814 nymphs called the Oceanidæ present themselves before him, aroused by the clang of the chains with which Vulcan had bound Prometheus, and brought to him through the air in a winged chariot. After these nymphs had expressed their condolence with Prometheus in his misfortune, and intimated their solicitude respecting his future lot, as well as their desire to know the cause of his punishment, Prometheus relates to them the greatness of the obligation under which Jupiter lies to him, that he had brought on himself his anger and punishment, on account of benefits which he had conferred on man. In the meau time, the God Oceanus also arrives in order to see Prometheus, carried on a winged quadruped, which is interpreted to be a Gryphin. He deplores the pitiable fate of his relative and endeavours to divest him of his pertinacity as well as to induce him to check the ferocity of his mind and submit himself to Jupiter. He moreover promises to plead his cause with Jupiter. But Prometheus is so far from yielding to the importunities of his friend, that he dissuades him from the journey to Jupiter which Oceanus had offered to undertake, and declares his resolution to be to endure the vengeance of the king of Gods until of himself he should remit it. Oceanus therefore seeing him so determined departs without accomplishing his purpose. The Chorus then proceeds to bewail the sad lot of Prometheus, and listens to him when afterwards he details the benefits which he had conferred on man; advises him to consult for his future safety, and professes its hopes of his future liberation. Prometheus replies, and lets fall certain obscure words, respecting a fated pointment which even Jupiter himself would not avoid. The chorus seeks an explanation which he refuses, intimating that his safety was involved in his silence. The chorus then takes an occasion, to declare its high reverence of the majesty of Jupiter, to warn Prometheus, and to give him some friendly rebukes on account of the excessive ferocity of his mind. Then Io enters on the stage, who, tortured by the sting of love through the cruel anger of Juno, and a wanderer on the face of the earth, arrives on this part of Scythia. Prometheus makes himself known to her. She seeks to learn the causes of his punishment, and the termination of her own wanderings, spects he gratifies her; but first obtains his request of her to relate to the In both rechorus of nymphs, the causes of her lamentable exile and altered form. The chorus weeps at the narration. Then Prometheus declares to Io, the labours and dangers which yet await her, and how that having at last been brought to Egypt, Jupiter should restore to her happiness and her wonted appearance. As soon as he has procured credit to his words, he narrates to lo a part of the journey already completed, as well as other things which befell her in her journey hither. Then Io being convulsed with a new access of madness departs. The chorus however praises equal matches, and discommends the love of the heavenly potentates. Prometheus who had already predicted to Io that he was to be liberated, by a hero descended from her, proceeds after her departure to utter ominous words against Jupiter, and declares, that certain nuptials will prove fatal to him; if he contracted these nuptials (he says) he would be dispossessed of his heavenly throne by a son born from this union. Mercury, therefore, is sent by Jupiter to him, who commands Prometheus to declare what these nuptials are, Prometheus however, so far from diminishing his pertinacity, vociferates more daringly, and acts not as a captive addressing the ambassador of Jupiter, but as a freeman conversing with a slave. Mercury, when he sees that he can effect nothing by words, denounces against him the horrible vengeance and pains of Jupiter, and admonishes the chorus to depart, lest it should participate in the dreadful punishment, about to be inflicted on Prometheus. The chorus refuses to desert their friend in the moment of danger. And now suddenly, lightnings and thunder arise, the sea heaves with storms, the earth trembles in violent commotion, and Prometheus not conquered even by these horrors, is cast headlong into Tartarus with the Rock to which he is affixed." This then is the alleged prototype of the Christian religion. I do not know how the abstract may strike my readers, but it does not seem to me so far from promoting a resemblance to Jesus Christ, it exhibits no very imperfect picture of a fabled personage, styled the devil, as pourtrayed in the pages of Milton. Not, however, to trouble myself by expressly selecting all the instances in the above abstract of dissimilarity between this fable and the history of Jesus Christ, still less all that might be found by collecting the various traits of the character of Prometheus scattered through the writings of ancient poets, mythologists and historians, from Hesiod downwards, it is sufficient to remark that if this fable be the prototype of Jesus Christ, it may also be the prototype of almost any other person you may choose to assign. And my remark is corroborated by the fact that no less than a score of historical personages are held by various authors to have borne a close affinity with the fabled Prometheus! Shall we deny the real existence of all these on this account? Herodotus informs us that Prometheus was a king of Scythia, whom, as he could not afford subsistence to his subjects, because the river Actos had inundated the country, the Scythians cast into prison. But when Hercules came into Scythia, he diverted the course of the river into the sea and liberated Prometheus from his chains.* Others place him in Noah's ark; others yoke him to a plough in Egypt, others discover in him Osiris king of that country, and others, as Mr. Carlile, Jesus Christ. And the one is equally probable with the other. The very circumstance that he has been found in so many dissimilar historical characters is a sufficient proof that he cannot easily be traced to any one. He is like the cameleon assuming all colours, varying with the light in which men choose to regard him, under the influence of their perverted vision; or as his ancient friend and fabulous deity Proteus, changing at the injunction of the wand of any magician who may wish to exhibit him for a while to amuse an astonished audience. In answer to my disproof of your assertion, that no Christian writer had appealed to the destruction of Jerusalem until the time of Eusebius in the fourth century you send me to the Republican, Vol. 9, No. 1. Thither have I gone. I of course expected to find that Barnabas, whom I quoted, would be brought down below the fourth century, as this was essential to the verification of your assertion. But not a word have I there found as to the age in which Barnabas flourished." I do not at present contend that seventy-one is the right period to which he is referable, but is the fourth or fifth century? Establish this which you cannot and then as far as I have yet gone you will not be convinced of error. But in order to make security doubly secure, take a quotation from Minutius Felix (210) “Learn the fate of the Jews from Josephus, or from Antonius Julianus. Whence you will find that by their turpitude, they had merited their fate and that they suffered nothing which had not been predicted * & + Schütz and Potter's Æschylus. 21 Nothing indisputable can be said of Barnabas or his writings. R. C. should await them if they persisted in their contumacy. Thus they were not deserted till they themselves had deserted God." You are singularly unfortunate in the way of assertion. In a note you apprize us that the old Testament says that Gilgal was the hill of foreskins near Jordan. You can refer only to Josh. v. 3 and 9, and there we are told no such thing The hill before the circumcision took place was denominated herclutforeskins, not Gilgal: afterwards that appellation was exchanged for Gilgal, which means to roll or be round, whence Golgotha a plain of skulls. As to Pliny's letter, of course, we receive your account of the matter. Yet your readers must deplore the treachery of your memory which seems not only to have lost the habit of faithful retention but also to have acquired another of remembering what was never committed to it. It is long since they heard you boast of a perfect knowledge of and competency for this whole controversy, "I have been so long and laboriously engaged in this controversy that I can anticipate every word that can be adduced by my opponents, there is necessarily a sameness throughout them, and as they come against me ignorant of what I have previously written or published upon the subject, I have a very great advantage over them; though it is tedious to myself and readers to have to do over the same task with every new opponent." And now they have to lament that your information has so completely dropt from your mind as to make you ignorant even of the tenor of one of the most important documents connected with the question." The letter of Pliny speaks of Christians of every rank, sex and age, in numbers that rendered dubious the safety of the existing superstition, and yet all those except a few slaves, have departed and left not a wreck behind. They must equally regret that the imperfections of your memory have impaired your judgment also, and when they see that you can infer from the certainty of there being two slaves that "all" were "slaves", and that all but a "few" and deluded also by the same unfaithful monitor, write of a confession that is nowhere to be found, they will feelingly exclaim “O! what a falling off is here, my friends." "How are the mighty fallen." When I acquiesce in the account you have given respecting the use you made of Pliny's letter, I do not pledge myself to abide by any mistake committed in your "distinct reply" to me." It seems that with you, Pliny's letter contains" the fact, that Christianity began in or about Bithynia." After the detection of errors in regard to this matter which you have suffered, you would no doubt refresh your memory, and sharpen your judg ment by re-reading the said letter, ere you made any new assertions. If so there seems to be some kind of a fatality connected with you on your disquisitions about Pliny, for really the letter contains neither in so many words nor in inference the "fact" that you tell us is there found. If the fact is contained in the letter. Point to the part where it is said that Christianity began in Bithynia, if it is said nothing is easier than a reference: No say you this is quibbling; by fact I meant probability: and by contained, suggests: suggests the probability, there is what you meau, and if people would say what they mean and nothing more, no person would be deluded, and none would have occasion to correct, in your appellation, to quibble. Let us then weigh this probability. Whence does it Repub. Vol. xi. No. 17. p. 527. 22 Not so, I will shew, as the conclusion of these notes, that Mr. Beard, has not shaken one important conclusion, to which I had come with respect to Christianity.-R. C. arise? You inform us that if it had prevailed at Rome when Pliny left, it is not likely that he would have written to Rome to say to Trajan in what manner it had spread in Bithynia." Let us insert a negative. Had it not prevailed at Rome when Pliny left, it is not likely that he would have written to Rome to say to Trajan in what manner it had spread in Bithynia. Your sentence has now changed sides, it is with me it proceeds on the supposition that Christianity had prevailed at Rome, and I appeal to every one if it does not contain at least as much probability as it possessed when without the not. Yes more, and consider the tenor of the letter, recall to mind what you have not answered relating to this matter, that the very circumstance as I argued of Pliny's not explaining the designation which he uses," Christians," proves that the Emperor knew of them and is a presumption that they then existed at Rome. Join to this presumption the positive assertions of Suetonius and Tacitus, and no one can doubt if he believe aught of the fact that Christians did exist at Rome not only at the time of Trajan, but long before. But a few more words on your above quoted sentence, Christianity did not prevail at Rome, because Pliny wrote to Rome to say in what manner it had prevailed in Bithynia, Christianity did not prevail in Europe because the Jesuits wrote to Europe to say in what manner it spread in India! Risum teneatis amici? This leads me to point out to your readers the logical accuracy of one of your notes on this subject. Pliny found it only precisely where I say it (Christianity) began. He found it there, and therefore he found it no where else! The sun shines in England, and therefore it shines no where else! This is of a piece with the famous old syllogism; every man is an animal, every goose is an animal, therefore every man is a goose. It is a matter to be regretted also, that books are so scarce in London as to delay your reply for some time, and after all, deprive you of the means of fully, answering my letter; but one might almost be tempted to imagine, that the person who would "anticipate every word that can be adduced by his opponents," would scarcely need many books to write on a subject, on which he had " been so long and so laboriously eugaged." You broach rather a new doctrine, when you apprize me that I cannot give Christianity honest support, so long as it is disputable on any ground. Why what sort of support then can you give Atheism? You, yourself cannot contend that it is indisputable, for it is disputed, and is disputed in such a way too, as to cause you to say, "To all these questions I feel no shame to say that I cannot answer.' If as you contend, no one can give honest support to truths, because they are disputable, Galileo in the dungeons of the inquisition was a martyr not to truth, but to his own dishonesty; and the philosophers who sided with Newton, to discriminate his principles were dishonest, and as long and no longer, than the principles of Newton met with opposition. But indeed that termination has not yet come, for Mr. Friend still disputes the accuracy of the conclusions of our great Philosopher. But it really does • Repub. Vol. 12. No. 16. p, 832. 23 This was no disputation of Atheism. Christianity consists of a system : Atheism has none; but expresses an absence of all metaphysical systems and religious dogmas. R. C. seem strange that I should be obliged in self-vindication, to prove to men who pride themselves on being not inferior to others in their power of reasoning, that dishonesty is not necessarily implied in the advocacy of opinions, that may be questioned no matter on what grounds. If you know ought of the nature of moral evidenee, you must be conscious that any point which rests on it, must always admit of pro and con, and therefore be disputable on some grounds. The great business is to weigh and decide. This you claim the credit of having done on your side, and this I have never questioned, and it is no little enquiry, and no little thought that enable me to vindicate the same credit for myself. It has never been pretended that we have mathematical demonstration on our side, but moral proof. On this you rest. And on this you act, every moment that you breathe. Your existence for a day is disputable on many grounds, yet are you making preparations for a much longer time of being. In answer also to another of your notes, I say that it is as certain as moral evidence can make it, that Matthew's gospel was written originally in Hebrew. The voice of antiquity is unanimous in support of this moral certainty, and I cannot conceive how this can be countervailed by a few imaginations of ingenious men. It would be very ungrateful in me, not to acknowledge the mildness which you profess in your letter, but it might perhaps have been wished, that this said temper had evinced itself in some other way, than in paying your antagonist the compliment of exhibiting more " ability than candour or honesty," than in "laughing at his folly, and despising his presumption," than in taxing him with " something like conscious or wilful error," and with being "a preacher of falsehood, and profiting thereby." This however may be the way in which you shew your mildness, and I confess when I read some pages of your Republican, refer to your controversy with Mr. Cobbett, or your address to the "silly Sir Knight," or to your offensive paper on Love, I have reason to think that some forbearance has been used towards me. It is certainly less inconsistent with mildness, to claim a triumph when a triumph is gained, even though one may repeatedly claim it. Yet before a triumph is completed, you are aware all an opponent's forces must be captured. It will not be amiss, therefore for me to call a muster of forces that are yet fresh for battle,-fresh, because, for these two months good, they have lain undisturbed in comfortable quarters in your Republican. In this muster, I shall not include the troops now brought anew into the field, but those merely that you have not ventured to oppose and if they are neither few nor weak, you may perhaps, wish that you had not shouted victory, and left the field quite so prematurely. Concessions made by Mr. Carlile, in the present controversy either by his silence, or his confession. The word Joseph, you took to be a variation of the word Jesus. This I denied, and you say, this I have no objection to yield! You asserted that it was said, that all the disciples of Jesus were Jews, I asked for your authority and to no reply. I proved that though even the names of the disciples were Grecian, it would not follow that the disciples themselves were Grecian. To this no reply. I went on to prove that though even the disciples themselves were Grecian, neither would it follow that the story they propagated was Grecian. To this no reply. I questioned if you knew the language of Jesus and his disciples, though you made the most positive assertion respecting it. To this a confession of ignorance. I proved that the very Greek of the New Testament, evinced that the book must have been for the most part written in Judea, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. I challenged you to the disproof of this. And to this no reply. You |