People profess Christianity more from a desire to do right, than they do right in consequence of their professions.
1329. I am aware how much it is a part of the existing system of education to imbue a confident faith in whatever tenets may be taught, and how little it is possible, in consequence, to have any arguments fairly considered which bear against the educational impressions. It may be seen in the instance of the interesting lady to whom I owe the kind letter, ([1163],) how much more anxious such persons are to teach than to listen. She had, as she supposed, listened to an exposition of my views, of which the foundation had already been described in a published letter, with an effort to compare the heaven and hell of Scripture with those of Spiritualism; yet in all confidence of victory, this excellent creature brings me a letter written by one whom she considers to have a first-rate intellect, and who begins by assuming what I most emphatically deny, and of which the argument is just as good for Mohammedanism as for Christianity, provided the Koran be assumed as the word of God in lieu of the Bible, and Mohammed as the vicegerent of God instead of Christ. This may be considered as the argument of an eminent Episcopalian in favour of the truth of Christianity, while in those cited from Hughes and Breckinridge we have the arguments of an eminent Romanist on one side, and an eminent Calvinist on the other. The one objects to the basis of “fallible” men as the rule of faith; the other, to any inference derived from a gospel by “fallible” men. Breckinridge does not recollect that there is nothing more fallible than the traditions, compilations, and translations of fallible men, nor how skeptical all those who sustain the truth of Scripture on this evidence, are of any other evidence of the same kind which conflicts with Scripture.
1330. If the reader will look at the letters of Amasa Holcomb and my replies, ([690],) he will see an exemplification of the difficulty in which many were placed, who had no other evidence of a future state beside that afforded by Scripture. Let him apply to the human evidence of antiquity no less skepticism than is now applied to the human evidence of Spiritualists, and then estimate the weight of testimony in favour of the Scriptures. Let him fairly consider the internal evidence against Scripture, as briefly sketched in this work or elsewhere, and then say whether he can conscientiously condemn Mr. Holcomb or myself for conscientiously disbelieving Scripture.
1331. Let it be considered whether belief in Christianity is not at the present time a consequence of morality, rather than its cause; whether it is not, with ninety-nine in a hundred, the consequence of early impressions, which have associated the Christian religion and morals inseparably on the conscience; without, however, inducing in any one of the individuals thus influenced any idea that the precepts of Christ are to be carried out in practice. It would be manifestly preposterous to look for this where the clergy, who were the teachers, did not practically obey the precepts, but went ahead in the race of iniquity, whichever way the current might lead, and almost everywhere as desirous of wealth, and power, and worldly distinction as other men. The imperfection of the evidence of scriptural truth, on which the belief in it rests, or that false moral sense derived from education, which makes the person affected just as tenacious of one creed as of another, whether it be Judaic, Christian, or Mohammedan, causes the faith thus arising to yield whenever the moral sense is impaired on which it rests. Not being supported by reason, as soon as the educational conscientiousness on which it was founded is blunted, any faith built upon it forms no barrier. The individual perceives that his opinions were not formed by himself, but imparted, and would have been different, had he been born of different parents. Thus faith rests upon morality, not morality upon faith; and when morality goes, faith ceases to be a barrier. But meanwhile those who abandon morality, find in their educational impressions one which is a salvo to them, however sinful. They find that Christ died for those who believe in his divinity or in his divine mission, and of course, that by closing their ears and eyes to all evidence or argument impeaching Christianity, and continuing to cherish the early impressions made by their teachers, they may be redeemed from future punishment; whereas, as Dr. Berg alleged in his debate with Barker, “A sinner cannot be saved out of Christ.”
1332. But one consequence of this interested, bigoted belief is, that animosity which, it was foretold by Christ, would cause such horrible discord, and would make his advent equivalent to a severing of all the dearest ties between relatives and friends, the superior and his subordinates. As at this time any idea of a religion would be scouted with indignation which should not make a future state of rewards and punishments the primary object, it is inconceivable to me wherefore the Old Testament should be an object of veneration to those whose thoughts are heavenward. How could there be any thing but worldliness where nothing but the things of the world were objects of desire—no heaven beyond.
1333. From what has been urged, is it not manifest that, in the first place, it is of great importance that the evidence of a future state should be placed on a firmer footing than on recorded and translated traditions, or on the decretals of a most profligate priesthood? Would it not be one of the greatest imaginable blessings that those who have not the consolation of believing in immortality, should have that consolation, and those who already believe in a future state of existence, should have a better knowledge of that state, than that given by Josephus, sanctioned by Christ, even as collated by the pious and learned clergyman, Dr. Harbaugh? ([750].)
1334. If Christ had nothing but the vicinity of the fire prepared for the devil and his angels, agreeably to Josephus, and his story of Dives and Lazarus, or imaginary worldly appointments, or lying in the grave till the last day,—if these are all the grounds that Christians have had to build upon as respects future happiness, is it to be wondered at that the priesthood of the Middle Ages, who best knew the defect of gospel evidence, how little they themselves were to be trusted, and how illusory was the promise made to the apostles of judgeships, ([743],) should, of all others in society, be the least restrained by fear of future punishment?
It is a calumny against human nature to represent men as wilfully ignorant of the true religion.
1335. A prevalent calumny against human nature has been, that men remain wilfully reckless as respects religious truth; or that they remain in error designedly, and not because they mistake it for truth. But it is notorious, that as respects the laws of man, those who make it their business to violate them take great care to make themselves acquainted with the laws which it is their object to break. None but an idiot would expect the law to be less severe in proportion as he should keep himself ignorant of its provisions. No banditti in the Russian empire would expect the less to go to Siberia because they should deny the reigning czar to be the sovereign. They would not expect to escape his power by enthroning a pretended czar, and paying him honour. Such conduct would be too absurd, even for fools to pursue; yet it is upon such erroneous views that three thousand Israelites were surprised and assassinated for worshipping the golden calf; and that eminent clergymen do not consider it as blasphemy against the paternal God, described by Seneca ([1224]) to represent him as sanctioning this horrible butchery.[28]