The Bible, its own refutation

Front matter

OC^^r CCc ^

<crccc<:c^ '-

<r Cc «j.^ cc::c'<oc: c] cncc

Chapter I

It is difficult for one who never wrote a book, to begin it. The object of this will be to shew that the facts, on which the Jewish and Christian religions are founded, never transpired — in other words, are false. A greater man than Mr. Jefferson, has spoken o^ false facts. A fact, I agree, is something done, and an allegation that something has been done which never was done, is a false allegation. Such false allegation, Lord Mansfield, and Mr. Jefferson have called a false fact— an expression sufficiently intelligible, though not strictly logical, and which, when I use it, must be understood as such false allegation.

A distinguished divine has truly said, that the questions between the christians and infidels are purely questions of fact, and are to be tried like all other questions of fact; namely, by human testimony — that mathematical certainty is not to be expected, and ought not to be required of the christians — ^that probabilities only can be arrived at from the investigations of these questions, and are all that can properly be required of those who hold the affirmative. For example: The writer of the book of Exodus alleges that the angel of God, or God himself, the creator of the universe, appeared to an Israelite by the name of Moses, in the land of Midian, and talked to him as one man talks to another. Now, here are two allegations; the first, that the angel of God or God himself (it is difficult to determine from the text how this was) shewed himself to Moses, and the other, that he talked to him. The christian says that he cannot prove the truth of these allegations as conclusively as he could that of some mathematical proposition, and that he ought not to be required to do it; but admits that it is incumbent on him to shew that the probability is, that these allegations are true. The christian, admitting this much, must admit that the in-

6 THE MBLB

fidel is bound to shew nothing more than the improbabihty of these allegations. Therefore, in all issues between them, the inquiry must be; on which side the probability lies, as thus: Is it more probable that the angel bf God appeared and talked to Moses, than that the author has written falsely? The christian contends that it is more probable that the augel appeared and talked- — ^the infidel, that the author has recorded a falsehood.

Such questions and such only, I propose to discuss in the following pages. All questions respecting the existence and attributes of God. and his mode of existencoj I shall leave for those to discuss, who seemingly take a delight in discussing questions, the terms of which they do not understand.

I am well aware that a great majority of christians are under the impression, that to admit the existence of a God, is to admit the truth of those allegations Respecting him, found in the volume called the Bible; and that to prove his existence, is to establish the truth of those allegations. It must be evident to men of well traiibed minds that the question whether there be a God, is wholly different from the question of fact, whether he told Moses or any other individual to exterminate the Canaanites and leave nothing alive that breathed — wholly distinct from the question of fact, whether God polished two marble slabs and engraved thereon the decalogue, or whether he made clothes of the skins of beasts and put them on the first pair, &c. &c. I wish my readers distinctly to understand what we admit and what we deny, and what we neither admit nor deny. It may or may not be true — it is a matter of perfect indifference with us — ^we neither admit not deny, that a man by the name of Moses may have led a people called Israelites out of Egypt; but we deny all personal interference of God in this Exodus. It may or may not be true that the Hebrew Women borrowed jewels and fine raiment of the Egyptian ladies with a determination never to return them, but to put them on their own sons and daughters, and thus "to spoil the Egyptians;" but we deny that God ever eanctioned such conduct, or hinted to Moses to suggest to his countrywomen to do the like. It may or may not be true, that Moses sent his army against the Midianites, but we deny, that God ever said to Moses: ^'avenge the children of the Israelites upon the Midianites," or gave directions respecting the division of the prey. It may or may not be true, that Joshua conquered the cities of Canaan, and put to death all the inhabitants thereof, except a harlot of Jericho and her family: but we do not believe tha,V God ever told him to murder the one or to spare the other. It may or may not be true, that Samuel told Saul it was God's will that he should go against the Amalekites and slay old and young, infant and suckling, ox and 8b©«p, camel and asu; but w» d©iiy that God ever told Samu«l any

ITi own RlTUTATlOSi ^

iuch thing; we also deny that Samuel was obeying the commands of God

when "he hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord, in Gilgal."

It may or may not be true, that David seduced the wife of Uriah, and caused him to be put to death; but we deny that the Lord ever told Nathan, or any one else, that he was displeased with David's conduct; or that he ever told David that he would punish him by causing his wives to commit open adultery with his neighbors, or by causing the death of the innocent child begotten in adulterous sheets; we also deny that God ever sanctioned thL marriage, with Bathsheba, and particularly blessed it, as he is eaid to have done,by making Solomon, its issue,his father's successor. In fine, we admit that Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, and a host of others may have been treacherous villians, cruel and bloody-minded butchers; but we deny that they were saints—^ bloody saint being, in our estimation, an absurdity in terms. We deny that God ever enjoined upon any ma.n— any moral agent— the commission of acts positively mala in se,

evil in themselves.

Most, if not all of the advocates of Christianity, in their attempts to establish its truth, commence by proving there is a God— then they infer his attributes, and then they assert and endeavor to shew, from what they af3 pleased to call a chain of logical reasoning, founded on these attributes of a God, who, they also tell you, is inscrutable, and whose ways are past finding out, that he ought to have communicated his will to mankind in words. What effrontery! What presumption! To mount the throne of heaven and dictate to its King what he ought, and what he ought not to do. Having thus settled, satisfactorily to themselves, what God ought to do, they conclude he has done it. Is this logic'! Can well educated men, who reason in this manner, be honesti They should be very careful how they assert what God ought, or ouglit not to do; for they admit they cannot prove to a mathematical certainty, that God ever has spoken in words to man. From their own admissions then, it is possible he never has; and if it should turn out that he never has, then, also, from their own shewing, he has not done that which he ought to have done. The only safe, because the only correct, mode of argument is this: after having satisfactorily proved, from human testimony, (supposing it possible,) that God has spoken in words to. man, to infer that he ought to have done so, on the principle that he does nothing which he ought not to do; that is, infer the obligation God was ■ under to reveal his will to mankind in words, from the /ad— not the fact from the obligation. The christians in this, as in most of their arguments, "begin at the wrong end.

Again, it is syllogistically argued that the notion of a God is in the TTorli—tkat «u«k notion would »«Ter kar* #st«r,»d it but t'«r0«£'k r«T«-;.

Z THB BIBLB

lation — ^that the Bible gives an account of such revelation, therefore the Bible is true. All very pretty — give me the pou sto and I can move the world. We are also told, that the moment this idea is suggested to an individual, (and not till then,) all nature is heard crying aloud m proof of its truth. Strange indeed, that man should have remained so deaf to these cries of nature, until the lucky moment of this suggestion. Strange, that the proposition itself, about which, and in proof of which, all nature is 60 loudly and constantly screaming in our ears, cannot and will not enter the mind of man, until the God of nature shall verbally communicate it to him. Strange, that the proofs of a proposition should at all times, and in all places be staring us in the face, and the proposition itself remain always behind the curtain.

The christian doctors also admit, that when once this notion of a God gets into the world, it cannot get out; and, as it has been in the world as far back as they pretend to trace the history of man, they infer that it must have been communicated by God himself to the first man: And, as the Bible expressly declares that God did reveal himself to the first man, they also infer that the Bible is true. They admit, in truth they contend, (contrary to the truth as I shall endeavor to show by-and-bye,) that Moses wrote the first five books of the volume called the Bible. They are obliged to admit that we have not a scrip of a pen from any man who lived before Moses, detailing interviews with God. They allege that to Adam, the first man, Seth, Noah,Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others, Adam's descendants, God made special communications in words; and confess that all they know concerning these progenitors of Moses, and the communications of God to them, they learn from him. If any man of you, my christian readers — I hope some christians will read my book — should be asked the question: "from whom did you learn this history of God's doings in regard to these individuals:" The answer must be "from Moses," for so your book declares; and if asked how Moses knew all this, no answer could be given, for Moses does not tell us. He does not tell us that God ever mentioned to him the name of any one of the patriarchs. It follows therefore — ^for I need not formally re-state the premises — ^that the idea of a God was in the world, according to the books attributed to Moses, from the creation of the first man down to his own time, and that he as fully believed in the existence of God, before his alleged interview with him. in the land of Midian, as after; and therefore, that it was not necessary for God to appear and talk to Moses in order that the notion of his existence might get into or remain in the world. If the idea of a God had never been in the world before this alleged interview, and Moses had been the jlrpt man, who had suggested such an idea, an^ alleged that it was com-

ITS OWN REFUTATIOIf-, ^

tntinicated to him by God himself, who appeared and talked to him face to face; then, and in that case, it might with propriety be said, that this idea would never have entered the mind of man but by revelation. The advocates of Moses might say: "his allegation, that God appeared to him must be true, for the world had stood then, about three thousand years, and this idea had never been in it till then; hence we may reasonably infer that it never would have entered it but by revelation; and that there is such a being all nature cries aloud, although man never before understood her voice ;°and as God saw fit to select Moses from out the whole race of men then existing, as the proper person to whom to communicate his existence and his will, that he might communicate them to his fellow men, he must and ought to be believed. This very selection must and ought to operate as a sufficient voucher for the truth of all he may have written. God would not have chosen a vain babler to announce him to his intelligent creatures." But this argument they cannot use, for the reason already given; namely, that Moses,°the reputed author of the first five books of the Bible, was not the first man, from his own shewing, who had declared the existence of a God. As well might any man at the present day, who would assert that God appeared to him in a bush and made certain communications, claim credence of the people in his assertions, as xMoses could in his; for our supposed cotemporary could say, 'the idea of a God is in the world— it never would have entered it but by revelation— my book speaks of such a revelation, therefore it is true.' Moses could say no more, nor can his advocates for him. He therefore is to be viewed in the same light that we would view any other individual at the present day, who might make similar assertions of interviews with God; and his testimony with regard lb these interviews is to be weighed in the same scale that we would weigh a cotemporary 's who would write a similar book; for he communicated nothing respecting God, which, of itself, would prove that it came direct from his mouth. I shall notice, in another place, his allegations of what he did, and of what God did for him.

Moses was perfectly safe in declaring that God had appeared and talked to the first man and his successors; for, according to the argument of the christians, he was only asserting a legitimate conclusion from undoubted premises. It is not unfrequent with them, to claim inspiration for the authors of the Bible, merely because they have declared some universally admitted truths, such as the selfishness and rapacity of man. I might as well claim inspiration for asserting that the diamond is hard, and grass green.

Before closing this chapter, we will, to use the language of a distinguished disputant, post our books, and see what we have proved. First,

TBI BIBIK that tue christian religion consists in the belief of fects. No man «n. w.th propriety, be called a christian, who does not believe all the facts In the Apostles'creed, and hundreds of others. Faith is the ver/ess „ce of chr.s.an,ty Faith in what! we answer, <«faith in the alL ions facts conta,ned in the B.ble- and not an assent (which is so™ t Is ^ough ..nproperly, called faith) to the truth, propriety, or fitness of any moral code whatever. , The. adoption of the golden rule, as the standard hatest to another," which is Tobifs version of the golden rule, and less hab e to perversion than Christ's, is a principle or truth as indepe;dent of Tob.t, or Chnst, or Confccius, or any vicegerent of God, or of Deity himself as the proposition, that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right ones. ^

Take away the alleged facts that Christ was begotten bv the Holy Ghost-that he raised the dead, and rose himself from the de^d, and you take away the foundation of christianity_there would be nothing left of if deln-ered by h>m for the government of man in his various relations, and

toe christian religion would still exist. No religionist will, or can, with

propnety, contend that to love mercy, walk humbly, or deal justly, is

rel,g,on--he will laugh, and we are aware that they all do laugh at the

notion or geai.^ to Heaven hy leading a moral life: Hence, to ascertain

Whether the christian religion be founded in truth or not, it is necessary to

read only the historical books of the Bible. These are the first five books,

called the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra,

and lvehem,ah, of the Old Testament, and the four gospels and the Acts of

the Apostles in the New. As our religion is founded upon facts, and as a

prophecy cannot prove, or have the least tendency whatever to substantiate

a tact. It IS not necessary to read the Prophets either greater or less If

there be sufficient testimony to establish any of the wonderful facts of the

Bible, then we may conclude that he who foretold them, was inspired.

Secondly: Moses, and the other persons mentioned in the Bible as having communed and held conversations with God, have no greater claims to our credence than any man of the present day who mi<.ht publish mmilar statements. On this part of the subject I shall have much mora ^o say hereafter. :

IT* OTfN B»K«TATI*Mo ^1

Chapter II

i am aware that many skeptics and all christians are ready to ask: Why endeavor to overthrow a religion that has done, and is still doing so much good in the world— a religion that has a direct tendency to ameliorate the condition of man—to make him more mild and humane than any other religion, by operating as a restraint upon his otherwise ungovernable passions—a religion that has placed the tender sex in that scale of being designed by their creator] I need only answer, that ail this is mere assertion. It is impossible for us to know what would have been, at this day, the condition of men and women, in those regions of the world called Christendom, had the christian religion never obtained. I am satisfied, that it is not true, and that is sufficient for me. It will be readily admitted however, for the sake of argument; that it has been, and still is, either for great good, or for great evil. Believing it false, I cannot persuade myself that it Can be for good. I cannot admit that a religion founded on false facts, ought to receive my support. I cannot but believe it to be my duty, and the duty of every other infidel, to exert all his powers for its prostration. Once adopt the principle that a false religion can be, and actually is productive of good, and truth will cease to be respectedwill be put on the same level with falsehood; and the only enquiry will be, what truths are dangerous, and what falsehoods harmless— what truths are productive of evil, and what falsehoods of good. Can he be a lover of truth who will hold language like the following: "We know this religion is false— founded on silly fables, yet it is good policy to keep it up, and do all in our power for its further diffusiouV What! Is truth professedly to yield to a fancied policy? Can that christian be a lover of truth, who can say, as is almost daily said, "If religion be a delusion, it is a delightful one, and he is an enemy of his species— a wicked wretch— who wiU endeavor to overthrow it?' What! contend that it is wicked to detect and oppose falsehood? Can truth be mighty— will it ever prevail, while such doctrines are preached by those who have the formation of public opinion? The old saw, that truth is mighty and will prevail, is quoted by none more frequently than by those preachers who are making every possible effort to render it, as it ever has been, like m_any others of the same stamp and celebrity, as great a falsehood as ever was uttered. It never has prevailed— does not now, and never will, while such doctrines shaU be preached and listened to with approbation.

Tk« preachers of Christianity may not b« aware tf it, but th^it exhortations, and they are frequent — almost daily in all their preachinff houses — I say, their exhortations to their congregations to believe, are sa many requests to play the hypocrite. The only method to produce faith,

is to adduce testimony. What a ridiculous figure a lawyer would make

he would be stopped and reprimanded by the judge — who would endeavor to persuade jurors to find the facts for his client, for which he had adduced none, or insufficient testimony; or if sufiicient, without adverting to it, or founding an argument upon it in order to convince them they ought thus to find, promising them, not money or lands, but ease of conscience. It is consistent for them to exhoit those who believe the facts of the Bible to comply with its requisitions; but to persuade a man to believe, and to believe now, telling him it is the safer course, is nothing more nor less than to persuade him it is safer to profess a belief which he has not, and cannot have; in short, to confess to a falsehood; for the exhortation supposes him a disbeliever, and no additional testimony in the case supposed — and such cases occur daily— is furnished. Truth wiU never prevail wliile such exhortations are countenanced.

A genuine lover of truth will take up the Bible, and examine and scru=. tinize it as he would any other book — will presume nothing without some proof— will not presume that Moses, or Matthew, or Luke, or Paul was inspired, and therefore conclude, that whatever they have written must be true; he will not take for granted, that which would render scrutiny unnecessary and useless. Can he be a lover of truth, who will tell you that the c X p's, beginning with: "The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy foot-stool," was written by David, and that the Lord that was to sit on the other Lord's right hand was Jesus, because Matthew has told us that Jesus said so; reasoning thus; "Jesus must have said so, because Matthew says he did, and Matthew was inspired; and the song must be David's, and mean what Jesus says it did, because Jesus was the Son of God, and even God himself." I say, can he be a lover of truth who will reason thus — when if he will presume nothing and will give his reasoning faculties fair play, he will be convinced beyond the possibility of a doubt, that this psalm is nothing more nor less than an adulatory address to David, written by some one of his wives or courtiers, and that the Lord, whose enemies were to be made his foot-stool, was no other than David himself] Can they have been lovers of truth, who have made the term, free thinker, odious, and the term infidel, synonomous with scoundrel? Can he be a lover of truth,who has liberty to promulge his dogmas daily, and who as frequently abuses that liberty, by speaking in terms of derision and contempt of infidels, and of their boldness, knowing fiill well that not one in fifty dares to speak his real

ITS OWX REFUTATIOX. IS

sentiments, or read any work in opposition to the scriptures, unless in some secret corner? The christians, if they were lovers of truth, and conscious of having a religion founded upon it, would court all the opposition that could be made to it, that they might put it down by the only weapon with which it can be put down, or ought to be met; namely, sound logical argument; would invite the cowardly skeptics to come out from their lurking places and exhibit their books, and state their objections folly, in order to their complete refutation, and would not resort to the fire and faggot, as in times past, nor to proscription and denunciation, as at the present day. Thanks to the infidel sages of our revolution — they are here confined to the latter.

Truth will never prevail in this, or any other country, so long as the pecuniary interest and good standing of the citizen shall depend upon his belief of certain facts. Christians have had, and still have, even in this, our comparatively free country, the formation and control of public opinion, which emphatically says to every individual, profess a faith in the christian facts if you have it not. Christianity therefore has not advanced the cause of truth — but has been, and still is, her deadliest enemy.

But I have agreed to put, what I deem falsehood, on the same footing with truth, and discuss the question of fact, <'What has religion done for mankind?" The first difficulty that presents itself in this discussion is, to ascertain what Christianity is. The Protestants will tell you that she left the world in the fourth century, and did not reappear till the sixteenth. They therefore can claim no laurels for her during this period, which has been very properly called the dark age. If asked, what plunged the people of the Roman empire, which, at the former period, embraced the whole civilized world, from a state of refinement and civilization never before equalled, and not yet surpassed, into one of the grossest ignorance and superstition, the Protestant will answer, "the abuse and corruption of the christian religion."

To remove this difficulty, I will define the christian religion to be a' belief in all the statements or allegations made by the authors of the Bible, and a compliance with all the definite or positive institutions enjoined by Christ, and those called his apostles, with the fall persuasion that such faith and such compliance will secure to its possessor and practiser respectively, endless happiness in another world; and that the want of such faith and such compliance will not only exclude the infidel and recusant from this other world, called Heaven, but plunge them, after death, into a pit of eternal woe, called hell.

This definition includes all that is pecttliat to the christian religion, and

B excludes all that is peculiar to any other. Its propriety shall be made manifest in the sequel.

If we charge to Christianity the rivers of blood that have been shed in what are termed religious wars of past days, and the heart burnings and bitter feelings engendered by religious controversies of the present day, some christians will exclaim "unfairness, disingenuousness, innocent cause — abuse no argument against use, &c. &c." It must be borne in mind, that we are at this moment discussing a question of fact. If it be admitted that religion has been the innocent cause of these evils, the whole point is conceded to us. But others deny that it has been even the innocent cause, and confidently exclaim, "What! a religion that enjoins meekness, mildness, forbearance, and brotherly love, cailse strife, and hatred, and murderous wars'?" No, no; all these evils must be attributed to the bad passions of man, which our holy religion cannot restrain. The fallacy of this argument consists in the false and heretical definition of religion, w^hich is never given but to answer this particular purpose. We never hear them say, as they should, and as I will say for them: "What! a religion, all faith in certain facts, and compliance with certain definite and childish ceremonies, on pain of hell's torment, generate wars?' We answer yes, it always has, and always will, while man shall remain the being that he is. This disposition, in a devotee, to oppress,, and persecute^ and shed blood, springs not from the worst, but, as paradoxical as it may seem, from what are called the best feelings of human nature; feelings which prompt us to labor and strive for another's safety and happiness. To exemplify: If you see a Wind man about to step off a dangerous precipice, is it a good or a bad feeling that prompts you to warn him of his danger — if he persevere in the same course in spite of your warning, is it your good or bad feelings that prompt you to lay hold of him, and by force pull him away] If a votary really believes the facts, and complies with the requisitions of the Bible, fully persuaded that by such faith and compliance he will gain Heaven, and that v/ithout both he will be consigned to endless misery, his good feelings, not his bad, will prompt him in the first place to persuade others to believe and do like him; and if they continue to persevere in their unbelief and recusancy, is it his good or his bad feelings that will prompt him to compel themf The notion of compelling a man to believe, appears absurd, I admit, and is so in truth. But there is no more absurdity in endeavoring to force faith by means of the torture, than in exhorting to faith by promising Heaven; for, whatever we can with propriety be exhorted, we can be compelled to do — ^from all which is drawn an unanswerable argument against the notion of faith being voluntary; if it he voluntary, we can with propriety be both forced and exhorted to believe;

ITS OtVKT REFUTATION. 15

and the best, because the m6st certain and effectual arguments would be the rack, pincers, and hot gridirons. Our Protestants have long since acknowledged the absurdity of resorting to such means to produce faith, but have not abandoned exhortation, which is equally absurd and ridiculous. I acknowledge that we can with propriety be both forced and exhorted' to listen to and read both testimony and argument, and to inquire for the former, and to canvass and rigidly scrutinize both; but our conclusions are involuntary, irresistible and independent of racks, exhortations or promises. But to proceed with the main argument: If our supposed votary should see an individual of great talents and eloquence, using both to convince his (the votary's) friends and kinsmen that these facts are false, and actually succeeding in his efforts, would it be his good feelings or his bad, that would induce him to stop the mouth, aye, and the breath of the vile infidel; vile only in his estimation? On one side he sees the life of an individual, and, in his opinion, a very mischievous one — on the' other, the everlasting salvation of thousands of precious and immortal souls. Will any one, possessed of the common good feelings of human nature, hesitate what course to pursue! Your votary does not, and never has hesitated when he has not been restrained by the strong arm of the civil law. He conscientiously bends the golden rule to suit his purpose — determines that if he were leading thousands to hell, he would be willing the orthodox should put him out of the way, and so off goes the infidel's head. Thus, upon the well known principles of human nature, we account for religious wars and persecutions.