1113. It strikes me, from the considerations presented under the head of Mundane Wealth, that the precepts of Christ were fundamentally erroneous, so far as they discredit and discourage efforts for the honest acquisition of wealth. ([908].)

1114. God has given the fowls of the air feathers as a natural clothing, and thus any effort to procure clothing on their part is rendered unnecessary; he has not given them hands nor intellectual ingenuity to spin and weave. On the other side, with little exception, man is naturally devoid of clothing, and requires clothes to protect him from the scorching solar rays or freezing blasts of winter, but has been furnished with the hands and the ingenuity to spin and weave. Under these circumstances, was it reasonable to allege that man should be governed by the example of the feathered creation? Was it reasonable to infer that there should be no spinning or weaving by men, because there neither was nor could be any performed by fowls?

1115. Again, the lily, like all other vegetables, not only comes into existence naked, but remains so, since it neither can nor will clothe itself, and would perish if by any artificial clothing it were shut out from the influence of the solar rays, and from the absorption of carbonic acid, which furnishes the vegetable creation with the carbon requisite for the fibres essential to stability. Hence the allegation that Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like the lily, is irreconcilable with the nature and actual state of this beautiful flower, which is destitute of clothing by nature, and which would perish if it were clothed. The skin of vegetable leaves, to a certain extent, performs for them what mouths do for animals. How unreasonable, then, to argue from one to the other, that man should imitate the vegetable; or to compare a plant, naturally and of necessity naked, with a king gorgeously clothed?

1116. The degrading a rich man, whether honest or not, to the level of a felon or murderer, as respects accessibility to heaven, and of course favour in the sight of God, is so erroneous, that there never was a precept which was less respected in practice, by the votaries of its author. As I have heretofore remarked, the conduct of Christians is not merely negative in respect to this precept—they do not merely neglect it; their course is the converse of any obedience to its dictates. Yet professed Christians while violating their divine Master’s behests in a way which makes their performance the inverse of the results which their professions involve, for the most part treat any person who does not profess devotion for Christ’s doctrines, as actually more culpable than themselves, and more liable to retribution after death. This is about as just as for a man, who after marrying a woman and calling her his wife, should act the inverse of the obligations imposed by the connubial contract, and then consider an individual who had never entered into any obligation with her of any kind, as guilty of sinful neglect in not acknowledging as a wife, one whom he never married. The question is, who treats the woman most ill, he who acknowledges but neglects, or he who does not display a hymeneal devotion which he never led her to expect?

1117. Again, the precept to return good for evil, would, if acted up to, encourage evil. Were a man to submit quietly to be robbed, whipped, and cheated, he would encourage robbing, flagellation, and fraud. Far wiser is the precept of Confucius, “Return good for good; for evil, justice.” The impracticable precept of Christ is so far from being carried out by professing Christians, that in their conduct to the aborigines of Africa, India, and America, they have always been aggressive, always rewarding the hospitality of the natives with fraud and violence, and their conduct toward each other is the inverse of the ultra precept of Christ—“Return good for evil.” They not unfrequently return evil for good.

1118. There is, as I think, nothing more injurious than the habitual violation of acknowledged professions. If the violator be aware of his inconsistency, it involves the incessant perpetration of manifest wickedness; and if his mind be so cramped by education that he commits such violations unconsciously, it must degrade the all-important power of distinguishing good from evil. Thus, in the garb of truth,

Dark error leads

With best intent

To evil deeds,

The bigot to ensnare.