can sound the depths of human imaginings; and because it is inevitable, that, to be familiar with, or to know a thing, is to destroy that sentiment which arises in the mind in consequence of our ignorance of it; nor is it possible to v wonder at that with which we are, in the full sense of the term, familiar; and herein lies the error of Kant sand other philosophers, who have made the singular blunder of supposing that religion, though a

Bono MT4 94 27 MONSTA ever be a

reasonable thing-erroneously conceiving, that as, the progress of >> reason always included the idea of a modification and a progression in religious sentiment, therefore, the belief, or the faith, to which such civilization gave birth must be rational; whereas, a due consideration of the subject will lead to the conclusion, that a creature capable of reasoning perfectly upon all existences would ceased to be believing; for such a creature would know the origin, modifications, and secret springs of all things, and in his breast religion would cease to exist. Kant, in his Moral Interpretation of the Scripture, speaks of "a sense which accords with the universal and practical laws of a pure rational religion." Now, to speak of a rational religion, is to speak of rational imaginings, which, if we admit, we are not one step from a rational absurdity; for what can be closer to the absurd than to call that rational which owes its existence to the very absence of materials whereon all reasoning must be based, for man can reason without facts, or assumed facts; but, in point of reality, it is not reasoning but imagining, which is the very source and spring of religion. When the Mexican king, who, according to Gemelli Carreri, on the consecration of a temple, caused six thousand four hundred and eight men to be sacrificed in four days he, doubtless, imagined such a sacrifice would ... be acceptible to the gods, and, though he might, had he been called cupon to do so, have given reasons why it was good so to act, nevertheless, the first assumption upon which all his subsequent reasonings were built was purely imaginary. He believed in the gods of his nation, and passed off his belief as positive knowledge,for, as no man can by possibility know that a God or Gods exist, there being no science of God, such faiths, beliefs, or imaginings, can never rise to the dignity of knowledge-however they may dress themselves in the borrowed robes of certainty.

า

The fear expressed by many timid, though well-intentioned minds, lest, in destroying the Christian system of religion, a stab would be given to morality, is a vain fear,--for were Christianity swept away to-morrow, the religious principle would not could not

ligious creeds

be destroyed, it being eternal and indestructible, as far as human reason can be considered as eternal and indestructible. All reand all religious systems are of human inventionsthe work of human tongues and human hands, and the workman who Jbuildeth can also pull down-what is produced by human energy On Red tocan be destroyed by human energy; nor does the virtue of this, or

e any other nation, repose e upon its belief, but rather the belief rests

Coupon and bears down the virtue." Let, therefore, all remember, that in attacking the superstitious belief in a crucified Saviour, called Jesus Christ, and disturbing that blind confidence called faith, that has spread itself over the Christian world for more than eighteen Thundred years, we do not shake or weaken the props of morality, but strengthen and consolidate them. The old belief in Christ is a - moral stigma, scouted by all who have caught a glimpse of the new order of ideas, and the glorious results that will arrive out of s their full realization by society; and, if it be thought, that for the bupreservation of order and the maintenance of the law, a religion must be taught, let it, at all events, be a religion making some pretensions to consistency, usefulness, and adaptability to the spirit of the times and the march of science; but, while so much is conceded by us to the fears of men, we are not willing to grant so much to their reason, for an appeal from human institutions to human nature, from the declamations of theologians to the arguments of facts, would decide against the long held, but most absurd opinion, that men, to be governed, must be deceived, and that it is easier to preserve order, contentment, and morality, by fraud and falsehood, than by the practice of truth and justice. Religion, we are told, ought to be made the ground-work of all education-its lessons should be interwoven with the whole tissue of instruction, and its principles should reguto late the entire system of discipline in our national schools. Now, as religion itself cannot be taught; for who shall teach to another the ait vague, indefinite sentiments which arise out of his own relations

६

52

النعم

with the universe; nor can religious sentiments be systematized without being at the same time corrupted, and the only use of a without being at the samemtuate error a cosystem of religion is, to perpetuate error and delusion systematically, ys.nunder cover of which, the vilest among men strengthen their au

thority, increase their wealth, and raise up barriers to the progress Son of the people in intelligence, virtue, and happiness. 3 889 0 data & Much is said about the necessity of filling the minds of the many vhi with dreams and superstitious terrors, by those who value them as yoga sort of cheap police, deterring from the commission of crime.

Such writers seem hardly sensible of the superior efficacy of high moral teaching in repressing crime and inducing to virtue. To do right, because we love the right, and feel its value, is far better than to do right because we dare not do the wrong. The results in such a case are the same, but the dispositions, or states of mind, are the very antipodes of each other; and, if the belief in a terrible retribution tended to make man happy and virtuous, how happens it that the contrary holds ? and that where systems of religion are received without inquiry or examination, and all difficulties vanish before the ipse dixit of the theologian, the people are invariably stupid, brutal, cruel, and unjust ? whereas, many nations have existed, even though low in the moral scale, without any national faiths, and found ample protection in the laws and powers of the civil magistrate.

Herein we differ with De Wett, Kant, Strauss, and the Rationalists of Germany, for they, not content with labouring to reduce to a reasonable standard the religious opinions of men which have incorporated themselves in human societies, but they most absurdly aim at rationalizing the religious sentiment-desiring to bring it within the grasp of reason, when, in truth, all know that religion is religion because it is not science. To try the reasonableness of a religious theory is useful; but any attempt to shew that the faith which grows out of ignorance, and the science which springs from actual experience of things, are identical-is misplaced labour-toiling to no purpose, save a mischievous purpose. To test the utility and consistency of the Bible, Vedan, Koran, or any other holy work, is to assist the cause of human progression, by opening the eyes of the intellectually blind to their true value; but any attempt to make it appear that one book is more holy than another-one history more sacred than another-is mere fraud-a species of moral swindling, only too prevalent in the world. Were the Bible and all other religious books destroyed to-morrow, religious systems might share in their destruction; but religion itself could not-for religious feeling has neither its source nor support in books, but in the human heart; religious feelings, we again repeat, are not necessarily rational; they may or may not be so, for there is no standard or measure by which their reasonableness can be determined; as the mind of man, never satisfied with the knowledge it hath, ever restless, impatient, and craving for more, stretcheth itself out into the pathless regions of speculation. Now, a speculation being a speculation, and not a legitimate result of logical deduction, it is not added to our treasure

of truth, but goes to swell the confused heap of imaginings. Religious sentiments as religious sentiments-speculations as speculations are harmless; and it is only when men, backed by authority, and swollen by pride, insist upon their peculiar sentiments and imaginings being recognised as eternal truths, that they are pernicious and inimical to the happiness of man; but the religion which lays claim to reasonableness, must not shrink from rational inquiry; the book which contains the principles of such a systematized faith, should be open to all comers, and contain within itself, the proofs that will effectually overcome and destroy all opposition; the marks of its divinity should be plain and palpable, and, like those said to have appeared upon the body of Christ after his descent from the cross, carry with them their own evidence.

Not to dwell upon the admission of Strauss (Life of Jesus, 1st sec. p. 164) that "a Gallilean, of whom the genealogy was unknown, having acquired the renown of Messiah, it is easy to conceive that the legend of his descent from David, himself descended from Abraham, was developed under various forms, and that afterwards these legends served in the manufacture of such genealogies, the which not being founded upon authentic pieces, necessarily led to those divergences and contradictions into which Matthew and Luke have fallen;" not, we say, to dwell upon the important fact, that Matthew and Luke diverge from, and flatly contradict, each other in their sacred accounts of the genealogy of Jesus, the account of Abraham, "whose seed shall possess the gate of his enemies," carries upon the face of it absurdity or falsehood; and it is vain that we are told that it is all true-though we cannot perceive its truth, -nay, though to us it appears false, for our being told does not prove it to us. When we read in Genesis, that "the Lord has fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah, Abraham's wife," to us it appears just as absurd as though the Lord had placed a padlock on their mouths, because of some other old woman; telling men that such solemn nonsense was written by the finger of God, makes it no less nonsense; as well might Christians believe all the absurdities crowded into the pages of the Koran, because a fool, or an impostor, tells us it was written, as Alla commanded, by his Prophet Mahomet, with a feather plucked from the wing of the Angel Gabriel, As well remarked by Strauss, (Life of Jesus Intro. p. 68) "The faithful Mussulman believes that all truth is contained in the Koran, and sees only fables in the major part of the Bible; the Jew acknowledges not a divine history

divinity of the New. Now, They cannot all be right, for

in the Old Testament; he denies the who are reasonable of these parties ? their assertions contradict each other; but the which of them in particular is right? Each religious sect claims for itself the truth; the pretensions are equal. Who, then, will decide the origin of each religion? But each attributes to itself a divine origin. Not only the Christian religion lays claim to divinity through Christ the Son of God, but the Jewish religion through Moses, and also Mohammedanism puts in its claim as being founded by a prophet immediately inspired by God; nor did the Greeks attribute the institution of their worship to any but the Gods." So that, the tales told about Noah and Abraham are no more necessarily true than those we hear about Mahomet; and unless we are prepared to cast aside both reason and common sense, it is impossible to believe that such a person as Abraham ever existed.

The state of our paper warns us to conclude our present Letter, and at the same time inform our readers that this work will be completed in nine more numbers-making (with the Supplement) thirty-one; the next will conclude that part of our subject touching the real character of Abraham, and the remaining Letters will be occupied with a consideration (perhaps the most interesting of all to the general reader) whether the various histories of Christ, or the times in which he is said to have existed, as well civil as ecclesiastical, Christian or Pagan, will warrant our belief that a man called Christ performed any of the acts attributed to him by the Evangelists, or whether the Evangelical histories are not purely fictional, as asserted by us. We have disproved his existence as a God, —it now remains to disprove his existence as a human being, which we have pledged ourselves to do. That pledge shall be redeemed, or we will candidly acknowledge that we have commenced a task beyond our power to accomplish. The origin of the Christian religion, none of our careful readers can now mistake; the belief in a man-god, born of a virgin, must vanish before the evidence already adduced, while the remaining portion of our work will, if we mistake not-shiver to atoms the whole fabric of the Christian fiction, and demonstrate that the belief in Christ is just as absurd as a belief in Jupiter, and that a man or god of that name no more rode on an ass into the streets of Jerusalem, than did Bacchus ride on an ass into the streets of Greece.

London: H. Hetherington; A. Heywood, Manchester; and all Booksellers. J. Taylor, Printer, 29, Smallbrook Street, Birmingham.