Page images
PDF
EPUB

must be founded on principles of strict justice and honesty of purpose, and as I wish to improve the condition of my fellow-creatures, I early made these my principles of conduct, from which I have never knowingly deviated in a single instance.

I lament that any such occurrences should have taken place; had I anticipated any such, I would have adopted more restrictive measures.

They have, however, occurred, and what is now best to be done? Shall I be angry and irritated with my fellow beings, because they have been ignorant of their real interests: with the principles which I deem so true and valuable for the promotion of virtue and happiness; would this conduct be rational in me? I can only feel regret instead of anger; I will, if I can, turn these errors to the benefit of all. My time has been employed for this purpose, since my return. I have been collecting all the facts that may enable me to form a correct judgment of what is now best to be done. 1 have not yet obtained all the facts necessary for my purpose, and that is the reason why I have not sooner met you in public. I am still fully occupied in ascertaining what can be done under the existing circumstances to secure the great object which I came here to put into practice; and I have reason to believe that arrangements may now be formed that will promote it; that will prepare a solid foundation for the social system, and materially benefit all who honestly desire to support it. When these arrangements shall be fully determined upon, I will again meet you and explain them, in order that all shall understand what is intended to be done.

But this much is certain, that as far as my influence can extend, there shall be no injurious monopoly here; there shall be no attempt to take advantage of any one or to do any one an injustice. These are common vulgar evils which ought not to exist, where an honest attempt is made to improve the condition of mankind.

My intention now is to form such arrangements on the estate of Harmony as will enable those who desire to promote the practice of the Social System to live in separate families on the individual system, and yet to unite their general labor or to exchange labor for labor, on the most beneficial terms for all; or to do both or neither as their feelings or apparent interest may influence them. While other arrangements shall be formed to enable them to have their children trained from infancy in a knowledge of the principles of human nature and of the laws which govern it; and in consequence trained in such improved habits, manners, and disposition, as will prepare them to adopt, with ease and pleasure, the co-operative and social system, and to enjoy its innumerable advantages.

By these measures I hope there will be brought around us, by degrees, an honest and industrious and also a well-educated population, with right feelings and views, who will earnestly endeavour to promote the happiness of each other and unite in bringing up their children as one family with simple manners, temperate habits, and useful knowledge, both in principles and practice.

Those who have a knowledge of human nature, who have been permitted to overcome the prejudices early forced into their minds, and who have a real affection for their fellow beings, will not be discouraged by any obstacles, but will persevere to the end. R. OWEN,

AN EXTENSION OF THE VIEW WHICH CELSUS THE PHILOSOPHER TOOK OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IN THE SECOND CENTURY.

NOTE BY EDITOR.-We do not admire the following mode of attacking the Christian Religion, though there is a great deal of plausibility in the arguments and inferences. The more we enquire into the ancient Pagan Religion, the more we discover, as we do discover, its similarity to, and probable foundation for the Christian Religion, and the more we are convinced that such a person as the Jesus of the New Testament never existed. The following arguments in imitation of Celsus are, therefore, not our methods of attacking the Christian Religion: but we give them insertion; because, in part, we have been challenged to do it, as proof of the existence of Jesus.

To Mr. R. Carlile.

SIR,-I send you my written proofs of the invalidity of the Rev. Robert Taylor's arguments in favor of his Manifesto.

I begin with Mr.T.'s declaration in his 44th Oration, p. 6. "That there is no evidence that Christianity originated in Judæa, &c., results from the invalidity or detected interpolation, forgery, and falsehood of all the evidence that has ever been pretended to make it appear that it did." Thus Mr. Taylor rejects as forgeries,

1. The celebrated passage in Tacitus.

2. Paul's Epistles.

3. Luke's Acts of the Apostles; and

4. The fragment of Celsus in Origen.

Now, Mr. Taylor lays down no general rule by which to decide that the passage in Tacitus is spurious, and he can have no authority to reject it on the ground that he dislikes it. He quotes Gibbon, (44th Or.) p. 21, who speaks in favor of its genuineness; and says, "I call the concession of Gibbon in this passage ironical."

But, in an argument, an opponent, you may be sure, would not defer to his opinion; therefore, it does not signify what he pleases to call it: the opponent is not bound to admit that Gibbon is ironical. Irony at best is but an exceptionable figure of speech, and is not very decent in history : besides, who ever saw so long an irony, as that, any where? Irony is usually short and brief, and is obviously distinguishable by some circumstance, which is not the case here.

An invalid or even feeble argument, Mr. T. should consider, wastes the disbeliever's money, and we do not so much fear a few of Dr. Smith's hard words, as a destitution of hard cash. We have no bishopricks, nor even good livings on our side of the table, and therefore ought to economize our slender means.

Mr. T. says that "this passage of Tacitus is parenthetical." But history abounds in such passages as could be expunged without being missed..

No fault can be found with the Latinity of the passage; and there is nothing in it which a lettered Roman might not have said.

Mr. T. seems to think that the passage was forged to make it believed that Jesus did really exist.

No. 1.-VOL. 2.

[ocr errors]

C

But nobody doubted of his existence till of late years; therefore it was not worth while to forge a passage to obtain what would always have been readily conceded to them. The Jews have always had a tradition of his existence in common with the Jesuans. The Mahometans too admit his existence

Mr. T. says, that "the forgers of the passage would gladly succumb to this self-imposed reproach," to have Jesus's existence believed.

Now they might have brought reproach upon themselves, without having Jesus's existence believed; which it is not likely that they would desire.

And secondly, if Jesus's existence was only imaginary, it is not supposeable that they would choose to feign that he was crucified, in an age when crucifixion was held to be a very bitter reproach; and, on account of his non-existence, they could have feigned something more reputable with regard to him. For, though now that mode of punishment is disused, people may affect to glory in the cross of Jesus, yet it was impossible to glory in it at first, and Paul's pretence to do so was false; he felt it as a stigma, though he declared the contrary. The truth is, he preferred reproach to hard labour, which he disliked of all things, but was not insensible to the disgrace of Jesus's crucifixion. Crucifixion, in an age when the bodies were presented to the view in different stages of decomposition and dilaceration by birds, was not regarded as an honour to boast of, and Paul's is but a flimsy disguise of his real feelings, when he mentions the disgraceful punishment inflicted on Jesus,

Thus Mr. T. has failed in regard to this important passage, and it must be pronounced to be genuine, until proof be adduced to the contrary.

Mr. T. advances (Syntagma, p. 78.) that only four particulars can be collected from this passage, even if it be allowed to be genuine. Nine more however can be inferred from it:

Ist. That a man was the author of the mentioned sect.

2nd. That, with some people, he bore the name of Christus.

3rd. That Christus was condemned to capital punishment in the reign of Tiberius.

4th. That the judge was Pontius Pilate, the procurator of Judea.

5th. That by the punishment of Christus, his superstition was checked for a time.

6th. That the superstition originated in Judea.

7th. That it broke out again.

8th. That it spread beyond Judea ; and

9th. That it extended to Rome.

Mr. T. has run away with the strange idea, that the Jesuans have been all along endeavouring to prove the existence of Jesus, and have forged whole volumes for that purpose. There is not the least trace, that such a thought ever entered their heads. They would have told it in plain terms; but they never did. So far from that, some of their forgeries are to explain away and divert some unfavourable circumstances that really attended Jesus; as shall be shown by and bye.

They would not take such roundabout methods of proof; for their proofs were not so much addressed to the adversary, as meant to dispel the surmises of their own party. What is here remarked, will be better understood, when we come to enter into detail.

The Jesuan fathers might indeed maintain that Jesus was more than a man. But this is only their mistake respecting him; for they still admitted that he wore all the external appearance of a man. See Origen, b. 6. p. 327. This does not show the non existence of Jesus; but, that the Jesuans had too high an opinion of the man,

Mr. T. has somewhere said, that Pope Leo 10th, might have inserted the celebrated passage. But he could have no motive to do it. Nobody doubted of Jesus's existence, so as to make it worth his while.

Mr. T. has said, that the passage crept from the margin into the work. But if there was only one copy left, or the Pope's copy, there could not of course be another produced with the passage in the margin; therefore, Mr. T.'s supposition is without proof, and the presumption is against it. Mr. T. has no right to choose which passage shall be held to be forged. No opponent can be required to consent to that.

If Mr. T. shall choose to advance even the bare possibility of the forgery, a full proof will be required; and even that stage of the forgery will be contested; for, by examination, hereafter, of the real forgeries of the Jesuans, we shall perceive, that the forger does not always know where to stop.

We come secondly to the alleged forgery of Paul's Epistles.

In feeble proof of this, Mr. T. refers to the edicts of Roman emperors, (see Syntagma, p. 2.) to alter the Jesuan scriptures according to their caprice.

But he has not shown that Constantine, Theodosius, and Anastasius acted according to their caprice, or that they did any thing more than correct the mistakes of copyists. That it was practicable to totally alter them is not explained. Many copies were in private hands, which must unavoidably lead to detection. And there are large quotations of them in the writings of the Jesuan Fathers, which opposed insurmountable diffi culties to the supposed total alteration. We do not know, that it was in the power of these emperors to get at all the dispersed copies of these works; and Mr. T. has not told us when they ever made the extravagant attempt.

The various readings affect the books of the New Testament, only in minor matters, such as could only concern the professors of Jesuism, and are of no importance to disbelievers.

The "immoral, vicious, and wicked tendency of many passages," (Synt. p. 3.) are no proof against, but rather in favour of the genuineness of these Jesuan writings. See the character, that Barnabas, in his epistle, gives to Jesus's apostles, that "they were infamous, and exceedingly profligate, and lawless beyond all lawlessnes." What kind of passages would Mr. T. expect from such raff?

Mr. T. says (Synt. p. 3.) that "the scriptures of N. T. did not appear in the times to which they refer."

Paul's Epistles, which alone I am now attempting to defend, might not be all collected at first, and read in all the Catholic churches; but that is not a proof that they were not genuine.

1 Tim. 3. 16, may have crept into the text containing a doctrine not held by Paul; but such a trifle is not fatal to the genuineness of these epistles. The same may be said of 1 Cor. 15. 32.

1 Cor. c. 15. v. 7, may have been written by Paul. By "the twelve" v. 5. he may mean Jesus's original gang; and by "all the apostles" in v. 7. he may mean certain missionaries under the training of James.

I hold, that Jesus was taken down from the cross and settled in Arabia. He might come once or twice to visit his party in Palestine. In the Acts, it is said, that Jesus appeared to Paul; just the reverse: Paul appeared to Jesus; he visited him in Arabia. Gal, c. 1. v. 17.

With respect to the "absence of all historical reference," (Synt. p. 4.) to Paul's Epistles, such as quotations from them in the first century. We may suppose that these epistles were not collected and read in all churches

before the second century; so that the credit of their genuineness is not impaired by the want of quotations. The "incongruity of their figments" affects only their truth, not their genuineness.

Mr. T. says, that the figments respecting Jesus, were copied from mythologies of the Roman Gods and the Indian Chrishna.-(Syntagma, p. 4.)

These figments do not establish the non-existence of Jesus, they might be only added to his true history.

The imagined similarity of the names Chrishna and Christus, seems to have had some influence in leading some to think that the fables of Jesus were copied from the story of the Indian God.

But we do not perhaps know how these names were pronounced, so as to decide upon their resemblance.

They might be very different. The Latin ch seems by the German use of them, and from other reasons, to have had the force of the s in measure, leisure, treasure, so that Christus seems to have been pronounced Zhristhooss. How Chrishna should be pronounced, I cannot pretend to say. The apparent likeness, in our deplorable orthography, cannot be depended upon.

The English had traded many years to the East Indies before Sir William Jones discovered the history of Chrishna They knew nothing about him, notwithstanding the advantage of printing and other improvements. Now the Romans were so ignorant of India, that their geographers described the island of Ceylon as larger than the whole peninsula on this side of the Ganges. And, if the best informed Romans knew so little of India, what could the ignorant professors of Jesuism be supposed to know about Chrishna?

A resemblance between mythologies might happen without intercourse between the religionists, because, as they all deal in superlatives, they must draw near to mutual resemblance.

The fabled birth of Jesus from a virgin was to hide something quite the contrary. The persecution of him, by King Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch of Galilee, for the date of the taxing shows it was not Herod the Great, his father, was to account for the undeniable residence of Jesus in Egypt, without admitting what Celsus affirms, that Joseph repudiated Mary.

The Jesuan preachers were besides desirous to explain away the residence of Jesus in Egypt, till he was grown up, and to make it thought by the Jesuan noodles, their flocks, that Jesus was only in Egypt while an infant, though, from his frequent quotations of the Greek or Septuagint version of the Old Testament, and his gross mistakes in regard to the Hebrew version, see Matthew, c. 22, v. 31, 32, and v. 42-45, and elsewhere, he must have been brought up in Egypt, where the Greek version was in use, and Celsus says the same. The reason for this concealment was, because conjuring was taught and exhibited in Egypt, and they did not like that Jesus should be called a conjuror. The Jesuan preachers and pastors did not like to have it said, that Jesus opened the eyes of the blind, by gumming small scales of fish upon the eyes of seeing men, then bidding them go before him two or three days, and beg their bread in a town, so as to become known to the inhabitants as blind, and that Jesus came, and in public bid them rub off the fish-scales agan.

Nor did the teachers of Jesuism like to have it said, that Jesus cured women of the dropsy by means of a pad inserted under their clothes, and slipped away again in the synogogue.

Neither did they relish that it should be said, that Jesus formed

« PreviousContinue »