Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

THE AUTHOR

OF THE

AGE OF REASON'S

INTRODUCTION TO HIS WORK;

SHEWN TO BE WITHOUT

PROOF OR ARGUMENT,

THE author of the Age of Reason, in all the pride and obstinacy of infidelity, introduces his objections to the Christian system, by an exhibition of his own creed, both affirmatively and negatively, as if his established character for sobriety, integrity, and exemplary moral conduct, entitled him to the respect and veneration of his fellow-citizens, and the world at large. In an authoritative manner, he declares, that he does not believe in the creed of the Jewish church, the Roman church, the Greek church, nor of any church he knows of. From this declaration, or rather from this his disbelief, it would seem, as though he intended, we should infer, that the benevolent author of our being, hath left mankind in total ignorance of the nature of the worship he requires from them; and that all the worship that has prevailed in the world

E

since the creation, till the present time, has been founded in error and deception. But the concluding part of this his extraordinary creed, is as, if not more extraordinary; "that his own mind is his own church."*

Among all nations, the idea of a church, imports a society or body of rational beings united together for the purpose of worshiping God, agreeably to some established rule or system, agreed upon by them as most acceptable to the Deity. What then are we to understand by this profound casuist's assertion, that "his own mind is his own church?"-A man so well versed in the language necessary to communicate distinct ideas of his subject, must be an able interpreter of religious doctrines.

Another position of his introduction is as void of principle, as that above mentioned. He asserts "that infidelity does not consist in believing or disbelieving; but in professing to believe, what he does not believe." What jargon is this, to substitute hypocrisy for infidelity! Thus a man really and professedly denying the being of a God, and the obligations of revealed religion, is not guilty of infidelity: but if a man professes to disbelieve a system, for special purposes of his own, though really and truly in his conscience, he does fully believe the truth of such system, he is an unbeliever in that system, an infidel and does not believe it.

* One of the principles of the illuminati in France, at the head of which among others, was Talleyrand Perigord, bishop of Autun, was "That every man was his own God-his own lawgiver-and amenable only to himself."-Vide Smith's letter to the editor of Dr. Robertson on the illuminati.

I know of no way of accounting for this absurdity, but by supposing that our author has a secret wish, hereafter to be reckoned among the believers in the Christian system, though he now openly denies every word of it. From this creed of our author, some proper expectations may be formed of the residue of this curious performance.

His observation on revealed religion, in this part of his work, is also false in fact, viz. "That every religion has established itself by pretending to some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals, as Moses, Christ and Mahomet, as if the way to God was not open to every man alike."

This conclusion, unfounded in truth, seems particularly designed to prepare the way, as an excuse for his ignorance of the Christian system, and to countenance his animadversions on religion, without being at the trouble of investigating its nature and tendency. But facts are asserted in this whole work, with an uncommon defect of modesty, under the apparent expectation that the world will take them as established upon the bare assertion of the author.

It is true that Moses, Christ and Mahomet, all claimed the authority of a divine mission: but is it supposable that our author has ever read with attention the respective histories of these celebrated characters, and yet, that he could allow himself to make the above observation to the Christian world with a view of placing them all on a footing. Does it follow that, because wicked men will be guilty of counterfeiting the most valuable paper, that therefore the original and the counterfeit are to be considered as equally genuine? Or does not rather the existence of the

counterfeit, prove the reality of the original? Did not Moses and Christ show their divine mission, not only by the nature and effects of their doctrines and precepts, with unblemished purity of life and manners; but also by doing, in the presence of all the people, works, that no other men ever did; and by appealing to them as the visible manifestations of Heaven, in confirmation of their claim, in which the multitudes could not be deceived ? But Mahomet aimed to establish his pretensions to divine authority, by the power of the sword and the terrors of his government ; while he carefully avoided any attempts at miracles in the presence of his followers, and all pretences to foretell things to come, His acknowledging the divine mission of Moses and Christ confirms their authority as far as his influence will go, while their doctrines entirely destroy all his pretensions to the like authority. His doctrines and precepts, are calculated to gratify the prejudices of every party, and to confirm them in the established principles of a fanciful religion, To the Jews he was a disciple of Moses, to Christians, he was a believer in the prophetic character of Jesus Christ, while he indulged the heathen inhabitant of Arabia in sensual ideas, that were most captivating and pleasing to the human heart. Instead of doctrines and precepts inculcating the entire renovation of our natures the becoming a new creature and overcoming the world:-Instead of a felicity consisting of pure and spiritual pleasures, "did he not establish a system of carnal indulgences, ever grateful to the natural man, founded in the fascinating allurements of its promised rewards? In their agreeable. ness to the propensities of corrupt nature in general,

/

1

and to those of the inhabitants of warm climates in particular, in the artful accommodation of its doctrines and its rites to the preconceived opinions, the favourite passions, and the deep rooted prejudices of those to whom it was addressed."*

Mahomet's pretensions to inspiration and the submission of the people to his authority, in the degree in which they are found, as has been observed by Mr. Hartley, may be accounted for, from the then circumstances of things, without having recourse to real inspiration, and particularly if we admit (as Mahomet did) the revelations related and intimated by Moses, with his own divine legation. It will appear that Mahomet copied much of his scheme from them, to make it palatable to those he meant to attach to his interests, which is a strong argument in favour of the Mosaic and Christian systems. There is no other instance (than that of the Mosaic code) of a body of laws being produced at once, and remaining without addition afterwards; -but those of Mahomet and other impostors have generally been compiled by degrees, according to the exigencies of the states, the prevalence of particular factions; or the authority who governed the people at his own will.

Mahomet made his laws, not to curb, but humor the genius of the people; they were therefore altered and repealed from the same causes. Whereas the body politic of the Israelites took upon itself a complete form at once, conformable not only to its then present necessities in a wilderness, but to all its future circumstances, when settled in a regular government,

* White.

« VorigeDoorgaan »