ssingen ant tud buFOR THE PROSPECT. bod yr us to Two clerical efforts have lately been made in favour made of what is called holy writ. The logic ufed in its fupport is, that because the ftrong and inquifitive mind of ftronome a Hamilton (of itfelt a hoft of evidence) has declared his own conviction of the truth of revelation, ergo those who doubt or hold oppofite convictions are individually to furrender their private judgment, and take for granted, or believe upon truft, doctrines faid to relate to another world, merely on hear-fay evidence of their having been embraced by an inhabitant of this.Such a mode of up holding a lame caufe, however well meant on the part of the advocates, certainly argues nothing in favour of the perfpicuity of the revelation they have undertaken to defend; and if arguments of authority could have any weight, might eafily be repelled by inftances both in Eu Tope and America, of men of learning and integrity, and public fpeakers in its favour, abandoning for confcience fake, as their judgment ripens, both its doctrines and its emoluments,-Authority, however, can have no concern in the investigation of truth, and if a caufe thus attempted to be fupported were really divine and could yet ftand in need of human alfiftance to enforce it, its author would not, it is believed, rely a fecond time on the judgment of counfel, who, in the excefs of their zeal, appear wholly to have loft fight of the declarations, that unto babes and fucklings thefe things have been revealed, and that the poor have the goipel preached to them. If Mr. Hamilton, by virtue of fuperior powers of difcerns ment, have difcovered in a book, things which to men of inferior acquirements and equal fincerity, appear dark of obfcure, he, by honeftly expreffing the refult of his examinations has in fo far acted the part of an upright and confcientious character, and as fuch deferves credit but the man who on the other hand has investigated with and equal diligence and fincerity, and whofe designs, from whatever cause, have produced different and oppofite refults, is equally entitled 39 90 to Mr. Hamilton never laid claim to infpiration-his be lief therefore in the chriftian faith muft have been ac quired folely by the examination of evidence found eíther in the bible or out of it. Now as any external evidence brought to fupport it must be of neceflity confined to the examination of a few (and fo far as fuch evidence is wanting it is in fo far a drawback to its divinity) its internal evidence, it is prefumed, will by chriftian profeffors be deemed abundantly fufficient to induce a belief in its doctrines, and fufficient alfo to bring within its damning penalties fuch of its readers as may be indicted for the want of it. How then can two grave and learned divines, in an affair of fuch moment exhort their lay brethren to put their faith upon the fallible judgment of a fellow mortal, and this too without any evidence of the means by which his belief has been affected? If it have refulted folely from an unreftrained exercife of thofe reafoning powers for which the deceased was pre-eminent, then by fuch admiffion the main fpring of the fyftem is deftroyed, and the faithfulness of human reafon eftablish ed; but if from divine co-operation, then to adduce in argument the belief of a Hamilton is to derogate from the revelation that is recommended, which declares unequivocally that God is no refpecter of perfons. If however the arguments produced fuch conviction, either in his ówn writing or through the recollection of friends, can be made public, their publication will doubtlefs merit and receive attention-but until the means by which this end has been effected fhall become known, it is no better than a libel on the book to claim affent to its doctrines on the bare authority of a name. Mr. Hamilton may have attentively read the bible, and embraced many of the prevailing doctrines-others whofe fincerity cannot be queftioned, have, upon mere bible evidence, rejected them.-The fame evidence then has on different minds produced oppofite effects-this could not be with a fyftem which is divine, for "evi dence ought to be equal to all where the equal credence of all is demanded." But there is in this book fome matter to which it may be confidentally affirmed, Mr. Hamilton, if he examined it, never did yield aflent; be caufe the writers of it, whether human or divine, could not themfelves believe it to be true.This matter has been already noticed by a celebrated author, and may be found in Ezra, chap. 2d, and in in Nehemiah, chap. 7th. The two writers are profeffing to give in detail the numbers of certain tribes, or families, who had been carried captive to Babylon, and returned to Jerufalem, &c. and although the component parts of these narratives vary effentially from each other, yet both of them are made to produce exactly the fame refult, or fum total of 42360; and both of them are alfo manifeftly falfe, the the error in the former being a furplus of 12542, and in the latter of 11271, as any man may convince himself by examining the particulars.-Now whether an almighty dictator could or could not have caft up thefe two accounts wrong, if he had fo pleafed, may with fome minds poffibly become a queftion; but there is no difficulty at all in determining that he could not afterwards, and cannot now, believe them to be caft right; and it would be fingular indeed if he should require his creatures upon pain of damnation, to believe what he cannot poffibly give cre. dit to himself. Any one may take fuch accounts for granted, but no one can examine and believe them; and yet on the human credit of an individual, we are gravely called to receive the book containing them as" the truth from Heaven"-It will be in vain to contend that errors of inferior moment cannot effect doctrines of higher im portance. If these ftories were important enough to be related to all, they would with divinity be important é nough to be related truly; for God, as we have been als fo told," cannot be." Yet the two relations are not on ly difcordant in particulars, but both of them erroneous in refult; and when a fingle portion of what is called di vine revelation can be proved to be falfe, the authority of the whole become difcredited, more especially of fuch fen, timents as violate the plaineft principles of justice and common fenfe And will this objection too be clafled among the cavils of the fciolift, and the jeers of the pro fane? what bible monger dares undertake the talk ? fuch a fample and fuch a mode of recommending the commo dity are enough furely to banish every idea of divinity being concerned in the manufacture. Profession of Faith from Rousseau, continued. What then can even the apoftle of truth have to tell me, of which I am not ftill to jndge? But God himself bath Spoken; listen to the voice of revelation. That indeed, is another thing. God hath fpoken! This is fay ing a great deal: but to whom hath he fooken? He bath Spoken to man. How comes it then that I heard nothing of it? He bath appointed others to teach you his word. I understand you: there are certain men who are to tell me what God hath fard. I had much rather have heard it from himself; this, had he fo pleafed, he could easily have done and I fhould then have run no risk of decep tion. Will it be faid I am fecured from that, by his manifefting the miffion of his meffengers by miracles? Where are thofe miracles to be feen? Are they related only in the books? Pray, who wrote thefe books?-Men. -Who were witneffes to thefe miracles? Men.-Always human teftimony! It is always men that tell me what other men have told them. What a number of thefe are conftantly between me and the Deity! We are always reduced to the neceffity of examining, comparing and verifying fuch evidence. O, that God had deigned to have faved me all this trouble! fhould I have ferved him with a lefs willing heart? To be continued. New York: Published every Saturday, by ELIHU PALMER, No. 26, Chatham-street. Price Two Dollars per ann. paid in advance. PROSPECT; or, View of the Moral World. SATURDAY, October 20, 1804. No. 46, Comments upon the Sacred Writings of the Jews and Christians. Exodus Chapter 32. W THE GOLDEN CALF, &c. "And HILE Mofes was paffing away his time upon the mount, under pretence of holding an intimate interview with Jehovah, and getting the the teftimony infcribed upon the two tables of ftone, Aaron, his coadjutor in villainy and deception, formed a plan for fwindling the Jewish people out of their property. Aaron faid unto them, break off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, of your daughters, and bring them unto me." (v. 2.) With thefe golden ear rings he pretended to form a golden calf, which was afterwards thrown into the fire and burnt up, then ground to powder, then thrown upon the waters, and afterwards given to the Jewish people to drink as a kind of morning dram. What a frange ftory this is: in all its parts it is mingled with fufpicious circumftances and flamped with the moft fwindling hypocricy. How did they melt this gold? Were they acquainted with the principles of chemistry, or did they bring it into a state of fufion by working of a miracle? How did they afterward grind it to powder, and by what means did they gather it up af ter it was caft into the water? What was the object of making the people drink of this golden liquid? Was it for the purpose of reftoring moral or phyfical fanity, or was it intended as an exhibition of fpite and punishment to the Jewish people?-To all thefe quetions fuperftiti ous credulity would give various anfwers; but reafon de clares the whole to be a fabrication of fraud, falfhood and deception. If the Chriftian clergy were to exercife their talents in an explanation of the ftrange matters contained. in this chapter, it might perhaps be of great fervied to their pious followers, and ferve to filence the objections of infidels. In the nineteenth verf: of this chapter it is. |