are prefixed to them?) ‘were appealed to in decision of controversies, it was thought proper to have a standard collection; and the Bishops met in council at Laodicea, Anno Domini 373, did as well as they [Page 73] could, but by no means to the satisfaction of all.’

Doctor Priestley allows therefore, that it was nearly four hundred years after the birth of Christ, and at least three hundred years after the writing of the major part of the books called the New Testament, according to the common received chronology, before a standard collection of these books was made.

That interpolations and spurious readings, (allowing the Books themselves to have been actually written at the early date I have just specified, and by the writers whose names they bear,) might, in such a long course of time, have crept into the text; especially when we consider that the art of printing was not known in those days, but that every copy required to be individually transcribed by an amanuensis; is a possibility, and, let me add, a probability, which I think will be readily con­ceded by every candid examiner. That some of them might have undergone material alte­rations, or have been new-modelled, or even fresh vamped up, to suit particular purposes, between the time of their original composition, and their subsequent incorporation in the standard collection, is likewise no impossibility; [Page 74]and on this supposition Mr. Paine stands amply justified in the inference he draws from the dismal complexion of many of those writ­ings (the controversial parts especially), that it is not impossible (and he mentions the cir­cumstance merely as a possibility, and by no means as a matter of positive fact), but they may have been written by some gloomy Ascetic or Monk; a conjecture which receives addi­tional weight and plausibility, when we reflect that ^* Monks and Convents had established themselves nearly half a century before the Bishops met in council at Laodicea, to deter­mine by vote which of the books out of the collection they had made, should be the Word of God. I see therefore no ground for sup­posing Mr. Paine to have written his Age of [Page 75]Reason without the least knowledge of the Scriptures, or indeed of history." ^*

Mr. Priestley further, in the exultation of his triumph, throws out a challenge to Mr. Paine, and of course to all those that join with him in opinion, ‘to point out any one passage in the New Testament, that, in the most distant manner, intimates that God is pleased by the mortifications men inflict upon themselves; or that it is their duty, or at all acceptable to God, that they should shut themselves up from the world, and decline the active duties of life.’

[Page 76]Instead of being at a loss to discover one, I could instantly refer to a host of passages, a "whole cloud of witnesses," and those of the New Testament dispensation, to answer this challenge; which as it seems to have originated from Mr. Paine's allusion to monks, where he says, that ‘the gloominess of the subject on which the writers of the New Testament expatiate is better suited to the gloomy senses of a monk in his cell, (by whom it is not impossible those books were written) than to any man breath­ing the open air of creation.’ I shall begin my reply with the grand leading characteristic of the monkish system, celi­bacy.

I have already remarked upon the rise and rapid increase of these gloomy fanatics in the early ages of the Christian church. That such characters actually existed, and were not unknown to the New Testament writers, and among the rest to the author of the Epistles to Timothy, is evident from the fourth chapter of the first of these epistles— ‘The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the lat­ter ^* [Page 77]times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hy­pocrisy; having their consciences seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, &c.’ which words, I apprehend, allude, in most unequivocal terms to the monkish doctrines of celibacy and fasting. Now bearing this in [Page 78]remembrance, let us recur to Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, and take up our parable at the seventh chapter: ‘It is good for a man not to touch a woman.’ ( ver. 1) ‘I would that all men were even as I my­self.’ ( ver. 7) How soon would a general compliance with this unnatural, and let me add, irreligious requisition, (for it militates di­rectly against the first grand commandment given to man by the Almighty, ‘ Increase and multiply,’ and therefore would be a case of positive disobedience; or (to quote Dr. Priestley's own words) would be ‘declining the active duties of life’) terminate in the total extinction of the human race! it would be ‘shutting ourselves not only up from the world,’ but would soon lead to shut­ting the whole species out of the world!

The Apostle continues: ‘I say there­fore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.’ What reason doth he assign for this strange, preposterous doctrine? Why, forsooth, be­cause ‘ he that is unmarried, and she that is unmarried, (the monks and the nuns) care for the things that belong to the Lord, how they may please the Lord: whereas [Page 79] he that is married, and she that is married, care for the things that are of the world, how they may please each other, in the relative stations of husband and wife.’

Does not this, let me put the question to Mr. Priestley's own candid reflection, does not this incongruous doctrine savour strongly of the ascetic and the monk? Does it not, as I before observed, militate, point blank, against one of the most active duties, if not the most active of all the duties of life? Does it not? but I shall drop the subject, only observing, that the apostle had better have counselled us at once, as the surest way to put and end to the ‘war in our members,’ to ‘make eunuchs ^* of our­selves for the kingdom of heaven's sake!’ which we find some of the primitive Chris­tians actually did, and among others, the celebrated Origen, having, it is said, this very saying of Christ, with Paul's en­lightened commentary upon it in view!

And here let no man object, in extenua­tion of the absurdity of these doctrines and [Page 80]tenets, that the apostle ‘is not speaking by commandment, but by permission.’ (1 Cor. vii. 6.) The greater is his presumption, in daring to broach such vile and dangerous principles, which I am sure threaten more immediately the welfare of a state, than any principle, ‘however pregnant and full fraught with danger’—in the Rights of Man, and which aim with one decisive blow, at the very extinction of the human species; the greater, I say, is Paul's presumption, the greater his guilt in daring to palm such infamous nonsense upon us, under the sanc­tion and authority of an apostle, without even the smallest pretence to divine command­ment, in apology for his detestable conduct!

In the second place, to say a few words upon the monkish system of mortification, pe­nance and abstemiousness (in commendation of which Mr. Priestley challenges our author to produce a single instance,) I again recur, with full confidence of success, to the fruitful writings of Paul.

‘If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: (spiritually speaking, I suppose) but if ye through the spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. (Rom. viii. 13.) [Page 81]They that are Christ's, have crucified ^* the flesh, with the affections and lusts, (Galat. v. 24) I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection. (1 Cor. ix. 27. the apostle speaks, as the context shews, of corporal abstemiousness, see verse 25.) Mortify your members, which are upon the earth (Col. iii. 5. and from what immediately follows fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence,’ &c. &c. it is abun­dantly evident what particular members the apostle alludes to) ‘I am crucified unto the world, and the world unto me. (Gal. vi. 14.) Make not provision for the flesh (Rom. xiii. 14.) Give yourselves to fasting and prayer, that satan tempt you not for your incontinency.’ ^† (1 Cor. vii. 5.)

Can any thing be more explicit? Or, will Mr. Priestley, with these plain and positive declarations before his eyes, (which, how­ever, are only brought forward as a specimen [Page 82]of the "vast cloud of witnesses" that are kept in reserve) still persist in maintaining, that there is not one single passage in the whole of the New Testament, which, in the most distant manner, intimates, that God is pleased by self-denial and mortification? The man, who, at the very time, that he charges his antagonist with ignorance and error, which he charitably pretends to account for on the plea of his having written from memory and without book, (page 63) can commit still greater errors and blunders himself, with book, may not unaptly be compared to the proud pharisee in the gospel, who was lynx­eyed enough to discern a moat in his brother's eye, though not conscious of the beam that lodged in his own.

That Mr. Paine may have carried his pro­position too far, when he ascribes the great change that took place in the whole system of learning, after the introduction of Chris­tianity, to a deep, preconcerted scheme on the part of the setters-up and advocates of that religion, I shall not affect to dissemble nor deny. But that the Christian religion was virtually and in reality the cause of that change, I am clearly convinced; and Mr. Priestley [Page 83]may boast of the preservation of literature, by the Christian monks of the western and eastern Roman empire, as much as he plea­ses, it remains an incontrovertible fact, that the eternal wranglings about points of faith, and the nonsensical jargon of priests, gave a new turn to the state of learning, which was now made to centre almost entirely in polemical divinity, and of course rendered the acquisition of those languages, in which the books of the Bible were originally written, the most important, if not the only, branch of education.

Without the smallest design to depreciate the value of ^* philology, in its application to the learned languages, (and experience has too well taught me their proper value and estimation, to hold their acquirement in contempt,) I cannot but subscribe, with the fullest energy of conviction, to the jus­tice of Mr. Paine's remark, that it would be advantageous to the general state of learning [Page 84]to lay less stress in the system of education upon the dead languages than is generally done. Learning and knowledge, though commonly reputed synonimous terms are far from being so in reality. The one consti­tutes the shell, the other the kernel, and cer­tainly it must be acknowledged the height of folly and absurdity to set greater store upon the husk than upon the fruit it enve­lops. However, to return from this di­gression.

As we happen to be discussing the sub­ject of dead languages, it may not be amiss to notice in this place a very just and saga­cious argument (urged with great propriety by our author, but rejected and condemned with wonted superciliousness and injustice by his opponents) respecting the insuffici­ency of human language to be the vehicle of the word of God. Mr. Paine observes,

‘If we permit ourselves to conceive right ideas of things, we must necessarily affix the idea, not only of unchangeableness, but of the utter impossibility of any change taking place, by any means or accident whatever, in that which we would honour with the name of the word of God: and [Page 85]therefore the word of God cannot exist in any written or human language.’

‘The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject; the want of a universal language, which renders translations necessary; the errors to which translations are again subject; the mistakes of copyists and printers; toge­ther with the possibility of wilful altera­tion; are of themselves evidences, that hu­man language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the word of God.’

"Trite! and little to the purpose!" ex­claims Dr. Priestley, in reply to these truly ingenious remarks. ‘Frivolous! and un­worthy of a man of sense!’ cries Mr. Wakefield: and both our learned Polemics immediately launch out into a long string of declamation, which has hardly the shadow of an argument to countenance it. Instead of bearing in mind, that the Bible, as far as it professes to be a lanthorn to our feet; a light unto our path; our law, counsellor, and guide, relates chiefly to matters of opinion, and to matters of faith, and that it therefore is the more liable to suffer from the defects of translations, the mistakes of copyists, and [Page 86] wilful or accidental alterations, they are con­tinually harping upon its historical credibility (which our Author does not attempt to invali­date), and comparing it in this point of view to Livy's Roman History, or Caesar's Commentaries.

"The truths of Revelation," (writes Mr. Priestley, page 45) ‘do not depend upon niceties of ideas.’ ‘A few mistakes of copy­ists and printers make no alteration in the general effect,’ says Mr. Wakefield. As a proof, however, how sadly both these learned gentlemen are deceived and mistaken in the position they so obstinately maintain, I shall just adduce one instance, amongst a number that might be urged; which said instance, as it adds a fresh laurel to their triumph over Trinitarianism, entitles me, I think, to some claim on their acknowledgments.

Few texts in the Bible, perhaps, are more frequently referred to by the orthodox Sons of the Church, to prove the divinity of Christ, than the following passage from St. Paul's first Epistle to Timothy: ‘And, without controversy, great is the mystery of god­liness; GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on [Page 87]in the world, received up into glory.’ (1 Tim. iii. 16.) Now would it be believed, and yet the fact is well ascertained, that the word God, in which the whole stress of the sentence centres, is not to be met with in the original? Would it be believed, that the singular circumstance of the middle stroke of the E, in [...], having sunk through the parchment, so as to appear on the opposite side, should exactly occupy the centre of the omicron in the relative OC, which by that means being taken for a [...], caused the word to pass for [...], which is the abreviation of [...]? Would it be believed, that the Divinity of Christ should rest upon such a slender foundation as this? And yet such is the actual state of the case, as the ^* Alexandrine Codex plainly proves. Mr. Priestley, I hope, will no longer take upon him to deny, that the truths of Revelation may depend upon very great niceties!

Another instance of gross error and mis­take occurs in Mr. Wakefield's reply to our Author's strictures on the history of the cre­ation.

[Page 88] ‘Why it has been called the Mosaic Ac­count of the creation,’ (writes Mr. Paine) ‘I am at a loss to conceive. Moses, I be­lieve, was too good a judge of such sub­jects, to put his name to that account. He had been educated among the Egyptians, who were a people as well skilled in science, and particularly in astronomy, as any people in their day.’

To this true and modest statement, Mr. Wakefield replies, with all the haughty self­sufficiency of a Dictator in the Republic of Letters:

‘All this may be literally true (see page 54) but a palpable untruth is implied in it, that the Egyptians were really a learned and scientific people, whereas their science and their astronomy was just nothing at all ^*.’

[Page 89]It requires no great portion of penetration to discover Mr. Wakefield's true motives for [Page 90]refusing to allow the Egyptians their just tri­bute of scientific praise. He is well aware, that the concession of this point would detract from the high encomiums he has passed upon the Jews, (see page 15) as the first founders and cultivators (it should seem) of science; and which he obliquely urges as a proof of the revelations and supernatural communications (page 17) said to have been vouchsafed to Moses. But Mr. Wakefield may romance upon this subject as long as he pleases, he cannot [Page 91]invalidate those incontrovertible evidences to Egyptian science and cultivation, which the writings of Moses himself afford, and of which I might easily produce convincing specimens in abundance, did I see any further ‘need of witnesses,’ after the respectable voucher I have already brought forward in support of the claims of the Egyptians.

Indeed the whole of the Mosaic account of the creation appears to have been borrowed from documents of still greater ^*antiquity, which he found ready prepared to his hand, and of which it is certainly more reasonable to suppose that Moses availed himself, than to pretend that he received his knowledge of the subject immediately from divine commu­nication. His famous history of the Fall of Man carries with it unquestionable evidence of the obligation he lies under to the decried, depreciated learning of the Egyptians. It is obviously a transcript of a hieroglyphical [Page 92]representation of some traditional account respecting the deterioration of human nature, which Moses, if it was not previously done by some other writer, seems to have translated from the language of emblem, into that of words ^*.

Endless would be the task (and, indeed, what I have already advanced considerably exceeds the limits I had originally prescribed to the present undertaking) were I to at­tempt a reply to every impertinent cavil raised by these two redoubtable Champions of Reve­lation, against the Age of Reason. I shall there­fore curtail my strictures as much as pro­priety will admit, ‘and, heartily tired with examining into the inconsistencies’ of Mr. Wakefield and his learned coadjutor, through which I have already fought my way, hasten to the conclusion of my disqui­sitions, without stopping to answer objections which are beneath the notice of criticism; such, for instance, as Mr. Wakefield's silly [Page 93]triumph over Mr. Paine, (see page 59) be­cause our author, forsooth, has interpreted the term Testament in its common accepta­tion, as implying a will, (and I will not take upon me to affirm, when the context is pro­perly attended to, that Mr. Paine is not per­fectly justified in giving the name of will to a covenant, of which the apostle expressly declares, that it is of no force during the life-time of the testator. (Heb. ix. 10, 11.) Be that, however, as it may, the objection started by Mr. Wakefield is perfectly puerile, irrevalent, and absurd, as the force of Mr. Paine's argument is not in the slightest de­gree affected, much less invalidated by it. The presumption and blasphemy of the charge, which ascribes fickleness of mind to the Creator, and makes him abrogate the covenant into which he had formerly en­tered with his creatures, remains the same; remains equally impious and daring, whe­ther we distinguish this compact by the ap­pellation of a covenant, or by that of will. To change or amend this covenant, implies a defect or incongruity in his former com­pact, which Omniscience was not competent [Page 94]to foresee, till experience pointed out the error; ‘for if that first covenant ^* had been fau [...]tless, then should no place have been found for the second; but now he taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. ^†’

With respect to our author's excellent ani­madversions on prophets and prophecy, it is a matter of very little consequence, in my apprehension, whether the term, taken in its scriptural use and acceptation, signify a poet, as Mr. Paine explains it, or a teacher, as Mr. Wakefield maintains. I am satisfied that Mr. Paine's strictures contain abun­dance of truth ^‡, and perhaps too much to go down palatably in this age of prophecy and [Page 95]revelation. ‘The axe (to quote our au­thor's own energetic language) strikes im­mediately at the root;’ it attacks the very fundamentals of Christianity, the tes­timony of Jesus being the spirit of prophecy.—(Rev. xix. 10.)

Such being the state of the case, it should seem well worth our while to bestow a little attention and enquiry upon the subject.

"The supposed prophet (writes our au­thor) ‘was the supposed historian of times to come; and if he happened, in shooting with a long bow of a thousand years, to [Page 96]strike within a thousand miles of the mark, the ingenuity of posterity could make it point-blank; and if he happened to be directly wrong, it was only to suppose, as in the case of Jonah and Nineveh, that God had repented himself, and changed his mind.’

Let us next examine Dr. Priestley's state­ment. ‘Some parts of the book of Daniel, and also of the Revelation, are written in such a manner, that it is probable we shall not understand them completely, till we can compare them with the events to which they correspond.’

Here then let me put the question to Dr. Priestley—Of what service can these pro­phecies be, allowing them even to merit the title, if they are so obscure that they are not to be understood, till explained and eluci­dated by fulfilment? And as by the term prophecy, a prediction, we apprehend, is meant, of certain specified events to be veri­fied or accomplished at some future period; how are we to know that the writings in question have any claim to the title, if they be so darkly worded that we cannot even [Page 97]ascertain what transactions or events they are predictive of? We may on this plea wait till the end of days, and still honour them with the title of prophecies, in daily hopes of some event or other turning up, to which our ingenuity can make these luminous and universal predictions refer; for it seems they are prophetical of the first plausible event that shall befal!

But it seems, the moment this fortunate and long expected chance turns up, ‘it is very possible we may then be satisfied, that only He who can see the end from the beginning, could have described them, even in that obscure manner, so long before.’ Good bye, then, to prophecy, if even the original Revealer of it can scarcely see his way through the dark himself!

Yet still is our determined champion of the faith, (and it requires great faith, indeed, almost enough to remove mountains, to be­lieve on such weak, unsatisfactory grounds) still is he not a whit cast down, nor discom­fited! He continues:

‘The reason of the obscurity of those par­ticular prophecies, concerning events which [Page 98]are yet to come, is pretty obvious ^*. For as these prophecies are now in the hands of those who respect them, it might have been said, that they contributed to their own fulfilment by the friends of revelation endeavouring so bring about the events predicted.’

A curious mode of reasoning, indeed! What a pity these prophecies were not writ­ten in hieroglyphics, in which case they might, possibly, have been more obscure and darker still than they are in their present state! However, as it is, I believe there is very little danger of the believers in them destroying the credit of the prophecies after fulfilment, by incurring the suspicion of [Page 99]having, from their clear apprehension of them, contributed to their verification.

But not yet, even, is our doughty champion to be dispirited. He has followed the ad­vice given by the spirit to the angel of the church of Laodicea, (Rev. iii. 18.) and has wisely provided himself with eye salve, that he may see, where others are fain to shut their eyes, and give up all hopes of extricating themselves.

"Though some intermediate steps" (by the bye I am sadly apprehensive that all the steps in the prophetical ladder are broken down, since none of the admirers and advocates of the system are able to get to the top of it, in order, from the elevated station it would afford them, to take a nearer peep into futurity, and tell us when we may reasonably expect to see the fulfilment of some one or other of these glorious predic­tions, Mr. Halhed's Millenium, for instance!) ‘though some intermediate steps in the great train of events be thus obscure, both the great outline of the whole, and the catastrophe are most clearly expressed. Ob­scure, as is,’ (I wonder Mr. Priestley should be perpetually harping upon this string; he [Page 100]should, methinks, have rather imitated the dutiful example of the sons of Noah, and have thrown a mantle over the nakedness of his prophets, unless, indeed, as not impro­bably may be the case, this charitable action is already performed by the prophets them­selves in consequence of the thick mantle of obscurity, and "darkness palpable," in which they have wisely taken care to wrap them­selves up) ‘Obscure as is the language of these prophecies, they plainly enough indicate a long period of great corruption in Christi­anity,’ (methinks there is no need of either priest or prophet, apostle nor commentator, to tell us that. Unless, indeed, it be for our comfort, that we are foretold this happy system of things, which has already continued in force a considerable length of time, is likely to continue so a great deal longer: the prophets, in this respect, seem to have taken pattern from the comforters of poor, afflicted Job!) ‘A long period of great corruption in Christianity is indicated; especially by the rise of a ^* persecuting power within [Page 101]itself; but that this power, together with all the ^* temporal powers of this world in [Page 102]league with it, is to be overthrown; and that this will be a season of great ca­lamity.’

As far as respects the latter part of the prediction, I readily grant, that the prophecy is, and has long been, (perhaps from the time of its first delivery, if not before) and I fear will continue so to be a long, long time still to come, in a ‘ state of actual fulfil­ment.’ But neither was the Vision of the Four Beasts, nor yet of the Ram and He-Goat, nor yet the Vision of the Four great Monarchies (see Daniel), nor yet the Visions granted to the visionary writer of the Apoca­lypse, (which, according to Mr. Wakefield's statement bears ‘such strong, incontrovert­ible, internal symptoms of genuineness,’ and strong, and incontrovertible, and genuine those symptoms are of the highest pitch of en­thusiasm [Page 103]wound up almost to madness); nei­ther, I say, were Daniel's Visions, nor St. John's Visions; neither the Vision of the Seven Stars and Seven golden Candlesticks; of the Man in the midst of these Candlesticks with feet like brass, and a sharp, two-edged sword in his mouth, clothed with a garment down to the feet, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle; nor the second edition of the Vision of the Four Beasts, with its glorious apendages; nor the Vision of the Seven Angels with the Seven Trumpets; nor the Vision of the Woman in the Sun (who was then and there delivered of a male child, from whence, I suppose, our modern Jerusalem Sols!); nor yet the Vision of the Beast with Seven Heads (which, allowing each head to have had two eyes, or even only one eye to each head, would have made a most excellent spy; and as the Beast had moreover ten horns, he might have acted in the double capacity of Informer and Alarmist!) nor yet the Vision of the Beast with two horns, coming up out of the earth (or from the dunghill of corruption, as some inter­preters render it, and which is therefore, by many learned commentators, supposed to be typical and illustrative of our incomparable [Page 104] PRIME MINISTER, for as much as this Beast, as well as the one that preceded him, is said to have had a mouth vaunting great things; for though he had but two horns, and those, it is presumed, of no great significancy or native power, being ‘like unto the horns of a lamb,’ and therefore not calculated for warlike enterprizes, yet he spake as a dra­gon, and deceived them that dwell on the earth ^*); nor yet the Vision of the GREAT [Page 105]WHORE (which is the most beautiful and sublime of all the Visions, and on which thefore I mean to publish a small Treatise, dedicated to the Maids of Honour, to appear on the Festival of the Blessed Virgin); nor the Vision of the Seven last Plagues (which I devoutly pray the Almighty to ward off from us, as we have had plagues enough already); nor yet the Vision of Satan's capture and in­carceration (who seems to have given his keeper the slip, and to have got among the herd of swine again); nor yet the Vision of the [Page 106]battle of GOG and MAGOG, which has been a long while determining, and in the con­test has cost us millions of lives and treasure); nor yet the Vision of the new Heaven and new Earth (which Mr. Halhed and Mr. Bro­thers are in daily expectation of); nor yet the Vision of the Water and Tree of Life (both of which I wish to my heart I could trans­plant and distribute among our troops in the West Indies); nor yet the Vision of Visions (which has made Visionaries of us all; but which I forbear to expatiate upon; and in­deed after having successfully run through such an almost unprecedented length of sen­tence, it is proper I should be indulged a little respite to fetch breath): neither, I say, was this Vision, nor all these Visions, nor any of them, necessary to prove and point out to us the alarming state of things, and the general depravity of the age; which con­sideration leads me to treat of the last sub­ject I propose to discuss in the present work—the radical Defects of our Religion; from whence all the numberless abuses which both Mr. Priestley and Mr. Wakefield complain of, flow, and must flow, whilst we continue to believe such monstrous doctrines, and im­piously [Page 107]honour them with the title of God's Word.

However, before I finally dismiss the topic of Prophecy, I must remark, that there are in the Bible Prophecies of a peculiar stamp, which seem to refer to no particular event, but depend for accomplishment solely upon the heated state of the imagination. To this class belong the major part of those pretty, melting, love-sick allegories, which commen­tators generally refer to the mystical union between Christ and his Church. Nothing can, indeed, be more completely ridiculous, or serve to impress us with a more contempt­ible idea of the Word of God, as the Bible professes to be, than when we contemplate the vast pains which have been taken to ham­mer out of these prophetic writings, always in a " train of fulfilment, ^*" but never accom­plished, [Page 108]any kind of sense or meaning what­ever! What numberless folios of learned commentaries have been written to trace out Christ under the various types of Angel, Man, Bird, Beast, Fish, Insect; nay, even under the type of a stumbling stone and shin-breaker ^*. And have not equal pains been taken to dis­cover his Bride, the Church, under the mask of a Harlot, a Strumpet, a Prostitute, a Whore, and Adultress; one moment reclaimed, and the next as arrant a jilt as ever! And then [Page 109]again, by happy metamorphosis, she is a sweet little innocent, a true and perfect maid, without spot or blemish; a little sister with no breasts, or a Prince's daughter with two breasts, like two young roes that are twins, and with a navel like a round goblet! In short, the Bridegroom and the Bride are much of a piece—are any thing and every thing, as suits the convenience of the Pro­phet and his commentator. To call such a farrago of nonsense and absurdity the Word of God, is a downright profanation of the sacred name ^*.

Where then, it will be demanded, are we to look for God's word? Or, hath he left himself wholly without witness? Mr. Paine's reply to this interesting question is truly admirable.

[Page 110] ‘It is only in the creation that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The creation speaketh a uni­versal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they are. It is an ever-existing original, which ^* every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counter­feited; [Page 111]it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds: and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God?’

Were it my design to turn panegyrist to Mr. Paine, I might find ample scope for my talents in this one single beautiful and com­prehensive sentence. It contains every thing that can be said either in savor of the real word of God, or in detraction of the counterfeit. The comparatively small part of the terra­queous globe, which, even at this day, after a lapse of more than three thousand years, has any knowledge of the written word of God, as professed to be contained either in the Jewish or Christian scriptures must, in the eye of reason, furnish a strong and insur­mountable objection to the divinity of these books, in as much as a revelation of the Cre­ator's will undoubtedly ought to extend to all his creatures, and not depend upon chance and circumstances for promulagtion. [Page 112]An earthly sovereign who issues an edict, or makes known his pleasure, to his subjects, is particularly careful that his proclamation shall be promulgated as universally as possible, in order that disobedience may have no shadow of excuse. If he be a king over many na­tions, and people of different tongues and languages bow down before him, he gives orders to have his proclamation translated into all those languages, that every one may read it in his vernacular tongue. These are measures of precaution and expediency which justice demands; and the application of this proposition to revelation, or the word of God holds strictly good. ‘How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preaches? and how shall parsons preach ex­cept they be sent?’ (Rom. x. 14, 15.) Univer­sality, therefore, as the laws of God extend equally to the whole human race, becomes an indispensible requisite in whatever lays claim to the title of God's word, and as the scrip­tures cannot boast this indispensible requisite, they must relinquish their pretensions.

The oldest religion (I proceed now to the last object of my discussions, as specified [Page 113]above) of which we have any authentic and credible accounts, is Judaism. Not that I suppose mankind were entirely devoid of all religious notions (the reverse is evident from scripture itself) till Moses received a divine commission to be the Founder of Judaism: but whatever their religion was, considered in the light of a system, it is now impossible for us to ascertain. They worshipped idols, and probably the heavenly bodies, particu­larly the sun and moon, as from these they derived the blessings of heat and light.

Moses, whose views appear to have been no less than the establishment of Universal Hierarchy, formed a system most admirably adapted to promote his ambitious views. He was originally the son of an obscure Is­raelite, saved by stealth, as the book of Ex­odus informs us, from being put to death in his infancy, in pursuance of the edict of the king of Egypt, to which country the ancestors of Moses had emigrated to escape ^* starvation at a time of general scarcity and [Page 114]famine. At the age of three months, his mother being no longer able to conceal him at home with safety, he is put into an ark of bullrushes, and set adrift in the Nile. In this deplorable situation he is discovered by Pharaoh's daughter, whose compassion in­duces her to take care of him, and Moses is educated at Pharaoh's court, where he is initiated into all the wisdom of the Egyptians.

When advanced to manhood, he discovers a turbulent disposition ^*; interferes in the [Page 115]quarrels between his countrymen and the Egyptians; kills one of the latter in a fray; [Page 116]and to avoid the punishment of his crime, (for the laws of the Egyptians relative to murder were exceedingly severe ^*) he escapes into the land of Midian.

[Page 117]Here, after marrying the daughter of the shepherd whose flocks he tended, he grows dissatisfied with his humble condition, and plans schemes of future aggrandizement. Being born to no dominions, he must either acquire them by conquest, or be content to continue shepherd. Conquests are not made without armies, and as Moses has no troops, he must study the means of raising them. He had observed the hatred which the Is­raelites entertained against the Egyptians, to whom they were vassals; he forms the plan of inciting them to revolt, and making them the instruments of his ambition.

For this purpose he pretends a divine mis­sion from God, accompanied with a grant of certain lands, the situation of which he deemed eligible. With these credentials he returns to Egypt; encourages his country­men to emancipate themselves; and having prepared them for his purpose, endeavours to circumvent Pharaoh, by preferring an insi­dious request for leave of absence for the Israelites, that they may go three days journey into the wilderness, and ^* sacrifice to their [Page 118]God. Pharaoh, however, had, it seems, rea­son to mistrust the sincerity of his zeal, having perhaps received secret intimation of his real design; and therefore not only flatly refuses to grant his request, but gives orders moreover to keep a stricter hand over the Is­raelites than before. The consequence is, the Israelites, finding themselves treated with aggravated rigour, remonstrate with Moses, and seem willing to relinquish the design of recovering their liberty. Moses, however, succeeds in dissuading them, and having suf­ficiently confirmed their wavering resolution, repeats his crafty request to Pharaoh, but with no better success than before.

A long series of plots and insidious ma­chinations ^* now ensues, with some feats of legerdemain, which Moses being more expert at than the magicians of Pharaoh's court, he at length imposes upon the king, who grants the Israelites permission to decamp. No [Page 119]sooner, however, are the latter upon the march, (which they took care not to enter upon till they had very genteelly picked the pockets of their late acquaintance—Exod. xii. 35, 36.) than Pharaoh, receiving posi­tive information, that Moses, and the Is­raelites under his command, had no intention of returning back to vassallage, but that their pretended pilgrimage to serve the Lord their God in the wilderness was a mere stratagem to effect their escape, determines to pursue the fugitives, and coming up with them towards evening ^*, is either drowned in at­tempting to ford the Red Sea at the place where the Israelites passed through it, but which was now no longer fordable, (the wa­ters having returned) or else he sounds a retreat, and orders his troops home again, leaving the Israelites to pursue their route unmolested.

Our adventurer has now got a considerable number of subjects, for whom he has no­thing to do but provide a place to settle in. As it was necessary to violate all the laws of [Page 120]of justice and humanity, in seizing upon the territories of other states, (for none were willing to resign their lands up to him) he pretends that the grant he had received from God of certain pleasant lands which suited his purpose, not only authorized the invasion of those lands, but moreover enjoined him to butcher and totally extirpate the original in­habitants, sparing neither men, women, nor children. Thus, by an alledged commandment from the Almighty, are the hearts of the Israelites steeled to all the cruelties and enor­mities which they afterwards perpetrated.

Seeing himself at the head of a nume­rous, and of course powerful nation, Moses turns his thoughts to secure the continuance of that power which he had so successfully and artfully usurped. For this purpose he gives a code of laws to the Israelites, which, like those of Draco, may be said to be written in blood! throws all the power into the hands of the priesthood, which he makes he­reditary in his own tribe of Levi, because their progenitor was a blood-thirsty ruffian and cut-throat! (Gen. xxiv. 25, 30.) con­secrates his brother Aaron high-priest! and confirms the despotism of his hierarchy by [Page 121]making the priests keepers of the oracles and interpreters of the law to the people. As for himself, he fills no one particular office, but is the all in all of the system.

That a religion founded upon such prin­ciples as these must inevitably tend to bru­talize the heart, and lead to the most dia­bolical actions is self-apparent. Nothing can be closer than the intimate connection be­tween religion and morals. The Jewish his­tory furnishes a striking proof of the justice of this maxim. It exhibits little else to our view than a black catalogue of the most atro­cious crimes that ever disgraced human na­nature. Murders, rapes, enormities of every kind, at the bare mention of which huma­nity recoils with horror, appear on every page. A captive king is cut in pieces in cool blood before the Lord in Gilgal, by the reputed prophet of the Almighty, and the Con­queror whose humanity induced him to spare the life of his unhappy prisoner, is declared to have forfeited his crown, and to be rejected of the Lord, because he obeyed not the word of his prophet, who commanded him to ‘smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they had, and spare them not; but slay [Page 122]both man and woman, infant and suck­ling, ox and sheep, camel and ass!’ (1 Sam. xv. 3.) Such was the blessed spirit of the Jewish dispensation, so highly valued in Mr. Wakefield's eyes, under which the sim­ple act of gathering sticks to light a fire on the Sabbath-day, was punished with a tor­turing death. (Numbers, xv. 32—36.)

Let us now turn our eye to the Christian System:

The leading feature of this scheme is Redemption. The Christian Scriptures con­cur with the Jewish Chronicles in inform­ing us, that man, deviating from the line of rectitude, by listening to the seductions of wayward appetite ^*, entailed death and misery upon all his numerous posterity, not one of whom (Enoch and Elijah excepted, and why they should be excepted we see no reason) escape the punishment due to Adam's disobedience, though not one of them accessary to his crime.

Nearly four thousand years elapse, man continuing all that time to suffer the pu­nishment [Page 123]of a guilt he had not incurred, when a Saviour is born in Bethlehem; whether by divine conception or not, is nothing to the present question. This illustrious personage is held up as the scape goat of the whole human race, who is to expiate the guilt in­curred by the original transgressor.

Both these doctrines therefore proceed upon one and the same principle. The one damns all mankind for a guilt in which (one only pair excepted) they had no participa­tion; and the other professes to save these wretched victims for the merit of another, in which they were equally neuter. Thus injustice forms the grand characteristic of them both.

The glaring absurdity, and, as I said be­fore, injustice, of this scheme, are so ably pointed out by Mr. Paine (whose notion of Redemption I conceive to be a very just one, though possibly derived from his father's ^* instruction), that I forbear to go over the ground he has already so successfully trodden However, to state one argument which I do [Page 124]not find urged by our Author, I object to Re­demption, exclusive of every other con­sideration, on the plea that justice is not done by it to man.

Adam transgresses, and his whole poste­rity is doomed to die. This doom is carried into most rigorous execution, for not one (our two Old Testament worthies excepted) escape its force. As ^* death therefore was the punishment denounced against sin, it was impossible for any Redemption to take place, after the punishment had once been actually inflicted. Unless, indeed, as soon as the proxy-expiation was effected, those who had already paid the forfeit, that is to say, all the persons who have died from Adam to Christ, had been restored to life; for, if I am arrested for a debt, and a friend is generous enough to discharge it for me, I am no longer de­tained in prison.

[Page 125]Again, allowing even the possibility of Redemption; nay I will go a step further, and suppose it to have actually taken place; still I maintain, that justice is not done to man by it. Adam's transgression damns me, ipso facto, without any act of mine. I have a right, therefore, when Redemption is held out to my view, to expect that I shall benefit by it upon the same terms. I have a right to stand neuter in the business; and as I am damned by Adam's Fall, whether I pro­fess to believe in it or not, I have a right to benefit by Christ's Redemption, whether I make it my creed of faith or not. Upon any other terms this Redemption becomes partial and unjust.

Having thus stated the inconsistency of the scheme in theory, I proceed to try its merits by the touchstone of practice.

It is by the fruit that we judge of the tree; and even the Christian scheme allows the justice of this principle. I have already shown the intimate connexion between Mo­rals and Religion in the case of Judaism; I shall now discuss the same topic with refer­ence to Christianity.

Deeds constituted the merit of the Jewish [Page 126]system; Faith constitutes the merit of the Christian. The b [...]st Jew was the man that conformed most scrupulously to the outward ceremonies of the Levitical law; the best Christian is the man who has the strongest faith. The sinner, who transgressed against any ordinance of the Mosaic dispensation, not punishable with death was made to smart for his crime, by the forfeit he had to pay under the name of an offering. Under the Christian dispensation the most damnable sins (provided they do not offend against the statute) may be committed one moment, and repented of the next, and pardoned to boot, without costing the sinner one farthing, un­less he has the misfortune (for such I must consider it in this light) to belong to the Ro­mish church; in which case he will have to pay (but I believe the terms are pretty mo­derate) for absolution.

Whether he pays, however, or not; whe­ther he be a disciple of the Church of Rome, or a disciple of the church of England, it makes no difference as to his conduct. In the former case, he can buy a licence to sin on with impunity, for three, or four, or a dozen years together, according as his purse [Page 127]holds out; in the latter he may sin and pay nothing: but then the Protestant who does not pay, must be at the trouble of repenting, which the Catholic, who pays, has no need to do. Thus they stand both nearly upon a level. Now let us see what good effects this blessed Religion produces in their practice.

The Christians, long persecuted by the Jews and Pagans, no sooner get out of the fire themselves, than they begin to thrust others into it. They retaliate upon the Jews, they retaliate upon the Pagans, and when they have no common enemies to persecute, they fall out among themselves, and begin to worry each other. Their religion at length branches out into two distinct ramisications; which is not to be wondered at, as I have already demonstrated Christianity to be theo­retical; whereas Judaism was practical. These two branches, though originating from the same stem, harbour greater hatred to each other, than if they were rival trees. Per­secution rages hotter now than ever; the elder branch, being the most powerful, as matured and invigorated by age, carries it awhile with a high and daring hand. At length the younger branch attains to suffi­cient [Page 128]growth and vigour to dispute the day, and retaliates in its turn upon the elder branch. Thus they continue worrying each other, till their mutual interests compel them to live more neighbourly together: but neither should a single leaf on the Pro­testant branch enjoy one visit from the genial beams of the sun, if the Catholics could pre­vent it; nor the same blessing be allowed to the leaves of the Catholic branch, if the Pro­testants had it in their power to cast a shade upon them. ^*

Religion being thus made to consist in faith, or in other words, in opinion; and opin­ions being as various as there are heads to harbour those opinions, the most absurd and monstrous doctrines are engrafted upon it. Hence we hear talk of standing up for our religion; (which is, or ought to be, well able to stand up for itself) of ^† fighting for [Page 129]our religion; (though the founder of it would not permit the sword to be drawn in his own defence) of dying for our religion; (which is nearly as absurd as fighting for it, religion being intended for the happiness of man, and not for an ignis fatuus to lead him into destruction) of making Proselytes to our religion; (which, if possible, is more absurd still, as religion should be left to beat up recruits for itself) of reforming our reli­gion; (which, if it stands in need of reform, is better totally rejected) of establishing our religion; (which God has taken care to do himself when he first laid down the immu­table laws of nature) of proving our religion; (which if it be not the religion of nature will be found not worth the proof) of bring­ing our religion to the test; (which none but natural religion can ever stand) of supporting our religion (which if it wants support from man should be left to fall to the ground). Hence likewise in practice we are guilty of the most ridiculous absurdities, and whilst we style our God the Prince of peace, at whose birth the angels rent the air with loud acclaims of ‘ Tidings of great joy; peace upon earth, and good will to men:’—we call [Page 130]upon him to bless our slaughtering arms, and hang up the shattered standards and blood­distained trophies of our enemies in his con­secrated temples!

But here steps in Mr. Wakefield with his famous plea, ‘ Ab abusu ad usum non valet con­sequentia.’—I admit the proposition in its fullest extent. But first, let him demonstrate to me the use of the thing for which we are contending. I defy him to do it. But should he even succeed in discovering and substantiating some degree of use; it still re­mains to be ascertained, whether the use atones for the abuse; whether it prepon­derates in the scale. When I see nothing but abuse from first to last; nothing but corruption throughout; when I see nothing but fraud and deception; I fear that his "Abusus non tollit usum," will stand him in little stead. Let him prove to me that we have less uncharitableness, less unmerciful­ness, less vindictiveness in the world (I am speaking in general terms of mankind at large, and not arguing from individuals) since the introduction of the Christian sys­tem: let him prove that we have fewer ani­mosities, fewer wars, less blood-shed, less [Page 131]butchering of our fellow-creatures, and that often under the mask of religion; ^* let him prove and establish these important points, and I shall readily acknowledge myself his convert. Till then, however, I must make bold to believe with Mr. Paine, that the CREATION IS THE ONLY TRUE AND REAL WORD OF GOD, that ever did or will exist, and that every thing else called the Word of God, is fable and imposition.

London, October 10, 1795.