,,reason1  ,,the ,,only ,,oracle ,,of   
,,man2  ,,or ,a ,,compendius  ,,system  
,,of ,,natural ,,religion4  ,by ,col4   
,ethan ,allen4  ,boston3  ,j4 ,p4       
,mendum1 ,cornhill4  #ahed4     ,,reason
     ,,introduction4  ,colonel ,ethan   
,allen1 the author of ,oracles of       
,reason1 was the son of ,joseph ,allen1 
a native of ,coventry1 ,connecticut1 a  
farmer in moderate circumstances4 ,he   
afterwards resided in ,litchfield1 where
 ,ethan was born in the year #agci4 ,the
 family consisted of eight children1 of 
whom our author was the eldest4 ,but few
 incidents connected with his early life
 are known4 ,we are apprised1 however1  
that notwithstanding his education was  
very limited1 his ambition to prove     
himself worthy of that attention which  
superior intellect ever commands1       
induced him diligently to explore every 
subject that came under his notice4 ,a  
stranger to fear1 his opinions were ever
 given without disguise or hesitation2  
and an enemy to oppression1 he sought   

every opportunity to redress the wrongs 
of the oppressed4  ,at the breaking out 
of the ,revolutionary ,war1 he raised in
 ,vermont1 where he had resided1 a      
company of volunteers1 consisting of two
 hundred and thirty1 with which he      
surprised the fortress of ,ticonderoga1 
,may #aj1 #agge1 containing about forty 
men1 and one hundred pieces of cannon4  
,he was unfortunately taken prisoner in 
,september following1 in an attempt on  
,montreal1 and sufferred a cruel        
imprisonment for several years4 ,for an 
account of which1 the reader is referred
 to his narrative1 contained in a memoir
 of the author1 by ,mr4 ,hugh ,moore1   
,plattsburg1 #ahcd4  ,soon after the    
close of the revolution1 ,col4 ,allen   
composed the following work2 which1 on  
account of the bold and unusual manner1 
particularly in this country1 that the  
subject of religion is treated1 he had  
great difficulty to get published4 ,it  
lay a long time in the hands of a       
printer at ,hartford1 who had not the   

moral courage to print it4 ,it was      
finally printed by a ,mr4 ,haswell1 of  
,bennington1 ,vt4 in #aghd4 ,not long   
after its publication1 a part of the    
edition1 comprising the entire of       
several signatures1 was accidentally    
consumed by fire4 ,whether ,mr4 ,h4     
deemed this fire a judgment upon him for
 having printed the work or not1 is     
unknown--but1 the fact is1 he soon after
 committed the remainder of the edition 
to the flames1 and joined the ,methodist
 ,connection2 so that but few copies    
were circulated4  ,col4 ,allen died in  
the town of ,burlington1 ,vt41 on the   
#abth of ,february1 #aghi1 of apoplexy4 
,,preface4  ,an apology appears to me to
 be impertinent in writers who venture  
their works to public inspection1 for   
this obvious reason1 that if they need  
it1 they should have been stifled in the
 birth1 and not permitted a public      
existence4 ,i therefore offer my        
composition to the candid judgment of   
the impartial world without it1 taking  

it for granted that ,i have as good a   
natural right to expose myself to public
 censure1 by endeavouring to subserve   
mankind1 as any of the species who have 
published their productions since the   
creation2 and ,i ask no favor at the    
hands of philosophers1 divines or       
critics1 but hope and expect they will  
severely chastise me for my errors and  
mistakes1 least they may have a share in
 perverting the truth1 which is very far
 from my intention4  ,in the circle of  
my acquaintance1 7which has not been    
small17 ,i have generally been          
denominated a ,deist1 the reality of    
which ,i never disputed1 being conscious
 ,i am no ,christian1 except mere infant
 baptism make me one2 and as to being a 
,deist1 ,i know not1 strictly speaking1 
whether ,i am one or not1 for ,i have   
never read their writings2 mine will    
therefore determine the matter2 for ,i  
have not in the least disguised my      
sentiments1 but have written freely     
without any conscious knowledge of      

prejudice for1 or against any man1      
sectary or party whatever2 but wish that
 good sense1 truth and virtue may be    
promoted and flourish in the world1 to  
the detection of delusion1 superstition1
 and false religion2 and therefore my   
errors in the succeeding treatise1 which
 may be rationally pointed out1 will be 
readily rescinded4  ,by the public's    
most obedient and humble servant4       
,,ethan ,,allen4     ,,oracles ,,of     
,,reason1     ,,chapter ,i4     ,,secton
 ,i4 ,,the ,,duty ,,of ,,reforming      
,,mankind ,,from ,,superstition ,,and   
,,error444  ,,and ,,the ,,good          
,,consequences ,,of ,,it  ,the desire of
 knowledge has engaged the attention of 
the wise and curious among mankind in   
all ages which has been productive of   
extending the arts and sciences far and 
wide in the several quarters of the     
globe1 and excited the contemplative to 
explore nature's laws in a gradual      
series of improvement1 until philosophy1
 astronomy1 geography1 and history1 with

 many other branches of science1 have   
arrived to a great degree of perfection4
  ,it is nevertheless to be regretted1  
that the bulk of mankind1 even in those 
nations which are most celebrated for   
learning and wisdom1 are still carried  
down the torrent of superstition1 and   
entertain very unworthy apprehensions of
 the being1 perfections1 creation1 and  
providence of ,god1 and their duty to   
him1 which lays an indispensable        
obligation on the philosophic friends of
 human nature1 unanimously to exert     
themselves in every lawful1 wise1 and   
prudent method1 to endeavor to reclaim  
mankind from their ignorance and        
delusion1 by enlightening their minds in
 those great and sublime truths         
concerning ,god and his providence1 and 
their obligations to moral rectitude    
which in this world1 and that which is  
to come1 cannot fail greatly to affect  
their happiness and well being4  ,though
 none by searching can find out ,god1 or
 the ,almighty to perfection1 yet ,i am 

persuaded1 that if mankind would dare to
 exercise their reason as freely on     
those divine topics as they do in the   
common concerns of life1 they would1 in 
a great measure1 rid themselves of their
 blindness and superstition1 gain more  
exalted ideas of ,god and their         
obligations to him and one another1 and 
be proportionally delighted and blessed 
with the views of his moral government1 
make better members of society1 and     
acquire many powerful incentives to the 
practice of morality1 which is the last 
and greatest perfection that human      
nature is capable of4     ,,secton ,,ii4
 ,,of ,,the ,,being ,,of ,a ,,god  ,the 
laws of nature having subjected mankind 
to a state of absolute dependence on    
something out of it1 and manifestly     
beyond themselves1 or the compound      
exertion of their natural powers1 gave  
them the first conception of a superior 
principle existing2 otherwise they could
 have had no possible conception of a   
superintending power4 ,but this sense of

 dependency1 which results from         
experience and reasoning on the facts1  
which every day cannot fail to produce1 
has uniformly established the knowledge 
of our dependence to every individual of
 the species who are rational1 which    
necessarily involves1 or contains in it1
 the idea of a ruling power1 or that    
there is a ,god1 which ideas are        
synonymous4  ,the globe with its        
productions1 the planets in their       
motions1 and the starry heavens in their
 magnitudes1 surprise our senses and    
confound our reason1 in their munificent
 lessons of instruction concerning ,god1
 by means whereof1 we are apt to be more
 or less lost in our ideas of the object
 of divine adoration1 though at the same
 time every one is truly sensible that  
their being and preservation is from    
,god4 ,we are too apt to confound our   
ideas of ,god with his works1 and take  
the latter for the former4 ,thus        
barbarous and unlearned nations have    
imagined1 that inasmuch as the sun in   

its influence is beneficial to them in  
bringing forward the spring of the year1
 causing the production of vegetation1  
and food for their subsistence1 that    
therefore it is their ,god3 while others
 have located other parts of creation1  
and ascribe to them prerogatives of     
,god2 and mere creatures and images have
 been substituted for ,gods by the      
wickedness or weakness of man1 or both  
together4 ,it seems that mankind in most
 ages and parts of the world have been  
fond of corporeal ,deities with whom    
their outward senses might be gratified1
 or as fantastically diverted from the  
just apprehension of the true ,god1 by a
 supposed supernatural intercourse with 
invisible and mere spiritual beings1 to 
whom they ascribe divinity1 so that     
through one means or other1 the         
character of the true ,god has been much
 neglected1 to the great detriment of   
truth1 justice1 and morality in the     
world2 nor is it possible that mankind  
can be uniform in their religious       

opinions1 or worship ,god according to  
knowledge1 except they can form a       
consistent arrangement of ideas of the  
,divine character4  ,although we extend 
our ideas retrospectively ever so far   
upon the succession1 yet no one cause in
 the extended order of succession1 which
 depends upon another prior to itself1  
can be the independent cause of all     
things3 nor is it possible to trace the 
order of the succession of causes back  
to that self-existent cause1 inasmuch as
 it is eternal and infinite1 and cannot 
therefore be traced out by succession1  
which operates according to the order of
 time1 consequently can bear no more    
proportion to the eternity of ,god1 than
 time itself may be supposed to do1     
which has no proportion at all2 as the  
succeeding arguments respecting the     
eternity and infinity of ,god will      
evince4 ,but notwithstanding the series 
of the succession of causes cannot be   
followed in a retrospective succession  
up to the self-existent or eternal      

cause1 it is nevertheless a perpetual   
and conclusive evidence of a ,god4--,for
 a succession of causes considered      
collectively1 can be nothing more than  
effects of the independent cause1 and as
 much dependent on it as those dependent
 causes are upon one another2 so that we
 may with certainty conclude that the   
system of nature1 which we call by the  
name of natural causes1 is as much      
dependent on a self-existent cause1 as  
an individual of the species in the     
order of generation is dependent on its 
progenitors for existence4 ,such part of
 the series of nature's operations1     
which we understand1 has a regular and  
necessary connection with1 and          
dependence on its parts1 which we       
denominate by the names of cause and    
effect4 ,from hence we are authorised   
from reason to conclude1 that the vast  
system of causes and effects are thus   
necessarily connected1 7speaking of the 
natural world only17 and the whole      
regularly and necessarily dependent on a

 self-existent cause3 so that we are    
obliged to admit an independent cause1  
and ascribe self-existence to it1       
otherwise it could not be independent1  
and consequently not a ,god4 ,but the   
eternity or manner of the existence of a
 self-existent and independent being is 
to all finite capacities utterly        
incomprehensible2 yet this is so far    
from an objection against the reality of
 such a being1 that it is essentially   
necessary to support the evidence of it2
 for if we could comprehend that being  
whom we call ,god1 he would not be ,god1
 but must have been finite and that in  
the same degree as those may be supposed
 to be who could comprehend him2        
therefore so certain that ,god is1 we   
cannot comprehend his essence1 eternity1
 or manner of existence4 ,this should   
always be premised1 when we assay to    
reason on the being1 perfection1        
eternity1 and infinity of ,god1 or of   
his creation and providence4 ,as far as 
we understand nature1 we are become     

acquainted with the character of ,god1  
for the knowledge of nature is the      
revelation of ,god4 ,if we form in our  
imagination a compendious idea of the   
harmony of the universe1 it is the same 
as calling ,god by the name of harmony1 
for there could be no harmony without   
regulation1 and no regulation without a 
regulator1 which is expressive of the   
idea of a ,god4 ,nor could it be        
possible1 that there could be order or  
disorder1 except we admit of such a     
thing as creation1 and creation contains
 in it the idea of a creator1 which is  
another appellation for the ,divine     
,being1 distinguishing ,god from his    
creation4 ,furthermore1 there could be  
no proportion1 figure1 or motion1       
without wisdom and power2 wisdom to     
plan1 and power to execute1 and these   
are perfections1 when applied to the    
works of nature1 which signify the      
agency or superintendency of ,god4 ,if  
we consider nature to be matter1 figure1
 and motion1 we include the idea of ,god

 in that of motion2 for motion implies a
 mover as much as creation does a       
creator4 ,if from the composition1      
texture1 and tendency of the universe in
 general1 we form a complex idea of     
general good resulting therefrom to     
mankind1 we implicitly admit a ,god by  
the name of good1 including the idea of 
his providence to man4 ,and from hence  
arises our obligations to love and adore
 ,god1 because he provides for1 and is  
beneficent to us4 ,abstract the idea of 
goodness from the character of ,god1 and
 it would cancel all our obligations to 
him1 and excite us to hate and detest   
him as a tyrant3 hence it is1 that      
ignorant people are superstitiously     
misled into a conceit that they hate    
,god1 when at the same time it is only  
the idol of their own imagination1 which
 they truly ought to hate and be ashamed
 of2 but were such persons to connect   
the ideas of power1 wisdom1 goodness1   
and all possible perfection in the      
character of ,god1 their hatred towards 

him would be turned into love and       
adoration4  ,by extending our ideas in a
 larger circle1 we shall perceive our   
dependence on the earth and waters of   
the globe which we inhabit1 and from    
which we are bountifully fed and        
gorgeously arrayed2 and next extend our 
ideas to the sun1 whose fiery mass darts
 its brilliant rays of light to our     
terraqueous ball with amazing velocity1 
and whose region of inexhaustible fire  
supplies it with fervent heat1 which    
causes vegetation1 and gilds the various
 seasons of the year with ten thousand  
charms3 this is not the achievement of  
man1 but the workmanship and providence 
of ,god4 ,but how the sun is supplied   
with materials1 thus to perpetuate its  
kind influences1 we know not4 ,but will 
any one deny the reality of those       
beneficial influences1 because we do not
 understand the manner of the           
perpetuality of that fiery world1 or how
 it became such a body of fire8 or will 
any one deny the reality of nutrition by

 food1 because we do not understand the 
secret operation of the digesting powers
 of animal nature1 or the minute        
particulars of its cherishing influence8
 ,none will be so stupid as to do it4   
,equally absurd would it be for us to   
deny the providence of ,god1 by whom we 
live1 move1 and have our being1 because 
we cannot comprehend it4  ,we know that 
earth1 water1 fire and air1 in their    
various compositions subserve us1 and we
 also know that these elements are      
devoid of reflection1 reason1 or design2
 from whence we may easily infer1 that a
 wise1 understanding1 and designing     
being has ordained them to be thus      
subservient4 ,could blind chance        
constitute order and decorum1 and       
consequently a providence8 ,that wisdom1
 order1 and design should be the        
production of nonentity1 or of chaos1   
confusion1 and old night1 is too absurd 
to deserve a serious confutation1 for it
 supposeth that there may be effects    
without a cause1 viz43 produced by      

nonentity1 or that chaos and confusion  
could produce the effects of power1     
wisdom1 and goodness4 ,such absurdities 
as these we must assent to1 or subscribe
 to the doctrine of a self-existent and 
providential being4     ,,secton ,,iii4 
,,the ,,manner ,,of ,,discovering ,,the 
,,moral ,,perfections444  ,,and         
,,attributes ,,of ,,god  ,having in a   
concise manner offered a variety of     
indisputable reasons to evince the      
certainty of the being and providence of
 ,god1 and of his goodness to man       
through the intervention of the series  
of nature's operations1 which are       
commonly described by the name of       
natural causes1 we come now more        
particularly to the consideration of his
 moral perfections2 and though all      
finite beings fall as much short of an  
adequate knowledge thereof as they do of
 perfection itself1 nevertheless through
 the intelligence of our own souls we   
may have something of a prospective idea
 of the divine perfections4 ,for though 

the human mind bears no proportion to   
the divine1 yet there is undoubtedly a  
resemblance between them4 ,for instance1
 ,god knows all things1 and we know some
 things1 and in the things which we do  
understand1 our knowledge agrees with   
that of the divine1 and cannot fail     
necessarily corresponding with it4 ,to  
more than know a thing1 speaking of that
 thing only1 is impossible even to      
omniscience itself2 for knowledge is but
 the same in both the infinite and      
finite minds4 ,to know a thing is the   
same as to have right ideas of it1 or   
ideas according to truth1 and truth is  
uniform in all rational minds1 the      
divine mind not excepted4 ,it will not  
be disputed but that mankind in plain   
and common matters understand justice   
from injustice1 truth from falsehood1   
right from wrong1 virtue from vice1 and 
praise-worthiness from blame-worthiness1
 for other wise they could not be       
accountable creatures4 ,this being      
admitted1 we are capable of forming a   

complex idea of a moral character1 which
 when done in the most deliberate1 the  
wisest1 and most rational manner in our 
power1 we are certain bears a           
resemblance to the divine perfections4  
,for as we learn from the worlds of     
nature an idea of the power and wisdom  
of ,god1 so from our own rational nature
 we learn an idea of his moral          
perfections4  ,from what has been       
observed on the moral perfections of    
,god1 we infer that all rational beings1
 who have an idea of justice1 goodness1 
and truth1 have at the same time either 
a greater or less idea of the moral     
perfections of ,god4 ,it is by reason   
that we are able to compound an idea of 
a moral character1 whether applied to   
,god or man2 it is that which gives us  
the supremacy over the irrational part  
of the creation4     ,,secton ,,iv4     
,,the ,,cause ,,of ,,idolatry1 ,,and    
,,the ,,remedy ,,of ,,it  ,inasmuch as  
,god is not corporeal1 and consequently 
does not and cannot come within the     

notice of our bodily sensations1 we are 
therefore obliged to deduce inferences  
from his providence1 and particularly   
from our own rational nature1 in order  
to form our conceptions of the divine   
character1 which through inattention1   
want of learning1 or through the natural
 imbecility of mankind1 or through the  
artifice of designing men1 or all       
together1 they have been greatly divided
 and subdivided in their notions of a   
,god4 ,many have so groped in the dark  
as wholly to mistake the proper object  
of divine worship1 and not              
distinguishing the creator from his     
creation1 have paid adoration to four   
footed beasts and creeping things4 ,and 
some have ascribed divine honors to the 
sun1 moon1 or stars2 while others have  
been infatuated to worship dumb1        
senseless1 and unintelligent idols1     
which derived their existence as ,gods1 
partly from mechanics1 who gave them    
their figure1 proportion1 and beauty1   
and partly from their priests1 who gave 

them their attributes2 whose believers1 
it appears1 were so wrought upon1 that  
they cried out in the ecstasy of their  
deluded zeal1 ,great is ,diana4         
,whatever delusions have taken place in 
the world relative to the object of     
divine worship1 or respecting the       
indecencies or immoralities of the      
respective superstitions themselves1 or 
by what means soever introduced or      
perpetuated1 whether by designing men   
whose interest it has always been to    
impose on the weakness of the great mass
 of the vulgar2 or as it is probable1   
that part of those delusions took place 
in consequence of the weakness of       
uncultivated reason1 in deducing a      
visible instead of an invisible ,god    
from the works of nature4 ,be that as it
 will1 mankind are generally possessed  
of an idea that there is a ,god1 however
 they may have been mistaken or misled  
as to the object4 ,this notion of a     
,god1 as has been before observed1 must 
have originated from a universal sense  

of dependence1 which mankind have on    
something that is more wise1 powerful1  
and beneficent than themselves1 or they 
could have had no apprehensions of any  
superintending principle in the         
universe1 and consequently would never  
have sought after a ,god1 or have had   
any conception of his existence1 nor    
could designing men have imposed on     
their credulity by obtruding false ,gods
 upon them2 but taking advantage of the 
common belief that there is a ,god1 they
 artfully deceive their adherents with  
regard to the object to be adored4      
,there are other sorts of idols which   
have no existence but in the mere       
imagination of the human mind2 and these
 are vastly the most numerous1 and      
universally 7either in the greater or   
less degree7 dispersed over the world2  
the wisest of mankind are not and cannot
 be wholly exempt from them1 inasmuch as
 every wrong conception of ,god is 7as  
far as the error takes place in the     
mind7 idolatrous4 ,to give a sample1 an 

idea of a jealous ,god is of this sort4 
,jealousy is the offspring of finite    
minds1 proceeding from the want of      
knowledge2 which in dubious matters     
makes us suspicious and distrustful2 but
 in matters which we clearly understand1
 there can be no jealousy1 for knowledge
 excludes it1 so that to ascribe it to  
,god is a manifest infringement on his  
omniscience499       99 ,the ,lord thy  
,god is a jealous ,god4  ,the idea of a 
revengeful ,god is likewise one of that 
sort1 but this idea of divinity being   
borrowed from a savage nature1 needs no 
further confutation4 ,the representation
 of a ,god1 who 7as we are told by      
certain divines7 from all eternity      
elected an inconsiderable part of       
mankind to eternal life1 and reprobated 
the rest to eternal damnation1 merely   
from his own sovereignty1 adds another  
to the number2--this representation of  
the ,deity undoubtedly took its rise    
from that which we discovered in great1 
powerful1 and wicked tyrants among men1 

however tradition may since have        
contributed to its support1 though ,i am
 apprehensive that a belief in those who
 adhere to that doctrine1 that they     
themselves constitute that blessed elect
 number1 has been a greater inducement  
to them to close with it1 than all other
 motives added together4 ,it is a       
selfish and inferior notion of a ,god   
void of justice1 goodness1 and truth1   
and has a natural tendency to impede the
 cause of true religion and morality in 
the world1 and diametrically repugnant  
to the truth of the divine character1   
and which1 if admitted to be true1      
overturns all religion1 wholly          
precluding the agency of mankind in     
either their salvation or damnation1    
resolving the whole into the sovereign  
disposal of a tyrannical and unjust     
being1 which is offensive to reason and 
common sense1 and subversive of moral   
rectitude in general4 ,but as it was not
 my design so much to confute the       
multiplicity of false representations of

 a ,god1 as to represent just and       
consistent ideas of the true ,god1 ,i   
shall therefore omit any further        
observation on them in this place1 with 
this remark1 that all unjust            
representations1 or ideas of ,god1 are  
so many detractions from his character  
among mankind4 ,to remedy these         
idolatrous notions of a ,god1 it is     
requisite to form right and consistent  
ideas in their stead4  ,the discovery of
 truth necessarily excludes error from  
the mind1 which nothing else can        
possibly do2 for some sort of ,god or   
other will crowd itself into the        
conceptions of dependent creatures1 and 
if they are not so happy as to form just
 ones1 they will substitute erroneous   
and delusive ones in their stead2 so    
that it serves no valuable purpose to   
mankind1 to confute their idolatrous    
opinions concerning ,god1 without       
communicating to them just notions      
concerning the true one1 for if this is 
not effected1 nothing is done to the    

purpose4 ,for1 as has been before       
observed1 mankind will form to          
themselves1 or receive from others1 an  
idea of ,divinity either right or wrong3
 this is the universal voice of         
intelligent nature1 from whence a       
weighty and conclusive argument may be  
drawn of the reality of a ,god1 however 
inconsistent most1 of their conceptions 
of him may be4 ,the fact is1 mankind    
readily perceives that there is a ,god1 
by feeling their dependence on him1 and 
as they explore his works1 and observe  
his providence1 which is too sublime for
 finite capacities to understand but in 
part1 they have been more or less       
confounded in their discoveries of a    
just idea of a ,god and of his moral    
government4 ,therefore we should        
exercise great applications and care    
whenever we assay to speculate upon the 
,divine character1 accompanied with a   
sincere desire after truth1 and not     
ascribe anything to his perfections of  
government which is inconsistent with   

reason or the best information which we 
are able to apprehend of moral          
rectitude1 and be at least wise enough  
not to charge ,god with injustice and   
contradictions which we should scorn to 
be charged with ourselves4 ,no king1    
governor1 or parent would like to be    
accused of partiality in their          
respective governments1 ,is it fit to   
say unto ,princes1 ye are ungodly1 how  
much less to him that regardeth not the 
persons of princes1 or the rich more    
than the poor1 for they are all the work
 of his hands4     ,,chapter ,,ii4      
,,secton ,i4 ,,of ,,the ,,eternity ,,of 
,,creation  ,as creation was the result 
of eternal and infinite wisdom1 justice1
 goodness1 and truth1 and effected by   
infinite power1 it is like its great    
author1 mysterious to us4 ,how it could 
be accomplished1 or in what manner      
performed1 can never be comprehended by 
any capacity4  ,eternal1 whether applied
 to duration1 existence1 action1 or     
creation1 is incomprehensible to us1 but

 implies no contradiction in either of  
them2 for that which is above           
comprehension we cannot perceive to be  
contradictory1 nor on the other hand can
 we perceive its rationality or         
consistency4 ,we are certain that ,god  
is a rational1 wise1 understanding      
,being1 because he has in degree made us
 so1 and his wisdom power1 and goodness 
is visible to us in his creation1 and   
government of the world4 ,from these    
facts we are rationally induced to      
acknowledge him1 and not because we can 
comprehend his being1 perfections1      
creation1 or providence4 ,could we      
comprehend ,god1 he would cease to be   
what he is4 ,the ignorant among men     
cannot comprehend the understanding of  
the wise among their own species1 much  
less the perfection of a ,god2          
nevertheless1 in our ratiocination upon 
the works and harmony of nature1 we are 
obliged to concede to a self-existent   
and eternal cause of all things1 as has 
been sufficiently argued1 though at the 

same time it is mysterious to us1 that  
there should be such a being as a       
self-existent and eternally independent 
one2--thus we believe in ,god1 although 
we cannot comprehend anything of the    
how1 why or wherefore it was possible   
for him to be2 and as creation was the  
exertion of such an incomprehensible and
 perfect being1 it must of necessary    
consequence be1 in a great measure1     
mysterious to us4 ,we can nevertheless  
be certain1 that it has been of an equal
 eternity and infinitude of extension   
with ,god4  ,immensity being replete    
with creation1 the omniscient1          
omnipresent1 omnipotent1 eternal1 and   
infinite exertion of ,god in creation1  
is incomprehensible to the understanding
 or the weakness of man1 and will       
eternally remain the prerogative of     
infinite penetration1 sagacity1 and     
uncreated intelligence to understand4   
,,secton ,,ii4 ,,observations ,,of      
,,moses',s ,,account ,,of ,,creation    
,the foregoing theory of creation and   

providence will probably be rejected by 
most people in this country1 inasmuch as
 they are prepossessed with the theology
 of ,moses1 which represents creation to
 have a beginning4 ,in the beginning    
,god created the heavens and the earth4 
,in the preceding part of this chapter  
it has been evinced that creation and   
providence could not have had a         
beginning1 and that they are not        
circumscribed1 but unlimited2 yet it    
seems that ,moses limited creation by a 
prospective view of the heavens1 or     
firmament from this globe1 and if       
creation was thus limited1 it would     
consequently have circumscribed the     
dominion and display of the divine      
providence or perfection2 but if        
,moses's idea of the creation of the    
heavens and the earth1 was immense1 ever
 so many days of progressive work could 
never have finished such a boundless    
creation2 for a progressive creation is 
the same as a limited one2 as each      
progressive day's work would be bounded 

by a successive admeasurement1 and the  
whole six days' work added together     
could be but local1 and bear no manner  
of proportion to infinitude1 but would  
limit the dominion1 and consequently the
 display of the divine perfections or   
providence1 which is incompatible with a
 just idea of eternity and infinity of  
,god1 as has been argued in the         
foregoing pages4  ,there are a variety  
of other blunders in ,moses's           
description of creation1 one of which ,i
 shall mention1 which is to be found in 
his history of the first and fourth     
day's work of ,god3 ,and ,god said1 ,let
 there be light1 and there was light2   
and ,god called the light day1 and the  
darkness he called night3 and the       
evening and the morning were the first  
day4 ,then he proceeds to the second and
 third day's work1 and so on to the     
sixth2 but in his chronicle of the      
fourth day's work1 he says that ,god    
made two great lights1 the greater light
 to rule the day1 and the lesser light  

to rule the night4 ,this appears to be  
an inconsistent history of the origin of
 light4 ,day and night were ordained the
 first day1 and on the fourth day the   
greater and less lights were made to    
serve the same purposes2 but it is      
likely that many errors have crept into 
his writings1 through the vicissitudes  
of learning1 and particularly from the  
corruptions of translations1 of his as  
well as the writings of other ancient   
authors2 besides1 it must be            
acknowledged that those ancient writers 
labored under great difficulties in     
writing to posterity1 merely from the   
consideration of the infant state of    
learning and knowledge then in the      
world1 and consequently we should not   
act the part of severe critics1 with    
their writings1 any further than to     
prevent their obtrusion on the world as 
being infallible4     ,,secton ,,iii4   
,,of ,,the ,,eternity ,,and ,,infinitude
 ,,of ,,divine ,,providence  ,when we   
consider our solar system1 attracted by 

its fiery centre1 and moving in its     
several orbits1 with regular1 majestic1 
and periodical revolutions1 we are      
charmed at the prospect and             
contemplation of those worlds of        
motions1 and adore the wisdom and power 
by which they are attracted1 and their  
velocity regulated and perpetuated4 ,and
 when we reflect that the blessings of  
life are derived from1 and dependent on1
 the properties1 qualities1             
constructions1 proportions and          
movements1 of that stupendous machine1  
we gratefully acknowledge the divine    
beneficence4 ,when we extend our        
thoughts 7through our external          
sensations7 to the vast regions of the  
starry heavens1 we are lost in the      
immensity of ,god's works4 ,some stars  
appear fair and luminous1 and others    
scarcely discernible to the eye1 which  
by the help of glasses make a brilliant 
appearance1 bringing the knowledge of   
others far remote1 within the verge of  
our feeble discoveries1 which merely by 

the eye could not have been discerned or
 distinguished4 ,these discoveries of   
the works of ,god naturally prompt the  
inquisitive mind to conclude that the   
author of this astonishing part of      
creation which is displayed to our view1
 has still extended his creation2 so    
that if it were possible that any of us 
could be transported to the farthest    
extended star1 which is perceptible to  
us here1 we should from thence survey   
worlds as distant from that as that is  
from this1 and so on ad infinitum4      
,furthermore1 it is altogether          
reasonable to conclude that the heavenly
 bodies1 alias worlds1 which move or are
 situate within the circle of our       
knowledge1 as well all others throughout
 immensity1 are each and every one of   
them possessed or inhabited by some     
intelligent agents or other1 however    
different their sensations or manners of
 receiving or communicating their ideas 
may be from ours1 or however different  
from each other4 ,for why would it not  

have been as wise or as consistent with 
the perfections which we adore in ,god1 
to have neglected giving being to       
intelligence in this world as in those  
other worlds1 interspersed with aether  
of various qualities in his immense     
creation8 ,and inasmuch as this world is
 thus replenished1 we may1 with the     
highest rational certainty infer1 that  
as ,god has given us to rejoice1 and    
adore him for our being1 he has acted   
consistent with his goodness1 in the    
display of his providence throughout the
 university of worlds4  ,to suppose that
 ,god ,almighty has confined his        
goodness to this world1 to the exclusion
 of all others1 is much similar to the  
idle fancies of some individuals in this
 world1 that they1 and those of their   
communion or faith1 are the favorites of
 heaven exclusively2 but these are      
narrow and bigoted conceptions1 which   
are degrading to a rational nature1 and 
utterly unworthy of ,god1 of whom we    
should form the most exalted ideas4  ,it

 may be objected that a man cannot      
subsist in the sun2 but does it follow  
from thence1 that ,god cannot or has not
 constituted a nature peculiar to that  
fiery region1 and caused it to be as    
natural and necessary for it to suck in 
and breathe out flames of fire1 as it is
 for us to do the like in air4 ,numerous
 are the kinds of fishy animals which   
can no other way subsist but in the     
water1 in which other animals would     
perish1 7amphibious ones excepted17     
while other animals1 in a variety of    
forms1 either swifter or slower move on 
the surface of the earth1 or wing the   
air4 ,of these there are sundry kinds1  
which during the season of winter live  
without food2 and many of the insects   
which are really possessed of animal    
life1 remain frozen1 and as soon as they
 are let loose by the kind influence of 
the sun1 they again assume their wonted 
animal life2 and if animal life may     
differ so much in the same world1 what  
inconceivable variety may be possible in

 worlds innumerable1 as applicable to   
mental1 cogitative1 and organized       
beings4 ,certain it is1 that any        
supposed obstructions1 concerning the   
quality or temperature of any or every  
one of those worlds1 could not have been
 any bar in the way of ,god ,almighty1  
with regard to his replenishing his     
universal creation with moral agents4   
,the unlimited perfection of ,god could 
perfectly well adapt every part of his  
creation to the design of whatever rank 
or species of constituted beings1 his   
,godlike wisdom and goodness saw fit8 to
 impart existence to2 so that as there  
is no deficiency of absolute perfection 
in ,god1 it is rationally demonstrative 
that the immense creation is replenished
 with rational agents1 and that it has  
been eternally so1 and that the display 
of divine goodness must have been as    
perfect and complete1 in the antecedent1
 as it is possible to be in the         
subsequent eternity4  ,from this        
theological way of arguing on the       

creation and providence of ,god1 it     
appears that the whole1 which we        
denominate by the term nature1 which is 
the same as creation perfectly          
regulated1 was eternally connected      
together by the creator to answer the   
same all glorious purpose1 to wit3 the  
display of the divine nature1 the       
consequences of which are existence and 
happiness to beings in general1 so that 
creation1 with all its productions      
operates according to the laws of       
nature1 and is sustained by the         
self-existent eternal cause1 in perfect 
older and decorum1 agreeable to the     
eternal wisdom1 unalterable rectitude1  
impartial justice1 and immense goodness 
of the divine nature1 which is a summary
 of ,god's providence4 ,it is from the  
established order of nature1 that summer
 and winter1 rainy and fair seasons1    
moonshine1 refreshing breezes1 seed time
 and harvest1 day and night1            
interchangeably succeed each other1 and 
diffuse their extensive blessings to    

man4 ,every enjoyment and support of    
life is from ,god1 delivered to his     
creatures in and by the tendency1       
aptitude1 disposition1 and operation of 
those laws4 ,nature is the medium1 or   
intermediate instrument through which   
,god dispenses his benignity to mankind4
 ,the air we breathe in1 the light of   
the sun1 and the waters of the murmuring
 rills1 evince his providence3 and well 
it is1 that they are given in so great  
profusion1 that they cannot by the      
monopoly of the rich be engrossed from  
the poor4  ,when we copiously pursue the
 study of nature1 we are certain to be  
lost in the immensity of the works and  
wisdom of ,god2 we may nevertheless1 in 
a variety of things discern their       
fitness1 happifying tendency and        
sustaining quality to us ward1 from all 
which1 as rational and contemplative    
beings we are prompted to infer1 that   
,god is universally uniform and         
consistent in his infinitude of creation
 and providence1 although we cannot     

comprehend all that consistency1 by     
reason of infirmity2 yet we are morally 
sure1 of all possible plans1 infinite   
wisdom must have eternally adopted the  
best1 and infinite goodness have        
approved it1 and infinite power have    
perfected it4 ,and as the good of beings
 in general must have been the ultimate 
end of ,god in his creation and         
government of his creatures1 his        
omniscience could not fail to have it   
always present in his view4 ,universal  
nature must therefore be ultimately     
attracted to this single point1 and     
infinite perfection must have eternally 
displayed itself in creation and        
providence4 ,from hence we infer1 that  
,god is as eternal and infinite in his  
goodness1 as his self-existent and      
perfect nature is omnipotently great4   
,,secton ,,iv4 ,,the ,,providence ,,of  
,,god ,,does ,,not ,,interfere444       
,,with ,,the ,,agency ,,of ,,man4  ,the 
doctrine of ,fate has been made use of  
in armies as a policy to induce soldiers

 to face danger4 ,mahomet taught his    
army that the term of every man's life  
was fixed by ,god1 and that none could  
shorten it1 by any hazard that he might 
seem to be exposed to in battle or      
otherwise1 but that it should be        
introduced into peaceable and civil     
life1 and be patronized by any teachers 
of religion1 is quite strange1 as it    
subverts religion in general1 and       
renders the teaching of it unnecessary1 
except among other necessary events it  
may be premised that it is necessary    
they teach that doctrine1 and that ,i   
oppose it from the influence of the same
 law of fate upon which thesis we are   
all disputing and acting in certain     
necessary circles1 and if so1 ,i make   
another necessary movement1 which is1 to
 discharge the public teachers of this  
doctrine1 and expend4 their salaries in 
an economical manner1 which might better
 answer the purposes of our happiness1  
or lay it out in good wine or old       
spirits to make the heart glad1 and     

laugh at the stupidity or cunning of    
those who would have made us mere       
machines4  ,some advocates for the      
doctrine of fate will also maintain that
 we are free agents1 notwithstanding    
they tell us there has been a           
concatenation of causes and events which
 has reached from ,god down to this     
time1 and which will eternally be       
continued--that has and will control1   
and bring about every action of our     
lives1 though there is not anything in  
nature more certain than that we cannot 
act necessarily and freely in the same  
action1 and at the same time2 yet it is 
hard for such persons1 who have verily  
believed that they are elected1 7and    
thus by a predetermination of ,god      
become his special favorites47 to give  
up their notions of a predetermination  
of all events1 upon which system their  
election and everlasting happiness is   
nonsensically founded2 and on the other 
hand1 it is also hard for them to go so 
evidently against the law of nature 7or 

dictates of conscience7 which           
intuitively evinces the certainty of    
human liberty1 as to reject such        
evidence2 and therefore hold to both    
parts of the contradiction1 to wit1 that
 they act necessarily1 and freely1 upon 
which contradictory principle they      
endeavored to maintain the dictates of  
natural conscience1 and also their      
darling folly of being electedly and    
exclusively favorites of ,god4          
,,chapter ,,iii4     ,,secton ,i4 ,,the 
,,doctrine ,,of ,,the ,,infinity ,,of   
,,evil ,,and ,,of ,,sin ,,considered    
,that ,god is infinitely good in the    
eternal displays of his providence1 has 
been argued in the third section of the 
second chapter1 from which we infer that
 there cannot be an infinite evil in the
 universe1 inasmuch as it would be      
incompatible with infinite good2 yet    
there are many who imbibe the doctrine  
of the infinite evil of sin1 and the    
maxim on which they predicate their     
arguments in its support1 are1 that the 

greatness of sin1 or adequateness of its
 punishment1 is not to be measured1 or  
its viciousness ascertained by the      
capacity and circumstances of the       
offender1 but by the capacity and       
dignity of the being against whom the   
offence is committed2 and as every      
transgression is against the authority  
and law of ,god1 it is therefore against
 ,god2 and as ,god is infinite1         
therefore1 sin is an infinite evil1 and 
from hence infer the infinite and       
vindictive wrath of ,god against        
sinners1 and of his justice in dooming  
them1 as some say to infinite1 and      
others say to eternal misery2 the one   
without degree or measure1 and the other
 without end or duration4  ,admitting   
this maxim for truth1 that the          
transgressions or sins of mankind are to
 be estimated by their heinousness1 by  
the dignity and infinity of the divine  
nature1 then it will follow that all    
sins would be equal1 which would        
confound all our notions of the degrees 

or aggravations of sin2 so that the sin 
would be the same to kill my neighbor as
 it would be to kill his horse4 ,for the
 divine nature1 by this maxim1 being the
 rule by which man's sin is to be       
estimated1 and always the same1 there   
could therefore be no degrees in sin or 
guilt1 any more than there are degrees  
of perfection in ,god1 whom we all admit
 to be infinite1 and who for that reason
 only cannot admit of any degrees or    
enlargement4 ,therefore as certain as   
there are degrees in sin1 the infinity  
of the divine nature cannot be the      
standard whereby it is to be            
ascertained1 which single consideration 
is a sufficient confutation of the      
doctrine of the infinite evil of sin1 as
 predicated on that maxim1 inasmuch as  
none are so stupid as not to discern    
that there are degrees and aggravations 
in sin4  ,i recollect a discourse of a  
learned ,ecclesiastic1 who was laboring 
in support of this doctrine4 ,his first 
proposition was1 ,that moral rectitude  

was infinitely pleasing to ,god2 from   
which he deduced this inference1 viz41  
,that a contrariety to moral rectitude  
was consequently infinitely displeasing 
to ,god and infinitely evil4 ,that the  
absolute moral rectitude of the divine  
nature is infinitely well pleasing to   
,god1 will not be disputed2 for this is 
none other but perfect and infinite     
rectitude2 but there cannot in nature be
 an infinite contrariety thereto1 or any
 being infinitely evil1 or infinite in  
any respect whatever1 except we admit a 
self-existent and infinite diabolical   
nature1 which is too absurd to deserve  
argumentative confutation4 ,therefore1  
as all possible moral evil must result  
from the agency of finite beings1       
consisting in their sinful deviations   
from the rules of eternal unerring order
 and reason1 which is moral rectitude in
 the abstract1 we infer that1 provided  
all finite beings in the universe had   
not done anything else but sin and rebel
 against ,god1 reason and moral         

rectitude in general2 all possible moral
 evil would fall as much short of being 
infinite1 as all finite capacities1     
complexly considered1 would fail of     
being infinite1 which will bear no      
proportion at all4 ,for though finite   
minds1 as has been before argued1 bear a
 resemblance to ,god1 yet they bear no  
proportion to his infinity2 and         
therefore there is not and cannot be any
 being1 beings or agency of being or    
beings1 complexly considered or         
otherwise1 which are infinite in        
capacity1 or which are infinitely evil  
and detestable in the sight of ,god1 in 
that unlimited sense2 for the actions or
 agency of limited beings1 are also     
limited1 which is the same as finite3 so
 that both the virtues and vices of man 
are finite2 they are not virtuous or    
vicious but in degree2 therefore moral  
evil is finite and bounded4  ,though    
there is one1 and but one infinite good1
 which is ,god1 and there can be no     
dispute1 but that ,god judges1 and      

approves or disapproves of all things   
and beings1 and agencies of beings1 as  
in truth they are1 or in other words    
judges of every thing as being what it  
is2 but to judge a finite evil to be    
infinite1 would be infinitely erroneous 
and disproportionate2 for so certain as 
there is a distinction between1 infinity
 and infinitude1 so certain finite      
sinful agency cannot be infinitely evil2
 or in other words finite offences      
cannot be infinite4 ,nor is it possible 
that the greatest of sinners should in  
justice deserve infinite punishment1 or 
their nature sustain it2 finite beings  
may as well be supposed to be capable of
 infinite happiness as of infinite      
misery1 but the rank which they hold in 
the universe exempts them from either2  
it nevertheless admits them to a state  
of agency1 probation or trial1          
consequently to interchangeable         
progressions in moral good and evil1 and
 of course to alternate happiness or    
misery4 ,we will dismiss the doctrine of

 the infinite evil of sin with this     
observation1 that as no mere creature   
can suffer an infinitude of misery or of
 punishment1 it is therefore            
incompatible with the wisdom of ,god1 so
 far to capacitate creatures to sin1 as 
in his constitution of things to        
foreclose himself from adequately       
punishing them for it4     ,,secton     
,,ii4 ,,the ,,moral ,,government ,,of   
,,god ,,as ,,incompatible444  ,,with    
,,eternal ,,punishment  ,we may for     
certain conclude1 that such a punishment
 will never have the divine approbation1
 or be inflicted on any intelligent     
being or beings in the infinitude of the
 government of ,god4 ,for an endless    
punishment defeats the very end of its  
institution1 which in all wise and good 
governments is as well to reclaim       
offenders1 as to be examples to others2 
but a government which does not admit of
 reformation and repentance1 must       
unavoidably involve its subjects in     
misery2 for the weakness of creatures   

will always be a source of error and    
inconstancy1 and a wise ,governor1 as we
 must admit ,god to be1 would suit his  
government to the capacity and all other
 circumstances of the governed2 and     
instead of inflicting eternal damnation 
on his offending children1 would rather 
interchangeably extend his beneficence  
with his vindictive punishments1 so as  
to alienate them from sin and           
wickedness1 and incline them to         
morality2 convincing them from          
experimental suffering1 that sin and    
vanity are their greatest enemies1 and  
that in ,god and moral rectitude their  
dependence and true happiness consists1 
and by reclaiming them from wickedness  
and error1 to the truth1 and to the love
 and practice of virtue1 give them      
occasion to glorify ,god for the wisdom 
and goodness of his government1 and to  
be ultimately happy under it4 ,but we   
are told that the eternal damnation of a
 part of mankind greatly augments the   
happiness of the elect1 who are         

represented as being vastly the less    
numerous1 7a diabolical temper of mind  
in the elect37 besides1 how narrow and  
contractive must such notions of        
infinite justice and goodness be8 ,who  
would imagine that the ,deity conducts  
his providence similar to the detestable
 despots of this world8 ,oh horrible8   
most horrible impeachment of ,divine    
,goodness6 ,rather let us exaltedly     
suppose that ,god eternally had the     
ultimate best good of beings generally  
and individually in his view1 with the  
reward of the virtuous and the          
punishment of the vicious1 and that no  
other punishment will ever be inflicted1
 merely by the divine administration1   
but that will finally terminate in the  
best good of the punished1 and thereby  
subserve the great and important ends of
 the divine government1 and be          
productive of the restoration and       
felicity of all finite rational nature4 
,the most weighty arguments deducible   
from the divine nature have been already

 offered1 to wit1 ultimate end of ,god1 
in creation and providence1 to do the   
greatest possible good and benignity to 
beings in general1 and consequently1    
that the great end and design of        
punishment1 in the divine government1   
must be to reclaim1 restore1 and bring  
revolters from original rectitude back  
to embrace it and to be ultimately      
happy2 as also1 that an eternal         
punishment1 would defeat the very end   
and design of punishment itself2 and    
that no good consequences to the        
punished could arise out of a never     
ending destruction2 but that a total1   
everlasting1 and irreparable evil would 
take place on such part of the moral    
creation1 as may be thus sentenced to   
eternal and remediless perdition2 which 
would argue imperfection either in the  
creation1 or moral government of ,god1  
or in both4     ,,secton ,,iii4 ,,human 
,,liberty1 ,,agency ,,and               
,,accountability1 ,,cannot444  ,,be     
,,attended ,,with ,,eternal             

,,consequences1 ,,either ,,good ,,or    
,,evil  ,from what has been argued in   
the foregoing section1 it appears that  
mankind in this life are not agents of  
trial for eternity1 but that they will  
eternally remain agents of trial6 ,to   
suppose that our eternal circumstances  
will be unalterably fixed in happiness  
or misery1 in consequence of the agency 
or transactions of this temporary life1 
is inconsistent with the moral          
government of ,god1 and the progressive 
and retrospective knowledge of the human
 mind4 ,god has not put it into our     
power to plunge ourselves into eternal  
woe and perdition2 human liberty is not 
so extensive1 for the term of human life
 bears no proportion to eternity        
succeeding it2 so that there could be no
 proportion between a momentary agency1 
7which is liberty of action17 or        
probation1 and any supposed eternal     
consequences of happiness or misery     
resulting from it4 ,our liberty consists
 in our power of agency1 and cannot fall

 short of1 or exceed it1 for liberty is 
agency itself1 or is that by which      
agency or action is exerted2 it may be  
that the curious would define it1 that  
agency is the effect of liberty1 and    
that liberty is the cause which produces
 it2 making a distinction between action
 and the power of action2 be it so1 yet 
agency cannot surpass its liberty2 to   
suppose otherwise1 would be the same as 
to suppose agency without the power of  
agency1 or an effect without a cause2   
therefore1 as our agency does not extend
 to consequences of eternal happiness or
 misery1 the power of that agency1 which
 is liberty1 does not4 ,sufficient it is
 for virtuous minds1 while in this life1
 that they keep ,consciences void of    
offence towards ,god and towards man4   
,and that in their commencement in the  
succeeding state1 they have a           
retrospective knowledge of their agency 
in this1 and retain a consciousness of a
 well spent life4 ,beings thus possessed
 of a habit of virtue1 would enjoy a    

rational felicity beyond the reach of   
physical evils which terminate with     
life2 and in all rational probability   
would be advanced in the order of       
nature1 to a more exalted and sublime   
manner of being1 knowledge and action1  
than at present we can conceive of1     
where no joys or pains can approach1 but
 of the mental kind2 in which elevated  
state virtuous minds will be able1 in a 
clearer and more copious manner in this 
life1 to contemplate the superlative    
beauties of moral fitness2 and with     
ecstatic satisfaction enjoy it1         
notwithstanding imperfection and        
consequently agency1 proficiency and    
trial1 of some kind or other1 must      
everlastingly continue with finite      
minds4  ,and as to the vicious1 who have
 violated the laws of reason and        
morality1 lived a life of sin and       
wickedness1 and are at as great a remove
 from a rational happiness as from moral
 rectitude2 such incorrigible sinners1  
at their commencing existence in the    

world of spirits1 will undoubtedly have 
opened to them a tremendous scene of    
horror1 self-condemnation and guilt1    
with an anguish of mind2 the more so1 as
 no sensual delights can there1 7as in  
this world17 divert the mind from its   
conscious guilt2 the clear sense of     
which will be the more pungent1 as the  
mind in that state will be greatly      
enlarged1 and consequently more         
capaciously susceptible of sorrow1      
grief1 and conscious woe1 from a        
retrospective reflection of a wicked    
life4     ,,secton ,,iv4 ,,of ,,physical
 ,,evils4  ,physical evils are in nature
 inseparable from animal life1 they     
commenced existence with it1 and are its
 concomitants through life2 so that the 
same nature which gives being to the    
one1 gives birth to the other also2 the 
one is not before or after the other1   
but they are coexistent together1 and   
cotemporaries2 and as they began        
existence in a necessary dependence on  
each other1 so they terminate together  

in death and dissolution4 ,this is the  
original order to which animal nature is
 subjected1 as applied to every species 
of it4 ,the beasts of the field1 the    
fowls of the air1 the fishes of the sea1
 with reptiles1 and all manner of       
beings1 which are possessed with animal 
life2 nor is pain1 sickness1 or         
mortality any part of ,god's punishment 
for sin4 ,on the other hand sensual     
happiness is no part of the reward of   
virtue3 to reward moral actions with a  
glass of wine or a shoulder of mutton1  
would be as inadequate1 as to measure a 
triangle with sound1 for virtue and vice
 pertain to the mind1 and their merits  
or demerits have their just effects on  
the conscience1 as has been before      
evinced3 but animal gratifications are  
common to the human race                
indiscriminately1 and also1 to the      
beasts of the field3 and physical evils 
as promiscuously and universally extend 
to the whole1 so ,that there is no      
knowing good or evil by all that is     

before us1 for all is vanity4 ,it was   
not among the number of possibles1 that 
animal life should be exempted from     
mortality3 omnipotence itself could not 
have made it capable of eternalization  
and indissolubility2 for the self same  
nature which constitutes animal life1   
subjects it to decay and dissolution2 so
 that the one cannot be without the     
other1 any more than there could be a   
compact number of mountains without     
vallies1 or that ,i could exist and not 
exist at the same time1 or that ,god    
should effect any other contradiction in
 nature2 all contradictions being       
equally impossible1 inasmuch as they    
imply an absolute incompatibility with  
nature and truth2 for nature is         
predicated on truth1 and the same truth 
which constitutes mountains1 made the   
vallies at the same time2 nor is it     
possible that they could have a separate
 existence4 ,and the same truth which   
affirms my existence1 denies its        
negative2 so also the same law of       

nature1 which in truth produceth an     
animal life and supports it for a       
season1 wears it out1 and in its natural
 course reduces it to its original      
elements again4 ,the vegetable world    
also presents us with a constant aspect 
of productions and dissolutions2 and the
 bustle of elements is beyond all       
conception2 but the dissolution of forms
 is not the dissolution of matter1 or   
the annihilation of it1 nor of the      
creation1 which exists in all possible  
forms and fluxilities2 and it is from   
such physical alterations of the        
particles of matter1 that animal or     
vegetable life is produced and          
destroyed4 ,elements afford them        
nutrition1 and time brings them to      
maturity1 decay and dissolution2 and in 
all the prolific production of animal   
life1 or the productions of those of a  
vegetative nature1 throughout all their 
growth1 decay and dissolution1 make no  
addition or diminution of creation2 but 
eternal nature continues its never      

ceasing operations1 7which in most      
respects are mysterious to us7 under the
 unerring guidance of the providence of 
,god4  ,animal nature consists of a     
regular constitution of a variety of    
organic parts1 which have a particular  
and necessary dependance on each other1 
by the mutual assistance whereof the    
whole are animated4 ,blood seems to be  
the source of life1 and it is requisite 
that it have a proper circulation from  
the heart to the extreme parts of the   
body1 and from thence to the heart      
again1 that it may repeat its temporary 
rounds through certain arteries and     
veins1 which replenish every minutia    
part with blood and vital heat2 but the 
brain is evidently the seat of          
sensation1 which through the nervous    
system conveys the animal spirits to    
every part of the body1 imparting to it 
sensation and motion1 constituting it a 
living machine-1 which could never have 
been produced1 or exercised its         
respective functions in any other sort  

of world but this2 which is in a        
constant series of fluxilities1 and     
which causeth it to produce food for its
 inhabitants4 ,an unchangeable world    
could not admit of production or        
dissolution1 but would be identically   
the same1 which would preclude the      
existence and nutriment of such         
sensitive creatures as we are4 ,the     
nutrition extracted from food by the    
secret aptitudes of the digesting powers
 7by which mysterious operation it      
becomes incorporated with the           
circulating juices1 supplying the animal
 functions with vital heat1 strength and
 vigor7 demands a constant flux and     
reflux of the particles of matter1 which
 is perpetually incorporating with the  
body1 and supplying the place of the    
superfluous particles that are          
constantly discharging themselves by    
insensible perspiration2 supporting1 and
 at the same time1 in its ultimate      
tendency1 destroying animal life4 ,thus 
it manifestly appears1 that the laws of 

the world in which we live1 and the     
constitution of the animal nature of    
man1 are all but one uniform arrangement
 of cause and effect2 and as by the     
course of those laws1 animal life is    
propagated and sustained for a season1  
so by the operation of the same laws1   
decay and mortality are the necessary   
consequences4     ,,chapter ,,iv4       
,,secton ,i4 ,,speculation ,,on ,,the   
,,doctrine ,,of ,,the ,,depravity444    
,,of ,,human ,,reason4  ,in the course  
of our speculation on ,divine           
,providence we proceed next to the      
consideration of the doctrine of the    
depravity of human reason3 a doctrine   
derogatory to the nature of man1 and the
 rank and character of being which he   
holds in the universe1 and which1 if    
admitted to be true overturns knowledge 
and science and renders learning1       
instruction and books useless and       
impertinent2 inasmuch as reason1        
depraved or spoiled1 would cease to be  
reason2 as much as the mind of a raving 

madman would of course cease to be      
rational3 admitting the depravity of    
reason1 the consequence would           
unavoidably follow1 that as far as it   
may be supposed to have taken place in  
the midst of mankind1 there could be no 
judges of it1 in consequence of their   
supposed depravity2 for without the     
exercise of reason1 we could not        
understand what reason is1 which would  
be necessary for us previously to       
understand1 in order to understand what 
it is not2 or to distinguish it from    
that which is its reverse4 ,but for us  
to have the knowledge of what reason is1
 and the ability to distinguish it from 
that which is depraved1 or is           
irrational1 is incompatible with the    
doctrine of the depravity of our reason4
 ,inasmuch as to understand what reason 
is1 and to distinguish it from that     
which is marred or spoiled1 is the same 
to all intents and purposes1 as to have1
 exercise and enjoy1 the principle of   
reason itself1 which precludes its      

supposed depravity3 so that it is       
impossible for us to understand what    
reason is1 and at the same time         
determine that our reason is depraved2  
for this would be the same as when we   
know that we are in possession and      
exercise of reason1 to determine that we
 are not in possession or exercise of   
it4  ,it may be1 that some who embrace  
the doctrine of the depravity of human  
reason1 will not admit that it is wholly
 and totally depraved1 but that it is in
 a great measure marred or spoiled4 ,but
 the foregoing arguments are equally    
applicable to a supposed depravity in   
parts1 as in the whole2 for in order to 
judge whether reason be depraved in part
 or not1 it would be requisite to have  
an understanding of what reason may be  
supposed to have been1 previous to its  
premised depravity2 and to have such a  
knowledge of it1 would be the same as to
 exercise and enjoy it in its lustre and
 purity1 which would preclude the notion
 of a depravity in part1 as well as in  

the whole2 for it would be utterly      
impossible for us to judge of reason    
undepraved and depraved1 but by         
comparing them together4 ,but for       
depraved reason to make such a          
comparison1 is contradictory and        
impossible2 so that1 if our reason had  
been depraved1 we could not have had any
 conception of it any more than a beast4
 ,men of small faculties in reasoning   
cannot comprehend the extensive         
reasonings of their superiors1 how then 
can a supposed depraved reason          
comprehend that reason which is         
uncorrupted and pure8 ,to suppose that  
it could1 is the same as to suppose that
 depraved and undepraved reason is      
alike1 and if so1 there needs no further
 dispute about it4  ,there is a manifest
 contradiction in applying the term     
depraved to that of reason1 the ideas   
contained in their respective           
definitions will not admit of their     
association together1 as the terms      
convey heterogeneous ideas2 for reason  

spoiled1 marred1 or robbed of its       
perfection1 ceaseth to be rational1 and 
should not be called reason2 inasmuch as
 it is premised to be depraved1 or      
degenerated from a rational nature2 and 
in consequence of the deprivation of its
 nature1 should also be deprived of its 
name1 and called subterfuge1 or some    
such like name1 which might better      
define its real character4  ,those who  
invalidate reason1 ought seriously to   
consider1 whether they argue against    
reason1 with or without reason2 if with 
reason1 then they establish the         
principle1 that they are laboring to    
dethrone3 but if they argue without     
reason1 7which1 in order to be          
consistent with themselves1 they must   
do17 they are out of the reach of       
rational conviction1 nor do they deserve
 a rational argument4  ,we are told that
 the knowledge of the depravity of      
reason1 was first communicated to       
mankind by the immediate inspiration of 
,god4 ,but inasmuch as reason is        

supposed to be depraved1 what principle 
could there be in the human irrational  
soul1 which could receive or understand 
the inspiration1 or on which it could   
operate so as to represent to those whom
 it may be supposed were inspired1 the  
knowledge of the depravity of 7their own
 and mankind's7 reason 7in general37 for
 a rational inspiration must consist of 
rational ideas1 which pre-sup-poses that
 the minds of those who were inspired1  
were rational previous to such          
inspiration1 which would be a downright 
contradiction to the inspiration itself2
 the import of which was to teach the   
knowledge of the depravity of human     
reason1 which without reason could not  
be understood1 and with reason it would 
be understood1 that the inspiration was 
false4  ,will any advocates for the     
depravity of reason suppose1 that       
inspiration ingrafts or superadds the   
essence of reason itself to the human   
mind8 ,admitting it to be so1 yet such  
inspired persons could not understand   

any thing of reason1 before the         
reception of such supposed inspiration2 
nor would such a premised inspiration   
prove to its possessors or receivers1   
that their reason had ever been         
depraved4 ,all that such premised       
inspired persons could understand1 or be
 conscious of1 respecting reason1 would 
be after the inspiration may be supposed
 to have taken effect1 and made them    
rational beings1 and then instead of    
being taught by inspiration1 that their 
reason had been previously depraved1    
they could have had no manner of        
consciousness of the existence or       
exercise of it1 until the impairing the 
principle of it by the supposed energy  
of inspiration2 nor could such supposed 
inspired persons communicate the        
knowledge of such a premised revelation 
to others of the species1 who for want  
of a rational nature1 could not be      
supposed1 on this position1 to be able  
to receive the impressions of reason4   
,that there are degrees in the knowledge

 of rational beings1 and also in their  
capacities to acquire it1 cannot be     
disputed1 as it is so very obvious among
 mankind4 ,but in all the retrospect    
gradations from the exalted reasonings  
of a ,locke or a ,newton1 down to the   
lowest exercise of it among the species1
 still it is reason1 and not depraved2  
for a less degree of reason by no means 
implies a depravity of it1 nor does the 
imparting of reason argue its depravity1
 for what remains of reason1 or rather  
of the exercise of it1 is reason still4 
,but there is not1 and cannot be such a 
thing as depraved reason1 for that which
 is rational is so1 and for that reason 
cannot be depraved1 whatever its degree 
of exercise may be supposed to be4  ,a  
blow on the head1 or fracture of the    
cranium1 as also palsies and many other 
casualties that await our sensorium1    
retard1 and in some cases wholly prevent
 the exercise of reason for a longer or 
shorter period2 and sometimes through   
the stage of human life2 but in such    

instances as these1 reason is not       
depraved1 but ceases in a greater or    
less degree1 or perhaps wholly ceases   
its rational exertions or operations2 by
 reason of the breaches or disorders of 
the organs of sense1 but in such        
instances1 wherein the organs become    
rectified1 and the senses recover their 
usefulness1 the exercise of reason      
returns1 free from any blemish or       
depravity4 ,for the cessation of the    
exercise of reason1 by no means depraves
 it4  ,from what has been argued on this
 subject1 in this and the preceding     
chapters1 it appears that reason is not 
and cannot be depraved1 but that it     
bears a likeness to divine reason1 is of
 the same kind1 and in its own nature as
 uniform as truth1 which is the test of 
it2 though in the divine essence1 it is 
eternal and infinite1 but in man it is  
eternal only as it respects their       
immortality1 and finite as it respects  
capaciousness4 ,such people as can be   
prevailed upon to believe1 that their   

reason is depraved1 may easily be led by
 the nose1 and duped into superstition  
at the pleasure of those in whom they   
confide1 and there remain from          
generation to generation3 for when they 
throw by the law of reason the only one 
which ,god gave them to direct them in  
their speculations and duty1 they are   
exposed to ignorant or insidious        
teachers1 and also to their own         
irregular passions1 and to the folly and
 enthusiasm of those about them1 which  
nothing but reason can prevent or       
restrain3 nor is it a rational          
supposition that the commonality of     
mankind would ever have mistrusted that 
their reason was depraved1 had they not 
been told so1 and it is whispered about1
 that the first insinuation of it was   
from the ,priests2 7though the ,armenian
 ,clergymen in the circle of my         
acquaintance have exploded the          
doctrine47 ,should we admit the         
depravity of reason1 it would equally   
affect the priesthood1 or any other     

teachers of that doctrine1 with the rest
 of mankind2 but for depraved creatures 
to receive and give credit to a depraved
 doctrine1 started and taught by        
depraved creatures1 is the greatest     
weakness and folly imaginable1 and comes
 nearer a proof of the doctrine of total
 depravity1 than any arguments which    
have been advanced in support of it4    
,,secton ,,ii4 ,,containing ,a          
,,disquisition ,,of ,,the ,,law ,,of    
,,nature444  ,,as ,,it ,,respects ,,the 
,,moral ,,system1 ,,interspersed ,,with 
,,observations ,,on ,,subsequent        
,,religions  ,that mankind are by nature
 endowed with sensation and reflection1 
from which results the power of reason  
and understanding1 will not be disputed4
 ,the senses are well calculated to make
 discoveries of external objects and to 
communicate those notices1 or simple    
images of things to the mind1 with all  
the magnificent simplicity of nature1   
which opens an extensive field of       
contemplation to the understanding1     

enabling the mind to examine into the   
natural causes and consequences of      
things1 and to investigate the knowledge
 of moral good and evil1 from which1    
together with the power of agency1      
results the human conscience4 ,this is  
the original of moral obligation and    
accountability1 which is called natural 
religion2 for without the understanding 
of truth from falsehood1 and right from 
wrong1 which is the same as justice from
 injustice1 and a liberty of agency1    
which is the same as a power of         
proficiency in either moral good or     
evil3 mankind would not be rational or  
accountable creatures4 ,undoubtedly it  
was the ultimate design of our ,creator1
 in giving us being1 and furnishing us  
with those noble compositions of mental 
powers and sensitive aptitudes1 that we 
should1 in1 by1 and with that nature1   
serve and honor him2 and with those     
united capacities1 search out and       
understand our duty to him1 and to one  
another1 with the ability of practising 

the same as far as may be necessary for 
us in this life4 ,to object against the 
sufficiency of natural religion1 to     
effect the best ultimate good of        
mankind1 would be derogating from the   
wisdom1 goodness1 and justice of ,god1  
who in the course of his providence to  
us1 has adopted it3 besides1 if natural 
religion may be supposed to be          
deficient1 what security can we have    
that any subsequently revealed religion 
should not be so also8 ,for why might   
not a second religion from ,god be as   
insufficient or defective as a first    
religion may be supposed to be8 ,from   
hence we infer that if natural religion 
be insufficient to dictate mankind in   
the way of their duty and make them     
ultimately happy1 there is an end to    
religion in general4 ,but as certain as 
,god is perfect in wisdom and goodness1 
natural religion is sufficient and      
complete2 and having had the divine     
approbation1 and naturally resulting    
from a rational nature1 is as           

universally promulgated to mankind as   
reason itself4 ,but to the disadvantage 
of the claim of all subsequent          
religions1 called revelations1 whether  
denominated inspired1 external1         
supernatural1 or what not1 they came too
 late into the world to be essential to 
the well being of mankind1 or to point  
out to them the only way to heaven and  
everlasting blessedness3 inasmuch as for
 the greatest part of mankind who have  
ever lived in this world1 have departed 
this life previous to the eras and      
promulgations of such revelations4      
,besides1 those subsequent revelations  
to the law of nature1 began as human    
traditions have ever done in very small 
circumferences1 in the respective parts 
of the world where they have been       
inculcated1 and made their progress1 as 
time1 chance1 and opportunity presented4
 ,does this look like the contrivance of
 heaven1 and the only way of salvation8 
,or is it not more like this world and  
the contrivance of man8 ,undoubtedly the

 great parent of mankind laid a just and
 sufficient foundation of salvation for 
every one of them2 for otherwise such of
 them1 who may be supposed not to be    
thus provided for would not have whereof
 to glorify ,god for their being1 but on
 the contrary would have just matter of 
complaint against his providence or     
moral government for involuntarily      
necessitating them into a wretched and  
miserable existence1 and that without   
end or remedy3 which would be ascribing 
to ,god a more extensive injustice than 
is possible to be charged on the most   
barbarous despots that ever were among  
mankind4  ,but to return to our         
speculations on the law of nature4 ,that
 this divine ,law surpasses all positive
 institutions1 that have ever been      
ushered into the world since its        
creation as much as the wisdom and      
goodness of ,god exceeds that of man1 is
 beautifully illustrated in the         
following quotation3 ,but it may be said
 what is virtue8 ,it is the faithful    

discharge of those obligations which    
reason dictates4 ,and what is wisdom    
itself1 but a portion of intelligence8  
with which the creator has furnished us1
 in order to direct us in our duty8 ,it 
may be further asked1 what is this duty8
 whence does it result8 and by what law 
is it prescribed8 ,i answer that the law
 which prescribed it is the immutable   
will of ,god2 to which right reason     
obliges us to conform ourselves1 and in 
this conformity virtue consists4 ,no law
 which has commenced since the creation1
 or which may ever cease to be in force1
 can constitute virtue2 for before the  
existence of such a law1 mankind could  
not be bound to observe it2 but they    
were certainly under an obligation to be
 virtuous from the beginning4 ,princes  
may make laws and repeal them1 but they 
can neither make nor destroy virtue1 and
 how indeed should they be able to do   
what is impossible to the ,deity        
himself8 ,virtue being as immutable in  
its nature as the divine will which is  

the ground of it499       99 ,virtue did
 not derive its nature merely from the  
omnipotent will of ,god1 but also from  
the eternal truth and      moral fitness
 of things2 which was the eternal reason
 why      they were eternally approved  
of by ,god1 and immutably               
established by him1 to be what they are2
 and so far as our      duty is         
connected with those eternal measures of
 moral      fitness1 or we are able to  
act on them1 we give such actions       
or habits the name of virtue or         
morality4 ,but when we1 in      writing 
or conversation1 say that virtue is     
grounded on the      divine will1 we    
should at the same time include in the  
complex idea of it1 that the divine will
 which constituted      virtue1 was     
eternally and infinitely reasonable4  ,a
 ,prince may command his subjects to pay
 taxes or subsidies1 may forbid them to 
export certain commodities1 or to       
introduce those of a foreign country4   
,the faithful observance of these laws  

make obedient subjects1 but does not    
make virtuous men2 and would any one    
seriously think himself possessed of a  
virtue the more for not having dealt in 
painted calico2 or if the ,prince should
 by his authority abrogate these laws1  
would any one say he had abrogated      
virtue8 ,it is thus with all positive   
laws2 they all had a beginning--are all 
liable to exceptions1 and may be        
dispensed with and even abolished4 ,that
 law alone which is engraven on our     
hearts by the hand of our creator1 is   
unchangeable and of universal and       
eternal obligation4 ,the law1 says      
,cicero1 is not a human invention1 nor  
an arbitrary political institution1 it  
is in its nature eternal and of         
universal obligation4 ,the violence     
,tarquin offered to ,lucretia1 was a    
breach of that eternal law1 and though  
the ,romans at that time might have no  
written law which condemned such kind of
 crimes1 his offence was not the less   
heinous2 for this law of reason did not 

then begin1 when it was first committed 
to writing2 its original is as ancient  
as the divine mind4 ,for the true1      
primitive and supreme law1 is no other  
than the unerring reason of the great   
,jupiter4 ,and in another place he says1
 this law is founded in nature1 it is   
universal1 immutable1 and eternal1 it is
 subject to no change from any          
difference of place1 or time1 it extends
 invariably to all ages and nations1    
like the sovereign dominion of that     
,being1 who is author of it4  ,the      
promulgation of this supreme law to     
creatures1 is co-extensive and          
co-existent with reason1 and binding on 
all intelligent beings in the universe2 
and is that eternal rule of fitness1 as 
applicable to ,god1 by which the creator
 of all things conducts his infinitude  
of providence1 and by which he governs  
the moral system of being1 according to 
the absolute perfection of his nature4  
,from hence we infer1 that admitting    
those subsequent revelations1 which have

 more or less obtained credit in the    
world1 as the inspired laws of ,god1 to 
be consonant to the laws of nature1 yet 
they could be considered as none other  
but mere transcripts therefrom1         
promulgated to certain favorite nations1
 when at the same time all mankind was  
favored with the original4  ,the moral  
precepts contained in ,moses' decalogue 
to the people of ,israel1 was previously
 known to every nation under heaven1 and
 in all probability by them as much     
practised as by the tribes of ,israel4  
,their keeping the seventh day of the   
week as a sabbath was an arbitrary      
imposition of ,moses1 7as many other of 
his edicts were7 and not included in the
 law of nature4 ,but as to such laws of 
his1 or those of any other legislator1  
which are morally fit1 agree with1 and  
are a part of the natural law1 as for   
instance2 ,thou shalt not covet1 or     
kill4 ,these positive injunctions cannot
 add anything to the law of nature1     
inasmuch as it contains an entire and   

perfect system of morality2 nor can any 
positive injunctions or commands enforce
 the authority of it1 or confer any     
additional moral obligation on those to 
whom they are given to obey2 the        
previous obligation of natural religion1
 having ever been as binding as reason  
can possibly conceive of1 or the order  
and constitution of the moral rectitude 
of things1 as resulting from ,god1 can  
make it to be4  ,to illustrate the      
argument of the obligatory nature of the
 natural law let us reverse the         
commandments of the decalogue1 by       
premising that ,moses had said thou     
shalt covet2 thou shalt steal and       
murder2 would any one conclude1 that the
 injunctions would have been obligatory8
 surely they would not1 for a positive  
command to violate the law of nature    
could not be binding on any rational    
being4 ,how then came the injunctions of
 ,moses1 or any others1 to be binding in
 such cases1 in which they coincide with
 the law of nature8 ,we answer1 merely  

in consequence of the obligatory        
sanctions of the natural law1 which does
 not at all depend on the authority of  
,moses or of any other legislator1 short
 of him who is eternal and infinite2 nor
 is it possible that the ,jews1 who     
adhere to the law of ,moses1 should be  
under greater obligation to the moral   
law1 than the ,japanese2 or the         
,christians than the ,chinese2 for the  
same ,god extends the same moral        
government over universal rational      
nature1 independent of ,popes1 ,priests 
and ,levites4 ,but with respect to all  
mere positive institutions1 injunctions1
 rites and ceremonies1 that do not come 
within the jurisdiction of the law of   
nature1 they are political matters1 and 
may be enacted1 perpetuated1 dispensed  
with1 abolished1 re-enacted1 compounded 
or diversified1 as conveniency1 power1  
opportunity1 inclination1 or interest1  
or all together may dictate2 inasmuch as
 they are not founded on any stable or  
universal principle of reason1 but      

change with the customs1 fashions1      
traditions and revolutions of the world2
 having no centre of attraction1 but    
interest1 power and advantages of a     
temporary nature4  ,was the creator and 
governor of the universe to erect a     
particular academy of arts and sciences 
in this world1 under his immediate      
inspection1 with tutors rightly         
organized1 and intellectually qualified 
to carry on the business of teaching1 it
 might like other colleges1 7and        
possibly in a superior manner17 instruct
 its scholars4 ,but that ,god should    
have given a revelation of his will to  
mankind1 as his law1 and to be continued
 to the latest posterity as such1 which 
is premised to be above the capacity of 
their understanding1 is contradictory   
and in its' own nature impossible4 ,nor 
could a revelation to mankind1 which    
comes within the circle of their        
knowledge1 be edifying or instructing to
 them1 for it is a contradiction to call
 that which is above my comprehension1  

or that which ,i already1 7from natural 
sagacity7 understand1 a revelation to   
me3 to tell me1 or inspire me1 with the 
knowledge of that which ,i knew before1 
would reveal nothing to me1 and to      
reveal that to me which is supernatural 
or above my comprehension1 is           
contradictory and impossible4 ,but the  
truth of the matter is1 that mankind are
 restricted by the law of nature to     
acquire knowledge or science            
progressively1 as before argued4 ,from  
which we infer the impropriety1 and     
consequently the impossibility of ,god's
 having ever given us any manuscript    
copy of his eternal law3 for that to    
reveal it at first would bring it on a  
level with the infancy of knowledge then
 in the world1 or 7fishermen1 shepherds1
 and illiterate people could not have   
understood it17 which would have brought
 it so low that it could not be         
instructive or beneficial to after      
generations in their progressive        
advances in science and wisdom4         

,,chapter ,v4     ,,secton ,i4          
,,argumentative ,,reflections ,,on      
,,supernatural444  ,,and ,,mysterious   
,,revelation ,,in ,,general4  ,there is 
not anything which has contributed so   
much to delude mankind in religious     
matters1 as mistaken apprehensions      
concerning supernatural inspiration or  
revelation2 not considering that all    
true religion originates from reason1   
and can no otherwise be understood but  
by the exercise and improvement of it2  
therefore they are apt to confuse their 
minds with such inconsistencies4 ,in the
 subsequent reasonings on this subject1 
we shall argue against supernatural     
revelation in general1 which will       
comprehend the doctrine of inspiration  
or immediate illumination of the mind4  
,and first--we will premise1 that a     
revelation consists of an assemblage of 
rational ideas1 intelligibly arranged   
and understood by those to whom it may  
be supposed to be revealed1 for         
otherwise it could not exist in their   

minds as such4 ,to suppose a revelation1
 void of rationality or understanding1  
or of communicating rational            
intelligence to those1 to whom it maybe 
supposed to be given1 would be a        
contradiction2 for that it could contain
 nothing except it were                 
unintelligibleness which would be the   
same as to reveal and not to reveal2    
therefore1 a revelation must consist of 
an assemblage of rational ideas1        
intelligibly communicated to those who  
are supposed to have been the partakers 
or receivers of it from the first       
supposed inspiration1 down to this or   
any other period of time4 ,but such a   
revelation as this1 could be nothing    
more or less than a transcript of the   
law of nature1 predicated on reason1 and
 would be no more supernatural1 than the
 reason of man may be supposed to be4   
,the simple definition of supernatural  
is1 that which is beyond or above the   
powers of nature1 which never was or can
 be understood by mankind2 the first    

promulgators of revelation not excepted2
 for such revelation1 doctrine1 precept 
or instruction only1 as comes within the
 powers of our nature1 is capable of    
being apprehended1 contemplated or      
understood by us1 and such as does not1 
is to us incomprehensible and unknown1  
and consequently cannot for us compose  
any part of revelation4  ,the author of 
human nature impressed it with certain  
sensitive aptitudes and mental powers1  
so that apprehension1 reflection or     
understanding could no otherwise be     
exerted or produced in the compound     
nature of man1 but in the order         
prescribed by the creator4 ,it would    
therefore be a contradiction in nature1 
and consequently impossible for ,god to 
inspire1 infuse1 or communicate the     
apprehension1 reflection or             
understanding of any thing whatever into
 human nature1 out of1 above1 or beyond 
the natural aptitudes1 and mental powers
 of that nature1 which was of his own   
production and constitution2 for it     

would be the same as to inspire1 infuse1
 or reveal apprehension1 reflection or  
understanding1 to that which is not2    
inasmuch as out of1 beyond or above the 
powers of nature1 there could be nothing
 to operate upon1 as a prerequisite     
principle to receive the inspiration or 
infusion of the revelation1 which might 
therefore as well be inspired into1 or  
revealed to nonentity1 as to man4 ,for  
the essence of man is that1 which we    
denominate to be his nature1 out of or  
above which he is as void of sensation1 
apprehension1 reflection and            
understanding1 as nonentity may be      
supposed to be2 therefore such          
revelation as is adapted to the nature  
and capacity of man1 and comes within   
his powers of perception and            
understanding1 is the only revelation1  
which he is able to receive from ,god or
 man4 ,supernatural revelation is as    
applicable to beasts1 birds and fishes1 
as it is to us2 for neither we nor they 
are capable of being acted upon         

supernaturally1 as all the possible     
exertions and operations of nature1     
which respect the natural or moral      
world1 are truly natural4 ,nor does ,god
 deviate from his rectitude of nature in
 matters of inspiration1 revelation or  
instruction to the moral world1 any more
 than in that of his government of the  
natural4 ,the infinitude of the wisdom  
of ,god's creation1 providence and moral
 government will eternally remain       
supernatural to all finite capacities1  
and for that very reason we can never   
arrive to the comprehension of it1 in   
any state of being and improvement      
whatever2 inasmuch as progression can   
never attain to that which is infinite1 
so that an eternal proficiency in       
knowledge could not be supernatural1 but
 on the other hand would come within the
 limits and powers of our nature1 for   
otherwise such proficiency would be     
impossible to us2 nor is this infinite  
knowledge of ,god supernatural to him1  
for that his perfection is also         

infinite4 ,but if we could break over   
the limits of our capacity1 so as to    
understand any one supernatural thing1  
which is above or beyond the power of   
our natures1 we might by that rule as   
well understand all things1 and thus by 
breaking over the confines of finite    
nature and the rank of being which we   
hold in the universe1 comprehend the    
knowledge of infinity4 ,from hence we   
infer1 that every kind and degree ef    
apprehension1 reflection and            
understanding1 which we can attain to in
 any state of improvement whatever1 is  
no more supernatural than the nature of 
man1 from whence perception and         
understanding is produced1 may be       
supposed to be so3 nor has or could ,god
 ,almighty ever have revealed himself to
 mankind in any other way or manner1 but
 what is truly natural4     ,,secton    
,,ii4 ,,containing ,,observations ,,on  
,,the ,,providence444  ,,and ,,agency   
,,of ,,god1 ,,as ,,it ,,respects ,,the  
,,natural ,,and ,,moral ,,world1 ,,with 

,,strictures ,,on ,,revelation ,,in     
,,general4  ,the idea of a ,god we infer
 from our experimental dependence on    
something superior to ourselves in      
wisdom1 power and goodness1 which we    
call ,god2 our senses discover to us the
 works of ,god which we call nature1 and
 which is a manifest demonstration of   
his invisible essence4 ,thus it is from 
the works of nature that we deduce the  
knowledge of a ,god1 and not because we 
have1 or can have any immediate         
knowledge of1 or revelation from him4   
,but on the other hand1 all our         
understanding of1 or intelligence from  
,god1 is communicated to us by the      
intervention of natural causes1 7which  
is not of the divine essence27 this we  
denominate to be natural revelation1 for
 that it is mediately made known to ,us 
by our senses1 and from our sensations  
of external objects in general1 so that 
all and every part of the universe1 of  
which we have any conception1 is        
exterior from the nature or essence of  

,god2 nor is it in the nature of things 
possible for us to receive1 or for ,god 
to communicate any inspiration or       
revelation to us1 but by the            
instrumentality of intermediate causes1 
as has been before observed4 ,therefore 
all our notions of the immediate        
interposition of divine illuminations1  
inspiration1 or infusion of ideas or    
revelations into our minds1 is mere     
enthusiasm and deception2 for that      
neither the divine mind1 nor those of   
any finite intelligences can make any   
representation to1 or impression on our 
external senses without the assistance  
of some adequate1 intermediate cause4   
,the same is the case between man and   
man1 or with mankind in general2 we can 
no otherwise hold a correspondence but  
by the aptitude1 and through the medium 
of our senses4 ,since this is the only  
possible way in nature by which we can  
receive any notices1 perceptions1 or    
intelligence from ,god or man4  ,nothing
 can be more unreasonable than to       

suppose1 because ,god is infinitely     
powerful1 that he can therefore inspire 
or infuse perception1 reflection or     
revelation into the mind of man in such 
a way or manner as is incompatible with 
the aptitudes and powers of their       
nature3 such a revelation would be as   
impossible to be revealed by ,god1 as by
 a mere creature4 ,for though it is a   
maxim of truth1 ,that with ,god all     
things are possible1 yet it should be   
considered1 that contradictions1 and    
consequently impossibilities are not    
comprehended in the definition of       
things1 but are diametrically the       
reverse of them1 as may be seen in the  
definition of the word things1 to wit3  
whatever is4 ,there is no contradiction 
in nature or truth1 which comprehends or
 contains all things1 therefore the     
maxim is just1 ,that with ,god all      
things are possible1 viz3 all things in 
nature are possible with ,god2 but      
contradictions are falsehoods which have
 no positive existence1 but are the     

negatives to things1 or to nature1 which
 comprehends1 ,whatever is2 so that     
contradictions are opposed to nature and
 truth1 and are no things1 but the      
chimeras of weak1 unintelligent minds   
who make false application of things to 
persons1 or ascribe such powers1        
qualities1 dispositions and aptitudes to
 things as nature never invested them   
with2 such are our deluded notions of   
the immediate operations of the holy    
spirit1 or of any mere spirit1 on our   
minds independent of the intervention of
 some adequate1 natural or intermediate 
cause4 ,to make a triangle four square1 
or to make a variety of mountains       
contiguously situated1 without vallies1 
or to give existence to a thing and not 
to give existence to it at the same     
time1 or to reveal anything to us       
incompatible with our capacity of       
receiving the perception of it1 pertains
 to those negatives to nature and truth1
 and are not things revealed1 nor have  
they any positive existence as has been 

before argued2 for they are inconsistent
 with themselves1 and the relations and 
effects which they are supposed to have 
upon and with each other4 ,it derogates 
nothing from the power and absolute     
perfection of ,god that he cannot make  
both parts of a contradiction to be     
true4  ,but let us reverse the position 
concerning revelation1 and premise that 
it is accommodated to our capacity of   
receiving and understanding it1 and in  
this case it would be natural1 and      
therefore possible for us to receive and
 understand it2 for the same truth which
 is predicated on the sufficiency of our
 capacity to receive and understand a   
revelation1 affirms at the same time the
 possibility of our receiving and       
understanding it4 ,but to suppose that  
,god can make both parts of a           
contradiction to be true1 to reveal and 
not reveal1 would be the same as        
ascribing a falsehood to him and to call
 it by the name of power4  ,that ,god   
can do anything and everything1 that is 

consonant to his moral perfections1 and 
which does not imply a contradiction to 
the nature of the things themselves1 and
 the essential relation which they bear 
to each other1 none will dispute4 ,but  
to suppose1 that inasmuch as ,god is    
all-powerful1 he can therefore do       
everything1 which we in our ignorance of
 nature or of moral fitness may ascribe 
to him1 without understanding1 whether  
it is either consonant to moral         
rectitude1 or to the nature of the      
things themselves1 and the immutable    
relations and connections which they    
bear to each other1 or not1 is great    
weakness and folly4 ,that ,god cannot in
 the exercise of his providence or moral
 government1 counteract the perfections 
of his nature1 or do any manner of      
injustice1 is manifestly certain2 nor is
 it possible for ,god to effect a       
contradiction in the natural world1 any 
more than in the moral4 ,the            
impossibility of the one results from   
the moral perfections of ,god1 and the  

impossibility of the other from the     
immutable properties1 qualities1        
relations and nature of the things      
themselves1 as in the instances of the  
mountains1 vallies1 c41 before alluded  
to1 and in numberless other such like   
cases4  ,admitting a revelation to be   
from ,god1 it must be allowed to be     
infallible1 therefore those to whom it  
may be supposed to have been first      
revealed from ,god1 must have had an    
infallible certainty of their           
inspiration3 so likewise the rest of    
mankind1 to whom it is proposed as a    
,divine ,law1 or rule of duty1 should   
have an infallible certainty1 that its  
first promulgators were thus truly      
inspired by the immediate interposition 
of the spirit of ,god1 and that the     
revelation has been preserved through   
all the changes and revolutions of the  
world to their time1 and that the copies
 extant present them with its original  
inspiration and unerring composure1 or  
are perfectly agreeable to it4 ,all this

 we must have an infallible certainty   
of1 or we fail of an infallible         
certainty of revelation1 and are liable 
to be imposed upon by impostors1 or by  
ignorant and insidious teachers1 whose  
interest it may be to obtrude their own 
systems on the world for infallible     
truth1 as in the instance of ,mahomet4  
,but let us consult our own             
constitutions and the world in which we 
live1 and we shall find that inspiration
 is1 in the very nature of things1      
impossible to be understood by us1 and  
of consequence not in fact true4 ,what  
certainty can we have of the agency of  
the divine mind on ours8 ,or how can we 
distinguish the supposed divine         
illuminations or ideas from those of our
 own which are natural to us8 ,in order 
for us to be certain of the             
interposition of immediate divine       
inspiration in our minds we must be able
 to analyze1 distinguish1 and distinctly
 separate the premised divine           
reflections1 illuminations or           

inspiration from our own natural        
cogitations1 for otherwise we should be 
liable to mistake our reflections and   
reasonings for ,god's inspiration1 as is
 the case with enthusiasts1 or fanatics1
 and thus impose on ourselves1 and      
obtrude our romantic notions on mankind1
 as ,god's revelation4  ,none will1 it  
is presumed1 pretend that the natural   
reflections of our minds are dictated by
 the immediate agency of the divine     
spirit2 for if they were thus dictated1 
they would be of equal authority with   
any supposed inspired revelation4 ,how  
then shall we be able to distinguish or 
understand our natural perceptions1     
reflections or reasonings1 from any     
premised immediately inspired ones8     
,should ,god make known to us1 or to any
 of us1 a revelation by a voice1 and    
that in a language which we understand1 
and admitting that the propositions1    
doctrines1 or subject matter of it1     
should not exceed our capacity1 we could
 understand it the same as we do in     

conversation with one another2 but this 
would be an external and natural        
revelation1 in which ,god is supposed to
 make use of language1 grammar1 logic   
and sound1 alias of intermediate causes1
 in order to communicate or reveal it1  
which would differ as much from an      
immediately inspired revelation1 as this
 book may be supposed to do2 for the    
very definition of immediate inspiration
 precludes all natural or immediate     
causes4 ,that ,god is eternally perfect 
in knowledge1 and therefore knows all   
things1 not by succession or by parts1  
as we understand things by degrees1 has 
been already evinced2 nevertheless all  
truth1 which we arrive at the           
understanding of1 accords with the      
divine omniscience1 but we do not come  
at the comprehension of things by       
immediate infusion1 or inspiration1 but 
from reasoning2 for we cannot see or    
hear ,god think or reason any more than 
man1 nor are our senses susceptible of a
 mere mental communion with him1 nor is 

it in nature possible for the human mind
 to receive any instantaneous or        
immediate illuminations or ideas from   
the divine spirit 7as before argued17   
but we must illuminate and improve our  
minds by a close application to the     
study of nature1 through the series     
whereof ,god has been pleased to reveal 
himself to man1 so that we may truly    
say1 that the knowledge of nature is the
 revelation of ,god4 ,in this there can 
be no delusion1 it is natural1 and could
 come from none other but ,god4  ,unless
 we could do this1 we should compound   
them together at a venture1 and form a  
revelation like ,nebuchadnezzar's idol1 
partly iron and partly clay1 alias      
partly divine and partly human4 ,the    
,apostle ,paul informs us1 that         
sometimes he spake1 and not the ,lord1  
and at other times speaks doubtfully    
about the matter1 saying1 and ,i think  
also that ,i have the spirit of ,god1   
and if he was at a loss about his       
inspiration1 well may we be distrustful 

of it4 ,from the foregoing speculations 
on the subject of supernatural          
inspiration1 it appears1 that there are 
insuperable difficulties in a mere      
mental discourse with the divine spirit2
 it is what we are unacquainted with1   
and the law of our nature forbids it4   
,our method of conversation is vocal1 or
 by writing1 or by some sort of external
 symbols which are the mediate ground of
 it1 and we are liable to errors and    
mistakes in this natural and external   
way of correspondence2 but when we have 
the vanity to rely on dreams and visions
 to inform ourselves of things1 or      
attempt to commune with invisible finite
 beings1 or with the holy spirit1 our   
deceptions1 blunders and confusions are 
increased to fanaticism itself2 as the  
diverse supposed influence of the       
spirit1 on the respective sectaries1    
even among ,christians1 may witness1 as 
it manifestly1 in their empty conceit of
 it1 conforms to every of their         
traditions4 ,which evinces1 that the    

whole bustle of it is mere enthusiasm1  
for was it dictated by the spirit of    
truth and uniformity itself1 it would   
influence all alike1 however zealots    
persuade themselves and one another that
 they have supernatural communion with  
the ,holy ,ghost1 from whence they tell 
us they derive their notions of         
religion1 and in their frenzy are proof 
against reason and argument1 which if we
 tender them1 they tell us1 that it is  
carnal and depraved reasoning1 but that 
their teachings are immediately from    
,god1 and then proceed to vent upon us  
all the curses and punishments1 which   
are written in the book of the law4     
,there has in the different parts and   
ages of the world1 been a multiplicity  
of immediate and wonderful discoveries1 
said to have been made to godly men of  
old by the special illumination or      
supernatural inspiration of ,god1 every 
of which have1 in doctrine1 precept and 
instruction1 been essentially different 
from each other1 which are consequently 

as repugnant to truth1 as the diversity 
of the influence of the spirit on the   
multiplicity of sectaries has been      
represented to be4  ,these facts1       
together with the premises and          
inferences as already deduced1 are too  
evident to be denied1 and operate       
conclusively against immediate or       
supernatural revelation in general2 nor 
will such revelation hold good in theory
 any more than in practice4 ,was a      
revelation to be made known to us1 it   
must be accommodated to our external    
senses1 and also to our reason1 so that 
we could come at the perception and     
understanding of it1 the same as we do  
to that of things in general4 ,we must  
perceive by our senses1 before we can   
reflect with the mind4 ,our sensorium is
 that essential medium between the      
divine and human mind1 through which    
,god reveals to man the knowledge of    
nature1 and is our only door of         
correspondence with ,god or with man4   
,a premised revelation1 adapted to our  

external senses1 would enable our mental
 powers to reflect upon1 examine into1  
and understand it4 ,always provided     
nevertheless1 that the subject matter of
 such revelation1 or that of the        
doctrines1 precepts or injunctions      
therein contained1 do not exceed our    
reason1 but are adapted to it as well as
 to our external senses4 ,to suppose    
that ,god1 merely from his omnipotence1 
without the intervention of some        
adequate intermediate cause could make  
use of sound1 or grammatical and logical
 language1 or of writing1 so as to      
correspond with us1 or to reveal any    
thing to us1 would run into the same    
sort of absurdity1 which we have already
 confuted2 for it is the same as to     
suppose an effect without a suitable or 
a proportionable cause1 or an effect    
without a cause2 whereas1 effects must  
have adequate causes or they could not  
be produced4 ,god is the self-existent  
and eternal cause of all things1 but the
 eternal cause can no otherwise operate 

on the eternal succession of causes and 
effects1 but by the mutual operation of 
those causes on each other1 according to
 the fixed laws of nature4 ,for as we   
have frequently observed before that of 
all possible systems1 infinite wisdom   
comprehended the best2 and infinite     
goodness and power must have adopted and
 perfected it2 and being once           
established into an ordinance of nature1
 it could not be deviated from by ,god3 
for that it would necessarily imply a   
manifest imperfection in ,god1 either in
 its eternal establishment1 or in its   
premised subsequent alteration1 which   
will be more particularly considered in 
the next chapter4  ,to suppose that     
,almighty power could produce a voice1  
language1 grammar1 or logic1 so as to   
communicate a revelation to us1 without 
some sort of organic or instrumentated  
machine or intermediate vehicle1 or     
adequate constituted external cause1    
would imply a contradiction to the order
 of nature and consequently to the      

perfection of ,god1 who established it2 
therefore1 provided ,god has ever given 
us any particular revelation1 we must   
suppose1 that he has made use of a      
regular and natural constituted and     
mediate cause1 comprehended in the      
external order of nature1 rightly fitted
 and abilitated to make use of the vocal
 power of language1 which comprises that
 of characters1 orthography1 grammar and
 logic1 all which must have been made   
use of1 in communicating a supposed     
revelation to mankind1 which forecloses 
inspiration4  ,furthermore1 this        
heavenly dictating voice should have    
been accommodated to all languages1     
grammars and logical ways of speaking1  
in which a revelation may have been     
divulged1 as it would be needful to have
 been continued from the beginning to   
every receiver1 compiler1 translator1   
printer1 commentator on and teacher of  
such revelation1 in order to have       
informed mankind in every instance1     
wherein at any time they may have been  

imposed upon by any spurious            
adulterations or interpolations1 and how
 it was in the original4 ,these1 with   
the refinements of languages and        
translations1 are a summary of the many 
ways1 wherein we may have been deceived 
by giving credit to antiquated written  
revelation1 which would need a series of
 miracles to promulgate and perpetuate  
it in the world free from mistakes and  
frauds of one kind or other1 and which  
leads me to the consideration of the    
doctrine of miracles4     ,,chapter     
,,vi4     ,,secton ,i4 ,,of ,,miracles  
,previous to the arguments concerning   
miracles1 it is requisite that we give a
 definition of them1 that the arguments 
may be clearly opposed to the doctrine  
of miracles1 the reality of which we    
mean to negative2 so that we do not     
dispute about matters in which we are   
all agreed1 but that we may direct our  
speculations to the subject matter or   
essence of the controversy4  ,we will   
therefore premise1 that miracles are    

opposed to1 and counteract the laws of  
nature1 or that they imply an absolute  
alteration in either a greater or less  
degree1 the eternal order1 disposition  
and tendency of it2 this1 we conclude1  
is a just definition of miraculousness1 
and is that for which the advocates for 
miracles contend1 in their defining of  
miracles4 ,for if they were supposed to 
make no alteration in the natural order 
of things1 they could have no positive  
existence1 but the laws of nature would 
produce their effects1 which would      
preclude their reality1 and render them 
altogether fictitious1 inasmuch as their
 very existence is premised to consist  
in their opposition to1 and alteration  
of the laws of nature3 so that if this  
is not effected1 miracles can have no   
positive existence1 any more than       
nonentity itself2 therefore1 if in the  
course of the succeeding arguments1 we  
should evince that the laws of nature   
have not and cannot be perverted1       
altered or suspended1 it will foreclose 

miracles by making all things natural4  
,having thus defined miracles1 and      
stated the dispute1 we proceed to the   
arguments4  ,should there ever have been
 a miraculous suspension and alteration 
of the laws of nature1 ,god must have   
been the immediate author of it1 as no  
finite beings may be supposed to be able
 to alter those laws or regulations1    
which were established by omnipotent    
power and infinite perfection1 and which
 nothing short of such power and        
perfection can perpetuate4 ,this then is
 the single point at issue1 viz3 whether
 ,god has1 or can1 consistent with his  
nature as ,god1 in any instance         
whatever1 alter or deviate from the     
laws1 with which he has eternally       
impressed the universe1 or not4  ,to    
suppose that ,god should subvert his    
laws1 7which is the same as changing    
them7 would be to suppose him to be     
mutable2 for that it would necessarily  
imply1 either that their eternal        
establishment was imperfect1 or that a  

premised alteration thereof is so4 ,to  
alter or change that which is absolutely
 perfect1 would necessarily make it     
cease to be perfect1 inasmuch as        
perfection could not be altered for the 
better1 but for the worse1 and          
consequently an alteration could not    
meet with the divine approbation2 which 
terminates the issue of the matter in   
question against miracles1 and          
authorizes us to deduce the following   
conclusive inference1 to wit3 that      
,almighty ,god1 having eternally        
impressed the universe with a certain   
system of laws1 for the same eternal    
reason that they were infinitely perfect
 and best1 they could never admit of the
 least alteration1 but are as           
unchangeable1 in their nature1 as ,god  
their immutable author4 ,to form the    
foregoing argument into syllogisms1 it  
would be thus3--  ,god is perfect--the  
laws of nature were established by ,god2
 therefore1 the laws of nature are      
perfect4  ,but admitting miracles1 the  

syllogism should be thus3--  ,the laws  
of nature were in their eternal         
establishment perfect2--the laws of     
nature have been altered2 therefore1 the
 alteration of the laws of nature is    
imperfect4  ,or thus3 the laws of nature
 have been altered2--the alteration has 
been for the better2 therefore1 the     
eternal establishment thereof was       
imperfect4  ,thus it appears1 from a    
syllogistical as well as other methods  
of reasoning1 that provided we admit of 
miracles1 which are synonymous to the   
alterations of nature1 we by so doing   
derogate from the perfection of ,god1   
either in his eternal constitution of   
nature1 or in a supposed subsequent     
miraculous alteration of it1 so that    
take the argument either way1 and it    
preponderates against miracles4         
,furthermore1 was it possible1 that the 
eternal order of nature should have been
 imperfect1 there would be an end to all
 perfection4 ,for ,god might be as      
imperfect in any supposed miraculous    

works1 as in those of nature2 nor could 
we ever have any security under his     
natural or moral government1 if they    
were liable to change2 for mutability is
 but another term for imperfection1 or  
is inseparably connected with it4  ,god1
 the great architect of nature1 has so  
constructed its machinery1 that it never
 needs to be altered or rectified4 ,in  
vain99 we endeavor to search out the    
hidden mystery of a perpetual motion1 in
 order to copy nature1 for after all our
 researches we must be contented with   
such mechanism as will run down1 and    
need rectification again2 but the       
machine of the universe admits of no    
rectification1 but continues its never  
ceasing operations1 under the unerring  
guidance of the providence of ,god4     
,human architects make and unmake       
things1 and alter them as their         
invention may dictate1 and experience   
may determine to be most convenient and 
best4 ,but that mind1 which is          
infinitely perfect1 gains nothing by    

experience1 but surveys the immense     
universality of things1 with all their  
possible relations1 fitnesses and       
unfitnesses1 of both a natural or moral 
kind1 with one comprehensive view4      
,,secton ,,ii4 ,a ,,succession ,,of     
,,knowledge1 ,,or ,,of ,,the ,,exertion 
,,of ,,power444  ,,in ,,god1            
,,incompatible ,,with ,,his             
,,omniscience ,,or ,,omnipotence1 ,,and 
,,the ,,eternal ,,and ,,infinite        
,,display ,,of ,,divine ,,power         
,,forecloses ,,any ,,subsequent         
,,exertion ,,of ,,it ,,miraculously     
,that creation is as eternal and        
infinite as ,god1 has been argued in    
chapter second2 and that there could be 
no succession in creation1 or the       
exertion of the power of ,god1 in       
perfecting the boundless work1 and in   
impressing the universe with harmonious 
laws1 perfectly well adapted to their   
design1 use and end4  ,first4 ,these    
arguments may be further illustrated1   
and the evidence of the being of a ,god 

more fully exhibited1 from the following
 considerations1 to wit3 dependent      
beings and existences must be dependent 
on some being or cause that is          
independent1 for dependent beings1 or   
existences1 could not exist             
independently2 and1 in as much as by    
retrospectively tracing the order of the
 succession of causes1 we cannot include
 in our numeration the independent      
cause1 as the several successive causes 
still depend on their preceding cause1  
and that preceding cause on the cause   
preceding it1 and so on beyond numerical
 calculations1 we are therefore obliged 
7as rational beings7 to admit an        
independent cause of all things1 for    
that a mere succession of dependent     
causes cannot constitute an independent 
cause2 and from hence we are obliged to 
admit a self-existent and sufficient    
cause of all things1 for otherwise it   
would be dependent and insufficient to  
have given existence to itself1 or to   
have been the efficient cause of all    

things4  ,having thus established the   
doctrine of a self-sufficient1          
self-existent1 and consequently         
all-powerful cause of all things1 we    
ascribe an eternal existence to this    
cause of all causes and effects1 whom we
 call ,god4 ,and1 inasmuch1 as from the 
works of nature it is manifest1 that    
,god is possessed of almighty power1 we 
from hence infer his eternal existence4 
,since his premised existence at 7and   
not before7 any given era1 would be a   
conclusive objection to the omnipotency 
of his power1 that he had not existed   
before1 or eternally4 ,for as ,god is a 
being self-sufficient1 self-existent1   
and almighty1 7as before argued7 his    
power must apply to his own existence as
 well as to the existence of things in  
general1 and therefore1 if he did not   
eternally exist1 it must be because he  
had not the almighty power of existence 
in himself1 and if so1 he never could   
have existed at all2 so that ,god must  
have eternally existed or not have      

existed at all2 and inasmuch as the     
works of nature evince his positive     
existence1 and as he could not be       
dependent on the power1 will1 or        
pleasure of any other being but himself 
for his existence1 and as an existence1 
in time would be a contradiction to his 
almighty power of self-existency1 that  
he had not eternally existed2 therefore1
 his existence must have been 7in truth7
 eternal4  ,although it is to us        
incomprehensible that any being could be
 self-existent or eternal 7which is     
synonymous17 yet we can comprehend1 that
 any being that is not self-existent and
 eternal and dependent and finite1 and  
consequently not a ,god4 ,hence we      
infer1 that though we cannot comprehend 
the true ,god 7by reason of our own     
finiteness17 yet we can negatively      
comprehend that an imperfect being      
cannot be ,god4 ,a dependent being is   
finite1 and therefore imperfect1 and    
consequently not a ,god4 ,a being that  
has existed at a certain era 7and not   

before7 is a limited one1 for beyond his
 era he was not1 and therefore finite1  
and consequently not a ,god4 ,therefore1
 that being only who is self-existent1  
infinitely perfect and eternal1 is the  
true ,god3 and if eternally and         
infinitely perfect1 there must have been
 an eternal and infinite display1 and if
 an eternal and infinite display1 it    
could be nothing short of an eternal and
 infinite creation and providence4  ,as 
to the existence of a ,god1 previous to 
,moses's era of the first day's work1 he
 does not inform us4 ,the first notice  
he gives us of a ,god was of his        
laborious working by the day1 a theory  
of creation 7as ,i should think7 better 
calculated for the servile ,israelitish 
,brick-makers1 than for men of learning 
and science in these modern times4      
,,secton ,,iii4 ,,rare ,,and ,,wonderful
 ,,phenomena ,,no ,,evidence ,,of       
,,miracles444  ,,nor ,,are ,,diabolical 
,,spirits ,,able ,,to ,,effect ,,them1  
,,or ,,superstitious ,,traditions ,,to  

,,confirm ,,them1 ,,nor ,,can ,,ancient 
,,miracles ,,prove ,,recent             
,,revelations4  ,comets1 earthquakes1   
volcanoes1 and northern lights 7in the  
night17 with many other extraordinary   
phenomena or appearances intimidate weak
 minds1 and are by them thought to be   
miraculous1 although they undoubtedly   
have their proper natural causes1 which 
have been in a great measure discovered4
 ,jack-with-a-lantern is a frightful    
appearance to some people1 but not so   
much as the imaginary spectre4 ,but of  
all the scarecrows which have made human
 nature tremble1 the devil has been     
chief2 his family is said to be very    
numerous1 consisting of legions1 with   
which he has kept our world in a        
terrible uproar4 ,to tell of all the    
feats and diabolical tricks1 which this 
infernal family is said to have played  
upon our race1 would compose a volume of
 an enormous size4 ,all the magicians1  
necromancers1 wizards1 witches1         
conjurors1 gypsies1 sybils1 hobgoblins1 

apparitions and the like1 are supposed  
to be under their diabolical government3
 old ,belzebub rules them all4 ,men will
 face destructive cannon and mortars1   
engage each other in the clashing of    
arms1 and meet the horrors of war       
undaunted1 but the devil and his        
banditti of fiends and emissaries fright
 them out of their wits1 and have a     
powerful influence in plunging them into
 superstition1 and also in continuing   
them therein4  ,this supposed           
intercourse between mankind and those   
infernal beings1 is by some thought to  
be miraculous or supernatural2 while    
others laugh at all the stories of their
 existence1 concluding them to be mere  
juggle and deception1 craftily imposed  
on the credulous1 who are always gaping 
after something marvellous1 miraculous1 
or supernatural1 or after that which    
they do not understand3 and are awkward 
and unskilful in their examination into 
nature1 or into the truth or reality of 
things1 which is occasioned partly by   

natural imbecility1 and partly by       
indolence and inattention to nature and 
reason4  ,that any magical intercourse  
or correspondence of mere spirits with  
mankind1 is contradictory to nature1 and
 consequently impossible1 has been      
argued in chapter sixth4 ,and that      
nothing short of the omnipotent power of
 ,god1 countermanding his eternal order 
of nature1 and impressing it with new   
and contrary law1 can constitute a      
miracle has been argued in this1 and is 
an effect surpassing the power of mere  
creatures1 the diabolical nature not    
excepted4 ,from hence we infer1 that    
devils cannot work miracles4            
,inattention to reason1 and ignorance of
 the nature of things makes many of     
mankind give credit to miracles4 ,it    
seems that by this marvellous way of    
accounting for things1 they think to    
come off with reputation in their       
ignorance2 for if nature was nothing but
 a supernatural whirligig1 or an        
inconstant and irregular piece of       

mechanism1 it would reduce all learning 
and science to a level with the         
fanaticism and superstition of the weak 
and credulous1 and put the wise and     
unwise on a level in point of knowledge1
 as there would not1 on this thesis1 be 
any regular standard in nature1 whereby 
to ascertain the truth and reality of   
things4 ,what is called sleight-of-hand1
 is by some people thought to be        
miraculous4 ,astrological calculations  
of nativities1 lucky and unlucky days   
and seasons1 are by some1 regarded1 and 
even moles on the surface of the skin   
are thought to be portentive of good or 
bad fortune4  ,the ,swedish ,laplanders1
 the most ignorant mortals in ,europe1  
are charged with being conjurors1 and   
are said to have done such feats1 by the
 magic art1 as do not at all fall far   
short of miracles2 that they will give  
the sailors such winds as they want in  
any part of their voyage2 that they can 
inflict and cure diseases at any        
distance2 and insure people of success  

in their undertakings2 and yet they are 
just such poor miserable wretches as    
used to be charged with witchcraft here1
 viz3 in ,england and in ,new ,england1 
and cannot command so much as the       
necessaries of life3 and indeed1 none   
but very credulous and ignorant people  
give credit to such fables at this day1 
though the whole world seems to have    
been bewitched in believing them        
formerly4 ,the #bdth of ,march1 #agce1  
an act passed in the ,parliament of     
,great ,britain to repeal the statute of
 ,i ,jac's1 entitled an act against     
conjuration1 witchcraft1 and dealing    
with evil and wicked spirits1 and to    
repeal an act in ,scotland entitled     
,amentis ,witchcraft4 ,it is but        
forty-six years since the supreme       
legislature became apprized of the      
natural impossibility of any magical    
intercourse between mankind and evil and
 wicked spirits2 in consequence whereof 
they repealed their statute laws against
 it1 as they were naturally void1       

unnecessary1 and unworthy of their      
legislative restriction4 ,for that such 
a crime had no possible existence in    
nature1 and therefore could not be acted
 by mankind2 though previous to the     
repeal of those laws1 more or less of   
that island had fallen a sacrifice to   
them2 and the relations of those        
imaginary criminals were stamped with   
infamy by such executions1 which had the
 sanction of law1 alias of the          
legislature and the judges1 and in which
 many learned attorneys have            
demonstrated the turpitude of such      
capital offences1 and the just sanction 
of those laws in extirpating such pests 
of society from the earth2 to which the 
clergy have likewise given their        
approbation1 for that those capital     
transgressors made too free with their  
devils4  ,furthermore1 the repeal of    
those laws1 as far as the wisdom and    
authority of the ,british ,parliament   
may be supposed to go1 abrogated that   
command of the law of ,moses1 which     

saith1 ,thou shalt not suffer a witch to
 live1 and not only so1 but the doctrine
 of the impossibility of intercourse1 or
 of dealing with wicked spirits1        
forecloses the supposed miraculous      
casting out of devils1 of which we have 
sundry chronicles in the ,new           
,testament4  ,but to return to the      
annals of my own country1 it will       
present us with a scene of superstition 
in the magical way1 which will probably 
equal any that is to be met with in     
history1 to wit3 the ,salem witchcraft  
in ,new ,england2 great numbers of the  
inhabitants of both sexes were          
judicially convicted of being wizards   
and witches1 and executed accordingly2  
some of whom were so infatuated with the
 delusion1 that at their execution they 
confessed themselves guilty of the      
sorcery for which they were indicted2   
nor did the fanaticism meet with a check
 until some of the first families were  
accused with it1 who made such an       
opposition to the prosecutions1 as      

finally to put an end to any further    
execution of the ,salemites4  ,those    
capital offenders suffered in           
consequence of certain laws1 which1 by  
way of derision1 have since been called 
the ,blue ,laws1 in consequence of the  
multiplicity of superstition1 with which
 they abounded1 most of which are       
repealed2 but those that respect sorcery
 have had favorite legislators enough to
 keep them alive and in force to this   
day4  ,i recollect an account of        
prodigies said to have been carried on  
by the ,romish ,clergy in ,france1 upon 
which his most ,christian ,majesty sent 
one of his officers to them with the    
following prohibition1 to wit3 by the   
command of the king1 ,god is forbid to  
work any more miracles in this place2   
upon which the marvellous work ceased4  
,there has been so much detection of the
 artifice1 juggle and imposture of the  
pretenders to miracles1 in the world1   
especially in such parts where learning 
and science have prevailed1 that it     

should prompt us to be very suspicious  
of the reality of them1 even without    
entering into any lengthy arguments from
 the reason and nature of things to     
evince the utter impossibility of their 
existence in the creation and providence
 of ,god4  ,we are told1 that the first 
occasion and introduction of miracles   
into the world1 was to prove the divine 
authority of revelation1 and the mission
 of its first teachers2 be it so4 ,upon 
this plan of evincing the divinity of   
revelation1 it would be necessary that  
its teachers should always be vested    
with the power of working miracles2 so  
that when their authority or the        
infallibility of the revelation which   
they should teach1 should at any time be
 questioned1 they might work a miracle2 
or that in such a case ,god would do it2
 which would end the dispute1 provided  
mankind were supposed to be judges of   
miracles1 which may be controverted4    
,however1 admitting that they are       
possible1 and mankind in the several    

generations of the world to be adequate 
judges of them1 and also1 that they were
 necessary to support the divine mission
 of the first promulgators of           
revelation1 and the divinity which they 
taught2 from the same parity of         
reasoning1 miracles ought to be         
continued to the succeeding generations 
of mankind1 co-extensive with its divine
 authority1 or that of its teachers4    
,for why should we in this age of the   
world be under obligation to believe the
 infallibility of revelation1 or the    
heavenly mission of its teachers1 upon  
less evidence than those of mankind who 
lived in the generations before us8 ,for
 that which may be supposed to be a     
rational evidence1 and worthy to gain   
the belief and assent of mankind at one 
period of time1 must be so at another2  
so that it appears1 from the sequel of  
the arguments on this subject1 that     
provided miracles were requisite to     
establish the divine authority of       
revelation originally1 it is equally    

requisite that they be continued to the 
latest posterity1 to whom the divine    
legislator may be supposed to continue  
such revelation as his law to mankind4  
,nothing is more evident to the         
understanding part of mankind1 than that
 in those parts of the world where      
learning and science has prevailed1     
miracles have ceased2 but in such parts 
of it as are barbarous and ignorant1    
miracles are still in vogue2 which is of
 itself a strong presumption that in the
 infancy of letters1 learning and       
science1 or in the world's non-age1     
those who confided in miracles1 as a    
proof of the divine mission of the first
 promulgators of revelation1 were       
imposed upon by fictitious appearances  
instead of miracles4  ,furthermore1 the 
author of ,christianity warns us against
 the impositions of false teachers1 and 
ascribes the signs of the true          
believers1 saying1 ,and1 these signs    
shall follow them that believe1 in my   
name shall they cast out devils1 they   

shall speak with new tongues1 they shall
 take up serpents1 and if they drink any
 deadly thing it shall not hurt them1   
they shall lay hands on the sick and    
they shall recover4 ,these are the      
express words of the founder of         
,christianity1 and are contained in the 
very commission1 which he gave to his   
eleven ,apostles1 who were to promulgate
 his gospel in the world2 so that from  
their very institution it appears that  
when the miraculous signs1 therein      
spoken of1 failed1 they were considered 
as unbelievers1 and consequently no     
faith or trust to be any longer reposed 
in them or their successors4 ,for these 
signs were those which were to          
perpetuate their mission1 and were to be
 continued as the only evidences of the 
validity and authenticity of it1 and as 
long as these signs followed1 mankind   
could not be deceived in adhering to the
 doctrines which the ,apostles and their
 successors taught2 but when these signs
 failed1 their divine authority ended4  

,now if any of them will drink a dose of
 deadly poison1 which ,i could prepare1 
and it does not hurt them1 ,i will      
subscribe to their divine authority1 and
 end the dispute2 not that ,i have a    
disposition to poison anyone1 nor do ,i 
suppose that they would dare to take    
such a dose as ,i could prepare for     
them1 which1 if so1 would evince that   
they were unbelievers themselves1 though
 they are extremely apt to censure      
others for unbelief1 which according to 
their scheme is a damnable sin4         
,,secton ,,iv4 ,,prayer ,,cannot ,,be   
,,attended ,,with ,,miraculous          
,,consequences  ,prayer to ,god is no   
part of a rational religion1 nor did    
reason ever dictate it2 but1 was it duly
 attended to1 it would teach us the     
contrary4  ,to make known our wants to  
,god by prayer1 or to communicate any   
intelligence concerning ourselves or the
 universe to him1 is impossible1 since  
his omniscient mind has a perfect       
knowledge of all things1 and therefore  

is beholden to none of our              
correspondency to inform himself of our 
circumstances1 or of what would be      
wisest and best to do for us in all     
possible conditions and modes of        
existence1 in our never ending duration 
of being4 ,these1 with the infinitude of
 things1 have been eternally deliberated
 by the omniscient mind1 who can admit  
of no additional intelligence1 whether  
by prayer or otherwise1 which renders it
 nugatory4  ,we ought to act up to the  
dignity of our nature1 and demean       
ourselves1 as creatures of our rank and 
capacity1 and not presume to dictate any
 thing1 less or more1 to the governor of
 the universe2 who rules not by our     
proscriptions1 but by eternal and       
infinite reason4 ,to pray to ,god1 or to
 make supplication to him1 requesting   
certain favors for ourselves1 or from   
any1 or all the species1 is inconsistent
 with the relation which subsists       
between ,god and man4 ,whoever has a    
just sense of the absolute perfection of

 ,god1 and of their own imperfection1   
and natural subjection to his           
providence1 cannot but from thence infer
 the impropriety of praying or          
supplicating to ,god1 for this1 that1 or
 the other thing2 or of remonstrating   
against his providence3 inasmuch1 as    
known to ,god are all our wants2 and as 
we know1 that we ourselves are          
inadequate judges of what would be best 
for us1 all things considered4 ,god     
looks through the immensity of things1  
and understands the harmony1 moral      
beauty and decorum of the whole1 and    
will by no means change his purposes1 or
 alter the nature of the things         
themselves for any of our entreaties or 
threats4 ,to pray1 entreat1 or make     
supplication to ,god1 is neither more   
nor less than dictating to eternal      
reason1 and entering into the province  
and prerogative of the ,almighty2 if    
this is not the meaning and import of   
prayer1 it has none at all1 that extends
 to the final events and consequences of

 things4 ,to pray to ,god with a sense1 
that the prayer we are making will not  
be granted any more for our making it1  
or that our prayer will make no         
alteration in the state1 order or       
disposal of things at all1 or that the  
requests1 which we make1 will be no more
 likely to be granted1 or the things    
themselves conferred upon us by ,god1   
than as though we had not prayed for    
them1 would be stupidity or outright    
mockery1 or to be seen of men1 in order 
to procure from them some temporary     
advantages4 ,but on the other hand for  
us to suppose1 that our prayers or      
praises do in any one instance or more  
alter the eternal constitution of       
things1 or of the providence of ,god1 is
 the same as to suppose ourselves so far
 forth to hold a share in the divine    
government1 for our prayers must be     
supposed to effect something or nothing1
 if they effect nothing they are good   
for nothing2 but that they should effect
 any alteration in the nature of things1

 or providence of ,god1 is inadmissible3
 for if they did1 we should interfere   
with the providence of ,god in a certain
 degree1 by arrogating it to ourselves4 
,for if there are any particulars in    
providence1 which ,god does not govern  
by his order of nature1 they do not     
belong to the providence of ,god1 but of
 man2 for if in any instance1 ,god is   
moved by the prayers1 entreaties1 or    
supplications of his creatures1 to alter
 his providence1 or to do that in       
conformity thereto1 which otherwise1 in 
the course of his providence1 he would  
not have done2 then it would necessarily
 follow1 that as far as such alteration 
may be supposed to take place1 ,god does
 not govern by eternal and infinite     
reason1 but on the contrary is governed 
himself by the prayer of man4  ,our     
great proficients in prayer must need   
think themselves to be of great         
importance in the scale of being1       
otherwise they would not indulge        
themselves in the notion1 that the ,god 

of nature would subvert his laws1 or    
bend his providence in conformity to    
their prayers4 ,but it may be objected1 
that they pray conditionally1 to wit3   
that ,god would answer their prayers1   
provided they are agreeable to his      
providential order or disposal of       
things2 but to consider prayer in such a
 sense renders it1 not only useless1 but
 impertinent2 for the laws of nature    
would produce their natural effects as  
well without it1 as with it ,the sum    
total of such conditional prayer could  
amount to no more than this1 viz3 that  
,god would not regard them at all1 but  
that he would conduct the kingdom of his
 providence agreeable to the absolute   
perfections of his nature2 and who in   
the exercise of common sense would      
imagine that ,god would do otherwise8   
,the nature of the immense universality 
of things having been eternally         
adjusted1 constituted and settled1 by   
the profound thought1 perfect wisdom1   
impartial justice1 immense goodness1 and

 omnipotent power of ,god1 it is the    
greatest arrogance in us to attempt an  
alteration thereof4 ,if we demean       
ourselves worthy of a rational          
happiness1 the laws of the moral system1
 already established1 will afford it to 
us2 and as to physical evils1 prudent   
economy may make them tolerable1 or ward
 most of them off for a season1 though  
they will unavoidably bring about the   
separation of a soul and body1 and      
terminate with animal life1 whether we  
pray for or against it4  ,to pray for   
any thing1 which we can obtain by the   
due application of our natural powers1  
and neglect the means of procuring it1  
is impertinence and laziness in the     
abstract2 and to pray for that which    
,god in the course of his providence1   
has put out of our power to obtain1 is  
only murmuring against ,god1 and finding
 fault with his providence1 or acting   
the inconsiderate part of a child2 for  
example1 to pray for more wisdom1       
understanding1 grace or faith2 for a    

more robust constitution--handsomer     
figure1 or more of a gigantic size1     
would be the same as telling ,god1 that 
we are dissatisfied with our inferiority
 in the order of being2 that neither our
 souls nor bodies suit us2 that he has  
been too sparing of his beneficence2    
that we want more wisdom1 and organs    
better fitted for show1 agility and     
superiority4 ,but we ought to consider1 
that we cannot add one cubit to our     
stature1 or alter the construction of   
our organic frame2 and that our mental  
talents are finite2 and that in a vast  
variety of proportions and              
disproportions1 as our ,heavenly ,father
 in his order of nature1 and scale of   
being saw fit2 who has nevertheless for 
the encouragement of intelligent nature 
ordained1 that it shall be capable of   
improvement1 and consequently of        
enlargement2 therefore1 whosoever       
lacketh wisdom instead of asking it of  
,god1 let him improve what he has1 that 
he may enlarge the original stock2 this 

is all the possible way of gaining in   
wisdom and knowledge1 a competency of   
which will regulate our faith4 ,but it  
is too common for great faith and little
 knowledge to unite in the same person2 
such persons are beyond the reach of    
argument and their faith immovable1     
though it cannot remove mountains4 ,the 
only way to procure food1 raiment1 or   
the necessaries or conveniences of life1
 is by natural means2 we do not get them
 by wishing or praying for1 but by      
actual exertion2 and the only way to    
obtain virtue or morality is to practice
 and habituate ourselves to it1 and not 
to pray to ,god for it3 he has naturally
 furnished us with talents or faculties 
suitable for the exercise and enjoyment 
of religion1 and it is our business to  
improve them aright1 or we must suffer  
the consequences of it4 ,we should      
conform ourselves to reason1 the path of
 moral rectitude1 and in so doing1 we   
cannot fail of recommending ourselves to
 ,god1 and to our own consciences4 ,this

 is all the religion which reason knows 
or can ever approve of4  ,moses1 the    
celebrated prophet and legislator of the
 ,israelites1 ingratiated himself into  
their esteem1 by the stratagem of       
prayer1 and pretended intimacy with     
,god2 he acquaints us1 that he was once 
admitted to a sight of his back-parts6  
and that no man can see his face and    
live2 and at other times we are told    
that he talked with ,god1 face to face1 
as a man talketh with his friend2 and   
also that at times ,god waxed1 wroth    
with ,israel1 and how ,moses prayed for 
them2 and at other times1 that he       
ordered ,aaron to offer sweet incense to
 ,god1 which appeased his wrath1 and    
prevented his destroying ,israel in his 
hot displeasure6 ,these are the         
footsteps1 by which we may trace        
sacerdotal dominion to its source1 and  
explore its progress in the world4 ,and 
the ,lord said unto ,moses1 how long    
will this people provoke me8 ,i will    
smite them with the pestilence1 and     

disinherit them1 and ,i will make of    
thee a great nation1 and mightier than  
they1 but ,moses advertises ,god of the 
injury1 which so rash a procedure would 
do to his character among the nations2  
and also reminds him of his promise to  
,israel1 saying1 ,now if thou shall kill
 all this people as one man1 then the   
nations1 which have heard the fame of   
thee will speak1 saying1 because the    
,lord was not able to bring this people 
into the land1 which he swear unto them1
 therefore he hath slain them in the    
wilderness4 ,that ,moses should thus    
advise the omniscient ,god1 of          
dishonorable consequences which would   
attend a breach of promise1 which he    
tells us1 that ,god was unadvisedly     
about to make with the tribes of        
,israel1 had not his remonstrance       
prevented it1 is very extraordinary and 
repugnant to reason2 yet to an eye of   
faith it would exalt the man ,moses1 and
 make him very great2 for if we may     
credit his history of the matter1 he not

 only averted ,god's judgment against   
,israel1 and prevented them from being  
cut off as a nation1 but by the same    
prayer procured for them a pardon of    
their sin4 ,pardon1 ,i beseech thee1 the
 iniquity of this people1 and in the    
next verse follows the answer1 and the  
,lord said ,i have pardoned according to
 thy word4 ,it seems that ,god had the  
power1 but ,moses had the dictation of  
it1 and saved ,israel from the wrath and
 pestilential fury of a jealous ,god2   
and that he procured them a pardon of   
their sin1 for the ,lord thy ,god is a  
jealous ,god4 ,jealousy can have no     
existence in that mind1 which possesses 
perfect knowledge1 and consequently     
cannot1 without the greatest            
impropriety1 he ascribed to ,god1 who   
knows all things1 and needed none of the
 admonitions1 advice or intelligence of 
,moses1 or any of his dictatorial       
prayers4 ,and the ,lard hearkened unto  
me at that time also2 intimating that it
 was a common thing for him to do the   

like4 ,when teachers can once make the  
people believe that ,god answers their  
prayers1 and that their eternal interest
 is dependent on them1 they soon raise  
themselves to opulency1 rule and high   
sounding titles2 as that of ,his        
,holiness--the ,reverend ,father in     
,god--,the ,holy ,poker--,bishop of     
,souls--and a variety of other such like
 appellations1 derogatory to the honor  
or just prerogative of ,god2 as is      
,joshua's history concerning the ,lord's
 hearkening unto him at the battle of   
the ,amorites1 wherein he informs us1   
that he ordered the sun to stand still1 
saying1 ,sun stand thou still upon      
,gidaen1 and thou ,moon in the valley of
 ,ajalon1 so the ,sun stood still and   
the ,moon stayed until the people had   
avenged themselves upon their enemies2  
so the ,sun stood still in the midst of 
,heaven1 and hasted not to go down about
 a whole day2 and then adds1 by way of  
supremacy to ,himself above all others1 
and in direct contradiction to the      

before recited passages of ,moses       
concerning the ,lord's hearkening unto  
him1 or to any other man but himself1   
saying1 ,and there was no day like that 
before it1 or after it1 that the ,lord  
hearkened unto the voice of a man4      
,there is not any thing more evident    
than that if the representation given by
 ,joshua1 as matter of fact1 is true1   
those exhibited by ,moses concerning the
 ,lord's hearkening unto him are not3   
though the representations of fact by   
,moses and by ,joshua1 are allowed to be
 both canonical1 yet it is impossible   
that both can be true4 ,however1        
astronomy being but little understood in
 the age in which ,joshua lived1 and the
 earth being in his days thought to be  
at rest1 and the sun to revolve round   
it1 makes it in no way strange1 that he 
caught himself by ordering the sun to   
stand still1 which having since been    
discovered to have been the original    
fixed position of that luminous body1   
eclipses the miraculous interposition of

 ,joshua4 ,furthermore1 if we but       
reflect that on that very day ,israel   
vanquished the ,amorites with a great   
slaughter1 and chased them along the way
 that goeth to ,bethoron1 and smote them
 to ,azekah1 and unto ,makkedah1 in so  
great a hurry of war1 clashing of arms1 
exasperation and elevation of mind1 in  
consequence of such triumphant victory1 
they could make but a partial           
observation on the length of the day2   
and being greatly elated with such an   
extraordinary day's work1 ,joshua took  
the advantage of it1 and told them that 
it was an uncommon day for duration2    
that he had interposed in the system and
 prescribed to the sun to stand still   
about a whole day2 and that they had two
 days' time to accomplish those great   
feats4 ,the belief of such a miraculous 
event to have taken place in the solar  
system1 in consequence of the influence 
which ,joshua insinuated that he had    
with ,god1 would most effectually       
establish his authority among the       

people2 for if ,god would hearken to his
 voice well might man4 ,this is the     
cause why the bulk of mankind in all    
ages and countries of the world1 have   
been so much infatuated by their ghostly
 teachers1 whom they have ever1 imagined
 to have had a special influence with   
,god ,almighty4     ,,chapter ,,vii4    
,,secton ,i4 ,,the ,,vagueness ,,and    
,,unintelligibleness ,,of ,,the         
,,prophecies444  ,,render ,,them        
,,incapable ,,of ,,proving ,,revelation4
  ,prophecy is by some thought to be    
miraculous1 and by others to be         
supernatural1 and there are others1 who 
indulge themselves in an opinion1 that  
they amount to no more than mere        
political conjectures4 ,some nations    
have feigned an intercourse with good   
spirits by the art of divination2 and   
others with evil ones by the art of     
magic2 and most nations have pretended  
to an intercourse with the world of     
spirits both ways4  ,the ,romans trusted
 much to their sibylline oracles and    

soothsayers2 the ,babylonians to their  
magicians and astrologers2 the          
,egyptians and ,persians to their       
magicians2 and the ,jews to their seers 
or prophets2 and all nations and        
individuals1 discover an anxiety for an 
intercourse with the world of spirits2  
which lays a foundation for artful and  
designing men1 to impose upon them4 ,but
 if the foregoing arguments in chapter  
sixth1 respecting the natural           
impossibility of an intercourse of any  
unbodied or imperceptible mental beings 
with mankind1 are true1 then the        
foretelling of future events can amount 
to nothing more4 than political         
illusion4 ,for prophecy as well as all  
other sorts of prognostication must be  
super-naturally inspired1 or it could be
 no more than judging of future events  
from mere probability or guess-work1 as 
the astronomers ingenuously confess in  
their calculations1 by saying3 ,judgment
 of the weather1 c4 ,so also respecting 
astrology1 provided there is any such   

thing as futurity to be learned from it1
 it would be altogether a natural       
discovery2 for neither astronomy nor    
astrology claim anything of a miraculous
 or supernatural kind1 but their        
calculations are meant to be predicated 
on the order and course of nature1 with 
which our senses are conversant1 and    
with which inspiration or the mere      
cooperation of spirits is not intended  
to act as part4 ,so also concerning     
prophecy1 if it be considered to be     
merely natural1 7we will not at present 
dispute whether it is true or false7    
upon this position it stands on the     
footing of probability or mere          
conjecture and uncertainty4 ,but as to  
the doctrine of any supernatural agency 
of the divine mind on ours1 which is    
commonly called inspiration1 it has been
 sufficiently confuted in chapter sixth2
 which arguments need not be repeated1  
nor does it concern my system to settle 
the question1 whether prophecy should be
 denominated miraculous or supernatural1

 inasmuch as both these doctrines have  
been confuted2 though it is my opinion1 
that were we to trace the notion of     
supernatural to its source1 it would    
finally terminate in that which is      
denominated miraculous2 for that which  
is above or beyond nature1 if it has any
 positive existence1 must be miraculous4
  ,the writings of the prophets are most
 generally so loose1 vague and          
indeterminate in their meaning1 or in   
the grammar of their present            
translation1 that the prophecies will as
 well answer to events in one period of 
time1 as in another2 and are equally    
applicable to a variety of events1 which
 have and are still taking place in the 
world1 and are liable to so many        
different interpretations1 that they are
 incapable of being understood or       
explained1 except upon arbitrary        
principles1 and therefore cannot be     
admitted as a proof of revelation2 as   
for instance1 it shall come to pass in  
the last days1 saith ,god4 ,who can     

understand the accomplishment of the    
prophecies1 that are expressed after    
this sort8 for every day in its turn has
 been1 and will in its succession be the
 last day2 and if we advert to the      
express words of the prophecy1 to wit1  
the last days1 there will be an         
uncertain plurality of last days1 which 
must be understood to be short of a     
month1 or a year2 or it should have been
 expressed thus1 and it shall come to   
pass in the last months or years1       
instead of days3 and if it had mentioned
 last years1 it would be a just         
construction to suppose1 that it        
included a less number of years than a  
century2 but as the prophecy mentions   
last days we are at a loss1 which among 
the plurality of them to assign for the 
fulfilling of the prophecy4             
,furthermore1 we cannot learn from the  
prophecy1 in what month1 year1 or any   
other part of duration those last days  
belong2 so that we can never tell when  
such vague prophecies are to take place1

 they therefore remain the arbitrary    
prerogative of fanatics to prescribe    
their events in any age or period of    
time1 when their distempered fancies may
 think most eligible3 there are other   
prophecies still more abstruse2 to wit1 
,and one said unto the man clothed in   
linen1 which was upon the waters of the 
river1 how long shall it be to the end  
of these wonders8 and ,i heard the man  
clothed in linen1 which was upon the    
waters of the river1 when he held up his
 right hand and his left hand unto      
,heaven1 and sware by him that liveth   
forever1 that it should be for an time1 
times and an half4 ,the question1 in the
 prophecy is asked how long shall it be 
to the end of these wonders8 and the    
answer is given with the solemnity of an
 oath1 it shall be for a time1 times and
 a half4 ,a time is an indefinite part  
of duration1 and so are times1 and the  
third description of time is as         
indefinite as either of the former      
descriptions of it2 to wit1 and an half2

 that is to say1 half a time4 ,there is 
no certain term given in any or either  
of the three descriptions of the end of 
the wonders alluded to1 whereby any or  
all of them together are capable of     
computation1 as there is no certain     
period marked out to begin or end a     
calculation4 ,to compute an indefinite  
time in the single number or quantity of
 duration is impossible1 and to compute 
an uncertain plurality of such          
indefinite times is equally perplexing  
and impracticable2 and lastly1 to define
 half a time by any possible succession 
of its parts1 is a contradiction1 for   
half a time includes no time at all2    
inasmuch as the smallest conception or  
possible moment or criterion of         
duration1 is a time1 or otherwise1 by   
the addition of ever so many of those   
parts together1 they would not prolong a
 period2 so that there is not1 and      
cannot be such a part of time1 as half a
 time1 for be it supposed to be ever so 
momentous1 yet if includes any part of  

duration1 it is a time1 and not half a  
time4 ,had the prophet said half a year1
 half a day1 or half a minute1 he would 
have spoken intelligibly2 but half a    
time has no existence at all1 and       
consequently no period could ever       
possibly arrive in the succession or    
order of time1 when there could be an   
end to the wonders alluded to2 and in   
this sense only1 the prophecy is        
intelligible2 to wit1 that it will never
 come to pass4  ,the revelation of ,st4 
,john the divine1 involves the subject  
of time1 if possible1 in still greater  
inconsistencies1 viz3 ,and to the woman 
was given two wings of a great eagle1   
that she might fly into the wilderness1 
into her place3 ,where she is nourished 
for a time1 and times and half a time4  
,and the angel which ,i saw stand upon  
the sea and upon the earth lifted up his
 hands to heaven1 and sware by him that 
liveth forever and ever1 who created    
heaven and the things that therein are1 
and the earth and the things that       

therein are1 and the sea and the things 
which are therein1 that there should be 
time no longer4 ,had this tremendous    
oath been verified there could have been
 no farther disputations on the         
calculation of time and times and half a
 time1 7or about any thing else7 for its
 succession would have reached its last 
and final period at that important      
crisis when time should have been no    
longer4 ,the solar system must have     
ceased its motions1 from which we       
compute the succession of time1 and the 
race of man would have been extinct2 for
 as long as they may be supposed to     
exist1 time must of necessary           
consequence have existed also2 and since
 the course of nature1 including the    
generations of mankind1 has been        
continued from the time of the positive 
denunciation of the angel to this day1  
we may safely conclude1 that his        
interference in the system of nature1   
was perfectly romantic4  ,the apostle   
,peter1 at the first ,christian         

pentecost1 objecting to the accusation  
of their being drunk with new wine1     
explains the prophecy of the prophet    
,joel1 who prophesied of the events     
which were to take place in the last    
days1 as coming to pass at that early   
period2 his words are handed down to us 
as follows3 ,but this is that which is  
spoken by the prophet ,joel1 and it     
shall come to pass in the last days1    
saith ,god1 that ,i will pour out my    
spirit upon all flesh1 and your sons and
 your daughters shall prophecy1 and your
 young men shall see visions1 and your  
old men shall dream dreams4  ,the       
history of the out-pouring of the spirit
 at the ,pentecost1 admitting it to have
 been a fact1 would have been very      
inadequate to the prophetical           
prediction1 viz3 ,i will pour out my    
spirit upon all flesh2 the most         
favorable construction is that the      
prophet meant human flesh1 i4 e4 all    
human flesh2 but instead of a universal 
effusion of the spirit1 it appears to   

have been restricted to a select number1
 who were collected together at         
,jerusalem1 and the concourse of        
spectators thought them to be delirious2
 ,it may however be supposed1 that ,st4 
,peter was a better judge of the        
accomplishment of the prophecy than ,i  
am3 well then1 admitting his application
 of the prophecy of the last days to    
take place at the first pentecost2 it   
being now more than seventeen hundred   
years ago1 they consequently could not  
have been the last days4  ,still a query
 arises1 whether every of the           
prophecies1 which were predicted to be  
fulfilled in the last days1 must not    
have been accomplished at that time2 or 
whether any of the prophecies thus      
expressed are still to be completed by  
any events which may in future take     
place2 or by any which have taken place 
since those last days called pentecost2 
or whether any prophecy whatever can be 
fulfilled more than once2 and if so1 how
 many times2 or how is it possible for  

us1 out of the vast variety of events   
7in which there is so great a           
similarity7 which one in particular to  
ascribe to its right prediction among   
the numerous prophecies8  ,furthermore1 
provided some of the prophecies should  
point out some particular events1 which 
have since taken place1 there might have
 been previous grounds of probability1  
that such or such events would in the   
ordinary course of things come to pass2 
for instance1 it is no ways             
extraordinary1 that the prophet         
,jeremiah should be able to predict that
 ,nebuchadnezzar1 king of ,babylon1     
should take ,jerusalem1 when we consider
 the power of the ,babylonish empire at 
that time1 and the feebleness of the    
,jews4 ,the word1 which came to         
,jeremiah from the ,lord1 when          
,nebuchadnezzar king of ,babylon and all
 his army1 and all the kingdoms of the  
earth of his dominion1 and all the      
people fought against ,jerusalem1 and   
against all the cities thereof1 saying1 

thus saith the ,lord the ,god of        
,israel1 go and speak unto ,zedekiah    
king of ,judah1 and tell him thus saith 
the ,lord1 behold1 ,i will give this    
city of ,jerusalem into the hand of the 
king of ,babylon4 ,no politicians could 
at the time of the prediction be much at
 a loss respecting the fate of          
,jerusalem4 ,nor would it be at all     
evidential to any candid and ingenious  
enquirer1 that ,god had any manner of   
agency in fabricating the prophecies1   
though1 some of them should seem to     
decypher future events1 as they might1  
to human appearance1 turn out right1    
merely from accident or contingency4 ,it
 is very improbable1 or rather          
incompatible with human nature1 that the
 prophecy of ,micah will ever come to   
pass1 who predicts that they1 speaking  
of mankind1 shall beat their swords into
 plough-shares1 and their spears into   
pruning-hooks2 nation shall not lift up 
sword against nation1 neither shall they
 learn war any more4 ,some of the       

prophecies are so apparently            
contradictory1 that they contain their  
own confutation2 as for instance1 the   
prophecy of ,micaiah contained in the   
book of ,chronicles1 which probably is  
as absurd as any thing that is to be met
 with in story3 ,and when he was come   
unto the king1 the king said unto him1  
,micaiah1 shall we go to ,ramoth ,gilead
 to battle1 or shall ,i forbear8 and he 
said go ye up and prosper1 and they     
shall be delivered into your hand1 and  
the king said unto him1 how many times  
shall ,i adjure thee1 that thou shalt   
tell me nothing1 but that which is true 
in the name of the ,lord8 then he said  
,i did see all ,israel scattered upon   
the mountains1 as sheep that have no    
shepherd1 and the ,lord said1 these have
 no master1 let them return1 therefore1 
every man to his house in peace3 and the
 king said unto ,jehoshaphat1 did not ,i
 tell thee1 that he would prophecy no   
good concerning me1 but evil8 ,again he 
said1 therefore1 hear the word of the   

,lord--,i saw the ,lord sitting upon his
 throne1 and all the host of ,heaven    
standing on his right hand and on his   
left1 and the ,lord said who shall      
entice ,ahab1 ,king of ,israel1 that he 
may go up and fall at ,ramoth ,gilead1  
and one spake saying after this manner1 
and another saying after that manner2   
then there came out a spirit and stood  
before the ,lord1 and said ,i will      
entice him1 and the ,lord said unto him 
wherewith8 ,and he said ,i will go forth
 and be a lying spirit in the mouth of  
all his prophets1 and the ,lord said    
thou shalt entice him and thou shalt    
prevail2 go out and do even so4 ,now    
therefore1 behold the ,lord hath put a  
lying spirit in the mouth of these thy  
prophets and the ,lord hath spoken evil 
against thee4 ,it is observable that the
 prophet at first predicted the         
prosperity of ,ahab1 saying1 go ye up   
and prosper1 and they shall be delivered
 into your hand1 but after a little     
adjurement by the king1 he alters his   

prediction and prophecies diametrically 
the reverse4 ,what is more certain than 
that the event of the expedition against
 ,ramoth ,gilead must have comported    
with the one or the other of his        
prophecies8 ,certain it was1 that ,ahab 
would take it or not take it1 he must   
either prosper or not prosper1 as there 
would be no third way or means between  
these two2 and it appears that the      
prophet was determined to be in the     
right of it by his prophecy both ways4  
,it further appears from his prophecy1  
that there was a great consultation in  
,heaven to entice ,ahab ,king of ,israel
 to his destruction1 and that a certain 
lying spirit came and stood before the  
,lord1 and proposed to him to go out and
 be a lying spirit in the mouth of the  
king's prophets4 ,but what is the most  
incredible is1 that ,god should         
countenance it1 and give him positive   
orders to falsify the truth to the other
 prophets4 ,it appears that ,micaiah in 
his first prophecy1 viz3 ,go up to      

,ramoth ,gilead and prosper1 and they   
shall be delivered into your hand1 acted
 in concert with the lying spirit which 
stood before the ,lord1 but afterwards  
acted the treacherous part by           
prophecying the truth1 which1 if we may 
credit his account1 was in direct       
opposition to the scheme of ,heaven4    
,,secton ,,ii4 ,,the ,,contentions      
,,which ,,subsisted ,,between ,,the     
,,prophets444  ,,respecting ,,their     
,,veracity1 ,,and ,,their               
,,inconsistencies ,,with ,,one          
,,another1 ,,and ,,with ,,the ,,nature  
,,of ,,things1 ,,and ,,their ,,omission 
,,in ,,teaching ,,the ,,doctrine ,,of   
,,immortality1 ,,precludes ,,the        
,,divinity ,,of ,,their ,,prophecies4   
,whoever examines the writings of the   
prophets will discover a spirit of      
strife and contention among them2 they  
would charge each other with fallacy and
 deception2 disputations of this kind   
are plentifully interspersed through the
 writings of the prophets2 we will      

transcribe a few of those passages out  
of many3 ,thus saith the ,lord to the   
foolish prophets that follow their own  
spirit1 and have found nothing1 they    
have seen vanity and lying divination1  
saying the ,lord saith1 and the ,lord   
hath1 not sent them1 and they have made 
others to hope that they would confirm  
the word4 ,and in another place1 ,i have
 not sent these prophets1 yet they ran2 
,i have not spoken unto them1 yet they  
prophecy4 ,again1 ,i have heard what the
 prophets said1 that prophecy lies in my
 name1 saying1 ,i have dreamed1 ,i have 
dreamed1 yet they are the prophets of   
the deceit of their own hearts4 ,and    
again1 ,yea1 they are greedy dogs1 which
 can never have enough1 and they are    
shepherds that cannot understand2 they  
all look to their own way1 every one for
 his gain from his quarter4 ,it being   
the case that there was such a strife   
among the prophets to recommend         
themselves to the people1 and every art 
and dissimulation having been practised 

by them to gain power and superiority1  
all which artifice was to be judged of  
by the great vulgar1 or in some         
instances by the political views of the 
,jewish ,sanhedrim1 how could those who 
were cotemporaries with the several     
prophets1 distinguish the premised true 
prophets from the false8 ,much less1 how
 can we1 who live more than seventeen   
hundred years since the last of them1 be
 able to distinguish them apart8 ,and   
yet1 without the knowledge of this      
distinction1 we cannot with propriety   
give credit to any of them1 even        
admitting there were some true prophets 
among them4 ,nor is it possible for us  
to know but that their very institution 
was merely a reach of policy of the     
,israelitish and ,judaic governments1   
the more easily1 implicitly and         
effectually to keep their people in     
subordination1 by inculcating a belief  
that they were ruled with special       
directions from heaven1 which in fact   
originated from the ,sanhedrim4 ,many   

other nations have made use of much the 
same kind of policy4  ,in the #bb;d     
chapter of ,genesis1 we have a history  
of a very extraordinary command from    
,god to ,abraham1 and of a very         
unnatural attempt of his to obey it4    
,and it came to pass after these things 
that ,god did tempt ,abraham1 and he    
said unto him1 ,abraham1 and he said    
behold here ,i am1 and he said take now 
thy son ,isaac1 whom thou lovest1 and   
get thee to the land of ,moriah1 and    
offer him there for a burnt offering    
upon one of the mountains which ,i will 
tell thee of2 ,and they came to the     
place which ,god had told him of1 and   
,abraham built an altar there1 and laid 
the wood in order1 and bound ,isaac his 
son1 and laid him on the altar upon the 
wood2 and ,abraham stretched forth his  
hand and took the knife to slay his son4
 ,shocking attempt6 ,murder is allowed  
by mankind in general to be the most    
capital crime that is possible to be    
acted among men2 it would therefore be  

incompatible with the divine nature to  
have enjoined it by a positive command  
to ,abraham to have killed his son2 a   
murder of all others the most unnatural 
and cruel and attended with the most    
aggravating circumstances1 not merely   
from a prescribed breach of the ties of 
parental affection1 but from the        
consideration that the child was to be  
7if we may credit the command17 offered 
to ,god as a religious sacrifice4 ,what 
could have been a more complicated      
wickedness than the obedience of this   
command would have been8 and what can be
 more absurd than to suppose that it    
came from ,god8 ,it is argued1 in       
vindication of the injunction to        
,abraham to kill his son1 that it was   
merely for a trial of his obedience1 and
 that ,god never designed to have him do
 it2 to prevent which an angel from     
heaven called to him and gave him       
counter orders1 not to slay his son2 but
 to suppose that ,god needed such an    
experiment1 or any other1 in order to   

know whether ,abraham would be obedient 
to his commands1 is utterly incompatible
 with his omniscience1 who without      
public exhibitions understands all      
things2 so that had the injunction been 
in itself1 fit and reasonable1 and also 
from ,god1 the compliance or            
non-compliance of ,abraham thereto1     
could not have communicated any new idea
 to the divine mind4 ,every part of the 
conduct of mankind is a trial of their  
obedience and is known to ,god1 as well 
as the particular conduct of ,abraham2  
besides in the canonical writings1 we   
read that ,god cannot be tempted with   
evil1 neither tempteth he any man4 ,how 
then can it be1 that ,god did tempt     
,abraham8 a sort of employment which1 in
 scripture1 is commonly ascribed to the 
devil4 ,it is a very common thing to    
hear ,abraham extolled for attempting to
 comply with the supposed command of    
sacrificing his son2 but it appears to  
me1 that it had been wiser and more     
becoming the character of a virtuous    

man1 for ,abraham to have replied in    
answer to the injunction as follows1 to 
wit1 that it could not possibly have    
come from ,god2 who was the fountain of 
goodness and perfection1 and            
unchangeable in his nature1 who had     
endowed him with reason and             
understanding1 whereby he knew his duty 
to ,god1 his son1 and to himself1 better
 than to kill his only son1 and offer   
him as a religious sacrifice to ,god1   
for ,god would never have implanted in  
his mind such a strong affection towards
 him1 nor such a conscious sense of duty
 to provide for1 protect and succor him 
in all duties1 and to promote his       
happiness and well being1 provided he   
had designed that he should have laid   
violent hands on his life4 ,and inasmuch
 as the command was1 in itself1 morally 
speaking1 unfit1 and altogether unworthy
 of ,god1 he presumed that it never     
originated from him1 but from some      
inhuman1 cruel and destructive being1   
who delighted in wo1 and pungent grief2 

for ,god could not have been the author 
of so base an injunction1 nor could he  
be pleased with so inhuman and sinful a 
sacrifice4  ,moses in his last chapter  
of ,deuteronomy crowns his history with 
the particular account of his own death 
and burial4 ,so ,moses1 the servant of  
the ,lord1 died there1 in the land of   
,moab1 according to the word of the     
,lord1 and he buried him in a valley1 in
 the land of ,moab1 over against        
,bethpeor1 but no man knew of his       
sepulchre unto this day2 and ,moses was 
an hundred and twenty years old when he 
died1 his eyes were not dim1 nor his    
natural force abated1 and the children  
of ,israel wept for ,moses in the plains
 of ,moab thirty days4 ,this is the only
 historian in the circle of my reading1 
who has ever given the public a         
particular account of his own death1 and
 how old he was at that decisive period1
 where he died1 who buried him1 and     
where he was buried1 and withal of the  
number of days his friends and          

acquaintances mourned and wept for him4 
,i must confess ,i do not expect to be  
able to advise the public of the term of
 my life1 nor the circumstances of my   
death and burial1 nor of the days of the
 weeping or laughing of my survivors4   
,part of the laws of ,moses were        
arbitrary impositions upon the tribes of
 ,israel1 and have no foundation in the 
reason and fitness of things1           
particularly that in which he inculcates
 punishing the children for the         
iniquities of the father2 visiting the  
iniquities of the fathers upon the      
children1 and upon the children's       
children unto the third and fourth      
generation4 ,there is no reason to be   
given1 why the iniquity of the father   
might not as well have involved the     
fifth1 sixth and seventh generations1   
and so on to the latest posterity in    
guilt and punishment1 as the first four 
generations2 for if it was possible1    
that the iniquity of the father could be
 justly visited upon any of his         

posterity1 who were not accomplices with
 him in the iniquity1 or were not some  
way or other aiding or accessary in it1 
then the iniquity might as justly be    
visited upon any one of the succeeding  
generations as upon another1 or upon the
 generation of any indifferent person3  
for arbitrary imputations of iniquity   
are equally absurd in all supposable    
cases2 so that if we once admit the     
possibility of visiting iniquity upon   
any others than the perpetrators1 be    
they who they will1 we overturn our     
natural and scientifical notions of a   
personal retribution of justice among   
mankind4 ,it is1 in plain ,english1     
punishing the innocent for the sin of   
the guilty4 ,but virtue or vice cannot  
be thus visited or imputed from the     
fathers to the unoffending children1 or 
to children's children2 or which is the 
same thing1 from the guilty to the      
innocent2 for moral good or evil is     
mental and personal1 which cannot be    
transferred1 changed or altered from one

 person to another1 but is inherently   
connected with its respective personal  
actors1 and constitutes a quality or    
habit1 and is the merit or demerit of   
the respective agents or proficients in 
moral good or evil1 and is by nature    
inalienable1 ,the righteousness of the  
righteous shall be upon him1 and the    
wickedness of the wicked shall be upon  
him4 ,but as we shall have occasion to  
argue this matter at large in the       
twelfth chapter of this treatise1 where 
we shall treat of the imputed sin of    
,adam to his posterity1 and of          
imputative righteousness1 we will       
discuss the subject of imputation no    
farther in this place4 ,however1 the    
unjust practice of punishing the        
children for the iniquity of the father 
having been an ordinance of ,moses1 was 
more or less continued by the           
,israelites1 as in the case of ,achan   
and his children4 ,and ,joshua and all  
,israel with him took ,achan the son of 
,zorah1 and the silver and the garment1 

and the wedge of gold1 and his sons1 and
 his daughters1 and his oxen1 and his   
asses1 and his sheep1 and his tent1 and 
all that he had1 and brought them to the
 valley of ,achor1 and all ,israel      
stoned him with stones1 and burned them 
with fire1 after they had stoned them   
with stones1 and they raised over him a 
great heap of stones unto this day2 so  
the ,lord turned from the fierceness of 
his anger4 ,fierce anger is incompatible
 with the divine perfection1 nor is the 
cruel extirpation of the innocent       
family1 and live stock of ,achan1 to be 
accounted for on principles of reason4  
,this flagrant injustice of punishing   
the children for the iniquity of the    
father had introduced a proverb in      
,israel1 viz3 ,the fathers have eaten   
sour grapes and the children's teeth are
 set on edge4 ,but the prophet ,ezekiel 
in the #ahth chapter of his prophecies1 
has confuted ,moses's statutes of       
visiting the iniquities of the father   
upon the children1 and repealed them    

with the authority of thus saith the    
,lord1 which was the manner of          
expression by which they were           
promulgated4 ,but the prophet ,ezekiel  
did not repeal those statutes of ,moses 
merely by the authority of thus saith   
the ,lord1 but over and above gives the 
reason for it1 otherwise he could not   
have repealed them2 for ,moses enacted  
them as he relates1 from as high        
authority as ,ezekiel could pretend to  
in nullifying them2 so that had he not  
produced reason and argument1 it would  
have been thus saith the ,lord1 against 
thus saith the ,lord4 ,but ,ezekiel     
reasons conclusively1 viz3 ,the word of 
the ,lord came unto me again1 saying1   
what meat ye that ye use this proverb   
concerning the land of ,israel1 saying1 
the fathers have eaten sour grapes and  
the children's teeth are set on edge2 as
 ,i live1 saith the ,lord ,god1 ye shall
 not have occasion any more to use this 
proverb in ,israel4 ,behold all souls   
are mine1 as the soul of the father so  

also the soul of the son is mine2 the   
soul that sinneth it shall die1 the son 
shall not bear the iniquity of the      
father1 neither shall the father bear   
the iniquity of the son1 the            
righteousness of the righteous shall be 
upon him1 and the wickedness of the     
wicked shall be upon him1 therefore1 ,i 
will judge you1 ,o house of ,israel1    
every one according to their ways saith 
the ,lord ,god4 ,it is observable1 that 
the prophet ingeniously says1 ,ye shall 
not have occasion any more to use this  
proverb in ,israel1 implicitly          
acknowledging that the law of ,moses had
 given occasion to that proverb1 nor was
 it possible to remove that proverb or  
grievance to which the ,israelites were 
liable on account of visiting the       
iniquities of the fathers upon the      
children1 but by the repeal of the      
statute of ,moses in that case made and 
provided2 which was effectually done by 
,ezekiel3 in consequence whereof the    
administration of justice became        

disencumbered of the embarrassments     
under which it had labored for many     
centuries4 ,thus it appears1 that those 
laws1 denominated the laws of ,god1 are 
not infallible1 but have their          
exceptions and may be dispensed with4   
,under the dispensation of the law a    
breach of the ,sabbath was a capital    
offence4 ,and while the children of     
,israel were in the wilderness1 they    
found a man that gathered sticks on the 
,sabbath day1 and the ,lord said unto   
,moses1 the man shall surely be put to  
death1 and all the congregation shall   
stone him with stones without the camp2 
and all the congregation brought him    
without the camp and stoned him with    
stones1 and he died1 as the ,lord       
commanded ,moses4 ,the very institution 
of the ,sabbath was in itself arbitrary1
 otherwise it would not have been       
changed from the last to the first day  
of the week4 ,for those ordinances which
 are predicated on the reason and       
fitness of things can never change3 as  

that which is once morally fit1 always  
remains so1 and is immutable1 nor could 
the same crime1 in justice1 deserve     
death in ,moses's time 7as in the       
instance of the ,israelite's gathering  
sticks71 and but a pecuniary fine in    
ours2 as in the instance of the breach  
of ,sabbath in these times4             
,furthermore1 the order of nature       
respecting day and night1 or the        
succession of time1 is such1 as renders 
it impossible that any identical part of
 time1 which constitutes one day1 can do
 it to all the inhabitants of the globe 
at the same time1 or in the same period4
 ,day is perpetually dawning1 and night 
commencing to some or other of the      
inhabitants of the terraqueous ball     
without intermission4 ,at the distance  
of fifteen degrees of longitude to the  
east of us1 the day begins an hour      
sooner than it does with us here in     
,vermont1 and with us an hour sooner    
than it does fifteen degrees to the     
westward1 and thus it continues in      

succession round the globe1 and night as
 regularly revolving after it1          
succeeding each other in their alternate
 rounds2 so that when it is mid-day with
 us1 it is mid-night with our species1  
denominated the ,periaeci1 who live     
under the same parallel of latitude with
 us1 but under a directly opposite      
meridian2 so likewise1 when it is       
mid-day with them1 it is mid-night with 
us4 ,thus it appears that the same      
identical part of time1 which composes  
our days1 compose their nights1 and     
while we are keeping ,sunday1 they are  
in their midnight dreams2 nor is it     
possible in nature1 that the same       
identical part of time1 which makes the 
first day of the week with us1 should   
make the first day of the week with the 
inhabitants on the opposite side of the 
globe4 ,the apostle ,james speaks       
candidly on this subject1 saying1 ,some 
esteem one day above another1 others    
esteem every day alike1 let every one be
 fully persuaded in his own mind1 and   

keep the laws of the land4 ,it was      
unfortunate for the ,israelite who was  
accused of gathering sticks on the      
,israelitish ,sabbath1 that he was      
convicted of it2 for though by the law  
of his people he must have died1 yet the
 act for which he suffered was no breach
 of the law of nature4 ,supposing that  
very delinquent should come to this     
world again1 and gather sticks on       
,saturday in this country1 he might as  
an hireling receive his wages for it1   
without being exposed to a similar      
prosecution of that of ,moses2 and      
provided he should gather sticks on our 
,sunday1 his wages would atone for his  
crime instead of his life1 since modern 
legislators have abated the rigor of the
 law for which he died4  ,the barbarous 
zeal of the prophet ,samuel in hewing   
,agag to pieces after he was made       
prisoner by ,saul1 king of ,israel1     
could not proceed from a good spirit1   
nor would such cruelty be permitted     
towards a prisoner in any civilized     

nation at this day4 ,and ,samuel hewed  
,agag to pieces before the ,lord in     
,gilgal4 ,the unmanly deed seems to be  
mentioned with a phiz of religion1 viz3 
that it was done before the ,lord2 but  
that cannot alter the nature of the act 
itself1 for every act of mankind1       
whether good or evil1 is done before the
 ,lord1 as much as ,samuel's hewing     
,agag to pieces4 ,the orders which      
,samuel gave unto ,saul1 7as he says by 
the word of the ,lord7 to cut off the   
posterity of the ,amalekites1 and to    
destroy them utterly1 together with the 
cause of ,god's displeasure with them1  
are unworthy of ,god as may be seen at  
large in the #aeth chapter of the ,book 
of ,samuel1 ,spare them not1 but slay   
both man and woman1 infant and suckling1
 ox and sheep1 camel and ass4 ,the      
ostensible reason for all this1 was1    
because the ancestors of the            
,amalekites1 as long before the days of 
,samuel as when the children of ,israel 
came out of ,egypt1 which was near five 

hundred years1 had ambushed and fought  
against ,israel1 in their passage from  
thence to the land which they afterwards
 inhabited4 ,although it appears from   
the history of ,moses and ,joshua1 that 
,israel was going to disposess them of  
their country1 which is thought to be a 
sufficient cause of war in these days4  
,it is true they insinuate that the     
,lord had given the land to the children
 of ,israel1 yet it appears that they   
had to fight for it and get it by the   
hardest1 notwithstanding1 as is the case
 with nations in these days1 and ever   
has been since the knowledge of history4
  ,but be the old quarrel between       
,israel and ,amalek as it will1 it      
cannot on any principle be supposed1 the
 successors of those ,amalekites1 in the
 days of ,samuel1 could be guilty of any
 premised transgressions of their       
predecessors4 ,the sanguinary laws of   
,moses did not admit of visiting the    
iniquities of the fathers upon the      
children in the line of succession1     

farther than to the fourth generation1  
but the ,amalekites against whom ,samuel
 had denounced the wrath of ,god1 by the
 hand of ,saul1 were at a much greater  
remove from those their progenitors1 who
 were charged with the crime for which  
they were cut off as a nation4 ,nor is  
it compatible with reason to suppose1   
that ,god ever directed either ,moses or
 ,joshua to extirpate the ,canaanitish  
nations4 ,and we took all his cities at 
that time1 and utterly destroyed the men
 and the women1 and the little ones of  
every city1 we left none to remain4     
,there is not more propriety in         
ascribing these cruelties to ,god1 than 
those that were perpetrated by the      
,spaniards against the ,mexican and     
,peruvian ,indians or natives of        
,america4 ,every one who dares to       
exercise his reason1 free from bias1    
will readily discern1 that the          
inhumanities exercised towards the      
,canaanites and ,amorites1 ,mexicans and
 ,peruvians1 were detestably wicked1 and

 could not be approbated by ,god1 or by 
rational and good men4 ,undoubtedly     
avarice and domination were the causes  
of those abounding cruelties1 in which  
religion had as little to do as in the  
crusades of the holy land 7so called47  
,the writings of the prophets abound    
with prodigies1 strange and unnatural   
events4 ,the walls of ,jericho are      
represented to have fallen to the ground
 in consequence of a blast of ram's     
horns2 ,balaam's ass to speak to his    
master1 and the prophet ,elijah is said 
to have been carried off bodily into    
heaven by a chariot1 in a whirlwind4    
,strange stories6 ,but other scriptures 
tell us1 ,flesh and blood cannot inherit
 the kingdom of ,god4 ,the history of   
the affront1 which the little children  
of ,bethel gave the prophet ,elisha1 his
 cursing them1 and their destruction by 
the bears1 has the appearance of a      
fable4 ,that ,elisha should be so       
exasperated at the children for calling 
him bald head1 and telling him to go up1

 was rather a sample of ill breeding2   
most gentlemen would have laughed at the
 joke1 instead of cursing them1 or being
 instrumental in their destruction1 by  
merciless1 wild and voracious beasts4   
,though the children were saucy1 yet a  
man of any considerable candor1 would   
have made allowance for their non-age1  
for childhood and youth are vanity4 ,and
 he went up from thence unto ,bethel1   
and as he was going up by the way1 there
 came forth little children out of the  
city and mocked him1 and said unto him1 
go up thou bald-head1 go up thou        
bald-head1 and he turned back and looked
 on them1 and he cursed them in the name
 of the ,lord1 and there came forth two 
she bears out of the wood1 and tare     
forty and two children of them4 ,it     
seems by the children's address to      
,elisha1 that he was an old bald-headed 
man1 and that they had heard1 that his  
mate1 ,elijah1 had gone up a little     
before2 and as it was an uncommon thing 
for men to kite away into the air1 and  

leave the world after that sort1 it is  
likely that it excited a curiosity in   
the children to see ,elisha go off with 
himself in the same manner1 which       
occasioned their particular mode of     
speech to him1 saying1 go up bald head4 
,the writings of ,solomon1 ,song of     
,israel1 must needs have been foisted   
into the canonical volume by some means 
or other1 for no one passage therein    
gives the least intimation of           
inspiration1 or that he had any         
immediate dictation from ,god in his    
compositions1 but oh the contrary1 he   
informs us1 that he acquired his        
knowledge by applying himself to wisdom1
 to seek and to search out concerning   
all things that are done under the sun4 
,this sore travail1 says he1 has ,god   
given to the sons of men to be exercised
 therewith4 ,and since ,solomon never   
pretended to inspiration1 others cannot 
justly claim his writings to have been  
anything more than natural reasonings1  
for who can1 with propriety stamp his   

writings with divine authority1 when he 
pretended no such thing1 but the        
contrary8 ,his song of songs appears to 
be rather of the amorous kind1 and is   
supposed to have been written at the    
time he was making love to the daughter 
of ,pharaoh1 ,king of ,egypt1 who is    
said to have been a princess of         
exquisite beauty and exceeding coy1 and 
so captivated his affections that it    
made him light headed and sing about the
 joints of her thighs1 and her belly4   
,the divine legation of ,moses and the  
prophets is rendered questionable from  
the consideration that they never taught
 the doctrine of immortality1 their     
rewards and punishments are altogether  
temporary1 terminating at death2 they   
have not so much as exhibited any       
speculation of surviving the grave2 to  
this is ascribed the unbelief of the    
,sadducees of the resurrection of the   
dead1 or of an angel or spirit1 as they 
strenuously adhered to the law of       
,moses1 for they could not imagine1 but 

that their great prophet and law giver  
would have apprised them of a state of  
immortality had it been true2 and in    
this the ,sadducees seem to argue with  
force on their position of the divine   
legation of ,moses4 ,for admitting the  
reality of man's immortality1 it appears
 incredible to suppose1 that ,god should
 have specially commissioned ,moses1 as 
his prophet and instructor to the tribes
 of ,israel1 and not withal to have     
instructed them in the important        
doctrine of a future existence4         
,,secton ,,iii4 ,,dreams ,,or ,,visions 
,,uncertain ,,and ,,chimerical          
,,channel444  ,,for ,,the ,,conveyance  
,,of ,,revelation2 ,,with ,,remarks ,,on
 ,,the ,,communication ,,of ,,the ,,holy
 ,,ghost ,,to ,,the ,,disciples1 ,,by   
,,the ,,prayers ,,and ,,laying ,,on ,,of
 ,,the ,,apostles ,,hands1 ,,with       
,,observations ,,on ,,the ,,divine      
,,dictations ,,of ,,the ,,first         
,,promulgators ,,of ,,the ,,gospel1     
,,and ,,an ,,account ,,of ,,the ,,elect 

,,lady1 ,,and ,,her ,,new ,,sectary ,,of
 ,,shakers4  ,it appears from the       
writings of the prophets and apostles1  
that part of their revelations were     
communicated to them by dreams and      
visions1 which have no other existence  
but in the imagination1 and are defined 
to be the images which appear to the    
mind during sleep1 figuratively1 a      
chimera1 a groundless fancy or conceit1 
without reason4 ,our experience agrees  
with this definition1 and evinces that  
there is no trust to be reposed in them4
 ,they are fictitious images of the     
mind1 not under the control of the      
understanding1 and therefore not        
regarded at this day except by the      
credulous and superstitious1 who still  
retain a veneration for them4 ,but that 
a revelation from ,god to man1 to be    
continued to the latest posterity as a  
divine and perfect rule of duty or law1 
should be communicated through such a   
fictitious and chimerical channel1      
carries with it the evident marks of    

deception itself1 or of                 
unintelligibleness1 as appears from the 
vision of ,st4 ,paul4 ,it is not        
expedient for me doubtless to glory1 ,i 
will come to visions and revelations of 
the ,lord2 ,i knew a man in ,christ     
above fourteen years ago1 whether in the
 body ,i cannot tell1 or whether out of 
the body ,i cannot tell1 ,god knoweth   
such an one caught up to the third      
heavens4 ,and ,i knew such a man1       
whether in the body or out of the body  
,i cannot tell1 ,god knoweth how that he
 was caught up into ,paradise and heard 
unspeakable words which it is not lawful
 for a man to utter4 ,that ,god knoweth 
the whole affair1 will not be disputed1 
but that we should understand it is     
impossible1 for the apostle's account of
 his vision is unintelligible2 it       
appears that he was rather in a delirium
 or a stupor1 so that he knew not that  
whether he was in or out of the body3 he
 says he heard unspeakable words1 but   
this communicates no intelligence of the

 subject-matter of them to us2 and that 
they were not lawful for a man to utter1
 but what they were1 or wherein their   
unlawfulness to be uttered by man       
consisted1 he does not inform us4 ,his  
revelation from his own story was       
unspeakable and unlawful1 and so he told
 us nothing what it was1 nor does it    
compose any part of revelation1 which is
 to make known4 ,he is explicit as to   
his being caught up to the third heaven1
 but how he could understand that is    
incredible1 when at the same time he    
knew not whether he was in the body or  
out of the body2 and if he was in such a
 delirium that he did not know so       
domestic a matter as that1 it is not to 
be supposed that he could be a competent
 judge whether he was at the first1     
second1 third1 or fourth heaven1 or     
whether he was advanced above the       
surface of the earth1 or not4  ,that the
 apostles in their ministry were        
dictated by the ,holy ,ghost1 in the    
settlement of disputable doctrines1 is  

highly questionable4 ,forasmuch as we   
have heard that certain1 which went out 
from us have troubled you with words1   
subverting your souls1 saying1 ye must  
be circumcised and keep the law1 to whom
 we gave no such commandment1 for it    
seemed good to the ,holy ,ghost1 and to 
us1 to lay upon you no other burden than
 these necessary things4 ,acts #ae4 ,and
 after having given a history of the    
disputations concerning circumcision1   
and of keeping the law of ,moses1 and of
 the result of the council1 the same    
chapter informs us1 that a contention   
happened so sharp between ,paul and     
,barnabas1 that they parted asunder the 
one from the other4 ,had the ,holy      
,ghost been the dictator of the first   
teachers of ,christianity1 as           
individuals1 there could have been no   
disputable doctrines or controversies1  
respecting the religion which they were 
promulgating in the world or in the     
manner of doing it1 to be referred to a 
general council of the apostles and     

elders held at ,jerusalem1 for had they 
been directed by the ,holy ,ghost1 there
 could have been no controversies among 
them to have referred to the council4   
,and inasmuch as the ,holy ,ghost       
neglected them as individuals1 why is it
 not as likely that it neglected to     
dictate the council held at ,jerusalem  
or elsewhere8 ,it seems that the ,holy  
,ghost no otherwise directed them in    
their plan of religion1 than by the     
general council of the apostles and     
elders1 the same as all other           
communities are governed4 ,paul having  
passed through the upper coasts came to 
,ephesus1 and finding certain disciples1
 he said unto them have ye received the 
,holy ,ghost since ye believed8 and they
 said unto him we have not so much as   
heard whether there be any ,holy ,ghost2
 and when ,paul had laid his hands upon 
them1 the ,holy ,ghost came on them1 and
 they spoke with tongues and prophesied4
  ,the spirit of ,god is that which     
constitutes the divine essence1 and     

makes him to be what he is1 but that he 
should be dictated1 or his spirit be    
communicated by any acts or ceremonies  
of the apostles1 is by no means         
admissible2 for such exertions of the   
apostles1 so far as they may be supposed
 to communicate the holy spirit to their
 disciples1 would have made ,god passive
 in the premised act of the gift of the 
spirit2 for it must have been either the
 immediate act of ,god or of the        
apostles1 and if it was the immediate   
act of the one1 it could not have been  
the immediate act of the other4  ,to    
suppose that the act of the gift of the 
spirit was the mere act of ,god1 and at 
the same time the mere act of the       
apostles1 are propositions diametrically
 opposed to each other1 and cannot both 
be true4 ,but it may be supposed that   
the gift of the spirit was partly the   
act of ,god and partly the act of the   
apostles2 admitting this to have been   
the case the consequences would follow1 
that the act of the gift of the spirit  

was partly divine and partly human1 and 
therefore the beneficence and glory of  
the grant of the gift of the spirit unto
 the disciples1 would belong partly to  
,god and partly to the apostles1 and in 
an exact proportion to that which ,god  
and they may be supposed to have        
respectively contributed towards the    
marvellous act of the gift of the       
spirit4 ,but that ,god should act in    
partnership with man1 or share his      
providence and glory with him1 is too   
absurd to demand argumentative          
confutation1 especially in an act which 
immediately respects the display or     
exertion of the divine spirit on the    
spirits of men4  ,such delusions have   
taken place in every age of the world   
since history has attained to any       
considerable degree of intelligence2 nor
 is there at present a nation on earth1 
but what is more or less infatuated with
 delusory notions of the immediate      
influence of good or evil spirits on    
their minds4 ,a recent instance of it   

appears in the ,elect ,lady 7as she has 
seen fit to style herself7 and her      
followers1 called ,shakers2 this        
pretended holy woman began her religious
 scheme at ,connestaguna2 in the        
northwestardly part of the ,state of    
,new ,york1 about the year #agfi1 and   
has added a new sectary to the religious
 catalogue4 ,after having instilled her 
tenets among the ,connestagunites1 and  
the adjacent inhabitants1 she rambled   
into several parts of the country1      
promulgating her religion1 and has      
gained a considerable number of         
scattering proselytes1 not only in the  
,state of ,new ,york1 but some in the   
,new ,england ,states4 ,she has so      
wrought on the minds of her female      
devotees1 respecting the fading nature1 
vanity and tempting allurements of their
 ornaments 7which by the by are not     
plenty among her followers17 and the    
deceitfulness of riches1 that she has   
procured from them a considerable number
 of strings of gold beads and jewels1   

and amassed a small treasure2 and like  
most sectaries engrosses the kingdom of 
heaven to herself and her followers1 to 
the seclusion of all others4 ,she gives 
out that her mission is immediately from
 heaven1 that she travails in pain for  
her elect1 and pretends to talk in      
seventy-two unknown languages1 in which 
she converses with those who have       
departed this life1 and says1 that there
 has1 not been a true church on earth   
since the apostles days until she had   
erected hers4 ,that both the living and 
the dead must be saved in1 by1 and      
through her1 and that they must confess 
their sins unto her and procure her     
pardon1 or cannot be saved4 ,that every 
of the human race who have died since   
the apostle's time1 until her church was
 set up has been damned1 and that they  
are continually making intercession to  
her for salvation1 which is the occasion
 of her talking to them in those unknown
 tongues2 and that she gathers her elect
 from earth and hell4 ,she wholly       

refuses to give a reason for what she   
does or says3 but says that it is the   
duty of mankind to believe in her1 and  
receive her instructions1 for they are  
infallible4  ,for a time she prohibited 
her disciples from propagating their    
species1 but soon after gave them ample 
license1 restricting them1              
indiscriminately1 to the pale of her    
sanctified church1 for that she needed  
more souls to complete the number of her
 elect4 ,among other things1 she        
instructs those who are young and       
sprightly among her pupils1 to practise 
the most wild1 freakish1 wanton and     
romantic gestures1 as to that of        
indecently stripping themselves1        
twirling round1 extorting their         
features1 shaking and twitching their   
bodies and limbs into a variety of odd  
and unusual ways1 and many other        
extravagancies of external behavior1 in 
the practice of which they are said to  
be very alert even to the astonishment  
of spectators1 having by use acquired an

 uncommon agility in such twirling1     
freakish and romantic practices4 ,the   
old ,lady having such an ascendancy over
 them as to make them believe that those
 extravagant actions were occasioned by 
the immediate power of ,god1 it serves  
among them as a proof of the divinity of
 her doctrines4  ,a more particular     
account of this new sectary has been    
lately published in a pamphlet by a ,mr4
 ,rathburn1 who1 as he relates1 was for 
a time1 one of her deluded disciples1   
but after a while apostatised from the  
faith1 and has since announced to the   
world the particulars of their doctrine 
and conduct4  ,probably there never was 
any people or country1 since the era of 
historical knowledge1 who were more     
confident than they that they are acted 
upon by the immediate agency of the     
divine spirit2 and as there are facts   
now existing in a considerable tract of 
country1 and are notoriously known in   
this part of ,america1 ,i take the      
liberty to mention them1 as a knowledge 

of these facts1 together with the       
concurrent testimony of the history of  
such deceptions in all ages and nations1
 might induce my countrymen to examine  
strictly into the claim and reality of  
ghostly intelligence in general4        
,,chapter ,,viii4     ,,secton ,i4 ,,of 
,,the ,,nature ,,of ,,faith ,,and       
,,wherein ,,it ,,consists  ,faith in    
,jesus ,christ and in his ,gospel       
throughout the ,new ,testament1 is      
represented to be an essential condition
 of the eternal salvation of mankind4   
,knowing that a man is not justified by 
the works of the law1 but by the faith  
of ,jesus ,christ1 even we have believed
 in ,jesus ,christ1 that we might be    
justified by the faith of ,christ1 and  
not by the works of the law1 for by the 
works of the law shall no flesh be      
justified4 ,again1 ,if thou shalt       
confess the ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 and   
believe in thine heart that ,god hath   
raised him from the dead1 thou mayst be 
saved4 ,and again1 ,he that believeth   

and is baptized shall be saved1 but he  
that believeth not shall be damned4     
,faith is the last result of the        
understanding1 or the same which we call
 the conclusion1 it is the consequence  
of a greater or less deduction of       
reasoning from certain premises         
previously laid down2 it is the same as 
believing or ,judging of any matter of  
fact1 or assenting to or dissenting from
 the truth of any doctrine1 system or   
position2 so that to form a judgment1 or
 to come to a determination in one's own
 mind1 or to believe1 or to have faith1 
is in reality the same thing1 and is    
synonymously applied both in writing and
 speaking1 for example1 ,abraham        
believed in ,god4 ,again1 for he1       
speaking of ,abraham1 judged him        
faithful who had promised1 and again his
 faith was counted unto him for         
righteousness4 ,it is not only in       
scripture that we meet with examples of 
the three words1 to wit1 belief1        
judgment1 and faith1 to stand for the   

marks of our ideas for the same thing1  
but also all intelligible writers and   
speakers apply these phrases            
synonymously1 and it would be good      
grammar and sense1 for us to say that we
 have faith in a universal providence1  
or that we judge that there is a        
universal providence4 ,these three      
different phrases1 in communicating our 
ideas of providence1 do every one of    
them exhibit the same idea1 to all      
persons of common understanding1 who are
 acquainted with the ,english language4 
,in fine1 every one's experience may    
convince them that they cannot assent   
to1 or dissent from the truth of any    
matter of fact1 doctrine or proposition 
whatever1 contrary to their judgment2   
for the act of the mind in assenting to 
or dissenting from any position1 or in  
having faith or belief in favor of1 or  
against any doctrine1 system1 or        
proposition1 could not amount to        
anything more or less1 than the act of  
the judgment1 or last dictate of the    

understanding1 whether the understanding
 be supposed to be rightly informed or  
not3 so that our faith in all cases is  
as liable to err1 as our reason is to   
misjudge of the truth2 and our minds act
 faith in disbelieving any doctrine or  
system of religion to be true1 as much  
as in believing it to be so4 ,from hence
 it appears1 that the mind cannot act   
faith in opposition to its judgment1 but
 that it is the resolution of the       
understanding itself committed to memory
 or writing1 and can never be considered
 distinct from it4 ,and inasmuch as     
faith necessarily results from          
reasoning1 forcing itself upon our minds
 by the evidence of truth1 or the       
mistaken apprehension of it1 without any
 act of choice of ours1 there cannot be 
any thing1 which pertains to1 or        
partakes of the nature of moral good or 
evil in it4 ,for us to believe such     
doctrines1 or systems of religion1 as   
appears to be credibly recommended to   
our reason1 can no more partake of the  

nature of goodness or morality1 than our
 natural eyes may be supposed to partake
 of it in their perception of colors2   
for the faith of the mind1 and the sight
 of the eye are both of them necessary  
consequences1 the one results from the  
reasonings of the mind1 and the other   
from the perception of the eye4 ,to     
suppose a rational mind without the     
exercise of faith would be as absurd as 
to suppose a proper and complete eye    
without sight1 or the perception of the 
common objects of that sense4 ,the short
 of the matter is this1 that without    
reason we could not have faith1 and     
without the eye or eyes we could not    
see1 but once admitting that we are     
rational1 faith follows of course1      
naturally resulting from the dictates of
 reason4     ,,secton ,,ii4 ,,of ,,the  
,,traditions ,,of ,,our ,,forefathers   
,it may be objected1 that the far       
greater part of mankind believe         
according to the tradition of their     
forefathers1 without examining into the 

grounds of it1 and that argumentative   
deductions from the reason and nature of
 things1 have1 with the bulk of them1   
but little or no influence on their     
faith4 ,admitting this to have been too 
much the case1 and that many of them    
have been blameable for the omission of 
cultivating or improving their reason1  
and for not forming a better judgment   
concerning their respective traditions1 
or a juster and more exalted faith2 yet 
this does not at all invalidate the     
foregoing arguments respecting the      
nature of faith3 for though it be       
admitted that most of the human race do 
not1 or will not reason1 with any       
considerable degree of propriety1 on the
 traditions of their forefathers1 but   
receive them implicitly1 they           
nevertheless establish this one         
proposition in their minds1 right or    
wrong1 that their respective traditions 
are right1 for none could believe in    
them were they possessed of the         
knowledge that they were wrong4 ,and as 

we have a natural bias in favor of our  
progenitors1 to whose memory a tribute  
of regard is justly due1 and whose care 
in handing down from father to son such 
notions of religion and manners1 as they
 supposed would be for the well being   
and happiness of their posterity in this
 and the coming world1 naturally endears
 tradition to us1 and prompts us to     
receive and venerate it4 ,add to this1  
that the priests of every denomination  
are instant in season and out of season1
 in inculcating and instilling the same 
tenets1 which1 with the foregoing       
considerations1 induces mankind in      
general to give at least a tacit consent
 to their respective traditions1 and    
without a thorough investigation        
thereof1 believe them to be right and   
very commonly infallible1 although their
 examinations are not attended with     
argumentative reasonings1 from the      
nature of things2 and in the same       
proportion as they may be supposed to   
fall short of conclusive arguing on     

their respective traditions they cannot 
fail to be deceived in the rationality  
of their faith4  ,but after all it may  
be that some of the human race may have 
been traditionally or accidentally      
right1 in many or most respects4        
,admitting it to be so1 yet they cannot 
have any rational enjoyment of it1 or   
understand wherein the truth of the     
premised right tradition consists1 or   
deduce any more satisfaction from it1   
than others whose traditions may be     
supposed to be wrong2 for it is the     
knowledge of the discovery of truth     
alone1 which is gratifying to that mind 
who contemplates its superlative beauty4
  ,that tradition has had a powerful    
influence on the human mind is          
universally admitted1 even by those who 
are governed by it in the articles or   
discipline of their faith2 for though   
they are blind with respect to their own
 superstition1 yet they can perceive and
 despise it in others4 ,protestants very
 readily discern and expose the weak    

side of ,popery1 and ,papists are as    
ready and acute in discovering the      
errors of heretics4 ,with equal facility
 do ,christians and ,mahometans spy out 
each others inconsistencies and both    
have an admirable sagacity to descry the
 superstition of the heathen nations4   
,nor are the ,jews2 wholly silent in    
this matter2 ,o ,god the heathen are    
come into thine inheritance1 thy holy   
temple have they defiled4 ,what         
abomination must this have been in the  
opinion of a nation who had monopolized 
all religion to themselves6 ,monstrous  
vile heathen1 that they should presume  
to approach the sanctum sanctorum6 ,the 
,christians call the ,mahometans by the 
odious name of infidels1 but the        
,musslemen1 in their opinion1 cannot    
call the ,christians by a worse name    
than that which they have given         
themselves1 they therefore call them    
,christians4  ,what has been already    
observed upon tradition1 is sufficient  
to admonish us of its errors and        

superstitions1 and the prejudices to    
which a bigoted attachment thereto      
exposes us1 which is abundantly         
sufficient to excite us to a careful    
examination of our respective           
traditions1 and not to rest satisfied   
until we have regulated our faith by    
reason4     ,,secton ,,iii4 ,,our       
,,faith ,,is ,,governed ,,by ,,our      
,,reasonings444  ,,whether ,,they ,,are 
,,supposed ,,to ,,be ,,conclusive ,,or  
,,inconclusive1 ,,and ,,not ,,merely    
,,by ,,our ,,own ,,choice  ,it is       
written that ,faith is the gift of ,god4
 ,be it so1 but is faith any more the   
gift of ,god than reflection1 memory or 
reason are his gifts8 ,was it not for   
memory1 we could not retain in our minds
 the judgment which we have passed upon 
things2 and was it not for reasoning1 in
 either a regular or irregular manner1  
or partly both1 there could be no such  
thing as judging or believing2 so that  
,god could not bestow the gift of faith 
separate from the gift of reason1 faith 

being the mere consequence of reasoning1
 either right or wrong1 or in a greater 
or less degree1 as has been previously  
argued4  ,still there is a knotty text  
of scripture to surmount1 viz3 ,he that 
believeth shall be saved1 but he that   
believeth not shall be damned4 ,this    
text is considered as crowding hard upon
 unbelievers in ,christianity2 but when 
it is critically examined1 it will be   
found not to militate at all against    
them1 but is merely a ,jesuitical fetch 
to overawe some and make others wonder4 
,we will premise1 that an unbeliever is 
destitute of faith1 which is the cause  
of his being thus denominated4 ,the     
,christian believes the gospel to be    
true and of divine authority1 the ,deist
 believes that it is not true and not of
 divine authority2 so that the          
,christian and ,deist are both of them  
believers1 and according to the express 
words of the text1 shall be saved1 and a
 ,deist may as well retort upon a       
,christian and call him an infidel1     

because he differs in faith from him1 as
 a ,christian may upon the ,deist2 for  
there is the same impropriety in        
applying the cant of infidelity to      
either1 as both are believers2 and it is
 impossible for us to believe contrary  
to our judgments or the dictates of     
understanding1 whether it be rightly    
informed or not4 ,why then may there not
 in both denominations be honest men1   
who are seeking after the truth1 and who
 may have an equal right to expect the  
favor and salvation of ,god4            
,,chapter ,,ix4     ,,secton ,i4 ,a     
,,trinity ,,of ,,persons ,,cannot       
,,exist ,,in ,,the ,,divine ,,essence444
  ,,whether ,,the ,,persons ,,be        
,,supposed ,,to ,,be ,,finite ,,or      
,,infinite3 ,,with ,,remarks ,,on ,,st4 
,,athenasius',s ,,creed  ,of all errors 
which have taken place in religion1 none
 have been so fatal to it as those that 
immediately respect the divine nature4  
,wrong notions of a ,god1 or of his     
providence1 sap its very foundation in  

theory and practice1 as is evident from 
the superstition discoverable among the 
major part of mankind2 who1 instead of  
worshipping the true ,god1 have been by 
some means or other infatuated to pay   
divine homage to mere creatures1 or to  
idols made with hands1 or to such as    
have no existence but in their own      
fertile imaginations4  ,god being       
incomprehensible to us1 we cannot       
understand all that perfection in which 
the divine essence consists1 we can     
nevertheless 7negatively7 comprehend    
many things1 in which 7positively7 the  
divine essence does not and cannot      
consist4  ,that it does not consist of  
three persons1 or of any other number of
 persons1 is as easily demonstrated1 as 
that the whole is bigger than a part1 or
 any other proposition in mathematics4  
,we will premise1 that the three persons
 in the supposed ,trinity are either    
finite or infinite2 for there cannot in 
the scale of being be a third sort of   
beings between these two2 for ever so   

many and exalted degrees in finiteness  
is still finite1 and that being who is  
infinite admits of no degrees of        
enlargement2 and as all beings whatever 
must be limited or unlimited1 perfect or
 imperfect1 they must therefore be      
denominated to be finite or infinite3 we
 will therefore premise the three       
persons in the ,trinity to be merely    
finite1 considered personally and       
individually from each other1 and the   
question would arise whether the        
supposed ,trinity of finites though     
united in one essence1 could be more    
than finite still4 ,inasmuch as three   
imperfect and circumscribed beings      
united together could not constitute a  
being perfect or infinite1 any more than
 absolute perfection could consist of   
three imperfections2 which would be the 
same as to suppose that infinity could  
be made up or compounded of finiteness2 
or that absolute1 uncreated and infinite
 perfection1 could consist of three     
personal and imperfect natures4 ,but on 

the other hand1 to consider every of the
 three persons in the supposed ,trinity 
as being absolutely infinite1 it would  
be a downright contradiction to one     
infinite and all comprehending essence4 
,admitting that ,god the ,father is     
infinite1 it would necessarily preclude 
the supposed ,god the ,son1 and ,god the
 ,holy ,ghost from the god-head1 or     
essence of ,god2 one infinite essence   
comprehending every power1 excellency   
and perfection1 which can possibly exist
 in the divine nature4 ,was it possible 
that three absolute infinites1 which is 
the same as three ,gods1 could be       
contained in one and the self-same      
essence1 why not as well any other      
number of infinites8 ,but as certain as 
infinity cannot admit of addition1 so   
certain a plurality of infinites cannot 
exist in the same essence2 for real     
infinity is strict and absolute         
infinity1 and only that1 and cannot be  
compounded of infinities or of parts1   
but forecloses all addition4 ,a personal

 or circumscribed ,god1 implies as great
 and manifest a contradiction as the    
mind of man can conceive of2 it is the  
same as a limited omnipresence1 a weak  
,almighty1 or a finite ,god4  ,from the 
foregoing arguments on the ,trinity1 we 
infer1 that the divine essence cannot   
consist of a ,trinity of persons1       
whether they are supposed to be either  
finite or infinite4  ,the creed-mongers 
have exhibited the doctrine of the      
,trinity in an alarming point of light1 
viz43 ,whoever would be saved before all
 things it is necessary that he hold the
 ,catholic faith1 which faith1 except   
every one doth keep whole and undefiled1
 without doubt he shall perish          
everlastingly4 ,we next proceed to the  
doctrine1 ,the ,father is eternal1 the  
,son is eternal1 and the ,holy ,ghost is
 eternal1 and yet there are not three   
eternals but one eternal4 ,the plain    
,english is1 that the three persons in  
the ,trinity are three eternals1        
individually considered1 and yet they   

are not three eternals but one eternal4 
,to say that there are three eternals in
 the ,trinity1 and yet that there are   
not three eternals therein1 is a        
contradiction in terms1 as much as to   
say1 that there are three persons in the
 ,trinity and yet there are not three   
persons in the ,trinity4  ,the first    
proposition in the creed affirms1 that  
the ,father is eternal1 the second      
affirms that the ,son is eternal1 the   
third affirms that the ,holy ,ghost is  
eternal1 the fourth affirms that there  
are not three eternals1 and the fifth   
that there is but one eternal4  ,the    
reader will observe1 that the three     
first propositions are denied by the    
fourth1 which denies that there are     
three eternals1 though the three first  
propositions affirmed1 that there were  
three eternals by name1 viz4 the        
,father1 ,son and ,holy ,ghost4 ,the    
fifth proposition is unconnected with   
either of the former1 and is undoubtedly
 true1 viz4 but there is one eternal4   

,the ,father is ,god1 the ,son is ,god1 
and the ,holy ,ghost is ,god1 and yet   
there are not three ,gods but one ,god4 
,here again we have three ,gods by name1
 affirmed to have an existence by the   
three first propositions1 by the fourth 
they are negatived1 and the fifth       
affirms the truth again1 viz4 that there
 is but one ,god4  ,admitting the three 
first propositions to be true1 to wit1  
that there are three ,gods1 the three   
could not be one and the same ,god1 any 
more than ,diana1 ,dagan and ,moloch may
 be supposed to be the same2 and if     
three ,gods1 their essences and         
providences would interfere and make    
universal confusion and disorder4  ,the 
,father is ,almighty1 the ,son is       
,almighty1 and the ,holy ,ghost is      
,almighty1 and yet there are not three  
,almighties but one ,almighty4 ,here we 
have three ,almighties and at the same  
time but one ,almighty4 ,so that the    
point at issue is brought to this simple
 question1 viz4 whether three units can 

be one1 or one unit three or not8 ,which
 is submitted to the curious to         
determine4 ,our creed further informs   
us1 that the three persons in the       
,trinity are co-eternal together and    
co-equal1 but in its sequel we are told 
that one was begotten of the other2 and 
when we advert to the history of that   
transaction1 we find it to be not quite 
eighteen hundred years ago1 and took    
place in the reign of ,herod1 the ,king 
of ,judea1 which faith except we keep   
whole and undefined1 we have a threat1  
that without doubt we shall perish      
everlastingly4     ,,secton ,,ix4       
,,essence ,,being ,,the ,,cause ,,of    
,,identity444  ,,is ,,inconsistent      
,,with ,,personality ,,in ,,the ,,divine
 ,,nature  ,one ,god can have but one   
essence1 which must have been eternal   
and infinite1 and for that reason       
precludes all others from a             
participation of his nature1 glory1 and 
universal and absolute perfection4      
,when we speak of any being who by      

nature is capable of being rightfully   
denominated an individual1 we conceive  
of it to exist but in one essence2 so   
that essence as applied to ,god1        
denominates the divine nature2 and as   
applied to man1 it denotes an           
individual3 for although the human race 
is with propriety denominated the race  
of man1 and though every male of the    
species1 is with equal propriety called 
man1 for that they partake of one common
 sort of nature and likeness1 yet the   
respective individuals are not one and  
the same4 ,the person of ,a is not the  
person of ,b1 nor are they conscious of 
each other's consciousness1 and         
therefore the joy or grief of ,a1 is not
 and cannot be the joy or grief of ,b2  
this is what we know to be a fact from  
our own experience4 ,the reason of this 
personal distinction is founded in      
nature1 for though we partake of one    
common nature and likeness1 yet we do   
not partake of one and the same essence4
 ,essence is therefore1 in the order of 

nature1 the primary cause of identity or
 sameness and cannot be divided4  ,from 
hence we infer1 that the doctrine of the
 ,trinity is destitute of foundation1   
and tends manifestly to superstition and
 idolatry4     ,,secton ,,iii4 ,,the    
,,imperfection ,,of ,,knowledge444  ,,in
 ,,the ,,person ,,of ,,jesus ,,christ1  
,,incompatible ,,with ,,his ,,divinity  
,that ,jesus ,christ was not ,god is    
evident from his own words1 where1      
speaking of the day of judgment1 he     
says1 ,of that day and hour knoweth no  
man1 no not the angels which are in     
,heaven1 neither the ,son1 but the      
,father4 ,this is giving up all         
pretention to divinity1 acknowledging in
 the most explicit manner1 that he did  
not know all things1 but compares his   
understanding to that of man and angels2
 of that day and hour knoweth no man1 no
 not the angels which are in heaven1    
neither the ,son4 ,thus he ranks himself
 with finite beings1 and with them      
acknowledges1 that he did not know the  

day and hour of judgment1 and at the    
same time ascribes a superiority of     
knowledge to the lather1 for that he    
knew the day and hour of judgment4      
,that he was a mere creature is further 
evident from his prayer to the father1  
saying1 father if it be possible1 let   
this cup pass from me1 nevertheless1 not
 my will but thine be done4 ,these      
expressions speak forth the most humble 
submission to his father's will1        
authority and government1 and however   
becoming so submissive a disposition to 
the divine government would be1 in a    
creature1 it is utterly inconsistent and
 unworthy of a ,god1 or of the person of
 ,jesus ,christ1 admitting him to have  
been a divine person1 or of the essence 
of ,god4     ,,chapter ,x4     ,,secton 
,i4 ,,observations ,,on ,,the ,,state   
,,of ,,man1 ,,in ,,moses',s             
,,paradise444  ,,on ,,the ,,tree ,,of   
,,knowledge ,,of ,,good ,,and ,,evil1   
,,and ,,on ,,the ,,tree ,,of ,,life3    
,,with ,,speculations ,,on ,,the        

,,divine ,,prohibition ,,to ,,man1 ,,not
 ,,to ,,eat ,,of ,,the ,,fruit ,,of     
,,the ,,former ,,of ,,those ,,trees1    
,,interspersed ,,with ,,remarks ,,on    
,,the ,,mortality ,,of ,,innocent ,,man4
  ,the mortality of animal life1 and the
 dissolution of that of the vegetable1  
has been particularly considered in     
chapter three1 section four1 treating on
 physical evils4 ,we now proceed to make
 an application of those arguments1 in  
the case of our reputed first parents1  
whose mortality is represented by ,moses
 to have taken place in consequence of  
their eating of the forbidden fruit4    
,moses in his description of the garden 
of ,eden acquaints us with two          
chimerical kinds of fruit trees1 which1 
among others1 he tells us were planted  
by ,god in the place appointed for the  
residence of the new made couple2 the   
one he calls by the name of the tree of 
knowledge of good and evil1 and the     
other by the name of the tree of life4  
,and previous to his account of the     

apostacy1 he informs us1 that ,god      
expressly commanded the man and woman1  
saying1 be fruitful and multiply and    
replenish the earth and subdue it1 and  
have dominion over the fish of the sea1 
and over the fowl of the air1 and over  
every living thing that moveth upon the 
earth2 and ,god said1 behold ,i have    
given you every herb bearing seed1 which
 is upon1 the face of all the earth1 and
 every tree1 in which is the fruit of a 
tree yielding seed1 to you it shall be  
for meat4 ,again1 and the ,lord         
commanded the man saying1 of every tree 
of the garden thou mayest freely eat1   
but of the tree of knowledge of good and
 evil thou shalt not eat of it1 for in  
the day that thou eatest thereof thou   
shalt surely die4 ,and the ,lord said1  
it is not good for man to be alone1 ,i  
will make him an help meet for him2 and 
the ,lord ,god caused a deep sleep to   
fall upon ,adam1 and he slept1 and he   
took out one of his ribs1 and closed up 
the flesh instead thereof1 and the rib  

which the ,lord ,god had taken from man 
made he a woman4  ,thus it appears from 
,moses's representation of the state of 
man's innocency1 that he was commanded  
by ,god to labor1 and to replenish the  
earth2 and that to him was given the    
dominion over the creatures1 and that at
 two several times he was licensed by   
,god himself to eat of every of the     
fruit of the trees1 and of the herbage1 
except of the tree of knowledge of good 
and evil2 and because it was not good   
that the man should be alone1 but that  
he might multiply and replenish the     
earth1 our amorous mother ,eve1 it      
seems1 was formed1 who ,i dare say well 
compensated father ,adam for the loss of
 his rib4  ,this short description of   
man's state and condition in innocency1 
agrees with the state and circumstances 
of human nature at present4 ,innocent   
man was required to labor and subdue the
 earth1 out of which he was to be       
subsisted2 had a license to eat of the  
fruit of the trees1 or herbage of the   

garden1 which pre-supposeth that his    
nature needed refreshment the same as   
ours does2 for otherwise it would have  
been impertinent to have granted him a  
privilege incompatible with his nature1 
as it would have been no privilege at   
all1 but an outright mockery1 except we 
admit1 that innocent human nature was   
liable to decay1 needed nutrition by    
food1 and had the quality of digestion  
and perspiration2 or in fine1 had the   
same sort of nature as we have2 for     
otherwise he could eat but one          
belly-full1 which without digestion     
would remain the same1 and is too       
romantic to have been the original end  
and design of eating4 ,and though there 
is nothing mentioned by ,moses          
concerning his drinking1 yet it is      
altogether probable1 that he had wit    
enough to drink when he was thirsty4    
,that he consisted of animal nature is  
manifest1 not only from his being       
subjected to subdue the earth1 out of   
which he was to be subsisted1 and from  

his eating and drinking1 or his         
susceptibility of nutrition by food1 but
 also from his propensity to propagate  
his kind2 for which purpose a helpmate  
was made for him4  ,nothing could more  
fully evince1 that ,moses's innocent    
progenitors of mankind1 in that state1  
were of a similar nature to ours1 than  
their susceptibility of propagating the 
species2 and as they required nutrition1
 their nature must have had the quality 
or aptitude of digestion and            
perspiration1 and every property that at
 present we ascribe to an animal nature2
 from hence we infer1 that death1 or    
mortality1 must have been the necessary 
consequence4 ,what would have prevented 
them from having been crushed to death  
by a fall from a precipice1 or from     
suffering death by any other casualty1  
to which human nature is at present     
liable8 will any suppose that the bodies
 of those premised innocent progenitors 
of the human race were invulnerable2    
were they not flesh and blood8 surely   

they were1 for otherwise they could not 
have been male and female2 as it was    
written1 male and female created he     
them3 and inasmuch as animal life has1  
from its original1 consisted of the same
 sort of nature1 and been propagated and
 supported in the same manner1 and      
obnoxious to the same fate1 it would    
undoubtedly1 in the premised day of     
,adam1 required the same order in the   
external system of nature1 which it does
 at present1 to answer the purposes of  
animal life4  ,was it possible that the 
laws of nature1 which merely respect    
gravitation1 could be and were          
suspended1 so as not to be influential  
on matter1 our world would be           
immediately disjointed and out of order1
 and confusion would succeed its present
 regularity2 in the convulsions whereof 
animal life could not subsist4 ,so that 
not only the laws which immediately     
respect animal nature in particular1 but
 the laws which respect our solar       
system1 must have been the same in man's

 innocency1 as in his whimsically       
supposed state of apostacy2 and         
consequently1 his mortality the same4   
,from hence we infer1 that the curses1  
which ,moses informs us of in chapter   
three3 as being by ,god pronounced upon 
man1 saying1 dust thou art1 and unto    
dust thou shalt return1 could not have  
been any punishment1 inflicted as a     
penalty for eating the forbidden fruit2 
for turn to dust he must have done1     
whether he eat of it or not2 for that   
death and dissolution was the inevitable
 and irreversible condition of the law  
of nature1 which wholly precludes the   
curse1 of which ,moses informs us1 from 
having any effect on mankind4  ,the     
story of the tree of life is unnatural4 
,and there being but one of the kind1 it
 may be called an only tree1 the world  
not having produced another of the sort2
 the fruit of which1 according to       
,moses1 had such an efficacious quality1
 that had ,adam and ,eve but eaten      
thereof1 they would have lived forever4 

,and now lest he put forth his hand and 
take also of the tree of life1 and eat1 
and live forever4 ,to prevent which1    
they are said to be driven out of the   
garden1 that the eating thereof might   
not have reversed the sentence of ,god1 
which he had previously pronounced      
against them1 denouncing their          
mortality4 ,so he drove out the man1 and
 he placed at the east of the garden of 
,eden1 cherubims1 and a flaming sword1  
which turneth every way to keep the way 
of the tree of life4 ,a bite of this    
fruit it seems would have reinstated    
mankind1 and spoiled priestcraft4 ,yet  
it is observable1 that there are no     
travellers or historians1 who have given
 any accounts of such a tree1 or of the 
cherubims or flaming sword1 which       
renders its existence disputable1 and   
the reality of it doubtful and          
improbable2 the more so1 as that part of
 the country1 in which it is said to    
have been planted1 has for a long       
secession of ages been populously       

inhabited4  ,yet it may be objected1    
that the tree may have rotted down and  
consumed by time4 ,but such conjectures 
derogate from the character of the      
quality of the tree4 ,it seems1 that so 
marvellous a tree1 the fruit of which   
would have preserved animal life        
eternally1 would have laughed at time1  
and bid defiance to decay and           
dissolution1 and eternally have remained
 in its pristine state under the        
protection of the flaming sword1 as a   
perpetual evidence of the divine        
legation of ,moses1 and the reality of  
man's apostacy for ever4 ,but alas6 it  
is no where to be found1 it is perished 
from off the face of the earth1 and such
 a marvellous fruit is no more1 and     
consequently no remedy against mortality
 remains4     ,,secton ,,ii4 ,,pointing 
,,out ,,the ,,natural ,,impossibility   
,,of ,,all ,,and ,,every444  ,,of ,,the 
,,diverse ,,species ,,of ,,biped        
,,animals1 ,,commonly ,,termed ,,man1   
,,to ,,have ,,lineally ,,descended      

,,from ,,adam ,,and ,,eve1 ,,or ,,from  
,,the ,,same ,,original ,,progenitors4  
,it is altogether improbable and        
manifestly contradictory to suppose1    
that the various and diverse nations and
 tribes of the earth1 who walk upon two 
legs1 and are included under the term   
man1 have or possibly could have        
descended by ordinary generation1 from  
the same parents1 be they supposed to be
 who they will4  ,those adventurers1-who
 have sailed or travelled to the several
 parts of the globe1 inform us1 in their
 respective histories1 that they find   
the habitable part of it more or less   
populated by one kind or other of       
rational animals1 and that considered as
 tribes or nations1 there is evidently a
 gradation of intellectual capacity     
among them1 some more exalted and others
 lower in the scale of being2 and that  
they are specially diverse from each    
other with respect to their several     
animal natures1 though in most respects 
they appear to have one sort of nature  

with us1 viz3 more like us that like the
 brute creation2 as they walk erect1    
speak with man's voice1 and make use of 
language of one sort or other1 though   
many of them are more or less           
inarticulate in their manner of         
speaking3 and in many other particulars 
bear a general likeness to us4 ,they are
 nevertheless considered as distinct    
tribes or nations1 are of different     
sizes1 and as to complexion1 they vary  
from the two extremes of white and      
black1 in a variety of tawny mediums4   
,the learned nations can trace their    
genealogies1 7though somewhat incorrect7
 for a considerable time1 but are       
certain to be sooner or later lost in   
the retrospect thereon1 and those that  
are of an inferior kind1 or destitute of
 learning or science have no other      
knowledge of their genealogies1 than    
they retain by their respective         
traditions1 which are very              
inconsiderable4 ,they are likewise      
diverse from each other in their        

features and in the shape of their      
bodies and limbs1 and some are          
distinguished from others by their rank 
smell and the difference in their hair1 
eyes and visage1 but to point out the   
distinctions would exceed my design4    
,the ,ethiopians1 though of a shining   
black complexion1 have regular and      
beautiful features1 and long black hair 
7one of those female beauties captivated
 the affections of ,moses7 they differ  
very materially from the negro blacks1  
so that it appears impossible that they 
should have descended in a lineal       
succession from the same ancestors4     
,they are uniformly in their respective 
generations essentially diverse from    
each other1 so that an issue from a male
 and female of the two nations would be 
a mongrel1 partaking partly of the kind 
of both nations4 ,so also concerning the
 difference which subsists between us   
and the negroes2 their black skin is but
 one of the particulars in which they   
are different from us2 their many and   

very essential differences fully evince1
 that the white nations1 and they1 could
 not according to the law of their      
respective generations1 have had one and
 the same lineal original1 but that they
 have had their diverse kind of original
 progenitors4  ,it is true that the     
several nations and tribes of the earth1
 comprehended under the general term    
man1 notwithstanding their diversity to 
each other in bodily shape and mental   
powers1 bear a nearer resemblance to one
 another than the brute kind1 for which 
reason they are known by one common     
appellation3 though it is manifest that 
they could never have lineally descended
 from the same first parents1 whether   
their names were ,adam and ,eve1 or what
 not4  ,but inasmuch as our genealogies 
are wholly insufficient for the purpose 
of explaining our respective originals  
or any or either of them1 or to give us 
or any of us1 considered as individuals 
or nations1 who fall under the          
denomination of the term man1 any manner

 of insight or knowledge from whom we   
are lineally descended1 or who were our 
respective original ancestors1 or what  
their names were3 we must therefore     
reason on this subject from the facts   
and causes now existing1 which          
abundantly evince1 that we are of       
different kinds1 and consequently are   
not of the same lineage4  ,the          
acquaintance1 which we have had with the
 negro nation in particular1 fully      
evinces the absurdity of supposing them 
to be of the same blood and kindred with
 ourselves4 ,but that there are some    
original intrinsic and hereditary       
diversity or essential difference       
between us and them1 which cannot be    
ascribed to time1 climate1 or to mere   
contingence4  ,for that we and they are 
in nature inherently and uniformly      
diverse from each other in our          
respective constitutions and            
generations1 and have been so time      
immemorial4 ,so that the negroes are of 
a different species of rational beings  

from us1 and consequently must have had 
their distinct lineal original2 was it  
not so1 there could be no such thing as 
a mongrel or a mulatto1 who is          
occasioned by a copulation between the  
males and the females of the respective 
diverse species1 the issue partaking of 
both natures4  ,had all the nations and 
tribes of the world1 who are denominated
 rational1 been lineally descended from 
the same progenitors1 mongrelism could  
never have taken place among them1 as in
 this case they would have been all of  
the same kind3 from hence we infer1 that
 they have had their respective original
 progenitors4 ,the ,dutch colony at the 
,cape of ,good ,hope have enacted laws  
to punish with death such of their      
,dutch subjects as may be convicted of  
copulating with the ,hottentots3 for    
that their nature is adjusted to be of  
an inferior species to theirs1 so that  
mixing their nature with them would     
essentially degenerate and debase their 
own4     ,,secton ,,iii4 ,,of ,,the     

,,origin ,,of ,,the ,,devil ,,or ,,of   
,,moral ,,evil444  ,,and ,,of ,,the     
,,devil',s ,,talking ,,with ,,eve2      
,,with ,a ,,remark ,,that ,,the         
,,doctrine ,,of ,,apostacy ,,is ,,the   
,,foundation ,,of ,,christianity        
,inasmuch as the devil is represented to
 have had so great and undue an         
influence in bringing about the apostacy
 of ,adam1 and still to continue his    
temptations to mankind1 it may be worth 
our while to examine into the nature and
 manner of his being and the mode of his
 exhibiting his temptations4  ,john's   
gospel1 verse #a and #c1 the            
,christian's ,god is the creator of the 
devil and consequently the original     
cause of evil in heaven--and among men  
he planted the tree of knowledge of good
 and evil1 and knew at the time he      
planted it of the awful consequences    
that would follow4  ,but if it be       
admitted1 that the creature called the  
devil 7who must be supposed to be under 
the divine government1 as much as any   

other creature7 could become inflexible1
 and perpetually rebellious and wicked1 
incapable of a restoration1 and         
consequently subjected to eternal       
punishment 7which to me appears to be   
inconsistent with the wisdom and        
goodness of the divine government1 and  
the nature1 end and design of a         
probationary agent7 yet it would by no  
means follow from hence1 that so        
stubbornly wicked and incorrigible a    
creature would have been permitted1 by  
the providence of ,god1 to tempt1       
ensnare or seduce mankind1 by plying his
 temptations to their weak side4 ,one   
thing we are certain of1 viz4 that the  
devil does not visit our world in a     
bodily or organized shape1 and there is 
not in nature a second way1 in which it 
is possible for him to make known       
himself to us1 or that he could have    
done it to our progenitors1 nor could he
 ever have communicated to them or to   
us1 any temptations or ideas whatever1  
any otherwise than by making a proper   

application to our external senses1 so  
that we could understand him1 or receive
 the ideas of his temptations in a      
natural way4 ,for supernatural          
intercourse with the world of spirits or
 invisible beings has been shown to be  
contradictory and impossible in the     
arguments contained in the sixth        
chapter1 to which the reader is         
referred4 ,those arguments will hold    
equally good as applied to either good  
or evil spirits1 and are demonstrative  
of the utter impossibility of mankind's 
holding any manner of intercourse or    
intelligence with them4  ,but should we 
premise1 that1 according to the history 
of ,moses1 it was in the power of the   
devil to assume a bodily shape1 and that
 he did in very deed transform himself  
into the figure1 likeness and           
organization of a snake1 yet by and with
 that organ he could not have spoken or 
uttered the following articulate words1 
which ,moses charged him with1 to wit1  
,and the serpent said unto the woman1 ye

 shall not surely die1 for ,god doth    
know1 that in the day ye eat thereof1   
that your eyes shall be opened1 and ye  
shall be as ,gods knowing good and evil4
  ,who speaks the truth in the above    
passages1 the devil1 for neither the man
 nor the woman died for many years after
 they are said to have eaten of the     
forbidden fruit1 for death is the       
annihilation of life1 and they did not  
die on the day they eat4  ,as the       
serpent is by nature incapable of       
speech1 it must have put the devil into 
the same predicament2 admitting that he 
transformed himself into the same figure
 or likeness1 and consequently for want 
of the proper and adequate organs of    
speech1 he must necessarily have been   
incapable of any other language than    
that of rattling his tail1 and therefore
 could never have spoken those recited  
words unto ,eve1 or communicated any of 
his temptations unto her by language1   
while in that similitude4 ,however1     
admitting that the first parents of     

mankind were beguiled by the wiles of   
the devil to transgress the divine law1 
yet of all transgressions it would have 
been the most trivial 7considered under 
all the particular circumstances of it7 
that the mind of man can conceive of4   
,who in the exercise of reason can      
believe1 that ,adam and ,eve by eating  
of such a spontaneous fruit could have  
incurred the eternal displeasure of     
,god1 as individuals8 ,or that the      
divine vindictive justice should extend 
to their unoffending offspring then     
unborn8 ,and sentence the human progeny 
to the latest posterity to everlasting  
destruction8 ,as chimerical as ,moses's 
representation of the apostacy of man   
manifestly appears to be1 yet it is the 
very basis1 on which ,christianity is   
founded1 and is announced in the ,new   
,testament to be the very cause why     
,jesus ,christ came into this world1    
that he might destroy the works of the  
devil1 and redeem fallen man1 alias1 the
 elect1 from the condemnation of the    

apostacy2 which leads me to the         
consideration of the doctrine of        
imputation4     ,,chapter ,,xi4         
,,secton ,i4 ,,imputation ,,cannot      
,,change1 ,,alienate ,,or ,,transfer444 
,,the ,,personal ,,demerit ,,of ,,sin2  
,,and ,,personal ,,merit ,,of ,,virtue  
,,to ,,others1 ,,who ,,were ,,not       
,,active ,,therein1 ,,although ,,this   
,,doctrine ,,supposes ,,an ,,alienation 
,,thereof  ,the doctrine of imputation  
according to the ,christian scheme1     
consists of two parts2 first1 of        
imputation of the apostacy of ,adam and 
,eve to their posterity1 commonly called
 original sin2 and secondly1 of the     
imputation of the merits or             
righteousness of ,christ1 who in        
scripture is called the second ,adam1 to
 mankind1 or to the elect4 ,this is a   
concise definition of the doctrine1 and 
which will undoubtedly be admitted to be
 a just one by every denomination of    
men1 who are acquainted with            
,christianity1 whether they adhere to it

 or not ,i therefore proceed to         
illustrate and explain the doctrine by  
transcribing a short1 but very pertinent
 conversation1 which in the early years 
of my manhood1 ,i had with a            
,calvinistical divine3 but previously   
remark1 that ,i was educated in what is 
commonly called the ,armenian           
principles1 and among other tenets to   
reject the doctrine of original sin1    
this was the point at issue between the 
clergyman and me4 ,in my turn ,i opposed
 the doctrine of original sin with      
philosophical reasonings1 and as ,i     
thought had confuted the doctrine4 ,the 
reverend gentleman heard me through     
patiently1 and with candor replied1 your
 metaphysical reasonings are not to the 
purpose2 inasmuch as you are a          
,christian1 and hope and expect to be   
saved by the imputed righteousness of   
,christ to you2 for you may as well be  
imputedly sinful as imputedly righteous4
 ,nay1 said he1 if you hold to the      
doctrine of satisfaction and atonement  

by ,christ1 by so doing you pre-suppose 
the doctrine of apostacy or original sin
 to be in fact true2 for said he1 if    
mankind were not in a ruined and        
condemned state by nature1 there could  
have been no need of a redeemer1 but    
each individual would have been         
accountable to his creator and judge1   
upon the basis of his own moral agency4 
,further observing1 that upon           
philosophical principles it was         
difficult to account for the doctrine of
 original sin1 or original              
righteousness1 yet as they were plain   
fundamental doctrines of the ,christian 
faith1 we ought to assent to the truth  
of them1 and that from the divine       
authority of revelation4                
,notwithstanding1 said he1 if you will  
give me a philosophical explanation of  
original imputed righteousness1 which   
you profess to believe1 and expect      
salvation by1 then ,i will return you a 
philosophical explanation of the        
doctrine of original sin2 for it is     

plain1 said he1 that your objections lie
 with equal weight against original     
imputed righteousness1 as against       
original imputed sin4 ,upon which ,i had
 the candor to acknowledge to the worthy
 ecclesiastic1 that upon the ,christian 
plan1 ,i perceived that the argument had
 fairly terminated against me4 ,for at  
that time ,i dared not distrust the     
infallibility of revelation1 much more  
to dispute it4 ,however1 this           
conversation was uppermost in my mind   
for several months after1 and after many
 painful searches and researches after  
the truth respecting the doctrine of    
imputation1 resolved at all events to   
abide the decision of rational argument 
in the premises1 and on a full          
examination of both parts of the        
doctrine1 rejected the whole2 for on a  
fair scrutiny ,i found1 that ,i must    
concede to it entirely or not at all1 or
 else believe inconsistently as the     
clergyman had argued4  ,having opened   
and explained the doctrine1 we proceed  

argumentatively to consider it4         
,imputation of sin or righteousness     
includes an alteration or transferring  
of the personal merits or demerits of   
sin or righteousness1 from those who may
 be supposed to have been active in the 
one or the other1 to others1 who are    
premised not to have been active        
therein1 otherwise it would not answer  
the ,bible notion of imputation4 ,for if
 sin or righteousness1 vice or virtue1  
are imputable only to their respective  
personal proficients or actors1 in this 
case original sin must have been imputed
 to ,adam and ,eve1 to the exclusion of 
their posterity1 and the righteousness  
of ,christ as exclusively imputed to    
himself1 precluding all others          
therefrom2 so that both the sin of the  
first ,adam and the righteousness of the
 second1 would1 on this stating of      
imputation1 have been matters which     
respect merely the agency1 of the       
demerits or merits of the two respective
 ,adams themselves1 and in which we     

could have had no blame1 reward or      
concern1 any more than in the building  
of ,babel4  ,this then is the question  
that determines the sequel of the       
dispute for or against the doctrine of  
imputation1 viz4 whether the personal   
merit or demerit of mankind1 that is to 
say1 their virtue or vice1 righteousness
 or wickedness can be alienated1 imputed
 to1 or transferred from one person to  
another1 or not8 ,if any should object  
against this stating of the question now
 in dispute1 it would be the same in    
reality as disputing against the        
doctrine of imputation itself1 for      
imputation must transfer or change the  
personal merit or demerit of the sin or 
righteousness of mankind or not do it2  
if it does not do it1 the whole notion  
of original sin or of righteousness1 as 
being imputed from the first and second 
,adams to mankind1 is without           
foundation1 consequently1 if there is   
any reality in the doctrine of          
imputation1 it must needs transfer or   

change the guilt of original sin1 or of 
the apostacy of ,adam and ,eve1 to their
 posterity1 or otherwise they could need
 no atonement or imputative             
righteousness1 as a remedy therefrom1   
but every individual of mankind would   
have stood accountable to their creator 
and judge on the basis of their own     
moral agency1 which is undoubted the    
true state of the case1 respecting all  
rational and accountable beings2 so that
 if the transferring of the individual  
merits or demerits of one person to     
another1 is not contained in the act or 
doctrine of imputation1 it contains     
nothing at all1 but is a sound without a
 meaning1 and after all the talk which  
has been in the world about it1 we must 
finally adopt to old proverb1 viz4 every
 tub stands upon its own bottom4        
,,secton ,,ii4 ,,the ,,moral ,,rectitude
 ,,of ,,things ,,forecloses444  ,,the   
,,act ,,of ,,imputation4  ,imputation   
confounds virtue and vice1 and saps the 
very foundation of moral government1    

both divine and human4 ,abstract the    
idea of personal merit and demerit1 from
 the individuals of mankind1 justice    
would be totally blind1 and truth would 
be nullified1 or at least excluded from 
any share in the administration of      
government4 ,admitting that moral good  
and evil has taken place in the system  
of rational agents1 yet1 on the position
 of imputation1 it would be impossible1 
that a retribution of justice should be 
made to them by ,god or by man1 except  
it be according to their respective     
personal merits and demerits2 which     
would fix upon the basis of our own     
moral agency and accountability1 and    
preclude the imputation of righteousnes4
  ,truth respects the reality of things1
 as they are in their various           
complicated and distinct natures1 and   
necessarily conforms to all facts and   
realities4 ,it exists in1 by and with   
every thing that does exist1 and that   
which does not and cannot exist1 is     
fictitious and void of truth1 as is the 

doctrine of imputation4 ,it is a truth  
that some of the individuals of mankind 
are virtuous1 and that others are       
vicious1 and it is a truth1 that the    
former merit peace of conscience and    
praise1 and the latter horror of        
conscience and blame2 for ,god has so   
constituted the nature of things1 that  
moral goodness1 naturally and           
necessarily tends to happiness in a     
moral sense1 and moral evil as          
necessarily tends to the contrary2 and  
as truth respects every thing1 as being 
what it is1 it respects nature1 as ,god 
has constituted it1 with its tendencies1
 dispositions1 aptitudes and laws2 and  
as the tendency of virtue is to mental  
happiness1 and vice the contrary1 they  
fall under the cognizance of truth1 as  
all other facts necessarily do2 which   
tendencies will for ever preclude       
imputation1 by making us morally happy  
or miserable according to our works4    
,truth respects the eternal rules of    
unalterable rectitude and fitness1 which

 comprehends all virtue1 goodness and   
true happiness2 and as sin and          
wickedness is no other but a deviation  
from the rules of eternal unerring order
 and reason1 so truth respects it as    
unreasonable1 unfit1 unrighteous and    
unhappy deviation from moral rectitude1 
naturally tending to misery4 ,this order
 of nature1 comprehended under the terms
 of truth1 must have been of all others 
the wisest and best2 in fine it must    
have been absolutely perfect2 for this  
order and harmony of things1 could not  
have resulted from anything short of    
infinite wisdom1 goodness and power1 by 
which it is also upheld2 and all just   
ideas of equity1 or of natural and moral
 fitness must be learned from nature1   
and predicated on it2 and nature        
predicated on the immutable perfection  
of a ,god2 and to suppose that          
imputation1 in any one instance has     
taken place1 is the same as to suppose1 
that the eternal order1 truth1 justice1 
equity and fitness of things has been   

changed1 and if so1 the ,god of nature  
must needs have been a changeable being1
 and liable to alter his justice or     
order of nature1 which is the same      
thing2 for without the alteration of    
nature1 and the tendency of it1 there   
could be no such thing as imputation1   
but every of the individuals of mankind 
would be ultimately happy or miserable1 
according as their respective           
proficiencies may be supposed to be     
either good or evil1 agreeable to the   
order and tendency of nature before     
alluded to4 ,for all rational and       
accountable agents must stand or fall   
upon the principles of the law of       
nature1 except imputation alters the    
nature and tendency of things2 of which 
the immutability of a ,god cannot admit4
 ,from what has been already argued on  
this subject1 we infer1 that as certain 
as the individuals of mankind are the   
proprietors of their own virtues or     
vices1 so certain1 the doctrine of      
imputation cannot be true4 ,furthermore1

 the supposed act or agency of imputing 
or transferring the personal merit or   
demerit of moral good or evil1 alias1   
the sin of the first ,adam1 or the      
righteousness of the second ,adam1 to   
others of mankind1 cannot be the act or 
exertion of either the first or second  
,adam1 from whom original sin and       
righteousness is said to have been      
imputed4 ,nor can it be the act or      
doings of those individuals1 to whom the
 supposed merit or demerit of original  
sin or righteous is premised to be      
imputed2 so that both ,adam and each    
individual of mankind are wholly        
excluded from acting any part in the    
premised act of imputation2 and are     
supposed to be altogether passive in the
 matter1 and consequently it necessarily
 follows1 that if there ever was such an
 act as that of imputation1 it must have
 been the immediate and sovereign act of
 ,god1 to the preclusion of the praise  
or blame of man ,but to suppose1 that   
,god can impute the virtue or vice of   

the person of ,a1 to be the virtue or   
vice of the person of ,b1 is the same as
 to suppose that ,god can impute or     
change truth into falsehood1 or         
falsehood into truth1 or that he can    
reverse the nature of moral rectitude   
itself1 which is inadmissable4 ,but     
admitting1 that imputation was in the   
power and at the option of man1 it is   
altogether probable that they would have
 been very sparing in imputing merit and
 happiness1 but might nevertheless have 
been vastly liberal in imputing demerit 
and misery1 from one to another1 which  
is too farcical4     ,,secton ,,iii4    
,,containing ,,remarks ,,on ,,the       
,,atonement444  ,,and ,,satisfaction    
,,for ,,original ,,sin  ,the doctrine of
 imputation is in every point of view   
incompatible with the moral perfections 
of ,god4 ,we will premise1 that the race
 of ,adam in their respective           
generations was guilty of the apostacy1 
and obnoxious to the vindictive justice 
and punishment of ,god1 and accordingly 

doomed to either an eternal or temporary
 punishment therefore1 which is the     
,bible representation of the matter4    
,what possibility could there have been 
of reversing the divine decree8 ,it must
 be supposed to have been just1 or it   
could not have had the divine sanction1 
and if so1 a reversal of it would be    
unjust4 ,but it would be still a greater
 injustice to lay the blame and         
vindictive punishment of a guilty race  
of condemned sinners upon an innocent   
and inoffensive being1 for in this case 
the guilty would be exempted from their 
just punishment1 and the innocent       
unjustly suffer for it1 which holds up  
to view two manifest injustices2 the    
first consists in not doing justice to  
the guilty1 and the second in actually  
punishing the innocent1 which instead of
 atoning for sin1 would add sin to sin1 
or injustice to injustice2 and after    
all1 if it was ever just1 that the race 
of ,adam should have been punished for  
the imputed sin of their premised       

original ancestor1 be that punishment   
what it will1 it is so still1           
notwithstanding the atonement1 for the  
eternal justice and reason of things can
 never1 be altered4 ,this justice always
 defeats the possibility of satisfaction
 for sin by way of a mediator4  ,that   
physical evils may and have been        
propagated by natural generation1 none  
can dispute1 for that the facts         
themselves are obvious4 ,but that moral 
evil can be thus propagated1 is         
altogether chimerical1 for we are not   
born criminals4     ,,secton ,,iv4      
,,remarks ,,on ,,redemption1 ,,wrought  
,,out ,,by ,,inflicting444  ,,the       
,,demerits ,,of ,,sin ,,upon ,,the      
,,innocent1 ,,would ,,be ,,unjust1 ,,and
 ,,that ,,it ,,could ,,contain ,,no     
,,mercy ,,or ,,goodness ,,to ,,the      
,,universality ,,of ,,being  ,the       
practice of imputing one person's crime 
to another1 in capital offences among   
men1 so that the innocent should suffer 
for the guilty1 has never yet been      

introduced into any court of judicature 
in the world1 or so much as practised in
 any civilized country2 and the manifest
 reason in this1 as in all other cases  
of imputation1 is the same1 viz4 it     
confounds personal merit and demerit4   
,the murderer ought to suffer for the   
demerit of his crime1 but if the court  
exclude the idea of personal demerit    
7guilt being always the inherent        
property of the guilty and of them only7
 they might as well sentence one person 
to death for the murder as another3 for 
justice would be wholly blind was it not
 predicated on the idea of the fact of a
 personal demerit1 on the identical     
person who was guilty of the murder3 nor
 is it possible to reward merit         
abstractly considered from its personal 
agents4 ,these are facts that           
universally hold good in human          
government4 ,the same reasons cannot    
fail to hold good in the divine mind as 
in that of the human1 for the rules of  
justice are essentially the same whether

 applied to the one or to the other1    
having their uniformity in the eternal  
truth and reason of things4  ,but it is 
frequently objected1 that inasmuch as   
one person can pay1 satisfy and         
discharge a cash debt for another1      
redeem him from prison and set him at   
liberty1 therefore ,jesus ,christ might 
become responsible for the sins of      
mankind1 or of the elect1 and by        
suffering their punishments atone for   
them and free them from their           
condemnation4 ,but it should be         
considered1 that comparisons darken or  
reflect light upon an argument according
 as they are either pertinent or        
impertinent thereto2 we will therefore  
examine the comparison1 and see if it   
will with propriety apply to the        
atonement4  ,upon the ,christian scheme1
 ,christ the ,son was ,god1 and equal   
with ,god the ,father1 or with ,god the 
,holy ,ghost1 and therefore original sin
 must be considered to be an offence    
equally against each of the persons of  

the premised ,trinity1 and being of a   
criminal nature could not be discharged 
or satisfied by cash or produce1 as     
debts of a civil contract are1 but by   
suffering2 and it has already been      
proved to be inconsistent with the      
divine or human government1 to inflict  
the punishment of the guilty upon the   
innocent1 though one man may discharge  
another's debt in cases where lands1    
chattels or cash are adequate to it2 but
 what capital offender was ever         
discharged by such commodities8  ,still 
there remains a difficulty on the part  
of ,christianity1 in accounting for one 
of the persons in the premised ,trinity 
satisfying a debt due to the impartial  
justice of the unity of the three       
persons4 ,for ,god the ,son to suffer   
the condemnation of guilt in behalf of  
man1 would not only be unjust in itself1
 but incompatible with his divinity1 and
 the retribution of the justice of the  
premised ,trinity of persons in the     
god-head 7of whom ,god the ,son must be 

admitted to be one7 toward mankind2 for 
this would be the same as to suppose    
,god to be judge1 criminal and          
executioner1 which is inadmissible4     
,but should we admit for argument's     
sake1 that ,god suffered for original   
sin1 yet taking into one complex idea   
the whole mental system of beings1      
universally1 both finite and infinite1  
there could have been no display of     
grace1 mercy1 or goodness to being in   
general1 in such a supposed redemption  
of mankind2 inasmuch as the same        
quantity or degree of evil is supposed  
to have taken place upon being1         
universally considered1 as would have   
taken place1 had finite individuals1 or 
the race of ,adam1 suffered according to
 their respective demerits4  ,should we 
admit that there is a ,trinity of       
persons in the divine essence1 yet the  
one could not suffer without the other1 
for essence cannot be divided in        
suffering1 any more than in enjoyment4  
,the essence of ,god is that which      

includes the divine nature1 and the same
 identical nature must necessarily      
partake of the same glory1 honor1 power1
 wisdom1 goodness and absolute uncreated
 and unlimited perfection1 and is       
equally exempted from weakness and      
suffering4 ,therefore1 as certain as    
,christ suffered he was not ,god1 but   
whether he is supposed to be ,god or    
man1 or both1 he could not in justice   
have suffered for original sin1 which   
must have been the demerit of its       
perpetrators as before argued4          
,supposing ,christ to have been both    
,god and man1 he must have existed in   
two distinct essences1 viz4 the essence 
of ,god and the essence of man4 ,and if 
he existed in two distinct and separate 
essences1 there could be no union       
between the divine and human natures4   
,but if there is any such thing as an   
hypostatical union between the divine   
and human natures1 it must unite both in
 one essence1 which is impossible3 for  
the divine nature being infinite1 could 

admit of no addition or enlargement and 
consequently cannot allow of a union    
with any nature whatever4 ,was such an  
union possible in itself1 yet1 for a    
superior nature to unite with an        
inferior one in the same essence1 would 
be degrading to the former1 as it would 
put both natures on a level by          
constituting an identity of nature3 the 
consequences whereof would either deify 
man1 or divest ,god of his divinity1 and
 reduce him to the rank and condition of
 a creature2 inasmuch as the united     
essence must be denominated either      
divine or human4     ,,chapter ,,xii4   
,,secton ,i4 ,,of ,,the ,,impossibility 
,,of ,,translating ,,an ,,infallible444 
,,revelation ,,from ,,its ,,original    
,,copies1 ,,and ,,preserving ,,it       
,,entire ,,through ,,all ,,the          
,,revolutions ,,of ,,the ,,world1 ,,and 
,,vicissitudes ,,of ,,human ,,learning  
,,to ,,our ,,time  ,admitting for       
argument sake that the ,scriptures of   
the ,old and ,new ,testament were       

originally of divine supernatural       
inspiration1 and that their first       
manuscript copies were the infallible   
institutions of ,god1 yet to trace them 
from their respective ancient dead      
languages1 and different and diverse    
translations1 from the obscure          
hieroglyphical pictures of characters1  
in which they were first written1       
through all the vicissitudes and        
alterations of human learning1          
prejudices1 superstitions1 enthusiasms  
and diversities of interests and        
manners1 to our time1 so as to present  
us with a perfect edition from its      
premised infallible original manuscript 
copies would be impossible4 ,the various
 and progressive methods of learning1   
with the insurmountable difficulties of 
translating any supposed antiquated     
written revelation would not admit of   
it1 as the succeeding observations on   
language and grammar will fully evince4 
,in those early ages of learning1       
hieroglyphics were expressive of ideas2 

for instance1 a snake quirled 7a        
position common to that venomous        
reptile7 was an emblem of eternity1 and 
the picture of a lion1 a representation 
of power1 and so every beast1 bird1     
reptile1 insect and fish1 had in their  
respective pictures1 particular ideas   
annexed to them1 which varied with the  
arbitrary custom and common consent of  
the several separate nations1 among whom
 this way of communicating ideas was    
practised1 in some sense analogous to   
what is practised at this day by        
different nations1 in connecting        
particular ideas to certain sounds or   
words written in characters1 which      
according to certain rules of grammar   
constitute the several languages4 ,but  
the hieroglyphical manner of writing by 
living emblems1 and perhaps in some     
instances by other pictures1 was very   
abstruse1 and inadequate to communicate 
that multiplicity and diversity of ideas
 which are requisite for the purpose of 
history1 argumentation or general       

knowledge in any of the sciences or     
concerns of life2 which mystical way of 
communicating ideas underwent a variety 
of alterations and improvements1 though 
not so much as that of characters and   
grammar has done2 for in the            
hieroglyphical way of communicating     
their ideas1 there was no such thing as 
spelling1 or what is now called         
orthography1 which has been perpetually 
refining and altering1 ever since       
characters1 syllables1 words or grammar 
have been brought into use1 and which   
will admit of correction and improvement
 as long as mankind continue in the     
world4 ,for which reason the original of
 all languages is absorbed and lost in  
the multiplicity of alterations and     
refinements1 which have in all ages     
taken place1 so that it is out of the   
power of all ,etymologists and          
,lexieonists now living1 to explain the 
ideas1 which were anciently connected   
with those hieroglyphical figures or    
words1 and which may have composed the  

original of any language1 written in    
characters1 in those obsolete and       
antiquated ages1 when learning and      
science were in their infancy3 since the
 beneficial1 art of printing has arrived
 to any considerable degree of          
perfection1 the etymology of words1 in  
the scientifical and learned languages1 
has been considerably well understood3  
though imperfectly1 as the various      
opinions of the learned concerning it   
may witness4 ,but since the era of      
printing1 the knowledge of the ancient  
learning has been in a great measure1 or
 in most respects1 wholly lost2 and     
inasmuch as the modern substitute is    
much better1 it is no loss at all4 ,some
 of the old ,english authors are at this
 day quite unintelligible1 and others in
 their respective latter publications1  
more or less so4 ,the last century and a
 half has done more towards the         
perfecting of grammar1 and purifying the
 languages than the world had ever done 
before4  ,i do not understand ,latin1   

,greek or ,hebrew1 in which languages1  
it is said1 that the several original   
manuscripts of the ,scriptures were     
written2 but ,i am informed by the      
learned therein1 that1 the other        
languages1 they have gone through their 
respective alterations and refinements1 
which must have been the case1 except   
they reached their greatest perfection  
in their first composition2 of which the
 progressive condition of man could not 
admit4 ,so that the learned in those    
languages1 at this day1 know but little 
or nothing how they were spoken or      
written when the first manuscript copies
 of the ,scriptures were composed2 and  
consequently1 are not able to inform us1
 whether their present translations do1 
any of them1 perfectly agree with their 
respective original premised infallible 
manuscript copies or not4 ,and inasmuch 
as the several ,english translations of 
the ,bible do materially differ from    
each other1 it evinces the confused and 
blundering condition in which it has    

been handed down to us4  ,the clergy    
often informs us from the desk1 that the
 translation of the ,bible1 which is now
 in use in this country1 is erroneous1  
after having read such and such a       
passage of it1 in either ,latin1 ,greek 
or ,hebrew1 they frequently give us to  
understand1 that instead of the present 
translation1 it should have been        
rendered thus and thus in ,english1 but 
never represent to us how it was read   
and understood in the antiquated and    
mystical figures or characters of those 
languages1 when the manuscripts of      
,scripture were first written1 or how it
 has been preserved and handed down     
entire1 through every refinement of     
those languages1 to the present         
condition of ,latin1 ,greek and ,hebrew4
 ,probably this is too abstruse a series
 of retrospective learning for their    
scholarship1 and near or quite as       
foreign from their knowledge as from    
that of their hearers499  ,it is not to 
be supposed that all the alterations    

which have taken place in language1 have
 been merely by improving it4 ,in many  
instances1 ignorance1 accident or custom
 has varied it to its disadvantage1 but 
it has nevertheless been subject to     
correction1 and generally speaking has  
been altered for the better1 yet1 by one
 means or other has been so fluctuating 
and unstable1 as that an infallible     
revelation could not have been genuinely
 preserved1 through all the vicissitudes
 and revolutions of learning1 for more  
than seventeen hundred years last past  
to this day4  ,the diversity of the     
,english language is represented with   
great accuracy by ,mr4 ,samuel ,johnson1
 the celebrated lexicographer1 in the   
samples of different ages1 in his       
history of the ,english language1       
subjoined to the preface of the         
dictionary1 to which the curious are    
referred for the observance of the      
various specimens4     ,,secton ,,ii4   
,,the ,,variety ,,of ,,annotations ,,and
 ,,expositions444  ,,of ,,the           

,,scriptures1 ,,together ,,with ,,the   
,,diversity ,,of ,,sectaries ,,evinces  
,,their ,,fallibility4  ,every          
commentary and annotation on the ,bible1
 implicitly declares its fallibility2   
for if the ,scriptures remained genuine 
and entire1 they would not stand in need
 of commentaries and expositions1 but   
would shine in their infallible lustre  
and purity without them4 ,what an idle  
phantom it is for mortals to assay to   
illustrate and explain to mankind1 that 
which ,god may be supposed to have      
undertaken to do1 by the immediate      
inspiration of his spirit8 ,do they     
understand how to define or explain it  
better than ,god may be supposed to have
 done8 ,this is not supposable2 upon    
what ground then do these multiplicity  
of comments arise1 except it be         
pre-supposed that the present           
translations of the ,bible have1 by some
 means or other1 become fallible and    
imperfect1 and therefore need to be     
rectified and explained8 and if so1 it  

has lost the stamp of divine authority2 
provided in its original composition it 
may be supposed to have been possessed  
of it4  ,to construe or spiritualize tie
 ,bible is the same as to inspire it    
over again1 by the judgment1 fancy or   
enthusiasm of men2 and thus the common  
people1 by receiving ,god's supposed    
revelation at secondary hands 7whether  
at the thousandth or ten thousandth     
remove from its first premised          
inspiration they know not7 cannot in    
fact be taught by the revelation of     
,god4 ,add to this the diverse and      
clashing expositions of the ,bible1     
among which are so many flagrant proofs 
of the fallibility and uncertainty of   
such teachings1 as must convince even   
bigots1 that every one of these         
expositions are erroneous1 except their 
own6  ,it has been owing to different   
comments on the ,scriptures1 that       
,christians have been divided into      
sectaries4 ,every commentator1 who could
 influence a party to embrace his       

comment1 put himself1 at the head of a  
division of ,christians2 as ,luther1    
,calvin1 and ,arminius1 laid the        
foundation of the sectaries who bear    
their names2 and the ,socinians were    
called after the ,scismatical ,socinius2
 the same may be said of each of the    
sectaries4 ,thus it is that different   
commentaries or acceptations of the     
original meaning of the ,scriptures1    
have divided the ,christian world into  
divisions and subdivisions of which it  
consists at present4 ,nor was there ever
 a division or subdivision among ,jews1 
,christians or ,mahometans1 respecting  
their notions or opinions of religion1  
but what was occasioned by commentating 
on the ,scriptures1 or else by latter   
pretended inspired revelations from ,god
 in addition thereto4 ,the law of ,moses
 was the first pretended immediate      
revelation from ,god1 which respects the
 ,bible1 and after that in succession   
the several revelations of the prophets1
 and last of all 7in the ,christian     

system7 the revelations of ,jesus       
,christ and apostles1 who challenged a  
right of abolishing the priesthood of   
,moses2 ,christ claiming to be the      
antitype of which the institution of    
sacrifices and ceremonial part of the   
law of ,moses was emblematical2 but this
 infringement of the prerogative of the 
,levitical priests gave such offence1   
not only to them1 but to the ,jews as a 
nation1 that they rejected              
,christianity1 and have not subscribed  
to the divine authority of it to this   
day1 holding to the law of ,moses and   
the prophets4 ,however ,christianity    
made a great progress in the world1 and 
has been very much divided into         
sectaries1 by the causes previously     
assigned4  ,mahomet taking notice of the
 numerous sects and divisions among     
,christians1 in his journies to         
,palestine1 c1 thought it would not be  
difficult to introduce a new religion1  
and make himself high priest and        
sovereign of the people4 ,this he       

finally effected1 prosecuting his scheme
 so far1 that he new modelled the       
,scriptures1 presenting them1 7as he    
said17 in their original purity1 and    
called his disciples after his own name4
 ,he gained great numbers of proselytes 
and became their sovereign in civil1    
military and spiritual matters1         
instituted the order of mystical        
priesthood1 and gave the world a new    
,bible by the name of the ,alcoran2     
which he gives us to understand was     
communicated to him from ,god1 by the   
intermediate agency of the angel        
,gabriel1 chapter by chapter4 ,his      
disciples at this day inhabit a great   
part of the richest countries in the    
world1 and are supposed to be more      
numerous than the ,christians1 and are  
as much1 if not more1 divided into      
sectaries1 from causes similar to those 
which produced the division of          
,christians1 viz43 the different        
commentators on1 and expositions of the 
,alcoran4 ,the ,mufti1 or priests1      

represented the doctrines and precepts  
of the ,alcoran in a variety of lights  
different from each other1 each of them 
claiming the purity of the original and 
infallible truths prescribed to the     
world by ,mahomet1 their great reformer 
of ,christianity4 ,for though the       
several sectaries of ,mahometans differ1
 respecting the meaning of their        
,alcoran1 yet they all hold to the truth
 and divine authority thereof1 the same 
as the ,christian sectaries do          
concerning their ,bible3 so that all the
 different opinions which ever did1 or  
at present do subsist1 between ,jews1   
,christians and ,mahometans1 may be     
resolved into one consideration1 viz43  
the want of a right understanding of the
 original of the ,scriptures4 ,all sat  
out at first1 as they imagined1 from the
 truth of ,god's word1 7except the      
impostors17 concluded that they had an  
infallible guide1 and have1 by one means
 or other1 been guided into as many     
opposite faiths as human ,invention has 

been capa-ble of fabricating2 each sect 
among the whole1 exulting in their happy
 ignorance1 believing that they are     
favored with an infallible revelation   
for their direction4  ,it alters not the
 present argument1 whether the          
,scriptures were originally true or not2
 for though they be supposed to have    
been either true or false1 or a mixture 
of both1 yet they could never have been 
handed down entire and uncorrupted to   
the present time1 through the various   
changes and perpetual refinements of    
learning and language2 this is not      
merely a matter of speculative and      
argumentative demonstration1 the        
palpable certainty of it stands         
confessed in every ,jewish1 ,christian  
and ,mahometan sectary4     ,,secton    
,,iii4 ,,on ,,the ,,compiling ,,op ,,the
 ,,manuscripts ,,of ,,the               
,,scriptures444  ,,into ,,one ,,volume1 
,,and ,,of ,,its ,,several              
,,translations4 ,,the ,,infallibility   
,,of ,,the ,,popes1 ,,and ,,of ,,their  

,,chartered ,,rights ,,to ,,remit ,,or  
,,retain ,,sins1 ,,and ,,of ,,the       
,,impropriety ,,of ,,their ,,being      
,,trusted ,,with ,a ,,revelation ,,from 
,,god4  ,the manuscripts of ,scripture1 
which are said to have been originally  
written on scrolls of bark1 long before 
the invention of paper or printing1 and 
are said to compose our present ,bible1 
were in a loose and confused condition1 
scattered about in the world1 deposited 
nobody knows how or where1 and at       
different times were compiled into one  
volume4 ,the four gospels are by the    
learned generally admitted to have been 
wrote many years after ,christ1         
particularly that of ,st4 ,john3 and    
sundry other gospels in the primitive   
ages of ,christianity were received as  
divine by some of its then sectaries1   
which have unfortunately not met with   
approbation in subsequent eras of the   
despotism of the church4  ,the          
translation of the ,scriptures by       
,ptolemy ,phila-delphus1 king of ,egypt1

 was before ,christ1 and therefore could
 not include the writings of the ,new   
,testament in his translation1 and      
whether by seventy-two interpreters1 and
 in the manner as is commonly related1  
is justly questioned4 ,but where1 at    
what time1 and by whom1 the ,scriptures 
of the ,old and ,new ,testament were    
first compiled into one volume1 is what 
,i do not understand3 but was it a      
longer or shorter period after ,christ1 
it alters not the present argument      
materially1 since the scattered         
manuscripts were in a loose and confused
 condition for a long time2 and the     
grand query is1 when the compilers of   
those manuscripts collected them        
together in order to form them into one 
volume1 how they could have understood  
the supposed divine writings1 or        
symbolical figures1 with the ideas      
originally connected with them1 and     
distinguish them from those which were  
merely human1 and in comparison of the  
others are called profane4 ,to          

understand this distinction would       
require a new revelation1 as much as may
 be supposed necessary for composing the
 original manuscripts themselves2 but it
 is not pretended that the compilers or 
translators of the ,bible were inspired 
by the divine spirit in the doing and   
completing their respective business2 so
 that human reason1 fancy1 or some      
latent design1 must needs have been     
substituted1 in distinguishing the      
supposed divine and human writings      
apart1 and in giving a perfect          
transcript of the original manuscripts4 
,now admitting that the compilers were  
really honest principled men1 7which is 
more than we are certain of17 it would  
follow1 that they would be obliged to   
cull out of the mixed mass of premised  
divine and human writings1 such as to   
them appeared to be divine1 which would 
make them to be the sole arbitrators of 
the divinity that they were compiling to
 be handed down to posterity as the     
infallible word of ,god1 which is a     

great stretch of prerogative for mortal 
and fallible man to undertake1 and as   
great a weakness in others to subscribe 
to it1 as of divine authority4  ,mr4    
,fenning1 in his dictionary definition  
of the word ,bible1 subjoins the        
following history of its translations3  
,the translation of this sacred volume  
was begun very early in this kingdom1   
,england1 and some part of it was done  
by ,king ,alfred4 ,adelmus translated   
the ,psalms into ,saxon in #gji1 other  
parts were done by ,edfrid or ,ecbert in
 #gcj1 the whole by ,bede in #gca       
,trevisa published the whole in ,english
 in #aceg4 ,tindal's was brought higher 
in #aecd1 revised and altered in #aech1 
published with a preface of ,cranmers in
 #aedi4 ,in #aeea1 another translation  
was published1 which was revised by     
several bishops1 was printed with their 
alterations in #aefj4 ,in #afjg1 a new  
translation was published by authority1 
which is that in present use4 ,from this
 account it appears1 that from the first

 translation of the ,bible by ,trevisa1 
into ,english1 in #aceg1 it has been    
revised altered1 and passed through six 
different publications1 the last of     
which is said to have been done by      
authority1 which ,i conclude means that 
of the king1 whose prerogative in giving
 us a divine revelation1 can no more be 
esteemed valid than that of other men1  
though he may be possessed of an        
arbitrary power within the limits of his
 realm to prevent any further correction
 and publication of it4 ,as to the      
changes it underwent previous to        
,trevisa's translation1 in which time it
 was most exposed to corruptions of     
every kind1 we1 will not at present     
particularly consider1 but only observe 
that those translations could not1 every
 one of them1 be perfect1 since they    
were diverse from each other1 in        
consequence of their respective         
revisions and corrections2 nor is it    
possible that the ,bible1 in any of its 
various editions could be perfect1 any  

more than all and every one of those    
persons who have acted a part in        
transmitting them down to our time may  
be supposed to be so3 for perfection    
does not pertain to man1 but is the     
essential prerogative of ,god4  ,the    
,roman ,catholics1 to avoid the evils of
 imperfection1 fallibility and imposture
 of man1 have set up the ,pope to be    
infallible2 this is their security      
against being misguided in their faith1 
and by ascribing holiness to him1 secure
 themselves from imposture2 a deception 
which is incompatible with holiness4 ,so
 that in matters of faith1 they have    
nothing more to do1 but to believe as   
their church believes4 ,their authority 
for absolving or retaining sins is very 
extraordinary2 however1 their charter is
 from ,christ1 7admitting them to be his
 vicars1 and the successors of ,st4     
,peter17 and the present ,english       
translation of the ,bible warrants it4  
,the commission is in these words3 ,and 
,i will give unto thee the keys of the  

kingdom of heaven1 and whoever thou     
shalt bind on earth1 shall be bound in  
heaven2 and whatsoever thou shall loose 
on earth1 shall be loosed in heaven4    
,whosesoever sins ye remit1 they are    
remitted unto them1 and whosesoever sins
 ye retain1 they are retained4 ,that    
,st4 ,peter or his successors should    
have a power of binding and determining 
the state and condition of mankind in   
the world to come by remitting or       
retaining sins1 is too great a power to 
be intrusted to men1 as it interferes   
with the providence and prerogative of  
,god1 who on this position would be     
exempted from judging the world1 7as it 
would interfere with the chartered      
prerogative of the ,popes in their      
remitting or retaining of sins1         
admitting it to have been genuine17     
precluding the divine retribution of    
justice2 we may1 therefore1 from the    
authority of reason1 conclude it to be  
spurious4 ,it was a long succession of  
ages that all ,christendom were dupes to

 the ,see of ,rome1 in which time it is 
too evident to be denied1 that the holy 
fathers obtruded a great deal of pious  
fraud on their devotees2 all public     
worship was real to the people in       
unknown languages1 as it is to this day 
in ,roman ,catholic countries4 ,nor has 
the ,bible1 in those countries1 to this 
time1 been permitted to be published in 
any but the learned languages1 which    
affords great opportunity to the ,romish
 church to fix it to answer their       
lucrative purposes4 ,nor is it to be    
supposed that they want the inclination 
to do it4 ,the before recited grant of  
the power of the absolution of sin1 to  
,st ,peter in particular1 was           
undoubtedly of their contrivance4  ,in  
short1 reason would prompt us to        
conclude1 that had ,god1 in very deed1  
made a revelation of his mind and will  
to mankind1 as a rule of duty and       
practice to them1 and to be continued as
 such to the latest posterity1 he would 
in the course of his providence have    

ordered matters so that it should have  
been deposited1 translated1 and kept1 in
 the hands of men of a more             
unexceptionable character than those    
holy cheats can pretend to4  ,witchcraft
 and priestcraft1 were introduced into  
this world together1 in its non-age2 and
 has gone on1 hand in hand together1    
until about half a century past1 when   
witchcraft began to be discredited1 and 
is at present almost exploded1 both in  
,europe and ,america4 ,this discovery   
has depreciated priestcraft1 on the     
scale of at least fifty per cent1 per   
annum1 and rendered it highly probable  
that the improvement of succeeding      
generations1 in the knowledge of nature 
and science1 will exalt the reason of   
mankind1 above the tricks and impostures
 of priests1 and bring them back to the 
religion of nature and truth2 ennoble   
their minds1 and be the means of        
cultivating concord1 and mutual love in 
society1 and of extending charity1 and  
good will to all intelligent beings     

throughout the universe2 exalt the      
divine character1 and lay a permanent   
foundation for truth and reliance on    
providence2 establish our hopes and     
prospects of immortality1 and be        
condusive to every desirable            
consequence1 in this world1 and that    
which is to come2 which will crown the  
scene of human felicity in this         
sublunary state of being and probation2 
'which can never be completed while we  
are under the power and tyranny of      
priests1 since as it ever has1 it ever  
will be their interest1 to invalidate   
the law of nature and reason1 in order  
to establish systems incompatible       
therewith4     ,,chapter ,,xiii4        
,,secton ,i4 ,,morality ,,derived ,,from
 ,,natural ,,fitness444  ,,and ,,not    
,,from ,,tradition4  ,such parts or     
passages of the ,scriptures as inculcate
 morality1 have a tendency to subserve  
mankind1 the same as all other public   
investigations or teachings of it1 may  
be supposed to have2 but are neither    

better or worse for having a place in   
the volume of those writings denominated
 canonical2 for morality does not derive
 its nature from books1 but from the    
fitness of things2 and though it may be 
more or less1 interspersed through the  
pages of the ,alcoran1 its purity and   
rectitude would remain the same2 for it 
is founded in eternal right2 and        
whatever writings1 books or oral        
speculations1 best illustrate or teach  
this moral science1 should have the     
preference4 ,the knowledge of this as   
well as all other sciences1 is acquired 
from reason and experience1 and 7as it  
is progressively obtained7 may with     
propriety be called1 the revelation of  
,god1 which he has revealed to us in the
 constitution of our rational natures2  
and as it is congenial with reason and  
truth1 cannot 7like other revelations7  
partake of imposture4 ,this is natural  
religion1 and could be derived from none
 other but ,god4 ,i have endeavored1 in 
this treatise1 to prune this religion   

from those excrescences1 with which     
craft on the one hand1 and ignorance on 
the other1 have loaded it2 and to hold  
it up to view in its native simplicity1 
free from alloy2 and have throughout the
 contents of the volume1 addressed the  
reason of mankind1 and not their        
passions1 traditions or prejudices2 for 
which cause1 it is noways probable that 
it will meet with any considerable      
approbation4  ,most of the human race1  
by one means or other are prepossessed  
with principles opposed to the religion 
of reason4 ,in these parts of ,america1 
they are most generally taught1 that    
they are born into the world in a state 
of enmity to ,god and moral good1 and   
are under his wrath and curse1 that the 
way to heaven and future blessedness is 
out of their power to pursue1 and that  
it is incumbered with mysteries which   
none but the priests can unfold1 that we
 must be born again1 have a special kind
 of faith1 and be regenerated2 or in    
fine1 that human nature1 which they call

 the old man1 must be destroyed1        
perverted1 or changed by them1 and by   
them new modelled1 before it can be     
admitted into the heavenly kingdom4     
,such a plan of superstition1 as far as 
it obtains credit in the world1 subjects
 mankind to sacerdotal empire2 which is 
erected on the imbecility of human      
nature4 ,such of mankind1 as break the  
fetters of their education1 remove such 
other obstacles as are in their way1 and
 have the confidence publicly to talk   
rational1 exalt reason to its just      
supremacy1 and vindicate truth and the  
ways of ,god's providence to men1 are   
sure to be stamped with the epithet of  
irreligious1 infidel1 profane1 and the  
like4 ,but it is often observed of such 
a man1 that he is morally honest1 and as
 often replied1 what of that8 ,morality 
will carry no man to heaven4 ,so that   
all the satisfaction the honest man can 
have while the superstitious are        
squibbling hell fire at him1 is to      
retort back upon them that they are     

priest ridden4  ,the manner of the      
existence1 and intercourse of human     
souls1 after the dissolution of their   
bodies by death1 being inconceiveable to
 us in this life1 and fill manner of    
intelligence between us and departed    
souls impracticable1 the priests have it
 in their power to amuse us with a great
 variety of visionary apprehensions of  
things in the world to come1 which1     
while in this life1 we cannot contradict
 from experience1 the test of great part
 of our certainty 7especially to those  
of ordinary understandings7 and having  
introduced mysteries into their         
religion1 make it as incomprehensible to
 us1 7in this natural state7 as the     
manner of our future existence2 and from
 ,scripture authority1 having           
invalidated reason as being carnal and  
depraved1 they proceed further to teach 
us from the same authority1 that1 the   
natural man knoweth not the-things of   
the spirit1 for they are foolishness    
unto him1 neither can he know them for  

they are spiritually discerned4 ,a      
spiritualizing teacher is nearly as well
 acquainted with the kingdom of heaven1 
as a man can be with his home lot4 ,he  
knows the road to heaven and eternal    
blessedness1 to which happy regions1    
with the greatest assurance1 he presumes
 to pilot his dear disciples and unfold 
to them the mysteries of the canonical  
writings1 and of the world to come2 they
 catch the enthusiasm and see with the  
same sort of spiritual eyes1 with which 
they can pierce religion through and    
through1 and understand the spiritual   
meaning of the ,scriptures1 which before
 had been a dead letter to them1        
particularly the revelations of ,st4    
,john the divine1 and the allusion of   
the horns therein mentioned4 ,the most  
obscure and unintelligible passages of  
the ,bible1 come within the compass of  
their spiritual discerning as apparently
 as figures do to a mathmetician3 then  
they can sing songs out of the          
,canticles1 saying1 ,i am my beloved's  

and my beloved is mine2 and being at a  
loose from the government of reason1    
please themselves with any fanaticisms  
they like best1 as that of their being  
snatched as brands out of the burning1  
to enjoy the special and eternal favor  
of ,god1 not from any worthiness or     
merit in them1 but merely from the      
sovereign will and pleasure of ,god1    
while millions of millions1 as good by  
nature and practice as they1 were left  
to welter eternally1 under the scalding 
drops of divine vengeance2 not          
considering1 that if it was consistent  
with the perfections of ,god to save    
them1 his salvation could not fail to   
have been uniformly extended to all     
others1 whose circumstances may be      
supposed to be similar to1 or more      
deserving than theirs1 for equal justice
 cannot fail to apply in all cases in   
which equal justice demands it4 ,but    
these deluded people resolve the divine 
government altogether into sovereignty3 
even so ,father1 for so it seemed good  

in thy sight4 ,and as they exclude      
reason and justice from their imaginary 
notions of religion1 they also exclude  
it from the providence or moral         
government of ,god4 ,nothing is more    
common1 in the part of the country where
 ,i was educated1 than to hear those    
infatuated people1 in their public and  
private addresses1 acknowledge to their 
creator1 from the desk and elsewhere1   
hadst thou1 ,o ,lord1 laid judgment to  
the line and righteousness to the       
plummet1 we had been in the grave with  
the dead and in hell with the damned1   
long before this time4 ,such expressions
 from the creature to the creator are   
profane1 and utterly incompatible with  
the divine character4 ,undoubtedly1 7all
 things complexly considered7 the       
providence of ,god to man is just1      
inasmuch as it has the divine           
approbation4  ,the superstitious thus   
set up a spiritual discerning1          
independent of1 and in opposition to    
reason1 and their mere imaginations pass

 with each other1 and with themselves1  
for infallible truth4 ,hence it is1 that
 they despise the progressive and       
wearisome reasonings of philosophers    
7which must be admitted to be a painful 
method of arriving at truth7 but as it  
is the only way in which we can acquire 
it1 ,i have pursued the old natural road
 of ratiocination1 concluding1 that as  
this spiritual discerning is altogether 
inadequate to the management of any of  
the concerns of life1 or of contributing
 any assistance or knowledge towards the
 perfecting of the arts and sciences1 it
 is equally unintelligible and          
insignificant in matters of religion3   
and therefore conclude1 that if the     
human race in general1 could be         
prevailed upon to exercise common sense 
in religious concerns1 those spiritual  
fictions would cease1 and be succeeded  
by reason and truth4     ,,secton ,,ii4 
,,of ,,the ,,importance ,,of ,,the      
,,exercise ,,of ,,reason444  ,,and      
,,practice ,,of ,,morality1 ,,in ,,order

 ,,to ,,the ,,happiness ,,of ,,mankind4 
,the period of life is very uncertain1  
and at the longest is but short2 a few  
years bring us from infancy to manhood1 
a few more to a dissolution2 pain1      
sickness and death are the necessary    
consequences of animal life4 ,through   
life we struggle with physical evils1   
which eventually are certain to destroy 
our earthly composition2 and well would 
it be for us did evils end here2 but    
alas6 moral evil has been more or less  
predominant in our agency1 and though   
natural evil is unavoidable1 yet moral  
evil may be prevented or remedied by the
 exercise of virtue4 ,morality is       
therefore of more importance to us than 
any or all other attainments2 as it is a
 habit of mind1 which1 from a           
retrospective consciousness of our      
agency in this life1 we should carry    
with us into our succeeding state of    
existence1 as an acquired appendage of  
our rational nature1 and as the         
necessary means of our mental happiness4

 ,virtue and vice are the only things in
 this world1 which1 with our souls1 are 
capable of surviving death2 the former  
is the rational and only procuring cause
 of all intellectual happiness1 and the 
latter of conscious guilt and misery2   
and therefore1 our indispensable duty   
and ultimate interest is1 to love1      
cultivate and improve the one1 as the   
means of our greatest good1 and to hate 
and abstain from the other1 as          
productive of our greatest evil4 ,and in
 order thereto1 we should so far divest 
ourselves of the incumbrances of this   
world1 7which are too apt to engross our
 attention7 as to inquire a consistent  
system of the knowledge of religious    
duty1 and make it our constant endeavor 
in life to act conformably to it4 ,the  
knowledge of the being1 perfections1    
creation and providence of ,god1 and of 
the immortality of our souls1 is the    
foundation of religion2 which has been  
particularly illustrated in the four    
first chapters of this discourse4 ,and  

as the ,pagan1 ,jewish1 ,christian and  
,mahometan countries of the world have  
been overwhelmed with a multiplicity of 
revelations diverse from each other1 and
 which1 by their respective             
promulgators1 are said to have been     
immediately inspired into their souls by
 the spirit of ,god1 or immediately     
communicated to them by the intervening 
agency of angels 7as in the instance of 
the invisible ,gabriel to ,mahomet7 and 
as those revelations have been received 
and credited1 by afar the greater part  
of the inhabitants of the several       
countries of the world 7on whom they    
have been obtruded7 as super-naturally  
revealed by ,god or angels1 and which1  
in doctrine and discipline1 are in most 
respects repugnant to each other1 it    
fully evinces their imposture1 and      
authorizes us1 without a lengthy course 
of arguing1 to determine with certainty1
 that not one of them had their original
 from ,god2 as they clash with each     
other1 which is ground of high          

probability against the authenticity of 
each of them4  ,a revelation1 that may  
be supposed to be really of the         
institution of ,god1 must also be       
supposed to be perfectly consistent or  
uniform1 and to be able to stand the    
test of truth2 therefore such pretended 
revelations1 as are tendered to us as   
the contrivance of heaven1 which do not 
tear that test1 we may be morally       
certain1 was either originally a        
deception1 or has since1 by adulteration
 become spurious4  ,reason therefore    
must be the standard by which we        
determine the respective claims of      
revelation2 for otherwise we may as well
 subscribe to the divinity of the one as
 of the other1 or to the whole of them1 
or to none at all4 ,so likewise on this 
thesis1 if reason rejects the whole of  
those revelations1 we ought to return to
 the religion of nature and reason4     
,undoubtedly it is our duty1 and for our
 best good1 that we occupy and improve  
the faculties1 with which our creator   

has endowed us1 but so far as prejudice1
 or prepossession of opinion prevails   
over our minds1 in the same proportion1 
reason is excluded from our theory or   
practice4 ,therefore if we would acquire
 useful knowledge1 we must first divest 
ourselves of those impediments2 and     
sincerely endeavor to search out the    
truth3 and draw our conclusions from    
reason and just argument1 which will    
never conform to our inclination1       
interest or fancy2 but we must conform  
to that if we would judge rightly4 ,as  
certain as we determine contrary to     
reason1 we make a wrong conclusion2     
therefore1 our wisdom is1 to conform to 
the nature and reason of things1 as well
 in religious matters1 as in other      
sciences4 ,preposterously absurd would  
it be1 to negative the exercise of      
reason in religious concerns1 and yet1  
be actuated by it in all other and less 
occurrences of life4 ,all our knowledge 
of things is derived from ,god1 in and  
by the order of nature1 out of which we 

cannot perceive1 reflect or understand  
any thing whatsoever2 our external      
senses are natural2 and those objects   
are also natural2 so that ourselves1 and
 all things about us1 and our knowledge 
collected therefrom1 is natural1 and not
 supernatural2 as argued in the fifth   
chapter4  ,an unjust composition never  
fails to contain error and falsehood4   
,therefore an unjust connection of ideas
 is not derived from nature1 but from   
the imperfect composition of man4       
,misconnection of ideas is the same as  
misjudging1 and has no positive         
existence1 being merely a creature of   
the imagination2 but nature and truth   
are real and uniform2 and the rational  
mind by reasoning1 discerns the         
uniformity1 and is thereby enabled to   
make a just composition of ideas1 which 
will stand the test of truth4 ,but the  
fantastical illuminations of the        
credulous and superstitious part of     
mankind1 proceed from weakness1 and as  
far as they take place in the world     

subvert the religion of reason1 nature  
and truth4  ,ethan ,allen4