CHAPTER XVII.
OF THE PECULIAR MORALITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, AS IT AFFECTS INDIVIDUALS.
I have already expressed my respect for the character of Jesus. And I again declare, that I request it may be distinctly understood, that by nothing that I have said do I intend to impeach, or to deprecate his moral character. Whatever may have been his defects, or whatever were his foibles, they must have been the faults of his mind, not of his heart. For, though he may hare been a mistaken enthusiast; yet I do firmly believe, That, with such a character as he is represented to have possessed, he could not have been either a hypocrite, or a wilful impostor. And if it be replied, that I have, by some observations on his conduct, indirectly impeached the perfection of his moral character; I answer, that if so, it is certainly my misfortune, but it may not be his fault. To explain this observation, I request the reader to recall to mind, that Jesus wrote nothing himself! that the only accounts we have of him, are contained in books, probably apocryphal, certainly not generally known till after the middle of the second-century from his birth. The gospels now extant do not appear to have been known to Justin Martyr; and the earliest fathers, in their writings, generally quote traditions concernng Jesus, instead of histories. Since these things are so, who knows, but that the authors of the histories of him now extant, have attributed to him words and actions of which he was guiltless. We know how prone mankind are to invent falsehoods concerning eminent men; for instance, Mahomet expressly disclaimed the power of working miracles, and yet the writings of his early followers ascribe hundreds to him. Why may it not be possible then, since Jesus wrote nothing himself, that these books ascribe to him words and actions he neither spake nor performed? God grant that this may one day be proved! For I should rejoice to find the meek, gentle, and amiable man of Nazareth proved guiltless of the follies and impieties attributed to him in the New Testament as I find it, and to reason concerning the works and words of Jesus, as I find them there expressed, yet I would earnestly request the reader to consider me willing and desirous to exempt the author, or rather the cause of the Christian religion, from the reproach of the sentiments I am bound by my regard for one God, and his attributes, to express for the system itself. Yes! I can in my own mind separate Jesus from his religion and his followers. I read with admiration many of his beautiful parables. I shall ever contemplate his mildness, and benevolence with respect; and I peruse, with pity, the recital of his sufferings, and cruel death. All this I have done, and I believe I shall ever do; but I cannot! I cannot, in effect, deny the one living and true God, and renounce my reason, and common sense, by believing all the contradictory and strange doctrines contained in the New Testament.
Having unburthened my mind upon this subject, and frankly expressed my sentiments and feelings with regard to the character of Jesus; I hope I may now be allowed (without incurring the charge of maliciously exposing him, or the twelve apostles, to reproach) to state my opinions with regard to the merit of the moral maxims, ascribed to him and them, in the New Testament. And I again caution the reader, that he is not obliged to lay to his, or their, charge, the mischievous consequences that originated from acting upon these maxims and principles, since it is by no means impossible that they may have been falsely ascribed to him and to them.
Now then, let us attend to the subject of the chapter, viz., the moral maxims ascribed to Jesus. These moral maxims consist of 1st, Those which were adopted by him from the Old Testament. 2d, Those of which he himself is described as the author. With the consideration of those of the first class I shall not trouble the reader, but shall devote this chapter to the examination of those which are supposed to have originated from him. These are, 1st, Do to others what you would that others should do to you. 2d, Resist not the injurious person; but if a man smite thee on one cheek, turn to him the other also. 3d, If a man ask thy cloak, give him thy coat also. 4th, If thou wouldest be perfect, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor; and come follow me. 5th, Unless a man hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and possessions, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 6th, Take no thought for the morrow.
With regard to the first of these maxims, it does not belong to Jesus, as the author. It is found in the book of Tobit, chapter iv. 15, and it was a maxim well known to the Rabbins. It is found in the Talmud verbatim. What thou wouldest not have done to thee, do not thou to another. (Tal. Bab. Schabbat. fol. 31.) So also Hillel addressed a proselyte thus, What is hateful to thee, do not thou to thy neighbour. Several other expressions of Jesus were, it appears from the Talmud, proverbial expressions in use among the Jews. For instance, the original of that saying recorded Matthew vii. 2. With whatsoever measure ye mete, &c., is found in the Talmud of Babylon (Sanhedrim fol. 100, Sotah, chapter 4, 7, 8,9.) With whatsoever measure any one metes it shall be measured to him. So also the original of that expression of Cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brothers eye is to be found in the Talmud*.
What is called by Christians the Lords Prayer, is merely a few clauses taken from Jewish prayers, and put together. Very many instances of a similar nature to these might be produced; but, as I must be brief, the reader is referred for further satisfaction to the works of Lightfoot, where he will learn, by extracts from Jewish writings, the source, and meaning of many more of the sayings of Jesus.
I now proceed to the most disagreeable part of the subject, viz.: The consideration of the other maxims mentioned, which, it must be allowed, do belong to Jesus, or at least to the New Testament, since they are the peculiar moral principles of Christianity, and the honour of them can be challenged by, I believe, no other religion.
These precepts are so extremely hyperbolical, that they are not, and cannot be perfectly observed by any Christian, who does not detach himself completely from the business of society; and these maxims, (which, as I said before, are the only parts of the morality of the New Testament, which are not borrowed,) never have been obeyed by any but the primitive Christians; and by the Monks, and Anchorets; for even the Quakers and Shakers, eminent as they are in Christian morality, have never been able to come quite up to the self denial required by the New Testament.
Indeed, the moral maxims peculiar to Christianity are impracticable, except by one who confines his wealth to the possession of a suit of clothes, sad wooden platter, and who lives in a cave, or a monastery. They bear the stamp of enthusiasm upon their very front, and we have always seen, and ever shall see, that they are not fit for man: that they lift him out of the sphere in which God designed him to move; that they are useless to society, and frequently produce the most dangerous consequences to it. In a word, in these maxims we find commands, the fulfillment of which, is impossible by any man who is a husband, a father, or a citizen.
It is an outrage to human nature, and to common sense, to order a virtuous man, in order to reach perfection, to strip himself of his property; to offer the other cheek to receive a new outrage; not to resist the most unjust violence, injury, and insult; not to defend himself, or his property, when sued at the law; to quit his house and goods, and to hate his parents, and brethren, and wife, and children, for the sake of Jesus; to refuse and reject innocent pleasures; to deny himself lawful enjoyments, appointed by the Creator to make the existence of man a blessing to himself and others.
Who does not see in these commands the language of enthusiasm of hyperbole? These maxims! are they not directly fitted to discourage, and debase a man? to degrade him in his own eyes, and those of others? to plunge him into despair? And would not the literal fulfillment of them prove destructive to society? What shall we say of that morality which orders the heart to detach itself from objects, which God, and reason, and nature order it to love? To refuse to enjoy innocent and lawful happiness,—what is it but to despise the benefits of God? What real good can result for society from these melancholy virtues, which Christianity regards as perfections? Will a man become more useful to society when his mind is perpetually inquieted by imaginary terrors, by mournful thoughts, which prevent him from fulfilling the duties he owes to his family, his country and those with whom he is connected?
It may be safely said, that enthusiasm is the base of the morality of Christianity; I say, the morality of Christianity, meaning thereby, not the morality of those called Christians, but the morality expressed, and required in the New Testament. The virtues it recommends, are the virtues caricatured, and rendered extravagant; virtues which divide a man from his neighbour, and plunge him in melancholy, and render him useless, and unhappy In this world we want human virtues, not those which make a man a misanthrope. Society desires, and wants virtues that help to maintain it, which gives it energy and activity. It wants virtues which render families industrious, and united; and which incite, and enable every one to obtain lawful pleasures, and to augment the general felicity. But the peculiar virtues of the New Testament, either debase the mind by overwhelming fears, or intoxicate it with visionary hopes, both which, are equally fitted to turn away men from their proper duties.
In truth, what advantages can society derive from those virtues styled by Christians, Evangelical? which they prefer to the social virtues, the real and the useful, and without which, they assert, a man cannot please God, Let us examine these vaunted perfections, and let us see of what utility they can be to society, and whether they really merit the preference which is given them by their advocates.
The first of these Christian virtues, which serves as a base for all the others, is faith. It consists in believing the truth of dogmas, of absurd fables, which Christianity (according to the catechisms) orders its disciples to believe—dogmas, as absurd and impossible as a square circle, or a round triangle—from which we see, that this virtue exacts an entire renunciation of common sense; an assent to incredible facts, and a blind credulity in absurd dogmas, which, yet, every Christian is required to believe, under pain of damnation.
This virtue, too, though necessary to all men, is, nevertheless, the gift of heaven! the effect of special grace. It forbids doubt and examination; it forbids a man the right to exercise his reason; it deprives him of the liberty of thinking, and degrades him into a bearded baby.
This faith vanishes when a man reasons; this virtue cannot sustain a tranquil scrutiny. And this is the reason why all thorough going Christians are naturally, and, consequently, the enemies of science. This miraculous faith, which believeth all things, is not given to persons enlightened by science and reflection, and accustomed to think. It is not given but to those who are afraid to think, lest they should offend God.
The next Christian virtue which flows from the first, is hope, founded upon the promises which the New Testament makes to those who render themselves miserable in this life. It nourishes their enthusiasm, it makes them forget the things that are on earth, and reach forward unto the things which are in another world. It renders them useless here below, and makes them firmly believe that God will recompense in heaven, the pains they have taken to make themselves miserable on earth. How can a man, occupied with such expectations of heavenly happiness, concern himself at all with, or for, the actual and present happiness of those around him, while he is indifferent as to his own? And how can he help this, when he believes that friendship with the world is enmity with God?
The third virtue is charity. We have elsewhere said, that if universal love or charity means only general benevolence, and a desire to makes others happy, and to do them good, all this is commanded by reason and the ancient revelation; but if by this precept it is commanded to love those who hate, oppress or insult us, we do not at all scruple to assert, that the thing is impossible, and unnatural. For, though we can abstain from hurting our enemy; or even can do him good, we cannot really love him. Love is a movement of the heart, which is governed and directed by the laws of our nature, to those whom we think worthy of it, and to those only.
Charity, considered as general benevolence of disposition, is virtuous and necessary. It is nothing more than a feeling which interests us in favour of our fellow beings. But how is this feeling consistent with the peculiar doctrines of the gospel? According to its maxims, it is a crime to offer God a heart, whoso affections are shared by terrestrial objects. And besides, does not experience show, that devotees obliged by principle to hate themselves, are little disposed to give better treatment to others?
We should not be surprised that maxims, originating with enthusiasm, should aim at, and have the effect of, driving man out of himself. In the delirium of its enthusiasm, this religion forbids a man to love himself. It commands him to hate all pleasures but those of religion, and to cherish a long face. It attributes to him as meritorious, all the voluntary evils he inflicts upon himself. From thence originate those austerites, those penances, destructive to health; those cruel privations by which the inhabitants of the monastic cell kill themselves by inches, in order to merit the joys of heaven. Now, how can good sense admit that God delights in seeing his creatures torment themselves?
It may be said to all this, perhaps, that this is mere declamation, for Christians now a days do not torment themselves, but live as comfortable as others. To this I answer that Christianity is to be judged not by what Christians do, but by what it commands them to do. Now, I presume it will not be denied that the New Testament commands its professors to renounce the world, to be dead to the world, to crucify the flesh with its passions, and desires. Certainly these directions were literally complied with by the primitive Christians; and, in doing so, they acted consistently. In those times, the deserts, the mountains, the forests were peopled with perfect Christians; who withdrew from the world, deprived their families of support, and their country of citizens, in order to lead unmolested the divine life. It was the New Testament morality that spawned those legions of monks and cenobites, who thought to secure the favour of heaven, by burying their talents in the deserts, and devoting themselves to inaction and celibacy.
And at this very day we see these very same things in those Christian countries, which are truly faithful to the principles of their religion.
In fine, Christianity seems from the first, to have taken pains to set itself in point blanc opposition to nature, and reason. If it admits and includes some virtues ordered and appointed by God, good sense, and universal experience; it drives them beyond their bounds into extravagance. It preserves no just medium, which is the point of perfection. Voluptuousness, adultery and debauchery are forbidden by the laws of God and reason. But Christianity not content with commanding, and encouraging marriage, as did the Old Testament, must forsooth go beyond it, and therefore encourages celibacy, as the state of perfection God says, in Genesis, it is not good that man should be alone. I will make a companion for him. And he blessed all his creatures, saying, increase and multiply. But the gospel annuls this law, and represents a single life to be most pleasing, to the very being, whose very first command was, increase and multiply! It advises a man to die without posterity, to refuse citizens to the state, and to himself, a support for his old age.
It is to no purpose to deny that Christianity recommends all this; I say, it substantially does! and I boldly appeal,—not to a few Protestant Divines,—but to the New Testament; to the Homilies of the Fathers of the Church; to the History, and Practice of the Primitive Christians; to the innumerable Monasteries of Europe, and Asia; to the immense multitudes who have lived, and died hermits; and, finally, (because I know very well, the Protestant divines attribute these follies to the influence of Platonism, Pythagoranism, and several other isms upon pure Christianity) I appeal to living evidence now in the world, to the only thoroughgoing Christians in it, viz., to the Society of the Shakers, who I maintain, and can prove, to be true, genuine imitators of the Primitive Christians, and a perfect exemplification of their manners, and modes of thinking. I adduce them the more confidently, because, being simple, and unlearned, their character has been formed by the spirit of the New Testament, and perfectly represents the effects of its principles fully carried out, and acted upon. They never heard of Platonism, or of Pythagoras in their lives, and, consequently, the polemic tricks, and evasions, which have been, as hinted just now, resorted to by Protestant divines, to shift from the shoulders of Christianity to those of Plato or Pythagoras, the obnoxious principles we have been considering, are of no use in this case, as, whatever the characters of these Shakers may be, they were formed by the New Testament, and by nothing else; and I believe, that every scholar in ecclesiastical history, who reads Browns history of the Shakers, will be immediately and powerfully struck with the resemblance subsisting between them, and the Christians of the two first centuries.
As examples of the effects of those precepts of Christian morality, which command us to hate father, and mother, and sister, and brother, for the Bake of Jesus, take the following extracts from the history referred to.
According to their faith, natural affection must be eradicated; and they say they must love all equally alike, as brothers, and sisters in the gospel. It would exceed the limits of this work to give a particular account of the various schemes that have been contrived, to destroy all natural affection and social attachment between man and wife, parent and child, brothers and sisters; especially towards such as have left the society. Two instances that occurred about this time, as specimens of others, may suffice. A mother, who had renounced the faith, (i. e. left the society,) come to Niskeuna to see, her daughter. Eldress Hannah Matterson told the daughter to go into the room to her carnal mother, and say, What do you come here for? I dont want you to come and see me with your carnal affections! The mother being grieved, replied, I did not expect that a daughter of mine would ever address me in that manner.
The daughter, in obedience to what she was taught, replied again, You have come here with your carnal fleshly desires, and I don't want to see you, and left her mother.
Some time after, one Duncan Shapley, who had belonged to the society, called to see Abigail, his sister, at Niskeuna, whom he had not seen for six or seven years; but he was not admitted: he waited some time, being loath to go away without seeing her. At last she was ordered to go to the window and address him in the language of abuse and scurrility. The words she made use of, it would be indecent to mention. For this she was applauded, and that in the authors hearing, when he belonged to the society.
This man gives a very curious account how the elders treated their babes, in their spiritual nursery; but I shall notice only one or two examples, which illustrate what I have advanced concerning the natural hostility of the spirit of the New Testament towards science. I know of several, who, soon after they joined the Church, have been counselled by the Elders to dispose of their books; and have accordingly done it. Elder Ebenezer being at my house one day, on seeing a number of books, he said—Ah! Thomas must put away his books if he intends to become a good believer.
As an instance of its effects upon the human understanding, take the following:—A short time after, being at a believers house, at eleven oclock at night, they all having retired to rest, and I laying awake in a dry well finished room, in which was a stove and fire, there fell a large drop of water on my temples; on examination, I could not discover where the water came from. I told the believers of it in the morning.
One said, Ah! it is a warning to you respecting your unbelief.
I then assigned some inconclusive reason, how the drop might have become formed in the room, and its falling.
One replied, Ah! that is the way you render a natural reason for the cause of every thing, and so reason away your faith and yourself out of the gospel.
As another proof, that genuine Christianity discourages marriage, and considers celibacy as the only state of perfection, the Shakers allow of no marriages at all.
Thus you see that, among these people, to become a good believer, you must insult your parents, revile your brother, depise learning, and never render a natural reason for any thing, lest you should reason away your faith, and yourself out of the gospel.