EXISTENCE OF CHRIST

t cast to doidw edt tud radio does

AS A HUMAN BEING,

DISPROVED!

BY IRRESISTIBLE EVIDENCE, IN A SERIES OF LETTERS, 2

"I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel. Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides me there is no Saviour," ISAIAH XLIII. 3, 10, 11.

CHRISTIANS,

If you receive the Bible as your guide, you cannot believe that Abraham ever had a literal existence, as the Scriptures expressly declare (Gal. chap. 4, v. 24) that "the things written concerning Abraham are an allegory'so, admitting that (2 Tim. chap. 3, v. 16)" All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," you cannot escape from the conclusion, that what is written in the Bible about Abraham is mere allegory and not a true history, fabulous traditions booked by the writer of the Sacred Volume, who declares (Hosea, chap. 12, v. 10) " I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets," it must be clear therefore, that to take "visions" and "similitudes" as literal matters of fact, is contrary to the teaching of Scripture itself. The things written concerning Abraham being "an allegory," Christ could not have descended from a man, or prophet, called Abraham, for an allegorical history is not a history of things or persons as they were, but "as though they were," and this fair Scriptural view of the matter demonstrates hat no literal Jesus Christ ever existed or was ever literally crucified-or ever literally rose from the dead or ever, in short,

literally did any one thing related of him,-for either Christ descended from Abraham, or Scripture is false; and if the hypothesis of Abraham's existence be an hypothesis in the air, all that is written about Christ must be equally airy and unsubstantial, as we read, (Gal. chap. 3, v. 29)" And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Whether you strictly adhere to the literal interpretation of Abraham's history, and insist that it does not speak of things that were not "as though they were," or whether, driven from that ground by the force of reason, aided by the sharp and powerful weapons of Scripture texts, you are yet willing to save yourselves (for dying men catch at straws) by admitting that the things written about Abraham are only "similitudes," seemingly a history, but really a fable-still must the belief in Christ be abandoned, as the literal interpretation would be in direct opposition to the plainest Scriptural teaching; while acknowledging that Abraham's history is mere romance, at once reduces the Sacred Volume to a book of fables, allegories, metaphors-a mystery to the vulgar, enclosing a hidden and deeper meaning than they attach to them-stamping moreover as imbeciles, or something worse, those holy men who preach the gospel as literally true. The rash theologians who declare that what is written in Genesis about Abraham is partly literal, partly allegorical-or, in plain language, partly true and partly false, are the men who most effectually undermine the Christian religion; for by making the important admission, that some things could not have taken place as related in the Bible, they shake all confidence in such a divine medley, and set men thinking how much of it is literal? how much of it is allegory? how much of it is true? how much of it is false?—so that the sacredness of the volume is destroyed, and that "given by inspiration of God" is reduced to a mere book of riddles, which each is at liberty to guess the meaning of, without any other than the dim light of reason, or any other aids than those afforded by a weak and fallible judgment-while a plain literal interpretation of the Holy Book, so simple-so easy-so irrefutable-so magical as it ought to be in its effects, when given by those appointed to "go teach all nations," has this fearful consequence involved in it, that such a teaching flatly contradicts those parts of Scripture which cannot be mistaken. Nor will faith here step in and save us; no, not even that faith which Catholic divines tell us "serves as a remedy for our natural defects, and supplies the place of knowledge-teaches us

to believe without doubting doctrines which we cannot comprehend, or the testimony of God who has taught them;" for faith, however strong or holy, cannot reconcile contradictions once perceived as contradictions; a relation, however absurd, may be, through the efficacy of faith, implicitly believed; but that which is known to be its opposite cannot also be believed, as for example, when the faithful Christian searches the Scriptures, and finds there related that Jesus is the son of Abraham, he cannot, however armed in faith, believe that Abraham, his father, had no real existence, even though the same Scriptures declare that "the things written concerning Abraham were an allegory," that is, according to lexicographers, "a figurative discourse in which something is intended that is not contained in the words literally taken." How could that faith which supplies the place of knowledge, and teaches us to believe without doubting doctrines which we cannot comprehend," reconcile us to the conflicting and impossible statements of the Scripture, which declares that our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified and killed at three different places, at Calvary, according to Luke, (chap. 23. v. 33) "And when they were come to the place which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left." At Galatia, according to (Gal. chap. 3, v. 1) "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?" At Sodom in Egypt, as written in (Rev. chap. 11, v. 8)" And their dead bodies shall be in the streets of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." Here is a strange confusion, if not coutradiction of texts, which no faith can clear up or reconcile, though it may enable those who possess it to skip over such vain difficulties, or pass them by as unworthy of notice; but surely, the mere literal expounder of the Bible is here foiled by his own weapons-for not only is it contrary to reason and all that we call fact, that a real person should exist from an ideal one, but it is, if any thing can be, contray to common sense, for an individual, man, prophet, or God, to be killed and crucified three times over at three different places. The trinity of persons in the Godhead it is difficult to understand; but ' a trinity of killings and crucifixions seems beyond the reach even of those "who believe without doubting doctrines which they cannot comprehend, or the testimony of God who has taught them;" but the allegorical explication will enable not only "men of little faith,"

but even Infidels, who are satisfied with nought but reason, not having one grain of faith in holy legend and religious tales, to get a right understanding of the Scripture. Surely, the Christians who believe literally what is above quoted from the Scripture, with regard to the crucifixion, bring shame upon human reason, (Heb. chap. 6, v. 6) "Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." The Scripture literally teems with texts, about the meaning of which there can be no two opinions; but the limits we have prescribed for ourselves, forbid that we unnecessarily multiply them; and though some may urge, that Scriptural texts thus plucked out one by one, serve only for springes and snares," that a German Jew, like the Devil, "may use Scripture for his purpose," with other hard things-no man who has firm faith in the Scripture will do this; nor can those who produce their cause, and bring forth their strong reasons from the Sacred Volume, consistently deny the same right to others, and text for text is unquestionably fair and honorable warfare. Now, we challenge all the theologians of Europe to overthrow us in textual combat, or shew from the Bible, that Abraham was a real personage; the fact is, that "through infirmity of the flesh, (human reason), the gospel was preached unto us at first (that is, during the infancy of civilization) as really and literally true; but, when the flesh (human reason) shall be cured of its infirmity, and be made sound," Scripture will be interpreted more in harmony with truth, than any interpretation could have been in former times, its riddles may now be guessed without danger, metaphors explained-its similitudes and strange mysteries made intelligible-its literal contradictions and absurdities reconciled and made reasonable and a rational interpretation given of its mystical sense, and plain nonsense.

The German theologians, by their boldness, immense research, and critical acumen, have fairly carried away the Scriptures from the orthodox Christian theologians; to which course they were pioneered by the great writers of the Deistical school, the Bolingbrokes, Tolands, Voltaires, and others who, by shaking the faith of millions in the literal reading of the New Testament-and, like Julian Celsus and Porphery, before them rejecting as pure fable the shameful and truly disgusting recitals contained in the Holy History, made the path straight for the (perhaps in a certain sense) more elevated conceptions of the present German school; so that Strauss fails in due regard, for the parent which begat him, when he stig

matizes as "dry" "the revolutionary attempts of Deistical criticism directed against Biblical documents," as it is certain, but for so dry a root, no such leaf would have been put forth in our time, as "The Life of Jesus." And surely when Chubb had the hardihood to declare that the Jewish religion, if a revelation from God, disgraced the moral character of the Divinity, by attributing to him a declared partiality for the Jewish nation, and above all, the sanguinary slaughter of the Canaanites! his efforts were not dry or sterile; when Bolingbroke, Toland, Morgan, and others, declared the Bible a mere collection of apocryphal books, filled with fables-denied that Biblical recitals reflected a superior or divine light-denounced the law of Moses as a miserable system of superstition, blindness, and servility—the Jewish priests as impostors-and the prophets as the great workers of desolation and intestine wars in the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel; though they may be called dry revolutionary attempts of Deism, they nevertheless have been fruitful in great results; and though it may be true, as Strauss remarks— that Woolston has enlarged with much self-complacency upon the absurdity of the literal sense being applied to the miracles, and a frivolous tone pervades the whole, it would be vain to deny that his works have had an immense, and admirable influence.

The celebrated De Wette, a far greater favourite with Strauss than any of the foregoing, (probably because, like him, he declared against the natural explication, and for the mythical explication of the Old Testament,) insists that it is inconsistent and arbitrary to attribute to poetry or fiction only the outside, or envelope of events related in the Old Testament, and desire to conserve the facts as historic. He takes as example, the alliance of God with Abraham, in which, the authors of the natural interpretation abandon the facts as not facts under their present form; but yet, pretend to conserve for their recital a foundation purely historic. According to these natural interpreters, there was no real communication between God and Abraham; but in the mind of that patriarch was excited, perhaps during a vision, or perhaps during his wakeful state, certain thoughts which, conformably to the genius of the ancient world, he referred to God. So, according to these natural explainers, Abraham had a vision, and thought he saw God, and made alliance with him, afterwards relating his dreams as a something that really took place; or he was wide awake, and communing with himself, thought he fell on his face-talked with God-was told that he should circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that it might be a