A DISSERTATION

ON THE DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE CREATION AS TAUGHT BY MODERN CHRISTIANS, PRIESTS, AND THEIR ABETTORS.

Either the first eleven chapters of Genesis, all due allowances being made for a figurative Eastern style, are true, or the whole fabric of our national theology is false.-SIR WILLIAM JONES, Asiatic Researches, vol. i., p. 225.

Difficulties of the Subject.

WE may reasonably suppose, that when nations become civilized and refined by the march of moral improvement, and the gradual developement of the arts and sciences, individuals will be found, who, having leisure to speculate, will diligently set themselves to explore the antiquities of their respective countries, and inquire how the society to which they belong originated. But on looking back into antiquity, a thick cloud seems to rest upon the horizon. The paucity or total want of written records, the barbarism from which such individuals have but lately escaped, the darkness in which preceding ages have been involved, and the difficulty of erecting an accurate system of chronology, are circumstances which render such researches extremely difficult, and often fruitless. These things bewilder the imagination and perplex the judgment, discourage inquiry and expose the antiquarian, unless he be on his guard to illusion and a waste of time. But though these things are calculated to perplex, they ought not altogether to repress inquiry. It is possible to lift, in some measure, the veil which hangs over the origin of empires and institutions. Seizing, therefore, the torch of faithful criticism, let us embark on our adventurous voyage for the purpose of exploring the dark circle of antiquity-of exhibiting the mysterious Adyta of the heathen temples, and of unfolding the origin of the Christian religion.

But here the notion of the absolute creation of the world, about five or six thousand years ago, arrests us in the very onset, and stops our researches. Either

this notion is not true, or, if true, certain facts and phenomena, which we shall subsequently discuss, are inexplicable. It becomes, therefore, imperatively necessary that we should afford a particular examination to this dogma, in order that we may ascertain what degree of credence it deserves. The doctrine we are about to investigate is not the formation of the world out of previously existing materials by a superintending and intelligent power, but the absolute eduction of matter from a state of nothingness some five or six thousand years ago.

Modes of proving the Falsehood of a Theological

Dogma.

There are two ways of proving the falsehood of a theological opinion. First, by shewing that the supposition from whence it is deduced involves a contradiction; and second, by proving that the volume received as sacred by theologians affords no countenance to the doctrine in question. Both these modes of proof are, in some measure, applicable to the notion of absolute creation, as held by the generality of modern Jews and Christians. The supposed fact on which the doctrine is founded, is in the nature of things impossible; and the writings of the Hebrew legislator afford not a shadow of proof that he either taught or accredited such a superstition. I call it a superstition, because. it has been borrowed by the Christian priesthood from the heathen mythology, and because the hypothesis is self contradictory, and the occurrence to which it relates absolutely impossible. Indeed, it requires not a very brilliant imagination, nor extensive literary abilities, to enable an individual to divine the reason why the notion of creation was first borrowed in an crude state from the heathen philosophy, and afterwards modified, to suit a particular purpose, by the immaculate followers of Jesus of Bethlehem. If it be once admitted that matter was evoked from nonentity by the fiat of a supreme being, the supposition that it may cease to exist is at least rendered possible, and no sooner is this possibility acknowledged, than a variety of reasons are at hand to show the probability of its

being annihilated at some future period. These reasons, when combined into a focus, and passed off in popular and declamatory harangues-with that air of blustering and intolerant arrogance which so frequently adorns the priestly character-naturally tend to produce a wonderful sensation in those minds who are so besotted by superstition as to dread the idea of doubt with respect to their opinions. The notion of the absolute creation of the world from nothing, throws an air of plausibility over the notion of its absolute destruction by fire. The two doctrines are bound up together in the system of modern priestism, forming the Alpha and Omega of what may be not inappropriately denominated the romance of the universe, commencing with the eduction of matter from a state of nothingness, and ending with its destruction by an universal conflagration. This latter notion, as I have said before, when clothed in a popular dress and expounded to the people, has a mighty influence in producing a desire in the minds of the ignorant, the bigotted, and the fanatical, to escape the dangers of the eventful period to which it relates. But these dangers, forsooth, cannot be avoided, nor can the soul

"Stand erect"

"In all the dignity of conscious virtue,"

When "the heavens shall be on fire," and when cherubs shall display their celestial sympathy by weeping over the funeral of nature; unless there be an order of men called priests to pray for its salvation-to instruct the populace in the mysteries of religion-to say mass or repeat like an Indian parrot many times on the seventh day of the week, "Lord, have mercy on us!"-to perform one part of the Sabbath day service attired in white vestments, and the other part robed in blackto fulminate the anathemas of the church against sceptics and unbelievers-to go forth into the world preaching the gospel, "lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting," and "roaring like the strong bulls of Bashan ;"-in short, to perform a variety of things resembling more the antics of a monkey than the actions of a man, and bearing a closer affinity to

the imbecility of idiocy than the dignified conduct of a rational being. Now, this order of men receive in return for their spiritual ministrations the carnal things of the people. They also exercise a very extensive, and in many instances a very unhallowed, influence over the education of the juvenile members of society. Hence, in relation to the priesthood, two powerful springs of action are set in motion-two powerful passions of badly trained humanity are gratified, ambition and avarice, or the desire of power and love of gain. It is easy to perceive, therefore, that any opinion favourable to the principal dogma on the popular belief of which their existence as an order rests will be embraced by them with avidity, and defended with both learning and subtlety.

The Notion of Creation first borrowed from the ancient Buddhist System of Theology, and afterwards modified by the Christian Priesthood to suit a particular purpose.

We are gravely assured by one of those impostors called sacred writers, that Moses was skilled in all the learning of the Egyptians; and we are informed also in the narrative of the Israelites' exode from Egypt, that he was brought up at the court of Pharaoh. Now this very announcement is sufficient to awaken suspicion respecting the origin of the doctrines he inculcated. If it can be shewn that the notion of creation was prevalent among philosophers at the time Moses lived, or if it can be shown that it formed part of an ancient system of primeval theology which had been established long anterior to that time, it is highly reasonable to suppose that Moses (supposing he taught the doctrine,) derived it from this source. Educated by the magicians or priests of Osiris, he would naturally imbibe their tenets respecting the origin of the world. Nursed in the lap of royal luxury, and beholding the deference paid to royal authority, we may without violating probability suppose that he would become ambitious of being the founder of a sect, or the leader of a party. As it respects his pretensions to miraculous powers, they are too absurd to merit much attention, Pretending to miraculous powers

was the common artifice resorted to by the ancient legislators to awe the vulgar and keep them in subjection. The judicious Moyle, when speaking of the government of Alba, observes that the first care of Romulus was to possess the people with the notion of his divine appointment over them: before he attempted the crown, the gods were consulted in the usual forms; and all the tokens of divine approbation appeared: which left no room for pretenders to dispute his title, nor to the people to repeal their choice. This begot a reverence and a veneration for his person, added weight and authority to his laws, and strength and reputation to his government."* Here then, we have positive proof that the legislators of antiquity pretended to miraculous powers for the purpose of subjecting the people to their authority. What proof can be adduced that Moses did not resort to the same expedient? It was easy by such means to impose on the ignorant and credulous horde of savages that swarmed out of Egypt. Their worshipping the golden calf, the emblem of Osiris, is sufficient to convince any unprejudiced mind of their stupidity and ignorance. How easy to impose on their credulity! With what facility could an artful legislator mould and adapt them to his purposes, persuade them that he was a prophet of the Lord, and that he was commissioned to lead them into the promised land! They probably considered him a prophet, a favourite of heaven. I query very much if a modern chemist had been among them, if they would not have accounted him a god.

But I have been digressing from the subject, and must now return to it. If Moses ever taught the doctrine of creation, he borrowed it most probably from the Egyptians; perhaps they borrowed it from others; indeed, there is an identity between all the mythoses of antiquity: certain points of resemblance wherein they all agree, which is extremely perplexing to Christian theologians. Maurice, in his Indian Antiquities, is so perplexed with this, that he can only solve it by supposing that an ancient system of patri

* Moyle's Ess. Rom. Gov., Miscel. Works, vol. i., p. 5.