No one would believe that a capable farmer would make such a mistake as to sow garlic instead of wheat. Yet God, while represented as having intended to sow Protestantism, is considered as having caused, throughout Christendom, a crop of Catholicism, in the Roman or Grecian form, for more than a thousand years; those weeds still occupying more than half of the whole soil.
1137. The immense importance attached by mankind to correct religious impressions is demonstrated, in the first place, by the enormous expenditure throughout this world in sustaining those who are conceived by their constituents to be the true expounders of religion;[23] and, in the second place, by the blood and treasure which have been expended either in missions or in wars, for the extension or defence of the impressions believed by various sectarians to be the most accordant with truth.
1138. Yet it must be plain that in no case has there been any higher evidence than that of an alleged human communication, direct or indirect, with some recognised deity, if not the true God. If the will of God has ever been revealed, the number who have actually pretended to an interview with him, or with any immortal subordinate spirit are very few. The Old Testament depends upon the testimony of Moses and a few Hebrew prophets, whose inspiration rests upon their own allegations, respecting themselves or each other.
1139. As regards the basis of Christianity, there are two irreconcilable opinions: one held by the Protestants, the other by the Roman Catholics; since although there is a great diversity of opinion between Protestants, there is between all Protestants and Papists this difference: The latter relying on their own church as the sole depository of all the evidence of Christianity, do not allow any direct recourse to Scripture for a rule of faith. The former reject the claims of the church of Rome, and resort to the gospel for their rule of faith.[24]
1140. But wherefore should such implicit confidence be placed in language alleged to have been held by Moses or any other ancient author? or should they be credited, even when they allege God to have used such words as these, “Let me wax hot in my wrath that I may consume them.” The motive for this imputation against God, was that Moses might take credit for moderation in slaughtering only three thousand of God’s chosen people in one day, for worshipping a golden calf, made by his own brother, afterward made high-priest. Thus the ringleader, being the brother of Moses, was loaded with honours, while those whom he led astray were to be massacred in cold blood. Yet it is on such witnesses as this blood-thirsty, blasphemous bigot, that orthodoxy relies for assuming the Pentateuch to be the word of God, censuring, if not persecuting, all who do not concur with it.
1141. The intercourse with the angel Gabriel rests upon the evidence of Mary alone, who was interested immensely to make her child a god, instead of being her illegitimate offspring. Of the dream of Joseph there can be no witness besides himself. But would a dream be now admitted as testimony in any court of justice.
1142. The diversity of opinion existing between Romanists and Protestants, are briefly exhibited in the subjoined quotations from the controversy between Archbishop Hughes and the Rev. Mr. Breckinridge. They have already been cited by me in a pamphlet on the better employment of the first day of the week. Here are the opinions of two men highly qualified to judge. In one, we have an eminent champion of Romanism; in the other, a no less able champion of Calvinism. To the latter belongs the distinction of having persecuted the Quakers and witches, and of having roasted Servetus; to the former, putting some hundreds of thousands to death or torture by the sword, the rack, or the fagot.
1143. Agreeing with each of the parties that the other is in the wrong, I, of course, assume that they are both in error. Taken together, they may be considered as proving that there is no evidence in favour of Christianity, which I have not the authority of eminent Christians for rejecting. In the 29th page of the controversy between himself and Breckinridge, Bishop Hughes speaks as follows:
1144. “My fourth argument was, that the Protestant rule of faith actually undermines the authority of the Scriptures, by extinguishing the proofs of their authenticity and inspiration, and consequently terminates in moral suicide. Just imagine to yourself an ordinary will or testament, written but twenty years ago, purporting to be the last will and testament of a wealthy deceased relative, and designating you as heir, but without either signature or probate, and ask yourself what it would be worth? Could such a document establish its own authenticity? And yet this is precisely the situation to which the Protestant rule of faith reduced the Scriptures, by which, and by which alone, their authenticity could have been established. St. Augustine, of whom Presbyterians are sometimes wont to speak with respect, declared that it was the testimony of the church which moved him to believe in the Scriptures. But now the order of belief is ‘reformed.’ Men pick up (pardon the phrase) the sacred volume, as they find it floating on the sea of two thousand years, and by one great but gratuitous act of belief, which flings all intermediate church authority and tradition to the winds, they say ‘the Bible is the Bible, and we are its interpreters, every man for himself.'”
1145. It seems not to have occurred to the right reverend champion of the Catholic creed, that it is not more true that a testament without witnesses is of no validity, than it is true that the testimony of witnesses claiming under the will, cannot be admitted. A document written after the death of the testator would not be considered in a court of justice as entitled to the name of a testament. But were persons to write a will after a man’s death, and bring it forward, claiming under it supremacy, would their claim produce any result beside derision?