AND

CHRISTIAN INQUIRER.

EDITED BY REV. ABNER KNEELAND, PROPRIETOR AND PUBLISHER.

VOL. I.

NEW-YORK, MAY 17, 1828.

ORIGINAL.

INTRODUCTION.

No. 1.

In commencing a new series of a periodical work, although embracing one general object, yet in some respects combining different interests; and taking the whole responsibility of the management of such a work, it will probably be expected, and it is due to ourselves as well as to our subscribers, that we should mark out some certain path in which we mean to tread, while we shall steadily pursue our course, and lay down certain rules by which we mean to be governed. Such a step is due not only to our present subscribers, but also to the subscribers to the Christian Inquirer, whose patronage we hope may be continued, (though we shall sacrifice no principle to obtain it,) as well as to our new subscribers, who, though mentioned last, we hope will not be a whit behind the others in either number or respectability.

Let it then be distinctly understood, that, while we may discover some new objects, the course we shall steer will be, on the whole, the same we have hitherto pursued; truth, on all subjects, so far as it is attainable, will be our ultimate and only object. But the world has been amused with visionary notions long enough; let us now have realities; and where we cannot have what we know to be realities, let us be content to remain ignorant ; for what harm can there be in remaining ignorant of things we cannot know. And if we are disposed to palm on the world our conjectures, merely to amuse ourselves, or to pass away the time of others, let us give them as conjectures only, and not palm them on the world for truth, when we can offer no better evidence than mere conjecture or opinion. Let this be done and every one will know how to estimate our opinions; as one individual has just as good a right to conjecture as another. It is time for people to know that opinions are perfectly harmless things, whether right or wrong; if erroneous, no one is obliged to imbibe them, and in that case they will injure no one; at least none but the possessor of them; and the possessor himself is to be pitied rather than blamed for having them. If true, they will stand the test of thorough investigation, and they are just as true for every one, as for any one. Of course we shall take nothing for granted, except what is self-evidently true; but shall demand proof of every thing, before we field our assent. But in this we will be neither captious nor fastidious for a word-words are but wind!—give us ideas, and things, and men may use what words they please to express them, only let them endeavor to speak or write so as to be understood.

As to our existence-we know that we have a being, and that we are here; that we have been here but a short time, and all nature teaches us that we shall stay here but a little while longer. Let us then endeavor to

1

1

do all the good we can while we remain. We have no reason to suppose the earth was always inhabited; in all probability it was not always habitable; but as far back as we can trace any thing like real history, the earth was peopled, probably as much as it is now; some parts much more so; while the population of other parts has been far less. Now if we could

know for a certainty when the earth was first peopled, and how first peopled, of what real advantage could it be to us? It might gratify our curiosity; but would it add any thing to our real happiness? We have said, as far back as we can trace any thing like real history, the earth has been peopled; for we do not consider the first chapter of Genesis real history; and we should pity the man who should undertake to defend it as such. book of Genesis, originally, as we conceive, only purported to be "The book of the generations of Adam." Hence its Greek name Genesis, which signifies generations. It commenced with the 5th chapter, according to which, it would seem that Seth was Adam's oldest son. In the four first

The

chapters we have two different cosmogonies, which do not appear to have been written by the same person, and probably neither of them by the one who wrote the remainder of the book. The first account embraces the first chapter and three verses of the second, in which God is uniformly called GOD, and nothing more. The term is thus uniformly used no less than twenty-seven times. But in the second account, which constitutes the remainder of the second chapter, we as uniformly find the terms Lord God, that is JEHOVAH GOD, in which it is expressed eleven times. No writer ever thus suddenly and uniformly changed his style, and especially when there was no occasion for it. Besides, we are told, (Exod. vi. 3,) that God was not known by his name JEHOVAH, even to Abraham, how then could he have been thus known to Adam? But by rendering the term Lord, in one place, and retaining the Hebrew word, Jehovah, in the other, the translators have apparently avoided this contradiction.

In the story of the serpent, and the account which follows in the fourth chapter, we find sometimes Lord God, sometimes God, and sometimes Lord only, which appears therefore to have been written by a third hand, and at a later period. It was probably a fable, like the two former, picked up by the compiler, and prefixed to the original book of Genesis, without discovering their incongruity, which book itself, or at least some parts of it, appears not to have been written till after the days of the kings of IsraelSee Gen. xxxvi. 31. As an allegory, the story of the serpent may be of use, perhaps, to those who can understand it; but as a real history, it is too fabulous to be believed by any rational mind. The bible should be read like any other book, making all due allowance for the different ages, and different circumstances under which it was written. The writers in favor of the bible, who speak of it as a book of immaculate purity, as well as those who speak of it only with contempt, we think greatly err; and possibly one extreme is as greatly injurious to the cause of truth as the other. We shall therefore adopt a middle course, and truth generally lays between the two extremes on all controversial subjects.

We can always find something in the lives of all good men worthy of imitation; yet the circumstances under which we live are so different from what existed four thousand, or even two thousand years ago, that very little which we can find in the characters of men in those days can be of much advantage to us, now, as a rule of moral life. The invention of gunpowder, for instance, has very much lessened the horrors of war, by making bat

iles less sanguinary, in consequence of keeping the enemy more at a distance; hence were we disposed, or did we suppose it necessary, to go to war now, the bible tactics would be of but little use to us. And the invention of the art of printing has also had an astonishing effect in civilizing mankind. It is perhaps almost impossible to realize, and very difficult even to conceive, the situation, as to mental improvement, the common people must have been in before the invention of this art. When but very few, comparatively, had any books to read, very few would think it worth their while to learn the art of reading; and if they could not read, they surely could not write. Under such circumstances it was utterly impossible that there should have been any thing like a general diffusion of knowledge of any kind. When learning, therefore, was limited to an enterprising few, and ignorance the lot of the unthinking many, the common people must have been in a condition similar to that of slaves. How easy it was for the priests, therefore, so long as they could keep agreed among themselves, to manage every thing, in relation to religion, in their own way. We see what influence the clergy have now, in this enlightened age; what influence, then, must they not have had in the days of moral darkness, superstition and iguorance? Whatever, therefore, can be attributed to this source-the priesthood, should be received with all due caution.

There is much that is contained in the Old Testament, however true it may be in point of fact, which can be of no importance whatever to us; for it is couched in such language that it is difficult to know its precise meaning; and if this could be known, it is evident that much which was then wtitten, has no particular reference to us. The historical parts are interesting as matters of history only, and are as true perhaps as any history written in those remote periods; but no harm can be done to any history to bring all the accounts within the limits of rational probability. Beyond this, if true, there can be no practical use in believing it; and if erroneous, it is best that it should not be believed; because the belief of one thing that is erroBeous, merely because it is in the bible, may lead to the belief of other things, of more importance, perhaps, but equally erroneous. In things that are either doubtful or improbable, it is perhaps most prudent to suspend the judgment till the evidence appears more clear.

The surest test of the truth of the prophetic parts of scripture is their fulfilment; for "if the thing prophecied does not come to pass, then the Lord hath not spoken by that prophet." Let the scriptures then be tried by these rules; and whensoever it is said that a prophecy has been fulfilled by a certain event, observe, and see whether there be any striking connexion between the event and the supposed prediction thereof; and if we cannot discover such an agreement, even when it is said, as it often is in the New-Testament, " Now all this, was done that that which was spoken by the prophet &c. might be fulfilled," we are not bound to believe it. Because when we have not only the prophecy, but also the record of the supposed fulfilment both before our eyes, we should judge for ourselves whether such a prophecy was thus fulfilled or not.

As it respects the New-Testament, we may believe that life and immortality have heen brought to light through the gospel without believing all that, through one means or another, has crept into the record. Dr. Lardner places all the gospels as late as the year 63 or 64, thirty years after the crucifixion of Christ. It would be strange indeed, in a record written so long after the events took place, if there were not some things recorded

which were not strictly true. Then only think of the chance there was for interpolation, soon after the days of the apostles, when the copies were few in number and these carried into different parts of the country, so that the error would not be likely to be detected. That such was the fact, or at least that the early Christians charged each other with it, we learn from Origen and other early writers among the fathers of the church. And one fact is certain, which is not generally known, that the fathers, whose writings have come down to us, in all their commentaries, construed most of the miracles of Christ spiritually, whether they believed them literally true or

His healing the sick, his raising the dead, his casting out demons &c. they considered as only so many types of that moral purification and renovation which must ultimately take place in the church. Of such purification and renovasion the human mind is certainly susceptible; and this should be the grand object of all moral teachers. A firm belief in the resurrection of the dead, of which the resurrection of Christ was the first fruits, is amply sufficient as a foundation of the Christian hope. If the dead rise not, Christ is not risen, and if Christ be not risen, our preaching, so far as it relates to a future state, is vain. As this is the main fact on which our hope is built, all other miracles are important only as they go to support this one fact; and unless this fact be true, the apostles themselves, according to their own confession, or at least the confession of Paul, are proved to be false witnesses of God." See 1 Cor. xv. 12.-22. This is the only fact, therefore, which we maintain as being essential to the Christian hope. Paul wrote his first letter to the church at Corinth, according to Lardner, early in the year 56, at least seven years before any of the gospels were written; and his second about October 57; and to this church he appeals, not only for the truth of this fact, which was then a matter of public notoriety, but also of the "signs of an apostle" which he had performed among them. Now as the church preserved these Epistles, as containing important instruction, worthy to be handed down to posterity, we not only have the testimony of Paul, but also the concurring testimony of all the Corinthian church, of the truth of the matters of fact which these epistles contain. As these epistles, with his two letters to the Thessalonians, written in 52, and that to the Gallatians, in 52 or 53, were all written before the gospels, and are the earliest Christian writings which have come down to us, we consider them of the greatest importance. They prove that Christian churches did exist, and were established in the doctrine of the resurrection soon after the resurrection of Christ; and that those churches were built up by the preaching, rather than by the writings of the apostles. Hence, if it should be admitted that the present gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John were not written by the Evangelists, whose names they bear, as some have contended, it would not invalidate this testimony.

This is the ground taken by Mr. Evanson, of England, in his Dissonance of the Four Evangelists, and we believe it to be perfectly tenable. It is hardly possible that Luke, by the "many" which he says had "undertaken to prepare an account" &c., should have alluded to either of the Evangelists or other gospels, now extant: for if a gospel had been already written by an "eye-witness," did he suppose that he (not being an eye-witness) could better it? It is not at all likely, therefore, that any of the accounts to which he alluded have come down to us, or even that any of those were written by the "eye-witnesse "themselves. We have seen, and read, the most approved writings on this subject; but have neither seen, read, nor

heard, any thing which disproves the ground we have assumed; and, to our understanding, it is the most rational of any thing we have seen on the subject.

EDITOR.

Notwithstanding this Prospectus has been already inserted several times in the Olive Branch, yet for the sake of our new subscribers, as well as the subscri bers of the Christian Inqirer, whom we hope to number now with our faithful Patrons, we have thought it necessary to give it one more insertion.

PROPOSALS FOR UNITING TWO WEEKLY PAPERS INTO UNE, ENTITLED THE OLIVE BRANCH & CHRISTIAN INQUIRER. Devoted to Free Inquiry, pure morality and Rational Christianity. Edited by Rev. Abner Kneeland, proprietor and Publisher.

"Behold!

how good, and how pleasant it is, for brethren to dwell together in unity! THE OLIVE BRANCH & CHRISTIAN INQUIRER is designed to succeed, as well as supersede, the two papers of the above names; and their union is with a view of increasing their patronage, in a way that will be perfectly satisfactory to all concerned. It will be sufficient to obtain the encouragement of liberal minded men, to say that such an arrangement became necessary for the life and continuance of either of the papers. By making this arrangement with the Rev. Mr. BATES, Editor of the Christian Inquirer, we hope to be able to give satisfaction to his subscribers as well as our own. And believing that all sincere inquirers are inquiring after truth, a steady march towards the obtaining that object, without turning to right or left, will be most likely, of any mode which we could adopt, to give satisfaction to all. We shall be happy to receive and insert any communications from the Friends who have patronized the Inquirer, (should they continue their support to the offspring of their particular favorite & the Olive Branch,) not exceeding a due proportion of the paper according to the number of subscribers respectively. only requisites to gain admission, will be brevity, candor, and charity;--BREVITY.--multum in parvo, that we may have room for their admission, without excluding others having equal claims; CANDOR, that they may be read, otherwise they will be a dead weight upon our columns; and above all, CHARITY, so as not unnecessarily to wound the feelings of others.

'The

To the subscribers to the Olive Branch, we trust no