■'♦. V*" - 
 
 
 GU 
 
 
 -oo x 
 
 
 >*' 
 
 
 
 v ^0 
 
 '/- 
 
 o * v xs <U 
 
 'A 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 ■ 
 
 } 
 
 <^ .y 
 
 Q V 
 
 
 ^ V ^ N 
 
 
 <■ * 9 T * ^K 
 
 0o y 
 
 "^ 
 
 \X V ' x >> 
 
 
 •^ #* 
 
 
 ,0o 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 v ^v : - f^'\ 
 
 • ;v 
 
 c 0> . c 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 * .x 
 
 D V- 
 
 \ 
 
 Oo. 
 
 > a 
 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 >. ft* 
 
 
 
 *** %, 
 
 V 
 
 
 * - 
 
 « 
 
 
 o v 
 
 
 r ^ 
 
 ,.- ,o- 
 
 •*' . x 
 
 
 %.* 9 " 0, x>^...V — -V^- 
 
 
-y x 
 
 v v 
 
 
 <p 
 
 A 
 
 *> % 
 
 \ v 
 V * 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ~o * ,, 
 
 
 • / J- 
 
 
 1 ', c> 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 <^« 
 
 : 
 
 ^N t/> 
 
 
 h 
 
 
 
 
 ,00. 
 
 * ~o 
 
 .9* C- 
 
 Ci/V 
 
 o x 
 
 
 
THE 
 
 THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 
 
 OR 
 
 BOOK OF DOGMAS: 
 
 COMPRISING AN INQUIRY 
 
 INTO THE 
 
 REALITY OF THE DEATH 
 
 AND THE 
 
 NATURE OF THE RESURRECTION 
 
 OF 
 
 JESUS CHRIST, 
 
 TOGETHER WITH A CONCISE VIEW OF THE 
 
 SEVERAL DOGMAS 
 
 INSPIRATION, FAITH, MYSTERY, TRINITY, ORIGINAL DEPRAVITY, 
 REGENERATION, VICARIOUS ATONEMENT, ENDLESS MISERY, 
 SECOND ADVENT, ETC., WITH A FEW OF THEIR PAL- 
 PABLE INCONSISTENCIES AND CONSEQUENCES. 
 
 BY A UNITHEIST. 
 
 " Search the scriptures; for, in them ye think ye have eternal 
 fe."— John v. 39. 
 
 " The good of the people is the supreme law." 
 " In medio tutissimus." 
 
 BOSTON: 
 1847. 
 
THE 
 
 THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 
 
 it 
 
 OR 
 
 BOOK OF DOGMAS: 
 
 COMPRISING AN INQUIRY 
 
 INTO THE 
 
 REALITY OF THE DEATH 
 
 AND THE 
 
 NATURE OP THE RESURRECTION 
 
 OF 
 
 JESUS CHRIST, 
 
 TOGETHER WITH A CONCISE VIEW OF THE 
 
 SEVERAL DOGMAS 
 
 INSPIRATION, FAITH, MYSTERY, TRINITY, ORIGINAL DEPRAVITY, 
 REGENERATION, VICARIOUS ATONEMENT, ENDLESS MISERY, 
 SECOND ADVENT, ETC., WITH A FEW OF THEIR PAL- 
 PABLE INCONSISTENCIES AND CONSEQUENCES. 
 
 BY A UNITHEIST. 
 
 " Search the scriptures; for, in them ye think ye have eternal 
 life."-~John v. 39. 
 
 " The good of the people is the supreme law." 
 " In medio tutissimus." 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 1847. 
 

 1#* 
 
 IS 
 

 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Address to the clergy of the U. S. A., . . . . vii. 
 
 Introduction, 1 
 
 Inspiration, 5 
 
 Faith, 12 
 
 Mystery, 14 
 
 The Trinity, 15 
 
 Original Depravity, 17 
 
 Grace, . . . . .18 
 
 Election, 19 
 
 Public Prayer, 19 
 
 Regeneration, 20 
 
 Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, 21 
 
 Vicarious Atonement, . . » . . . . 23 
 
 Endless Misery, .28 
 
 Eesponsibility of Believers, ...... 33 
 
 Theory of the Resurrection, . . .35 
 
 The Trial, . .40 
 
 The Crucifixion, 44 
 
 The Death, . 46 
 
 The Burial, 62 
 
 The Resurrection, . .64 
 
 The Ascension, ' 74 
 
 Recapitulation, 79 
 
 Testimony of the Acts, . . . ... ■ . . .83 
 
 " " Epistles, ...... 92 
 
 " " Ancient Fathers, 96 
 
 Second Advent, . . . . . . 99 
 
 Reflections, ," ! Ill 
 
 Synopsis of the Dogmas, . 114 
 
 Conclusion, 117 
 
 Appendix A, . . 121 
 
 " B, 123 
 
 " C, 123 
 
 " D. 124 
 
EXPLANATION. ♦ 
 
 iCT'Italicised words in the Bible, it is generally under- 
 stood, are words not to be found in the original Greek; 
 but, were supplied by the royal translaters. In several 
 quoted passages in this work, we have indiscriminately 
 italicised words, which we design for emphatic expres- 
 sions, as well as such as are not in the original. 
 
TO PROFESSOR GEORGE BUSH; 
 
 Sir: 
 
 Just one hundred years ago, appeared in old merry 
 England, from the pen of Gilbert West, an erudite 
 treatise on the Resurrection, which was clerically popu- 
 lar, and which brought much honor to the zealous author. 
 As the full century is rolling .by, on its last revolution, 
 appears, in Puritanical New England, another small trea- 
 tise, perhaps not so learned, nor so ecclesiastic, nor so 
 popular, on the same subject. This is, very reverently, 
 dedicated to the Clergy of America through you, — the 
 prominent champion of Anastasis for the nineteenth cen- 
 tury, — and humbly submitted to your inspection and 
 searching criticism, by the 
 
 AUTHOR, 
 
 June 1, 1847. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 5, Line 23, instead of founder read founders. 
 4 art read genius. 
 
 33, insert xxiii., 6, between Acts and xxvi., 5. 
 instead of senator read general. 
 
 " Revelations read Revelation. 
 
 " dialeusetai read dieleusetai. 
 
 " xtper katherzomenon read uperkath- 
 
 [ezomenon. 
 " Kakou read Kakon. 
 
 He read It. 
 " throne in read throne of. 
 
 " kindred read kindreds. 
 
 " and the Son, read and of the son. 
 
 5, 
 
 Lint 
 
 J 23, 
 
 9, 
 
 u 
 
 6, 
 
 38, 
 
 cc 
 
 33, 
 
 42, 
 
 u 
 
 29, 
 
 50, 
 
 K 
 
 25, 
 
 51, 
 
 (( 
 
 5, 
 
 67, 
 
 u 
 
 27, 
 
 67, 
 
 U 
 
 2S, 
 
 79, 
 
 ct 
 
 30, 
 
 101, 
 
 (< 
 
 10, 
 
 105, 
 
 11 
 
 13, 
 
 106, 
 
 (( 
 
 8, 
 
ADDRESS TO THE CLERGY 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
 The correct sentiment of clerical as well as of popular 
 responsibility, is rapidly pervading community, — that cler- 
 gymen as well as laymen are accountable for^ their wilful 
 errors of judgment and conduct. And not only do we pro- 
 nounce this true, but we go farther: we declare, without 
 fear of contradiction, that, instead of the laity being an- 
 swerable to the clergy, the clergy are amenable to the peo- 
 ple; and the sensible and high-minded of that order know 
 this fact. They are an organized body. The cone, whose 
 clerical apex has heretofore rested on the ground, and 
 whose popular base has been unnaturally poised in the 
 air, is daily resuming its true position. Men begin gener- 
 ally to see ministers in a religious light as they saw kings in 
 a political light, and are willing for them to enjoy the com- 
 mon immunities of freemen. They know and feel that all 
 sovereignty belongs to the people; and that their rulers re- 
 main such only by courtesy. Their former claim. was an al- 
 leged right. At least, it is becoming a prevalent doctrine in 
 America; and America, by her almost omnipotent influ- 
 ence, is destined to remodel the world. Heretofore, the pas- 
 tor has been the supplying tankard; and his congregation, 
 the receiving cups. They passively imbibed whatever he 
 poured out to them. He could pour out nothing, except 
 what he contained: and thus did his audience assfhnilate 
 their opinions to his, right or wrong. Now, the hearers 
 wish to resort to the original reservoir, and to supply 
 
Vlll ADDRESS TO THE CLERGY 
 
 themselves with the pure truth, before it has been tainted 
 by passing through secondary tankards. This they have 
 an undoubted right to do, in an age of inquiry like the 
 present. They are convinced that a cup is equal to a 
 tankard; for, each one is capable of holding all that the 
 latter can pour out. 
 
 People generally are conscious that the unbiassed views 
 of one, with regard to moral truths and integrity of con- 
 duct, cannot so much vary from the unbiassed views of 
 another, as the discordant sects imply. They know that 
 truth is a unity, and its attendant is harmony ; that error 
 is legion, and its satellite is discord: and hence, that errors 
 are interwoven in sectarian doctrines. They desire not to 
 annihilate the clergy: they merely wish for a reform, — to 
 have you, who profess to be patterns for imitation, set an 
 example of unanimity and charity, — to have you preach the 
 Word, as it is; for, the nearer you approach the standard 
 of reason, the better will you agree. Truth never dis- 
 agreed with reason. They therefore rightfully demand 
 reasonable discourses; and they want the keeping of their 
 own consciences. The leaven of liberality has already par- 
 tially eradicated many theological chimeras: it is speeding 
 onward to explode the residue. It is universally spread- 
 ing; and the bands which now confine it, must ere long 
 yield to its expanding pressure. Men are ready to raise 
 their voices still higher than they have raised them. The 
 mighty national pulse beats quicker. Foreign aid, — ster- 
 ling Germany is contributing her intellectual indepen- 
 dence, as France, in our Revolution, gave us a mag- 
 nanimous Lafayette. Reason quivers for liberty. The 
 liberal Christians may be illustrated by a battery of Ley- 
 den jars, charged with electricity, but isolated from each 
 other. Want of communication keeps them severally 
 ignorant of the immense number enjoying the same opin- 
 ion, and thus incapable of co-operation. Let the current 
 be found, which requires but an instantaneous touch; and 
 
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. IX 
 
 the discharge will soon purify the atmosphere by precipi- 
 tating its noxious miasma. It is so in every reform: and 
 it will not be long, before the omnipotent temptation of 
 circumstances, the common prime-mover, will create a 
 competent reformer. The world's history proves that the 
 tide of humanity rises to a certain height, and then sub- 
 sides, washing away some impurity at every flood; that 
 change, improvement, renovation; progress, are its in- 
 separable characteristics. 
 
 Our object, in this little treatise, is truth. Our intention, 
 to investigate whether the doctrine of the resurrection, as 
 usually understood, is founded in reality; whether there is 
 satisfactory evidence to establish the fact; or whether, by 
 having had the narration in a dead language, unintelligi- 
 ble to the mass, and by attaching arbitrary definitions to 
 that language, as has been evidently done by the transla- 
 tors; and after that, having put your own construction 
 even upon the corrupt translation, that doctrine has been 
 manufactured. We have summoned a group of exploded 
 dogmas, for the purpose of showing their inconsistency 
 and evil tendency, — dogmas that bewilder and mislead a 
 man through life, and torture him, like so many fiends, at 
 the hour of death. We appeal to those who have dis- 
 owned them, if they do not live as happy without them. 
 If this doctrine be true, it can be unanswerably demon- 
 strated: if not, men of reason, " why cumbereth it the 
 ground?" 
 
 It is our design rather to throw out a {ew hints on the 
 within considered subjects, in a succinct and convenient 
 form, as a nucleus for co-laborers to meditate upon, and 
 to increase if they please, than to enter into a wide discus- 
 sion of doctrines, that might individually be swelled into a 
 volume; and whose deleterious effects have been sadly ex- 
 perienced by humanity. It is no senseless tirade against 
 you. On the contrary, your concentrated clerical. re- 
 search and abilities are invoked to test the validity of our 
 
X ADDRESS TO THE CLERGY 
 
 views. Libraries, correspondence, seminaries, are at 
 your behest. You hold the keys of theological faith. You 
 modify learning, education, from the hoary head to the 
 prattling infant. If you detect any radical errors herein, 
 we would have you designate them: for, it is not our 
 slightest desire to have a fallacy darken the world with 
 its shadow. We demand your candor. 
 
 Fully conscious are we of our position between two for- 
 midable parties, and of the bitter censure we shall incur. 
 Believers and unbelievers will combine against the doc- 
 trine. Did we not sincerely believe ourself to be protected 
 on all sides by a castle of truth, alarm would seize us. — 
 But, a mountain of irrational reproach weighs not a feath- 
 er in the scale of justice. It may threaten; it may rage; 
 it cannot destroy the minutest particle of reason. If any 
 one feels disposed to denounce, we warn him to pause, first, 
 and to reflect, whether the team. may not be in his own eye, 
 whether his own notions are not erroneous, and whether it 
 will not be more Christian-like to expose any detected 
 error by deliberate, convincing reasoning, or admit the 
 truth, however severely it may rebuke him. A mild 
 course is far better and more effectual than a harsh one. 
 
 A proper season has arrived for the laity to speak; and 
 as one of them, we open our mouth through the medium 
 of this brief work, by committing it to your inspection. — 
 We have been patiently and respectfully listening to you 
 and contributing ample benefices for your support, year 
 after year, through centuries; and we think that this con- 
 sideration alone entitles us to a fair hearing. We speak 
 but seldom; you preach continually. We invade not the 
 legitimate rights of your pulpit; then, respect our correct 
 opinions. If we be disallowed these just claims, we have 
 an inalienable consolation of internal satisfaction in having 
 discharged an incumbent duty, and the strong conviction 
 that, millions of heads and hearts will secretly respond to 
 
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. XI 
 
 our sentiments, and millions of tongues will, in due time, 
 publicly proclaim them. 
 
 c: Truth, crushed to earth, will rise again, 
 
 The eternal years of God are hers ; 
 While Error , wounded, writhes in pain, 
 
 And dies amid her worshippers/"' 
 
 We regret our postponement of a promulgation of these 
 opinions; but, it may not be too late for them, if false, to 
 be refuted, — if true, to do good. Much and long consid- 
 eration has deepened our conviction in their strength and 
 rationality. However, we cheerfully submit them to your 
 investigation, believing with Jefferson that no error can 
 do harm, when truth is left free to combat it, and in the 
 interval, remain your fellow citizen and well-wisher, 
 
 A UNITHEIST. 
 
 Portland, June, 1S47. 
 
THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 There are two distinct and separate classes in the com- 
 munity — the believer and the unbeliever. From the com- 
 mencement of Christianity, in all ages and in all nations, 
 they have ever been at variance in points of religious 
 controversy. Each has mustered all its available forces, 
 and rallied all its available strength, to confound the other 
 with argument. The warfare has been incessant with 
 little prospect of termination. The one has strenuously 
 maintained his ground by appeals to history; the other 
 has as obstinately persisted in his unbelief in his views on 
 the authority of reason. The one has contended that the 
 Bible is a revelation from God, and that such a revela- 
 tion is necessary to the welfare and salvation of the hu- 
 man race; the other has pointed at the inconsistencies of 
 his antagonist's assertions, and the unreasonableness of 
 his creeds. The one has arduously labored to establish 
 the authenticity of the Scriptures; the other has stoutly 
 denied the coincidence of its doctrines, as preached, with 
 human reason. The one has declared revelation to su- 
 persede this faculty; the other has insisted upon it that 
 reason is implanted by God within the breast, as a judge, 
 to decide what shall be accepted and what rejected; and 
 that every sentiment incurring its disapprobation, is not a 
 1 
 
% THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE. 
 
 revelation from God, — it being the only arbiter of what 
 is and what is not revelation. The believer has presumed 
 that what is generally admitted, and has long been 
 adopted by others, must consequently be true; the un- 
 believer has affirmed that mankind generally admitted the 
 Ptolemaic system of the Universe, but that the admission 
 did not prove it true, as has been incontestibly demon- 
 strated. The believer has reposed implicit confidence in 
 his spiritual teacher, and asserted his claim to credit, on 
 the ground that he had devoted a life to the study of the 
 Bible; the unbeliever has replied that the teacher was 
 liable to err, that he also had relied upon his teacher, and 
 he upon his predecessor, and so on up to the first re- 
 ligious teacher: and that, after all, it was but the senti- 
 ment of a single man, and that his own judgment was as 
 good as that of the first minister : also, that individuals 
 have often spent their lives in erroneous views. The be- 
 liever has pronounced the Book sacred, and not to be in- 
 vestigated by the weak reason of humanity; the unbe- 
 liever has claimed a right to determine by evidence 
 whether it be sacred; and insists that if it be, it ought 
 not to preclude examination. 
 
 Thus have they been at antipodes. Both have some in- 
 disputable arguments; and both have erred. The be- 
 liever has promulgated doctrines not taught in the Bible; 
 and the unbeliever, supposing that they are, has aimed 
 his shaft at the edifice, instead of striking directly at the 
 scaffold. He has been dazzled by the false lights held out 
 by his deluded antagonist, and herein has had the dis- 
 advantage; for, the believer has at once resorted to the 
 historical proofs, and thereby made a strong defence. 
 But, the unbeliever has led the more liberal believer to a 
 consideration of those corruptions; and by his means have 
 they been exposed. He has likewise had the disadvantage 
 of being opposed by public opinion, whose subservient 
 worshippers are always ready to stigmatize an improve- 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. O 
 
 ment, as an innovation, and a reformer as a disorganizer, 
 and to incarcerate or destroy him as an enemy dangerous 
 to the stability of — Iheir corruptions. 
 
 The doctrines of Plenary Inspiration, of the Trinity, of 
 Original Depravity, of Vicarious Atonement, of Endless 
 Punishment, of the Resurrection, of the Second Advent, 
 and others, have been thrown as stumbling blocks in the 
 way of the unbeliever; and he has rejected them as repug- 
 nant to reason. Our design is to examine cursorily each of 
 these dogmas, and to show that they are erroneous, and 
 cannot, if true, have any radical bearing on the unchange- 
 able principles of morality, — the only substantial, true, 
 and reasonable ingredients of religion. We propose to 
 confine our attention chiefly to the New Testament; and 
 to examine the value of the above-mentioned figments, as 
 merely connected with the main object of this work. 
 
 We invite all to scrutinize our every step in this inves- 
 tigation, and to designate any error that may attract 
 their notice. For the sake of truth, this is requested. 
 And though we are aware our views conflict not only with 
 those of all denominations, but also with those of the un- 
 believer, we feel it to be our imperious duty to present 
 them. To the human mind we would present them, not 
 to the prejudices, to the zeal, nor to the selfishness of par- 
 ties or sects. We believe, we know, it will afford a plat- 
 form sufficiently broad to receive all — Mahometans and 
 Jews as well as Christians, unbelievers as well as conflict- 
 ing sectaries, Africans as well as Americans ; for, it is 
 God's platform of human equality. Its uniform standard 
 is reason, a faculty common to each and all of our race. 
 — a faculty, not an airy name. In Italy, it may be called 
 " ragione "; in France, " raison "; in Greece, it may as- 
 sume, in uncouth characters, the appellation of " logos "; 
 Rome may have once termed it "ratio "; and the differ- 
 ent people of those different countries may be unlike in 
 complexion, customs, and forms of religion; yet, the eter- 
 
4 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 nal, the universal principle, the unchanging essence, 
 REASON, is the same in all. There is no human stan- 
 dard, to which we cau so safely resort. Nature is in con- 
 formity to it. Prejudice, bigotry, superstition, incre- 
 dulity, excitement, are perversions, and engender bad re- 
 sults. Let, then, all adopt a reasonable view; and those 
 sharp faces may be made as smooth and mild as the ethe- 
 rial blue; those harsh words may be softened into tones 
 of melodious unison; those cold hands may be mutuallv 
 grasped with the cordiality of friends; and the averted eye 
 may beam with the pleasant and steady look of recog- 
 nition. 
 
 We would endeavor to indicate wherein the unbeliever 
 has erred in rejecting the whole en masse ; and in what 
 the believer has been mistaken in receiving all with the 
 construction put upon it by others. It would be delight- 
 ful to behold both classes cease their strife over a sublime 
 system of progressive philanthropy, advance towards each 
 other, and unite on the platform spread out by their com- 
 mon Father. And, therefore, we fondly hope each will 
 let his reason have unbiassed scope in considering a ques- 
 tion, fraught with such momentous consequences. 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 
 
 PLENARY INSPIRATION. 
 
 The first erroneous view generally entertained, which 
 we would endeavor to rectify is, that every word in the New 
 Testament is divinely inspired. This involves the supposi- 
 tion not only that the original author and the recorders of 
 the doctrines therein inculcated, but also that the copyists, 
 the translators, and the printers, were inspired; or how 
 know we that they infused the precise meaning intended, 
 — that they made no transcript errors, — no misinterpreta- 
 tions, — no typographical errors, no transposition of pages, 
 chapters, verses, or commas ? A freedom from which is 
 indispensably requisite to make the collation perfect; and 
 divine inspiration, as commonly understood, implies per- 
 fection. And does it not also require that the reader should 
 be inspired to understand it in its primitive sense? We 
 know he may see the words with his external eye; but, 
 unless he enters into the spirit of it, unless his mind is in 
 a similar condition or state with the communicator's, how 
 can he understand it to the full extent? — how can it be a 
 perfect, unimpaired revelation to him ? And by this pe- 
 culiar state of mind we mean inspiration as generally re- 
 garded. 
 
 Now, we know that but few of the sentiments and works 
 of the founder were recorded; and that of those which 
 were, not all have reached us. We have the bare outline 
 of facts, exhibiting marks that designate almost any thing 
 but perfection. However slight may be the mistakes, 
 however minute may be the interpolations, however trivial 
 the transpositions, they deviate to that degree; and as the 
 removal of a single grain of sand from the foundation may 
 topple a gigantic edifice, so may a diminutive alteration 
 herein change the features of the whole. Take, for in- 
 
6 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 stance, the interpolation * in the first Epistle of John, v., 
 7 — " There are three that bear record in heaven, the 
 Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three 
 are one," first found in the writings of a Latin writer of 
 no credit, very near the close of the fifth century; and 
 consider what an engine it has been made to drag a cer- 
 tain well-known doctrine from the Bible. And notwith- 
 standing the admission of its spuriousness, it is suffered 
 to remain ; and is even sometimes quoted to deceive the ig- 
 norant. They think it must be true, because it is in the 
 Bible. How false is such a conclusion, is evident. In 
 truth, this verse has in latter times been selected as a cor- 
 ner stone; and all the rest have been bent or perverted to 
 match it, for the purpose of making it appear that the 
 Scriptures contain the doctrine of the Trinity. Strange 
 kind of inspiration ! 
 
 Our idea is that all men are born with the same kind of 
 faculties, differing only in degree; and that consequently 
 the writers of the New Testament being men, are subject 
 to this rule. The evangelists recorded the facts, each in 
 his own peculiar manner; and hence, we perceive, as with 
 other contemporary writers, some things were omitted by 
 one which were not by another. Each mentioned such 
 as were most prominent in his mind. Had the writings 
 of more evangelists descended to us, they would doubtless 
 have contained incidents, passed over by the four, as one 
 of them does some that are unmentioned by his three fel- 
 low-recorders. We are to view their narrations as we 
 would all other histories. Our reason is to tell us what 
 they teach; and whether their instructions are rational. 
 If we sincerely believe they are, it is our duty to receive 
 them as truths; if we disbelieve, it is equally our duty to 
 reject such, and not the whole for a deficiency in a part. 
 
 * See Appendix A. 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 7 
 
 Because John has a spurious passage — of the three 
 heavenly witnesses, foisted upon him, we would not have 
 the Golden Rule discarded. In fine, we would not have 
 the whole destroyed on account of one error; but, let the 
 errors be sifted from the truths. 
 
 We hold that it did not require more than a common 
 man to write down those facts and sayings. If they dif- 
 fered from other people, it was in their tact and candor. 
 It is not admissible to our mind, that any extraordinary 
 interposition of God was necessary; nor do the various 
 manners in which they relate their story prove any unity 
 of inspiration. If they were aware of the immense im- 
 portance posterity would attach to the offspring of their 
 labors, and really believed it worthy of such, one would sup- 
 pose they would have been more particular, and if they were 
 inspired with any sentiment, it must have been with care- 
 lessness, or we should have had more minute accounts. 
 
 We question not the inspiration of the authors of 
 original truths, though we attach a signification to the 
 word unlike the general acceptation. We conceive that 
 there is a variety of grades in the powers of the human 
 mind. One man may be a greater geometrician than an- 
 other, while the latter may, in his turn, possess a greater 
 aptitude to language. One may be distinguished for pro- 
 fundity of argument, another may excel in the faculty of 
 description. One may shine as an eminent astronomer, 
 another may be a clear-headed moralist. Nor do we per- 
 ceive any objection to a man's combining two, or more of 
 these faculties within himself. So far as it goes, expe- 
 rience teaches us that this is the case. Some are not only 
 great writers and orators, but are able to comprehend the 
 chain of events, as statesmen, and with their deep know- 
 ledge of human nature, can predict occurrences previous 
 to their transpiration, and long before others can imagine 
 such. The principles investigated by the mathematician 
 were not invented by him; he is only a discoverer of what 
 
» THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 already existed. They may indeed be divine; so are all 
 truths. In this light, accordingly, are the correct doc- 
 trines of the New Testament divine. And inasmuch as 
 the principles of morality can effect more happiness in 
 the world than can the principles of other sciences, 
 they are of a more exalted nature. The discoverer of 
 them is therefore regarded with the greater respect and 
 veneration. These truths emanate from the same fountain, 
 and are consequently equally inspired. The difference 
 is merely verbal, consisting only in their transmission 
 through different channels. And whatever inspiration 
 these channels may possess, is derived from the matter 
 flowing through them. Sir Isaac Newton's intellect was 
 a channel through which God conveyed the developed 
 plan of the Universe. Jesus Christ's superior talents 
 were the channel of morality from God to mankind. The 
 one was the revelator of the physical; the other, of the 
 moral laws of the Universe. Neither of them were cre- 
 ators or framers of them; but, the discoverers : for, the 
 principles long preceded their existence, and remained 
 unchanged by the process of discovery. They could ap- 
 ply them, but neither add to nor subtract from their es- 
 sential validity. 
 
 But, we have very little, if any faith, in supernatural 
 power, except so far as the term means more than ordinary, 
 relatively considered. At his birth, every man has his 
 faculties in embryo, to be developed in future by the 
 force of circumstances. We hold that age creates none 
 in addition, but merely modifies those already created. 
 Nor do we believe that any one has been inspired in any 
 other manner than in that which we have mentioned; 
 neither do the evangelists require us to believe in the in- 
 spiration of their writings, but only to credit their truth. 
 Whatever appears new in after life, is only superficially 
 so; in truth, it is but a development and cultivation of 
 some faculty, not previously called into action. It had 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. V 
 
 been in the man, and formed a part of him from his first 
 breath. Hence, we find Christ, at the early age of 
 twelve, disputing, as was the custom, with the doctors in 
 the temple. — [Luke ii., 42-46.] He was'obeying the im- 
 pulses of his nature. So also do we observe Newton, in 
 his youth, busily employed in miniature works of art. 
 
 From this we collect that the apostles and the writers 
 of the New Testament were men of human passions, and 
 liable to err as well as others. Even Christ is represented 
 as an individual, who was " tempted in all points " like 
 us, — [Heb., iv., 15,] and "made perfect through suffer- 
 ings "; — [Heb. ii., 10,] and who " increased in wisdom, " 
 — [Luke ii., 52,] and consequently was capable of im- 
 provement. Of the apostles, Peter was several times ac- 
 cused of error; and once particularly, at'Antioch, Paul 
 says he withstood him to the face publicly, because he was 
 to be blamed. — [Gal. ii., 11.] Thomas is said to have 
 erred in incredulity; and Judas Iscariot to have trans- 
 gressed by palpable perfidy. And Paul and Barnabas 
 had such a sharp contention that they separated ; — 
 [Acts xv., 39,] must not one or both have been wrong? 
 They declared themselves to be "men of like passions " 
 [Acts xiv., 15, J with others. Peter likewise assured the 
 devout Cornelius, " I myself am also a man. "—[Acts x., 
 26.] And at the arrest of their Master, we are told that 
 "they all forsook him and fled. "--[Mark xiv., 50.] J-f. 
 then, as is abundantly evident, they were subject to err in 
 these respects, why should we not be hereby induced to 
 scrutinize their writings, especially those containing their 
 own sentiments ? for, after all, we are as capable of judg- 
 ing their divinity as were the authors of them. They are 
 as directly addressed*to us, as they were to their first pe- 
 rusers; and each one's reason demands a right to exam- 
 ine. The doctrine of " weak and feeble creatures, of 
 
10 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 
 
 erring judgment, fallible beings," so industriously circu- 
 lated, is as applicable to those men as it is to us. It is a 
 mere ruse to subjugate the human mind to the prejudiced 
 opinions of those who claim the supremacy over the whole 
 man; and who are as liable to err as any of us, even in 
 the use of those very terms. At any rate, such a doctrine 
 causes one to distrust his own powers, and tends to para- 
 lyze them into lethargy. 
 
 And should we closely examine the Scriptures through- 
 out, we should detect many errors interspersed therein. 
 We will just touch on a few. As an instance of a transcript 
 error by the copyist, we would refer to the passage, "Great 
 is the mystery of godliness ; God was manifest in the flesh, " 
 [Tim. iii., 16, J * as recorded in our translation, which in 
 the original manuscripts, for the first four or five centu- 
 ries, was M Great is the mystery of godliness: which was 
 manifested in the flesh." This has been summoned as an 
 able coadjutor of the three heavenly witnesses. As an 
 instance of mistranslation, [Hebrews xi., l,"j "Faith is 
 the evidence of things not seen." Faith or belief may be 
 produced by evidence; but, it can not be identical with 
 it, as is apparent to all. It may be synonymous with 
 "conviction" a better adaptation of the Greek original 
 to the sense. As to the chapters, verses, capital letters, 
 and commas, there were none in the original. This is 
 the work of copyists, translators, &c. With regard to in- 
 terpolations, all the titles and superscriptions of the chap- 
 ters, and italicised words, are interpolated; so also is the 
 expression, [Gal. iv., 25,] " is Mount Sinai in Arabia." | 
 Concerning the infusion of the precise meaning, intended 
 to be conveyed, into the translation, which is indispensa- 
 ble to invest it with force equivalent to the original, we 
 would say that there are a great many sects, and each one 
 construes it in a different manner, deriving altogether dif- 
 
 * See Appendix B. t See Appendix C. 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 11 
 
 ferent views, from another; and each one appeals to rev- 
 elation for countenance and authority. They can all 
 agree that twice two makes four, that a stone tends to the 
 ground, and that a broken limb produces pain; because 
 they are propositions founded in reason. So can they 
 agree in theological matters, if they will act in accordance 
 with nature, and test their views by this faculty. Truths 
 really revealed, or emanating from God, will perfectly 
 harmonize with this standard; for, they are as simple and 
 intelligible as elementary mathematical axioms, and they 
 will harmonize with nothing else. So that we perceive 
 the writings, as extant among us, hardly attain the mark 
 of perfection; and therefore, cannot be entirely the off- 
 spring of inspiration by God. 
 
 We hence conclude that mankind are authorized to 
 judge each and <evevy passage by that faculty, to which 
 they directly appeal. They might otherwise be considered 
 as addressed to animals destitute of reason, — to horses, 
 elephants, fishes, and birds, which is preposterous. They 
 are adapted to the intelligence of humanity; and by the 
 decision of humanity, rationally given, they must stand or 
 fall. We are inclined to award to them that credit to 
 which they are reasonably entitled, and no more, what- 
 ever may be the assertions to the contrary, within or with- 
 out the English Bible. 
 
12 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 
 
 FAITH. 
 
 Faith seems to be the next subject demanding our at- 
 tention. By this term, we understand that conviction of 
 the mind which results from a consideration of adequate 
 testimony, presented to us concerning any proposition or 
 event. It is a creature of circumstances. One motive 
 will incline us this way; another stronger, and of a con- 
 trary character, will supersede that, and supplant the be- 
 lief it occasioned; and so on. Reason is to govern us in 
 this particular as well as in others. It is to test the evi- 
 dence, and declare whether it be competent or not. To 
 entertain implicit belief, without requisite investigation, is 
 absolutely wrong in that individual, who has the means, 
 opportunity, and ability to examine. It tends to quench 
 curiosity, to stupify activity, to abolish the desire of free- 
 dom; audi motives to these are innate in the mind by na- 
 ture. However strenuously may be the opposite doctrine 
 taught, however roundly may the contrary be asserted, 
 they will not radically alter the fact. A wilful violation 
 of natural laws is wrong ; and an obstinate and effectual 
 resistance to their operation constitutes a violation. In 
 truth, that man who reposes such implicit belief, unless 
 the circumstances or evidences recommend themselves to 
 his intuition, as according with reason, is more liable 
 to moral condemnation than he who candidly refuses to ad- 
 mit the unwarrantable conclusion. 
 
 As a free man believes, so he acts. Belief then is one con- 
 troller of men's actions. If a person, really desirous to live, 
 sincerely believes that by plunging himself under water he 
 will terminate his existence, he will avoid that course; if he 
 believes that a certain medicine within his reach will re- 
 move a malady to which he is subject, he will endeavorto ap- 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 13 
 
 ply it. This invests the principle of belief with great impor- 
 tance. And we are so constituted that a certain degree of 
 evidence, received by the mind, will at all hazards pro- 
 duce conviction; so that belief, under such circumstances, 
 has no merit in itself, although the means employed to pro- 
 cure the necessary evidence may entitle the individual to 
 credit; and the reward is internal satisfaction. But the 
 idea that he is infinitely culpable for not admitting a prop- 
 osition at sight, unless it be self-evident in his mind, and 
 that he is doomed to endless condemnation therefor, is ab- 
 surd; though the consequences flowing from his acts 
 through ignorance of the same, may effect an injury; but, 
 he cannot be morally accountable. 
 
 Yet, the belief of one man, of an assembly of men, or 
 the united belief of all mankind, in a proposition, through 
 a series of centuries, does not always amount to certain 
 knowledge; nor does it establish the truth of a fact. The 
 evidence, upon which it was founded, may have been suf- 
 ficient for this purpose; and it may not. This has no effect 
 whatever on the fact itself; but, is entirely independent of 
 it. Many instances, in confirmation of this, will suggest 
 themselves to every intelligent being. We hold this rule 
 to be universal: a man or a body of men may believe a 
 thing, without absolutely knowing it, and still be errone- 
 ous in their opinions. Whether they live in happiness, or 
 suffer torture and death, in consequence of it, these acts 
 establish not their truth; they are wholly extraneous. If 
 you can convince one of his absolute ignorance on any 
 subject, and that you are skilled in it, he is too often a 
 willing dupe of imposture. Hence the necessity of as- 
 serting one's independence in a subject like that of re- 
 ligion, as equally open to all, or as no revelation. 
 
 Such are our views of faith, whether considered in a re- 
 ligious, an intellectual, or a physical light. And to this 
 test we would bring all writers, preachers, and believers. 
 
14 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 
 
 MYSTERY. 
 
 This term, as defined by some, is diametrically incon- 
 sistent with revelation. Indeed, they are antithetical; 
 the one is equivalent to light; the other to darkness. Their 
 identity is impossible. They are absolutely incompatible 
 with each other. Where mystery begins, revelation ter- 
 minates, as day is succeeded by night. 
 
 It is only applicable to the unknown, to the unintelligi- 
 ble: and what is revealed is known and intelligible, and 
 explicable. So soon as any thing is explained, it ceases 
 to be a mystery. We may be convinced that water is 
 composed of two gases; that it will boil quicker on the 
 summit than at the base of a mountain, without under- 
 standing why. We may behold plants and trees vegetate, 
 without knowing how. We may be certain of the ex- 
 istence of the Aurora Borealis, without comprehending its 
 cause. So of all physical things. What is revealed we 
 can understand and explain; and what we can neither ex- 
 plain nor understand, is not revealed to us. 
 
 Moral truths, however, are receivable at sight. They 
 are simple, and easily comprehended. Mystery can have 
 no fellowship with them. When we are told it is wrong 
 to injure a person, we understand why, how, and all about 
 it. Self-proof is one of the attributes of a moral truth: 
 and it never can be an attribute of a mystery. Hence, 
 no mystery can be a moral truth and a mystery at the 
 same time, to the same person. 
 
 That there is a governing principle in the universe is 
 admitted by all; for, they have sufficient evidence to sus- 
 tain that belief,, though we know not how it was produced. 
 There is nothing in known nature so strictly analogical 
 to it as to afford us any insight into the mode of its produc- 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 15 
 
 tion. The fact is a revelation; the cause is a mystery. 
 But this is the highest physical truth; and it would re- 
 quire no supernatural talents or divine interposition to 
 make an accurate record of it. Besides, the continued 
 existence is an accompanying proof to all ages. So with 
 the existence of man; it is an immovable demonstration 
 of the wonder performed in his first creation. So with 
 every other real wonder; the natural universe furnishes 
 ample and permanent testimony for its establishment to 
 every kindred and tongue. The narration of such, then, 
 as have not this evidence for their support, must have 
 been fabricated. In fine, God divulges nothing without 
 surrounding it with the most indubitable insignia of re- 
 ality, nor without eternal proofs. 
 
 THE TRINITY. 
 
 In connection with this, we would consider the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, an engrafted excrescence on divine mani- 
 festations. It is based on an incongruity, that three are 
 equal to one, and one is equal to three. If the Father be 
 supreme, the Son cannot be; if the Son be, the Father 
 cannot; and if the Holy Ghost be, neither of the other 
 two can; unless the names be different appellations of the 
 same being: and appellations are not persons, but totally 
 distinct from them. If it be a physical truth, where is 
 the proof? If it be a mystery, it cannot have been re- 
 vealed; nor can it be a moral truth, for it is incompre- 
 hensible. If it has not been revealed, on what authority 
 is the existence of the Trinity asserted ? So that it is de- 
 ficient in all the competent tests of a fact or truth. 
 
 We have seen above, that the passages upon which the 
 
16 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 
 
 principal stress is laid, were interpolated or miscopied. 
 And, for the sake of curiosity, we will briefly state the 
 history of this dogma. The supremacy of the Father 
 was invariably acknowledged by Christ. Not the slightest 
 intimation of the divinity of the Son was given before Jus- 
 tin Martyr hinted it. He died about A. D. 163. All the 
 rest of the Christian world were in profound ignorance 
 concerning it. The personification and deification of the 
 Logos or Word, and its identity with Jesus, were not in- 
 troduced until some time afterwards, and then it was done 
 very cautiously. These changes were made partly for the 
 purpose of exalting the estimation of Christ above the ob- 
 noxious idea, then prevalent, of his having been crucified 
 as a malefactor, the ignominy of which was a great ob- 
 stacle to the conversion of the Jews and Gentiles. It was 
 effected to overcome their adamantine prejudices. Before 
 the council of Nice, in the fourth century, supremacy was 
 always ascribed to the Father; and even Justin Martyr 
 himself declared Jesus to be " subordinate to him, and a 
 minister to his will." With regard to the Holy Spirit, 
 the apostolic Fathers seem to have considered it a power 
 rather than a person. And Justin Martyr says, " we 
 place the Son in the second place, and the prophetic 
 Spirit in the third." The New Testament informs us, 
 that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, [John xiv., 26, J and 
 the Comforter is the spirit of truth. — [John xv., 26.] The 
 original Greek " paracletos" is translated " the Comfort- 
 er " in one place, [John xiv., 26.] and ''Advocate " in 
 another. — [I. John ii., 1.] This Advocate is pronounced 
 to be Jesus Christ. It was with great difficulty that this 
 doctrine was received by the primitive Christians; and it 
 has never been received by believers universally, since 
 that time. Upon how frail foundation does it then rest! 
 
 The whole tenor of Scripture being against it, and com- 
 mon sense revolting at its absurdity, let each judge for 
 himself whether it be worthy of admission as an article of 
 rational belief. 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 17 
 
 ORIGINAL DEPRAVITY 
 
 Implies an absolute falsity, viz., the injustice and cor- 
 ruption of God! For if he create man depraved, (and it 
 must be so, unless he is created pure,) by nature, HE 
 must also be wofully depraved. To this no reasonable 
 being will subscribe. It is a gross libel on the author of 
 the human race. Man has many faculties, — reason, judg- 
 ment, will, and various passions. In the common estima- 
 tion, he is liable to pervert them all. He may abuse 
 them; but, he cannot, if he would, extinguish every spark 
 of goodness infused by his Maker into his constitution. 
 The good will always finally prevail over the bad. He 
 cannot be totally corrupt. This is contrary to the moral 
 law. The observed inclination of humanity to divest itself 
 of the artificial and uneasy shackles of fashionable society, 
 and to seek nature's standard, gives this dogma the sem- 
 blance of a basis. 
 
 The exercise of benevolence among men gives the lie 
 direct to this atrocious doctrine. Some may be relatively 
 worse than others; but, there are none without certain 
 redeeming qualities. Again, — the existence of moral and 
 physical laws, and the requirement of man to obey them, 
 presuppose his capability of obedience. And this annihi- 
 lates the abominable dogma; for, if he were invariably in- 
 clined to evil, and unable to obey, those laws would be in- 
 applicable to him, and would not only prove a superfluity 
 in nature, but an unpardonable oversight or obtuseness in 
 their legislator. Once more, — its reference back to the 
 first progenitor's transgression, is inconsistent; for, if 
 Adam became corrupt from a perfect man, such as are ac- 
 2 
 
18 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 
 
 tually born so bear no analogy to him, since, according to 
 this position, they never were perfect. And the idea of a per- 
 fect being having become imperfect, would lead us to sus- 
 pect that the originator himself might also become imper- 
 fect, which is inadmissible. Besides, it looks too much 
 like a victory of evil over the Author of all good. And 
 again, — we are told by Christ that " a good tree cannot 
 produce evil fruit." [Matth. vii., 18.] Thus does it en- 
 counter insuperable difficulties on its very threshhold, and 
 render itself unworthy of adoption. 
 
 This doctrine was not always entertained. Its birth 
 may be dated near the close of the fourth century. It is 
 an inference unwarranted by the premises. When it was 
 found to clash with the idea of moral responsibility, its 
 advocates must either abandon it altogether, or fabricate 
 another error to effect an apparent compatibility. They 
 resorted to its antagonist 
 
 GRACE; 
 
 Which was to counteract its effects;, and therefore, 
 must be arbitrary ; for, if man had no merit in himselt, 
 was radically corrupt, always predisposed to transgres- 
 sion, grace, if bestowed at all, must be without regard to 
 conduct. Instead of being understood as an inseparable 
 ally of virtue, and an entire stranger to vice, as a quality 
 interwoven with nature itself, as the favor of God towards 
 good deeds and intentions alone, they made it indiscrim- 
 inate, thereby accusing their Maker of confounding the 
 immutable distinctions and consequences of right and 
 wrong. They represented it as a commodity to be poured 
 out en masse. But, discerning that this course would in- 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 
 
 19 
 
 elude all the human race, and would save the assassin as 
 well as the saint, they adopted the subterfuge of 
 
 ELECTION; 
 
 Declaring that the great Searcher of hearts would 
 rectify the dispensation of his favor, and bestow it only 
 upon a few. These would, through this divine assistance, 
 be enabled to choose between good and evil, and incline 
 to the former; a performance of which would secure 
 their salvation. However, it appeared a little too exclu- 
 sive, involving the partiality of Heaven, and a remedy 
 was proposed — the exercise of 
 
 PUBLIC PRAYER. 
 
 Upon the efficacy of this, they almost solely relied. It 
 was the talisman of the believ^, the passport to the throne 
 of favor. To be of the elect, was their earnest solicita- 
 tion. Instead of regarding it as a natural aspiration of 
 the soul to its Creator, and as a means to restore a per- 
 verted mind to the contemplation of the Almighty, and 
 thereby to improve the feelings, they viewed it as a hver 
 wherewith they^ might change the Omniscient. No mat- 
 ter for what they prayed, so long as they prayed fervently. 
 Hence, they launched into all manner of inconsistencies, 
 imploring Omnipotence for the most trivial, the most ab- 
 surd, the most wicked gifts; indeed, every foolish wish 
 that entered their hearts, must be asked without respect 
 to reason or to their fellow-men. Their very tone, so 
 2* 
 
20 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 
 
 whining and unnatural, betrayed a sanctified hypocrisy, 
 ■ — made for effect upon their deluded hearers, as if it were 
 by the lips and voice instead of the heart, that they were 
 to approach God, and that none but themselves were per- 
 mitted! Having lost confidence in their own powers of 
 amelioration, and believing themselves to be immeas- 
 urably sinful, their .misguided zeal prompted them to pour 
 forth the most fulsome flattery, and to pray for showers of 
 grace. But how could the prayers of the radically cor- 
 rupt avail? All could not be the elect; some must be 
 excluded; "many are called, but few chosen;" (Mat- 
 thew, xx., 16;) how could the prayers of the excluded be 
 aught but imprecations? and if effectual, answered with 
 curses? How was it possible for a pure thought to em- 
 anate from an evil heart? And if not, how could they im- 
 portune for any thing else than curses? These were for- 
 midable difficulties, and for their removal was demanded 
 
 REGENERATION, 
 
 Or a being born again ; # and this at the outset presented 
 another obstacle ; because a person restored to his primitive 
 state, was but a repetition of the same idea ; for, in what did 
 his prior corruption differ from his present? Had the true 
 doctrine, that we are the creatures of God, the Author of 
 nature itself, and consequently born pure but liable to 
 perversion, been cherished, there would have Jpeen no 
 need of all those artificial shifts and evasions. They 
 would have understood by regeneration, a return to the 
 standard of nature, to the purity of infants, from which 
 we had departed. But, no; they must yield reason to su- 
 perstition: one doctrine must support the other. And it 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 21 
 
 is worthy of notice, how every individual one of them 
 must be perverted to sustain each other! For instance — 
 the parents of a child, long before its birth, had been 
 thoroughly regenerated; the plague-spot of innate sin 
 had been eradicated thereby; their souls had become 
 pure; they are of the elect; and yet their offspring is 
 tainted with the natural impurity! Whence did it origi- 
 nate? To avoid the blasphemous libel implicated in the 
 answer, the doctrine must be perverted. This calls loudly 
 for 
 
 BAPTISM, 
 
 That the child may be immediately immersed, as its 
 parents had been, and that process would certainly wash 
 away the sin; since the water was supposed to have a 
 sanctifying virtue. This ceremony was instituted before 
 Christ's ministry commenced; and was practised by John, 
 who baptized his followers to repentance. The apostles 
 (Acts xix., 5, and Rom. vi., 3,) baptized in the name of 
 Jesus Christ, and it was a symbol of the profession of 
 Christianity, in like manner as was tfce participation of 
 the ^Lord's Supper, which was assumed as the next step 
 towards rooting out the original stain; for, as the water 
 had performed its duty externally, so was it thought the 
 body and blood of Christ, being introduced, finished the 
 work within. Thus were these two beautiful and signify 
 cant memorials soon perverted by the bigoted adherents of 
 the Church. 
 
 Such a sanctity has the lapse of centuries left brooding 
 over these rites, that their original design is enveloped in 
 mysticism. Then, a person must believe, previously to 
 his baptism, which was a symbolic declaration of that be- 
 
22 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE*, 
 
 lief; now, an infant, who cannot distinguish a Bible from 
 any other book, nor the difference between the Mahome- 
 tan and the Christian religions, is baptized and christened, 
 both at once. Then, the boasting Peter, the unbelieving 
 Thomas, and the perfidious Judas, could partake of the 
 bread and wine with the rest of the disciples; now, only 
 the righteous are admitted, unless, perchance, a vile one 
 stealthily slip in. But, we see no performance of the 
 ceremony alluded to by John, (xiii., 5 — 17,) — the wash- 
 ing of feet by one another, concerning which Jesus thus 
 clearly spoke: " Ye ought to wash one another's feet, for, 
 I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have 
 done to you." To test the regard entertained by some for 
 the Saviour's example, let a tattered beggar, — a sincere 
 believer in Christ, — apply to a wealthy preacher, and ask 
 him to wash his feet for him! Every one can imagine the 
 scene. So that, in this matter, we have gone to the op- 
 posite extreme: instead of making additions thereto, we 
 have blotted it out altogether. We have adopted the 
 borrowed rite of baptism, and the modified Paschal Sup- 
 per, and excluded the only original rite recommended by 
 him! 
 
 Notwithstanding all these doctrines, that of man's free 
 agency remains, in their view, unrestored. According 
 to their correct tenor, it was never obliterated. The very 
 advocates of them, in their perverted form, do not directly 
 deny human freedom of choice; and yet their perverted 
 application abolishes it. And the strongest argument of 
 these advocates consists in their determined and obstinate 
 inclination to pervert. They live up to their doctrine, 
 and are so far consistent. Indeed, a thousand errors, if 
 they superficially support each other, can never make a 
 right; and false premises must always involve wrong con- 
 clusions. So that, when a known truth evidently wars 
 with any number of declarations, or methods of reason- 
 ing, or the reasons themselves, it thereby demonstrates 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 23 
 
 their incorrectness, and will finally put them to flight. 
 But, they perceived the tendency of these views as being 
 a bar to moral choice; and without venturing, thinking, 
 or wishing to probe the soundness of the views them- 
 selves, they capped the climax ol absurdity, by dragging 
 forward as a scape-goat for their errors, the dogma of 
 
 VICARIOUS ATONEMENT. 
 
 A dogma so unreasonable that, if applied in the daily 
 transactions of life, it would be universally reprobated* — 
 so selfish, that even brazen-faced avarice would blush at 
 its enforcement, — so repugnant to nature, that humanity, 
 sinful as it is represented to be, revolts at it, — so libel- 
 lous to Gpd, that it distorts the features of his divine 
 character. To the industrious dissemination of such 
 principles, is the community partially indebted for the 
 knavery perpetrated under the cover of our bankrupt laws 
 — that creditors should bear the burdens of debtors, or 
 that one should suffer for another's fault. By it, men are 
 taught to consider a certificate of discharge an indisputa- 
 ble proof of the satisfaction, the cancelment, and absolu- 
 tion of their demands — of a release from all their moral 
 obligation. A superficial and general adoption of these 
 creates a species of morbid public opinion, to which un- 
 biassed private opinion is in deadly hostility. FrQm the 
 same it would also follow that, if a criminal, in the present 
 life, could lay his thefts and murders upon another, so 
 that himself might escape the penalty of the law, he would 
 be likely to be more reckless than he now is. But, who 
 propagate such abhorrent sentiments? And appeal to 
 the word of God for their assumed authority? These need 
 no written answer. 
 
24 THE THEOLOGICAL BRE-HIVE; 
 
 Are not these teachers ashamed of their reprehensible 
 conduct? ashamed of their inordinate selfishness? Not 
 only are they professedly willing, yea, desirous, but even 
 exceedingly rejoiced, to cast their sins upon another, upon 
 one ivithout sin! It seems they care not who endures the 
 load, nor how unjustly, provided they can exonerate them- 
 selves: — supreme selfishness! They are guilty of the same 
 which they so lustily impute to the executioners of Christ; 
 and thereby even nullify the effect of the very doctrine 
 preached, making themselves equally culpable with their 
 predecessors! Dr. Webster accuses the age of desiring 
 to throw all the undoubted wonders of the sixteenth and 
 seventeenth centuries, such as witchcraft, &c, on the 
 Devil's back.^ Some of our preachers go beyond this, 
 and wish to throw the sins of the whole world on the back 
 of their Saviour. No one, with reason, would dream of 
 so mean an evasion of moral accountability. It wages 
 war against nature, and impeaches the divine government. 
 A lively sense of individual personal responsibility for each 
 one's deeds would tend to make mankind more cautious of 
 their daily conduct, public and private, as they are, under 
 the laws of society. Away with such abhorrent ideas! 
 Come forward, mortals, and meet the consequences of 
 your actions like men. Examine for yourselves: be inde- 
 pendent. Be not terrified with the pusillanimity of child- 
 ren at the imaginary sight of a phantom, conjured up by 
 an interested and deluded order! Call them to account; 
 they are amenable to you for the unnecessary, unmerited 
 inflictions they impose on you; and you are partially re- 
 sponsible for your credulity. What better judgment have 
 they, to determine whether an opinion be reasonable or 
 unreasonable ? Did not the same God endow you with 
 powers of discrimination between right and wrong? Has 
 he dealt out to them the exclusive monopoly? Whose but 
 
 * Scott's Demonology and Witchcraft, (Harper's edition) p. 168. 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 25 
 
 your own interests are involved in your own decisions? A 
 subserviency to the superstitious products of the heated 
 brains of others will always scourge the mind into cow- 
 ardice. It is a punishment of your indolence of thought. 
 Think, determine, act for yourselves! 
 
 Why is it, if all our sins and their punishment were 
 borne by Christ, if he absolved the world from guilt, if he 
 removed the curse alleged to have been entailed on the 
 human race by Adam, and restored us to the primeval pu- 
 rity of the first being, — why is it that remorse now attends 
 our every misdemeanor? Why are the Jews said to be 
 yet under the curse of heaven? Why such direct contra- 
 dictions from the pulpit, still insisting upon the need of 
 reformation? For, if all became transgressors through 
 Adam's delinquency, all must have become renovated by 
 Christ's merits; since the former depended not upon us, 
 so neither could the other. If one was a foreign influ- 
 ence, so must be the other. Experience, however, abso- 
 lutely denies it; and assures us that we are accountable 
 for our misdeeds. In the economy of nature, a broken 
 limb immediately causes pain; and a radical sin occa- 
 sions immediate remorse. We cannot avoid the conse- 
 quences of sin, if we would. He may have apparently 
 died by means of sins, as a victim; but not as an expiator; 
 besides, he asked their forgiveness of his Father. 
 
 This doctrine of atonement has been fabricated and fraud- 
 ulently foisted in among us, by men no better capable of 
 judging of its correctness than ourselves. Age may in- 
 crease its superficial sanctity, but it cannot add to its truth. 
 The artificial sanctity may awe us against an investigation ; 
 but, a moral truth demonstrable or intuitively perceptible 
 two thousand years or an eternity ago, is so now; and no 
 truth shrinks from scrutiny. Error and falsehood only 
 shun the light. It is then our duty to " test all things, 
 and to adhere to the true." 
 
 And, indeed, it contains the seeds of its own destruc- 
 
26 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE*, 
 
 tion, — the mark of its own condemnation. Sin has ap- 
 peared in the world by means of a guilty person, and it 
 must be removed by an innocent and virtuous one. One 
 phase of this sin is murder; another, injustice; a third, 
 cruelty; and all three are involved in the doctrine of atone- 
 ment: that is, to eradicate one original evil, another must 
 be perpetrated; and who atones for this new one? Cer- 
 tainly, Christ cannot have atoned in advance; or he would 
 have done it before the first introduction of evil. If an 
 innocent person, under this view, is punished by God 
 with intense agony for the errors of criminals, what de- 
 gree of punishment will be inflicted on a criminal himself? 
 If none, it is unjust. If any, its efficacy has failed. If 
 men could have improved without it, wherein is its utility? 
 If they could not, they certainly were not accountable; 
 and in what has it altered their condition? If it still be 
 urged they were accountable, why delay the atonement 
 so many years, and allow myriads of ancient souls to 
 writhe in painful punishment? Why exhibit partiality to 
 their successors? Again: if a knowledge and belief are 
 not requisite, then we yet insist the ancients were not 
 responsible. If they are, why suffer so many centuries 
 to elapse before its universal promulgation? Why not 
 stamp it with the convincing simplicity of a mathematical 
 axiom, and let them have the benefit of an atonement, 
 which proves itself to be not an atonement? 
 
 Another contradiction involved in it is, that a sinful act 
 is rewarded as well as a good one, making no distinction 
 between their effects. This, with the absurdity that the 
 sacrifice was made by God to himself or to the Devil, one 
 of which must have been,' to verify the doctrine, seals its 
 condemnation; and invites us to the true ground, that an 
 exemplary life of practical benevolence and integrity will 
 be as instrumental in securing our happiness as it was 
 in securing Christ's; that a deviation will encounter its 
 legitimate consequences; that the principles of morality 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 27 
 
 cannot be affected by time, place, or circumstance; nor 
 can the penalty of their infraction or disregard be evaded 
 or erased. Hence, all the atonement effected, consisted 
 in a lucid development and efficient inculcation by precept 
 and example of these principles among mankind, as the 
 leaven introduced into a mass of bread, which bf its own 
 innate recommendation and energy will improve them, re- 
 storing each one to the standard^of nature, to the purity 
 of a little child, from which he may have more or less di- 
 gressed; and the nearer they return thither, the more ac- 
 curately will they conform to those laws by which the 
 Universe is governed. 
 
 The dogma of vicarious atonement presupposes the di- 
 vinity of Jesus, original depravity of God and man, arbi- 
 trary grace, and other theological phantasms, all incon- 
 sistent with reason and with themselves. System alone 
 keeps them together and alive; for, if separated, they 
 would fall by their own weight; and the very doctrine of 
 vicarious atonement, or the dependence of one upon an- 
 other to be burdened by his faults, is indispensable to their 
 individual existence. Even if it were said to presuppose 
 the humanity of Jesus, it would be marked with some self- 
 ish end in view; for, selfishness is inseparable from hu- 
 manity. And that would vitiate all the disinterested gen- 
 erosity claimed for it. 
 
 From this irrational position, that God suffered an inno- 
 cent and virtuous being to endure punishment for trans- 
 gressors, flows the inevitable conclusion, that real offen- 
 ders are to be punished in a much greater degree, or not 
 at all; and it gives countenance to another irrational 
 idea, that of Endless Misery, 
 
28 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 ENDLESS MISERY. 
 
 This harmonizes with the blasphemously implied mal- 
 ice of the Creator, and conflicts with his obvious good- 
 ness and justice. It disregards the true nature of punish- 
 ment, — a means employed to reform the offender, and to 
 correct the offence, — and inflicts wretchedness when there 
 can be no possible benefit derivable therefrom. By man's 
 wanderings, the infinite happiness of God cannot be dis- 
 turbed: neither can his punishment gratify the infinite 
 goodness. No utility can result from such a rigid admin- 
 istration; and we believe that God has established no in- 
 utility, unless we impeach his wisdom. .As to the often 
 urged inscrutability of the ways of Divine Providence, in 
 this matter nothing incomprehensible was ever designed 
 for man, though it may have been by man. It even ac- 
 cuses the Almighty of having vainly endeavored, by freely 
 bestowing his grace, and dooming a sinless being to an- 
 guish as a substitute for our sins and their consequent 
 punishment, to accomplish what he had in his omniscient 
 view; of having applied a remedy without removing the 
 disease and pain, — of encountering a complete failure. 
 
 Instead of this, how much more reasonable is the doc- 
 trine of individual moral responsibility, — of the suprem- 
 acy of virtue over vice, of truth over error, — and the final 
 conquest of eternal, universal right, over transient, par- 
 tial, ever-fading iniquity! That penalties are the bea- 
 cons stationed along the path of life to aid us in our 
 straight passage, is evident to every careful observer. 
 These are attendant on the slightest deviations, in like 
 manner as are satisfactions concomitant to a direct course. 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 29 
 
 For, nature is as prompt in her payments as she is in her 
 demands, or there would be an anomaly. Diseases are 
 penalties annexed to violation, and though they prey ex- 
 ternally on the body, the soul feels them, and it is the 
 soul that transgresses. They are a part of her economy. 
 Hence we cannot but conclude that finally every vestige 
 of error will be obliterated by the triumphant omnipotence 
 of truth, and that never-ceasing", never-diminishing hap- 
 piness will swallow transitory misery, and reign with un- 
 disputed authority, through eternity and throughout the 
 Universe. 
 
 Such erroneous views have been and are now strenu- 
 ously maintained, notwithstanding their palpable incon- 
 sistencies. The multitude have been accustomed to hear 
 what their teachers were disposed to utter, and to repose 
 the most unsuspecting confidence in their arrogated infal- 
 libility of investigation. They have deemed it either a 
 mark of disrespect or a species of sacrilege to doubt the 
 assertions of those, whom they supposed to be pre-emi- 
 nently qualified to search for the truth. Those teachers 
 have been invested or protected by a wall of religious 
 awe; and their hearers have received the instructions 
 with child-like simplicity. Experience daily proved that 
 they were liable to err in the other transactions of life; 
 and that themselves, though the most expert in their va- 
 rious vocations, were likewise liable to mistake even in 
 matters with which they were considered to be thoroughly 
 acquainted; and yet, the false halo surrounding these 
 spiritual teachers was so dazzling, that they could not find 
 heart to doubt their judgments, their sentiments, or their 
 declarations. Hence have mankind labored under great 
 delusions, relying too much on hearsay, and on the opin- 
 ions of others. It is a penalty annexed to the violation of 
 that law, which enjoins each to think and to act for himself 
 It moreover demonstrates our former position of responsi- 
 bility. 
 
30 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 But, for the honor of man and his regard for his Maker's 
 bestowment of adequate faculties, some have asserted and 
 exercised the right of investigating for themselves. And 
 the reward has accompanied the discharge of their duty. 
 They have stripped off the assumed mask, demonstrated 
 the injustice of implicit faith, proved that the defect of hu- 
 man judgment is principally attributable to this subjugation 
 of mind to others' dictates and tenets, and to its neglect of 
 exercise and discipline: they have shown that their super- 
 intendents were subject to the same delusion from the 
 same cause; have detected the false principles so indus- 
 triously circulated and generally adopted; and have ex- 
 posed the fallacy of their arguments, and the obliquities 
 of their venerated judgments. They have boldly an- 
 nounced to an enchained world, that God holds nothing 
 sacred that is not reasonable and true; and that whatever 
 superstitious sanctity has been attached to such doctrines, 
 has been through the instrumentality of indolent credulity. 
 They clearly evidence that a man of a well-disciplined 
 mind is a more accurate judge of truth than his untutored 
 companion; that he has a clearer sense of God's design. 
 To men of this active character, of this noble indepen- 
 dence, are we greatly indebted for the explosion of so many 
 unwarrantable dogmas, — dogmas too radically defective in 
 a very essential particular, to stamp them with divinity, — 
 defective in positive utility, without which property we 
 believe nothing was ever directly created by Jehovah. 
 And we likewise believe that, in any thing so materially 
 concerning or affecting us, indubitable marks of its utility 
 or inutility are perceptible simultaneously with the object 
 itself. 
 
 The abandonment of these notions forcibly argues can- 
 dor in being willing to eradicate every error which may 
 be designated, whether by Unbeliever or Christian: and 
 the same degree of candor, however repugnant to the 
 bigot, must admit them to be trophies of unbelief; for, 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 31 
 
 unbelievers launched their shafts at the Bible as contain- 
 ing absurdities too glaring and too gross to be for a 
 moment entertained as divine. And, sure enough, manly 
 investigation has discovered their baseless condition. The 
 examiner has indeed been warned by his more devoted 
 brother not to profane sacred doctrines by suspicious scru- 
 tiny; he has been admonished of the awful danger attend- 
 ing such an enterprise ; and has been repeatedly and 
 loudly reminded of his proneness to be misled. But not 
 an allusion has the pious herald made to his own possible 
 liability to deception. Notwithstanding these severe ad- 
 monitions, he has bravely persevered through the storm, 
 regardless of itsimpotent rage. We hope that the inves- 
 tigation will be continued by these high-minded pioneers 
 —and that their efforts will be justly appreciated. We 
 hope that, as heretofore, they will topple down one pinna- 
 cle after another, until every irrationality shall be plucked 
 from our religious soil, — until every gilded spire of error 
 be prostrated and demolished. We are glad to behold 
 arbitrators between the corruptions of Christianity and 
 unbelief; arbitrators who can have no other than an equal 
 interest with their professedly pious neighbors in the 
 welfare of themselves and of humanity, — and whose fac- 
 ulties and means are as ample as theirs; for, we think the 
 unbeliever and the Christian are in pursuit of the same 
 object, — HAPPINESS. 
 
 Men are apt to consider it impossible to be content in 
 any other circumstances than those in which they have 
 lived for years. They become so wonted to their con- 
 dition, that it is often difficult to convince them of the 
 possibility of improvement; and necessity is frequently 
 requisite to induce them to a trial. And so prepossessed 
 are they sometimes, and so prone to a continual recurrence 
 to their delegated ideas, that experience itself will not 
 always rivet the conviction. It was thus w r ith the Ameri- 
 can patriots. They had been living under a king, and 
 
32 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 
 
 many doubted the capacity of themselves to administer 
 their own government. And the project was long debated, 
 and strenuously opposed, — even though they were at the 
 same time fiercely goaded on towards it by their tyrants, 
 before they could conclude to adopt it; and then, some 
 advocated the crown. Thus was it with the Protestant 
 reformers. Religion had been so long entrusted to, and 
 doled out by the Catholic Church, and men had become 
 so subservient to the usurped infallibility, that it cost much 
 effort to muster courage sufficient for the change. So 
 also was it with the Polytheistic Pagans. The innovation 
 of the unity of God was regarded with little complaisance 
 — and its preachers were viewed as criminals. In all these 
 instances, the more liberal, those whom the royal family 
 in the one case, and the priesthood in the other, had not 
 effectually and entirely stupefied, turned their ear to reason 
 — and though they knew the commencement of the experi- 
 ment would be evidently attended with obstinate difficulties 
 — difficulties flowing rather from the old notions than from 
 the new, — their confidence in the practical operation of a 
 rational plan actuated them to try it. In like manner was 
 it with those who formerly hugged as gods to their hearts 
 the corruptions above mentioned, and who now have be- 
 come persuaded of their falsity. They had to contend 
 with the cry of " Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" 
 vociferated by the craftsmen: they were obliged to strug- 
 gle against opinions that had been their idols, enshrined 
 within from their infancy; they had to combat their pride 
 of self-cherished ideas. It was in fact deemed impossible 
 by them, so earnestly and solemnly had they been assured 
 of it, and so servilely did they proffer credence to their 
 teachers, to enjoy happiness without those dogmas. But 
 truth was too honest, reason was too powerful, for even 
 established error; and they were compelled to confess 
 their former delusion, while conviction prompted them to 
 embrace their antagonists' salutary doctrines. It was a 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 33 
 
 homage paid by deception to integrity, justice, and virtue. 
 Never have they, in their right mind, regretted the choice. 
 This leads us to consider the 
 
 RESPONSIBILITY OF BELIEVERS. 
 
 Much has been said, written, and preached concerning 
 the responsibility of unbelievers: many denunciations have 
 been thundered against them for their incredulity, and 
 many Scriptural passages have been arrayed to their utter 
 condemnation. But, are clerical believers totally irrespon- 
 sible? Are they wholly free from moral accountability? 
 We think not. In very many respects are they reprehensi- 
 ble. In 'truth, they are doubly accountable, — to God and 
 to man. 
 
 They have gained the confidence of their auditors, and 
 they are under indissoluble obligations not to abuse it. 
 They hold themselves out as authorized expounders of 
 the Bible, and it is due from them to expound it correctly. 
 They profess to be possessed of all the means to warrant 
 a true knowledge of the Holy Book; and it becomes them 
 to obtain an accurate knowledge of the same. If they be- 
 tray this trust, by adopting, without patient examination, 
 the creeds of predecessors or contemporaries, they are 
 justly and fairly deserving of rebuke. It becomes them, 
 above all, to be candid ancl honest, by publishing any dis- 
 covered defects within the ran£[e of their observation: — 
 and they are bound to bring such within their reach. For 
 a wrong exposition and its bad effects, no one is account- 
 able but themselves. 
 
 They are responsible to God for all wilful misrepresen- 
 tations of his policy towards man, and of his revelations 
 to him. If it has been done through a misguided zeal, 
 they are responsible for yielding the mastery; if through 
 3 
 
34 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 
 
 ignorance, they should either cease profession or inform 
 themselves; if through superstitious reverence for old 
 opinions, they are answerable for an abuse of reason; if 
 through want of candor, they are absolutely culpable. 
 They are responsible for their creed. The question is 
 not so much whether they simply believe* as what they 
 believe. If a man believes fire will not burn him, he will 
 act in accordance with his belief, and get burned, — or be 
 condemned by the influence of that belief. If he believes 
 it will burn him, he will be saved. So that a believer who 
 does not believe aright, is responsible for that belief. 
 
 They are responsible to man for wrong instruction and 
 its consequences; for the evil tendency and its baleful 
 influences on society. They are responsible for the very 
 denunciation they hurl at the unbeliever; for, they had 
 forfeited his confidence by claiming a privilege to explain 
 the Scriptures, and then failing to do it in a proper manner, 
 but pertinaciously adhering to, and promulgating injurious 
 tenets: they who should have been actuated by one mind, 
 one interest, one feeling, have undeniably proved their 
 contrariety, totally unwarranted by the principles of Chris* 
 tianity, by being unanimous in only one thing — disagree- 
 ment. Those denunciations are more applicable at home. 
 They are responsible for their betrayal of confidence, and 
 for seducing man to compromise his reason to them. They 
 are more responsible to the people than any other public 
 servants, inasmuch as the trust committed to them is of 
 greater importance. They are responsible for allowing a 
 predominancy to sectarian prejudice, as well as for sec- 
 tarianism itself, refusing to hear truth because they affect 
 to believe the source to be evil; when, on the contrary, 
 it becomes them to listen before they condemn: and finally, 
 they are responsible for not having spread Christianity 
 over the whole world. 
 
 We would by no means shield the incorrect sentiments 
 of unbelievers; but, we would have believers exercise a 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 35 
 
 little more charity, especially when our religion is based 
 upon it; and when we are so liable for misconduct, who 
 ought to be models for imitation. They can furnish to 
 our reproach many brilliant samples of integrity and vir- 
 tue, of benevolence and charity. It is our duty, then, to 
 regard our own responsibilities before we attempt to at- 
 tack theirs; lest a comparison of our deserts be found to 
 exhibit us in an uncomfortable light, and we be proved 
 guilty of so misconstruing and incorporating such errors 
 with our views of the Bible as to make it really too un- 
 reasonable to be received as a divine revelation. 
 
 Most of the doctrines thus far enumerated have been 
 maintained for a long series of years, and have had many 
 able advocates; but, we have seen that no number of ages 
 or advocates can alter the nature of a fact, or prove an 
 error to be true. Among the rest, has been urged that of 
 the 
 
 RESURRECTION. 
 
 A belief in this alleged event is recommended to the 
 adoption of all mankind; and it is the duty of each to in- 
 quire into its reality, just as much so in the present cen- 
 tury, as it was at the first establishment of Christianity. 
 If it be true that any one has ever arisen from a dead 
 state, it must have been effected by the eternal Author of 
 Nature; and eternal proofs will of course attend it to the 
 end of time. These proofs, if designed for the conviction 
 of man, are intelligible to him, and will demonstrate, with- 
 out a reasonable doubt, the indisputability of the fact, will 
 unqualifiedly establish its absolute certainty. And sinc& 
 .the event is of the same moment to us, as it was to the 
 primitive apostles, we are entitled to the same strength of 
 
 evidence as they. It should also bear the tests, unavoid- 
 
 3* 
 
36 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 ably connected with God's works. For, if we find it not 
 in unison with nature, according to our rational and sober 
 ideas of the same, we cannot conceive of it according to 
 our ideas of the character of Deity. And, if we have 
 wrong ideas of him, we may cherish the same concerning 
 this event. But, our more earnest brethren are liable to 
 a similar defect. We ask only the identical privilege 
 claimed by them, — that of examination. It then becomes 
 us to judge from all the circumstances within our cog- 
 nizance, whether it is probable that it did actually occur. 
 The tests we shall now consider, reserving the proofs for 
 a subsequent opportunity. 
 
 What is its positive utility? The moral government of 
 God is administered according to the immutable princi- 
 ples of virtue. An obedience to them is attended with 
 happiness; a deviation, with corresponding discomfort. 
 Man's constitution prompts him to seek the former and to 
 avoid the latter. This constitution was established by his 
 Maker, and evidently conforms to the standard for which 
 it was designed. Even* if admitted, — the mere fact that 
 Christ's body was raised by God, — we cannot imagine 
 how it can prove a general resurrection any better than 
 that of the widow's son, or that of Lazarus, if they ac- 
 tually occurred; and still less how it can be an earnest of 
 such a resurrection as is described in the first Epistle to 
 the Corinthians, (chap, xv.,) that of a spiritual body: for, 
 according to Luke, (chap, xxiv., 42, 43,) he partook of 
 " broiled fish and of an honeycomb," — both corruptible 
 articles, and this, too, after the alleged resurrection. A 
 being " raised in incorrupt-ion" ( I Cor. xv., 42,) rather 
 conflicts with this notion. Again: if Christ was superior to 
 other men, differently constituted, the inference is still more 
 unwarrantable. For we might with the same propriety ar- 
 gue from the premises of an ordinary man's resurrection,- 
 that the inferior animals will therefore be raised, which advo- 
 cacy would subject us to ridicule. The one can certainly 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 37 
 
 be no more expected to follow from the other, than that, 
 because Christ was miraculously conceived, every body 
 else will be. Neither can we divine how it can establish 
 any thing more than so far as it concerned his body alone. 
 It can certainly be no proof that another will rise, — only 
 that he may rise; and Lazarus established the same, if 
 his was bona fide. So also did the " many bodies of saints 
 that came out of the graves after the resurrection," 
 (Matt, xxvii., 53,) and not at his crucifixion, as many have 
 the impression. And if it certified the resurrection of an- 
 other, or of all, or of an incorruptible body, or the three 
 combined, which it evidently does not, what effect, in itself 
 considered, could it have on the fundamental principles of 
 morality? It is of itself an extraneous circumstance and 
 indifferent to those principles; and can neither verify nor 
 falsify, confirm nor invalidate them, in any possible de- 
 gree. Conduct in consonance with them was productive 
 of as much mental tranquillity before as after the event; 
 and that in conflict with them was equally as culpable 
 and unhappy previously as subsequently. What utility 
 does it evince in this respect? 
 
 Of what utility was it in preaching ? It could claim no 
 necessary connection with death; for, a person might 
 come from the tomb without life having been totally ex- 
 tinct. He may have arisen from among dead men; or, 
 as translated, " from the dead;" but it does not prove that 
 he rose from a dead state, — that he was a re- animated 
 corpse, which is altogether different. Preaching on that 
 point then, could only legitimately consist in asserting the 
 fact of a resurrection. This was what Paul intended when 
 he said, 6i if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching, 
 (or proclamation of the fact) vain; and your faith is also 
 vain, and we are found false witnesses of God." (1 Cor. xv., 
 14, 15.) He meant their belief (in this event) had no sub- 
 stantial foundation. They could indeed be false witnesses 
 very innocently, very conscientiously, if they sincerely be- 
 
38 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 lieved it, and had employed all the means within their 
 reach to investigate its truth. Belief, however, as we 
 have said before, is not absolute knowledge. But, their 
 permanent interest was only in the obedience of the moral 
 laws; and this fact of a resurrection was neither a moral 
 law nor a moral precept. They could have received a 
 moral truth as easily without as with the fact, whether 
 Paul or any other individual preached it. The preaching 
 then of morality could not be essentially affected; and 
 doctrines in collision with this, could not be of any prac- 
 tical utility. But, it may be said to have been instrumen- 
 tal in disseminating those vital principles, in giving 
 Christianity a start, in establishing the system. So also 
 has it on the other hand been used as a cloak to sanction 
 all the corruptions of Christianity. It is appealed to by 
 the advocates of these corruptions with the same perti- 
 nacity that was manifested by Paul in maintaining the 
 fact; it has given them a start; and upon it, the preachers 
 have erected a system totally different from the original 
 intent, and exiled reason is finally obliged to rally to the 
 rescue. If the doctrines preached had been restricted to 
 the weight of their own intrinsic merit, we should be quite 
 as well circumstanced; for, the bad will always eventually 
 be defeated. It requires one error or more to support 
 another; truth declines enlisting in such a cause, and is 
 ever competent to sustain itself. Strike a fair balance, 
 and wherein is its utility in preaching ? 
 
 As to general assurance, of what utility is it? If it 
 establishes aught, it establishes only the resurrection of 
 the body, not the immortality of the soul. And the gen- 
 erally received evidence merely warrants an existence of 
 forty days. Now, the Pharisees, (and Paul was one. both 
 prior and subsequently to his conversion,) (Acts xxvi., 5,) 
 believed in a resurrection as well before as after the al- 
 leged event. Has it inspired any one in our day with 
 more than a hope of having an immortal body here- 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 39 
 
 after? Who is certain of it? Urge what you may, the 
 doctrine of immortal mind remains unchanged, though not 
 taught as above: so also does the doctrine of a mortal 
 body. The enthusiastic Paul may have believed in an im- 
 mortal body, — that he, with others, should be taken cor- 
 porally'into the air before death; others may have be- 
 lieved it; but, generally, the faith in that respect is not so 
 strong as in that of the soul, and if God's marks were im- 
 pressed upon it, it would be. 
 
 Again: — is the actual occurrence of an event indispen- 
 sable to insure general belief of the fact? Daily expe- 
 rience proves that it is not. Very many articles of belief 
 are based on hearsay, on mere rumor. Belief indeed is 
 contagious, and becomes so by our custom to rely too 
 much on vague report, especially if such report meets our 
 approbation or pleases our self-interest. Hence, it may 
 exist without any substantial foundation. And the belief 
 is as efficient and actuating as if the fact had really oc- 
 curred. It will exercise the same influence. We apply 
 this to the resurrection. Whether that event transpired 
 or not, is immaterial with believers that it did, and with 
 unbelievers that it did not. Their actions will be gov- 
 erned by the belief, not by the transaction. In what then 
 has it availed, in these respects, supposing it were true? 
 
 Since, therefore, we cannot perceive any positive utility 
 in such an event, and since we are certain that such would 
 be clear as noon-day to those, whose only interest is con- 
 cerned therein, if it were an act of God, and designed to 
 secure our belief, it follows that we cannot reasonably ac- 
 cord to it more than a slight probability. And we learn 
 that it was doubted on the immediate threshhold, — first, by 
 Thomas, (John xx., 25,) a primitive disciple, — then, by 
 some. (Matth. xxviii., 17.) Besides, what evidence had 
 they, after they were convinced? — for they were not con- 
 vinced by being eye-witnesses of it, nor until after the al- 
 leged fact. They may have firmly believed that Christ 
 
40 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 died; and in consequence of that belief, his posterior ap- 
 pearance may have persuaded them into a belief of an 
 actual resurrection from a dead state; whereas, he may 
 not have been dead, and may have only arisen from among 
 dead men. And what evidence had Paul? He is said to 
 have seen him alive after the resurrection. His firm belief 
 in the absolute death, and his positive ocular evidence of 
 his being alive subsequently, necessarily produced his con- 
 viction of the really of the resurrection. Suppose we 
 had precisely the same evidence, which we have not, 
 would that establish the fact? It might win our assent, 
 and that is all. And we here detect why we have not 
 that identical evidence; — because, it is of no positive utili- 
 ty; — it is not connected with a certainty of the death. It 
 would be so connected — it would be positively useful, and 
 we should have ail the evidence, if it were indisputably 
 true. Indeed, there were no eye-witnesses of the resur- 
 rection, unless the guards of the sepulchre were such, if 
 we may credit the narration as containing a record of all 
 the testimony. Their evidence was not much different 
 from Paul's, if they were witnesses, for they only saw him 
 — they did not even recognize him, as we are indirectly 
 informed. 
 
 Nothing has yet met our eye competent to elicit from us 
 an admission of the fact. Examination rather invites us 
 to abandon its supposition. It will hardly bear the applied 
 test. And now, we will investigate the proofs in order, 
 commencing first with the preliminary of 
 
 THE TEIAL. 
 
 At that time, Judea was a Roman province. Hence, 
 the two different forms of trial, through which Jesus 
 passed, — that by the Sanhedrim, or assembly of chief 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 41 
 
 priests, scribes, and elders; and that by the people, ac- 
 cording to a Roman custom. 
 
 After Judas had designated him to the Jews by a kiss, 
 as the individual whom they desired to capture, they took 
 and bound him. They then led him away first to Annas. 
 (John xviii., 13.) This was early on Friday morning. 
 He sent him to Caiaphas. (John xviii., 24.) As soon as it 
 was day, the elders of the people, and the chief priests, 
 and the scribes came together, and led him into their 
 council. (Luke xxii., 66.) There he was questioned con- 
 cerning his disciples and his doctrines. (John xviii., 19.) 
 He referred them to those who had heard him. (John xviii., 
 21.) This occasioned a blow by one of the officers, as an in- 
 sult to the high priest. (John xviii., 22.) Failing in their at- 
 tempt to obtain direct answers from him, they are said to 
 have sought for false witnesses, (Matt, xxvi., 59,) whose 
 contradictory evidence nullified itself. At last two agreed in 
 their statement, that he had said, "I am able to destroy 
 the temple of God, and to build it in three days." (Matth. 
 xxvi., 61,) This they considered an assumption of divine 
 power, for he was then in the temple, (where he asserted, 
 " Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it 
 up," — John ii., 19,) and they supposed he meant that edi- 
 fice. His silence (Mark xiv., 61) to the accusations was 
 regarded by the chief priest as a contempt of court. 
 " Answerest thou nothing?" (Mark xiv., 60,) said he, in 
 some perturbation. " Art thou the Christ?" (Mark xiv., 61, 
 and Luke xxii., 67.) " If I tell you, "said he, " ye will not 
 believe: and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor 
 let me go; I am." (Luke xxii., 67, 68, and Mark xiv., 62.) 
 The high priest pronounced it blasphemy; and they all con- 
 demned him to be worthy of death. (Mark xiv., 62 — 64.) 
 Then burst forth the Jewish rage. They spit in his face, 
 and buffeted him, and smote him. After a consultation, 
 (Mark xv., 1) " they led him away from Caiaphasto the hall 
 of judgment," called the Proztorium. "And it was yet early" 
 
42 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 
 
 (John xviii., 28,) so that they must have hastened the ex- 
 amination, and disregarded some of their usual customs. 
 They perhaps deemed the emergency a sufficient apology 
 for judicial irregularities, or desired to get througli before 
 the people were aroused, before broad day. It seems that 
 Caiaphas had previously prophesied that Jesus should die 
 for that nation, (John xi., 51,) and that he " enjoyed the 
 sacerdotal dignity during the whole course of Pilate's 
 government in Judea; — for, he was advanced by Valerius 
 Gracchus, Pilate's predecessor, and was divested of it by 
 Vitellius, governor of Syria, after he had deposed Pilate 
 from his procuratorship.* 
 
 When Christ appeared before Pilate, he was under a 
 sentence of condemnation by the council. They were 
 bent upon his destruction; the governor interposed for his 
 release. On examination, Pilate could find no cause for 
 death, (Luke xxiii., 14,) but the priests vehemently accused 
 him, to which he made no reply. Among the Romans, 
 there were four kinds of trial; before the people, before 
 inquisitors, before praetors, and before a jury. Christ ap- 
 pears to have been subjected to the first kind. The citi- 
 zens sometimes gave their votes at trials viva voce; and 
 judgment was governed by their decision. Hence, we 
 learn that, in this case, " the voices of the people and of 
 the chief priests prevailed, and Pilate gave sentence " 
 accordingly. (Luke xxiii., 23, 24.) It was conducted in a 
 tumultuous mannner; they were lashed into a high degree 
 of envy and excitement. We are told f that Coriolanus, 
 a Roman senator, about B. C. 488, was tried for his life, 
 and that the proceedings were irregular, and transacted 
 with violence. J Some said that he was killed in the flower 
 of his age; others that he lived to be a very old man. § 
 His trial was also before the people. According to Xe- 
 
 * Fleetwood's Life of Christ, p. 248. f Livy, Lib. II, c. xxxv. 
 J Dionys. VII., c. xxxv hi, &c. $ Plutarch in vita Coriolani. — Note. 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 43 
 
 nophon, Cyrus, King of the Persians, died peaceably in 
 his bed; Strabo inclines to this opinion; Lucian makes 
 him live beyond the age of an hundred years. Herodotus 
 makes him fall in battle, after a reign of twenty-nine years, 
 his head to be cut off and thrown into a vessel filled with 
 human blood, by order of queen Tomyris, to avenge the 
 death of her son killed by the Persians. (Herodotus, Vol. I., 
 p. 170, and Note. Harpers' edition.) 
 
 After Pilate had scourged Jesus, according to the Ro- 
 man custom, he delivered him to the soldiers, who led him 
 into the Prcetorium from the tribunal outside, and clothed 
 him with a military cloak of a scarlet color, a garment 
 sometimes worn by the chief officers of the army, — 
 usually by the general.* [In a triumphal procession, the 
 victorious army, horse and foot, came last, singing their 
 general's praises, j" but occasionally throwing out railleries 
 against him. J] As he had been accused of aspiring to the 
 empire, the merry soldiers, in sport, put a crown of acan- 
 thus on his head. When they had finished their frolic, 
 Pilate brought him forth, protesting his belief in his inno- 
 cence, and said to the Jews, M Behold the man! " The 
 chief priests and officers immediately shouted " Crucify 
 him! " After some farther similar manoeuvres, finding 
 that his entreaties availed naught, Pilate gave him up to 
 them, and they led him away (John xix., 16,) to the place 
 of execution — Golgotha. This urges us to consider the 
 mode of punishment practised at that time, — Crucifixion. 
 
 # Liv. I., xxvi. f Livy, V., xlix. $ Suet. Jul, 49—51 ; Dion 
 VII. . lxxii.; Martial, L, v., iii. 
 
44 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 
 
 THE CRUCIFIXION. 
 
 In describing this severe infliction, which, we are in- 
 formed by Plutarch, * was bestowed by the Macedonian 
 general, more than three hundred years before Christ, on 
 a physician, Glaucus, because Hephssstion, Alexander's 
 intimate friend, died, — and which was common to the Per- 
 sians, Carthaginians, and Romans, — we shall principally 
 follow Jahn's Biblical Archceology.'\ 
 
 When Darius took Babylon, (516 B. C.,) " he ordered 
 three thousand of the most distinguished nobility to be 
 crucified. "J It was inflicted by the Romans on servants 
 who had perpetrated crimes, on robbers, assassins, and 
 rebels, among which last Jesus was reckoned, on the 
 ground of his making himself King, or Messiah. The 
 Jews, in Christ's time, were subject to that people. Be- 
 fore crucifixion, the person was scourged as a preliminary. 
 The cross was usually about ten feet high. A piece of 
 wood, projecting therefrom for him to sit upon, and the 
 nails driven through the hands and feet, or a cord fasten- 
 ing the hands to the transverse piece of the cross, — or 
 both, were his supports. His body generally remained 
 attached thereto till it became putrid; but in Judea, where 
 Christ was crucified, it was buried on the same day, on ac- 
 count of a Jewish law: (Deut. xxi., 22, 23,) l( And if a 
 man have committed a sin worthy of death, and thou hang 
 him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the 
 tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; that 
 thy land be not defiled." In such cases he was suffocated 
 
 * Plutarch's Life of Alexander, f Jahn's Bible Archaeology, 
 p. 322 — 324, and Section 261, — octavo edition, by Upham. — 
 t Herod. UL, clix. 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 45 
 
 by the smoke of fire underneath, or destroyed by wild 
 beasts, or his bones were broken by a mallet, to accel- 
 erate his death. He usually survived till the third, and 
 sometimes till the seventh day. 
 
 We here perceive at least an intimation in one of the 
 Books of Moses, said to have been written more than four- 
 teen centuries before Jesus Christ, — ages before this 
 people- were subject to the Romans, that the Jews under- 
 stood the punishment of hanging on a tree. No mention 
 is made by the evangelists that Christ was nailed to the 
 cross by his feet. Nor do they assert that his hands were 
 nailed: it is merely hinted, and that by only one of them, 
 John. Before he was crucified, which means, fastened to 
 the cross, Mark tells us (Mark xv., 23,) that ' c they gave 
 him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received 
 it not." This was a n^dicated preparation, designed as a 
 kind of opiate, to blunt the nerves, and thereby diminish 
 the pain. It was a customary potion to capital sufferers. 
 While he was crucified, and said, (John xix., 28 — 30,) " I 
 thirst," one of the soldiers immediately ran, and brought 
 to him some sour wine and water, a common beverage in 
 their army, called Posca. This he received, and there- 
 with quenched his thirst. Here Were two endeavors to al- 
 leviate his sufferings. 
 
 This cruel punishment was the doom of convicts for 
 many years afterwards; and its ignominy was one of the 
 principal obstacles to the spread of Christianity. And 
 though it may be contended that he abolished the attend- 
 ant disgrace, some have revived it by their attachment 
 to the stake, ring, and fagot, — preserving its upright 
 portion as a precious relic. His energy of character and 
 integrity may have mutilated the cross; but, a single 
 glance at the burning Servetus, Ridley, and Latimer, 
 and at the numerous antos da fe, will convince one that 
 the accursed tree had lost only its arms, and that even 
 their place had been supplied with full equivalents. 
 
46 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 
 
 However this may be, it behooves us to proceed to our 
 investigation, whether that excruciating treatment was 
 fatal to Christ; in other words, whether it absolutely oc- 
 casioned his DEATH. 
 
 With regard to this matter, what says the account? 
 John xix., 30. "And when he had received the vinegar," 
 or posca, we are told that "he bowed his head and " — 
 died! — oh, no; but, that he "gave up the ghost.". The 
 corresponding Greek, paredoke to pneuma, is very dubi- 
 ous, which should not be so, in recording such an unpar- 
 alleled event. It may mean swooned, or suspended anima- 
 tion. The Greek language was not so barren as to refuse 
 more exact phrases. In substantiation of this, we need 
 only say, that this very evangelist, John, (John xi., 16, 26, 
 32, 37, 50, 51 , and xii., 33, and xxi., 23,) when giving the 
 phrase "that we may die," uses^tna apothanomen, and 
 almost universally the different tenses of the same verb to 
 express just its signification. And Matthew, (Matt. xxii. 
 27,) when he says. " last of all the woman died also," 
 uses apethane for " died." So also does Mark (Mark xii., 
 22,) in relating the same story. Nor is Luke (Luke xvi., 
 22,) an exception; for he has the very word to express 
 that " the rich man also. died." Thus far, then, we find 
 no positive assertion that he did die. 
 
 Let us now examine Matthew, and select the testimony 
 given by him. All we can find, touching this point, is 
 the announcement of the angel to the women: (Matt, xxviii., 
 5 — 7,) " I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. 
 Go and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead," 
 apo ton nekron, from dead men. What says Mark? 
 " And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and when 
 he knewtf of the centuriou, he gave the body to Joseph." 
 (Mark xv., 44, 45.) In such a delicate matter as deter- 
 mining life or death, was not the cursory glance of the 
 officer liable to mistake? And was the governor exceed- 
 ingly anxious for his death? The young man in the sep- 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 47 
 
 ulchre (Mark xvi., 5, 6,) addressed the women, '_• Ye seek 
 Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified." Luke (Luke 
 xxiv., 5 — 7) represents the women as accosted, " Why 
 seek ye the living among the dead? — meta ton nekron — 
 " among dead men.") Remember how he spake unto 
 you while he was yet in Galilee, saying, the Son of Man 
 must be crucified," 8lc. In Christ's conversation with 
 the disciples going to Emmaus, (Luke xxiv., 13 — 46,) they 
 asked if he had heard concerning the chief priests' and 
 rulers' delivery of him to be condemned to death, and that 
 they had crucified him. He replied, " Ought not Christ 
 to have suffered these things?" When he came among 
 his disciples, that evening, he quoted the Scriptures, that 
 it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead, — eh 
 nekron, from dead men. John states that " when they came 
 to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake 
 not his legs." (John xix., 33.) Still farther (John xx., 9) 
 we are told that the disciples " as yet knew not the Scrip- 
 ture, that he must rise again from the dead," ek nekron. 
 Again, — he says, (John xxi., 14,) "This is now the third 
 time that Jesus showed himself to his disciples, after that 
 he was risen from the dead," ek nekron. Net one of the 
 evangelists affirms that Christ rose from a dead state. 
 Even in the Acts, it is intimated that he survived the suf- 
 ferings, for it is there said, (Acts i., 3,) " he showed him- 
 self alive after his passion (passion means suffering) by 
 many infallible proofs." It does not say, after his death, 
 nor does it say he died, but rather implies the contrary. 
 They speak of his crucifixion, and of his rising from 
 dead men, or bodies. They allude to prophecies apper- 
 taining thereto. Christ himself, in his post-resurrection 
 conferences with the disciples, asserts no actual death; — 
 neither do they: but seem only surprised to find him alive, 
 when they had abandoned him as dead. All the testimony 
 then appears to consist in a hasty glance of soldiers under 
 a favorable governor, and a centurion's mere affirmation 
 
48 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; ' 
 
 to the facile Pilate, together with the negative silence of 
 the two private friends, Joseph and Nicodemus: for, " the 
 Jews besought that their (the convicts') legs might be 
 broken." (John xix., 31.) The counter testimony, that he 
 was alive for forty days, at least, after his suffering, and 
 the " Lo ! I am with you all the days until the end of the 
 age," (Matth. xxviii., 20,) instead of being contradicted, 
 is unanimously supported by the writers, and seems to 
 array the forces of original truth against erroneous sec- 
 ondary constructions. 
 
 Since, then, no positive, indubitable evidence has yet 
 been adduced to prove the death, we proceed to examine 
 the inferential, and the positions of its advocates. And 
 if, in the course of our investigation, it be ascertained that 
 the negative is more probable than the affirmative, — if, in 
 truth, the affirmative be found exceedingly questionable, 
 impossible to be established beyond a doubt, and difficult 
 to be established at all, notwithstanding the superincum- 
 bent strata of the belief and assertion of centuries, then 
 the bodily resurrection from a dead state, as the term is 
 generally understood, is consequently unworthy of our cre- 
 dence. We deny not that he may have risen from the 
 dead, among whom, we are told, he was deposited; nor 
 do we deny that his preachers sincerely believed that his 
 life did actually become extinguished. 
 
 Let us then suppose that they meant he died, — did he 
 die at the specified time? Or did he merely swoon with 
 anguish? The latter would seem to be the fact. Cruci- 
 fied persons commonly survived till the third, and some- 
 times till the* seventh day; and he remained on the cross 
 but a few hours. For, it was about twelve o'clock when 
 Pilate said to the Jews, *' Behold your king! " (John xix., 
 14.) Some delay then ensued; they had considerable 
 conversation; his own clothes were put on, and he was 
 led slowly away to the place of execution, bearing the 
 cross. After they had reached the spot, it consumed a 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 49 
 
 short time, at least, to arrange the cross, and to affix him 
 to it; so that it must have-been past noon, if not past one 
 o'clock, when he was crucified. Besides, among the Ro- 
 mans, judgment was not given till after mid-day, by the 
 law of the twelve tables.* Indeed, we have no certain 
 data to ascertain the precise time when they had completed 
 their arrangements, and affixed him to the cross. About 
 three o'clock (Matt, xxvii., 46 — 50,) is the next assigned 
 hour. He then " cried with aloud voice," and again, af- 
 terwards. Before six o'clock, he was entombed; for the 
 women had time to return to Jerusalem, (Luke xxiii., 56,) 
 to buy, (Mark xvi. 1,) and to prepare spices and oint- 
 ment, that they might rest the Sabbath day, according to 
 the commandment, (Luke xxiii., 56 ;) and the Sabbath 
 commenced at six o'clock in the afternoon. Add to this, 
 that the previously taking down, the embalming, and the 
 conveying the body, were not done in a moment; and the 
 period of his suspension was quite short. Being superior 
 to ordinary men, one would infer he had been capable to 
 survive at least seven days; whereas we are ecclesiastically 
 told that he lived not so many hours. Matthew (Matt, 
 iv., 2,) and Luke (Luke iv., 2,) inform us that he sur- 
 vived a fast of " forty days and forty nights, and did eat 
 nothing " during that interval. 
 
 What did they to hasten his death? The narration 
 gives no positive clue to any thing. On the contrary, we 
 are told that " they brake not his legs," (John xix., 33,) 
 — though they fractured the bones of the thieves on 
 either side of him, — not because they believed he was 
 .dead, but " that the Scriptures should be fulfilled, A bone 
 of him shall not be broken." (John xix., 36.) For, if 
 they credited his death, why was the next act done? We 
 are informed that " one of the soldiers with a spear pierced 
 his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water:" 
 
 * Gell, xvii.j 2. 
 
50 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; ^ 
 
 (John xix., 34,) but it was done to fulfil another Scripture 
 — " They shall look on him whom they pierced;" — and 
 not because they believed he was not dead, nor be- 
 cause they wished to hasten his death. For, if they be- 
 lieved he was dead, why pierce him to kill him? If they 
 believed he was not, why omit to break his legs alone? 
 
 Much elaborate argument has been bestowed on this 
 latter point. Among others, it has been the burden of 
 two essays by physicians, to demonstrate that " the thrust 
 of a lance into the left side, through the pericardium, from 
 which lymph and blood flowed out, would have put a period 
 to his life, if he had not been previously dead." That 
 may be true; but where do we find mention of a " thrust"? 
 John does not say so, and he is the only one who speaks 
 of the spear: nor does he say " into the side." There is no 
 preposition used in the original, in that verse. The Greek 
 word enuxe, translated " pierced," in the thirty-fourth 
 verse, (John xix.,) may with equal authority be rendered 
 " pricked," and this is evidently the force of the expres- 
 sion, if we consider that exekentesan, translated the same 
 in the thirty-seventh verse, is a compound of a preposition 
 ek, from, or out of, and kenteo, " I sting or prick." The 
 word kentra, in the Acts, (Acts ix., 5,) correctly trans- 
 lated " pricks," or goads, is of the same description, of 
 the same origin. In the Revelations, (Rev. L, 7,) where 
 it says " they who pierced him," the corresponding Greek 
 is exekentesan, precisely the word for the same form of ex- 
 pression, and referring to the same occurrence, and by 
 the same evangelist. We are to understand the language 
 as they meant it, and not as we would arbitrarily attach 
 our meaning to it. If we consider the phrase (Acts ii.,37) 
 " they were pricked in their heart," we shall find katena- 
 gesan, a compound of a preposition, kata, and nnsso, " I 
 prick." The above, enuxe, is the first 'aorist tense, in- 
 dicative, of this verb nusso, and of course, means no more 
 nor less than pricked. It is obviously all that John in- 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 51 
 
 tended to convey to the mind. Had it been a violent 
 thrust, the word oiliest might have answered as well. 
 Such is the term used in the Acts (Acts vii., 39,) to de- 
 signate a thrust. Had a 'piercing thrust been designed, 
 dialeusetai might have been selected, as in the passage, 
 (Luke ii., 35,) "a sword shall pierce through thy own 
 soul." But, since no violent thrust was necessary to ful- 
 fil the prophecy, (John xix., 37,) " They shall look on 
 him whom they pricked," we need no fabrications; for, 
 they may prove too much, defeat the fulfilment itself, and 
 nullify the prediction. Nothing divine is left with loose 
 ends; and the deviation of a hair's breadth is a violation! 
 A truth is strong enough of itself, without any endeavors 
 to strengthen it : foreign appliances only weaken; they are 
 an artificial mask on a natural face. 
 
 And why may we not accredit something to the lenien- 
 cy of the Roman soldiers, when we have before been as- 
 sured of it? They possessed hearts and feelings, as has 
 been seen. One of the centurions had received a favor 
 from him, for he had healed a favorite servant. (Matt, viii., 
 13.) Was this kept secret from the soldiers? After his 
 trial in the High priest's palace, and when he was sent to 
 the judgment hall, the Roman governor did all in his 
 power, under the circumstances, to check the Jewish 
 fury. Pilate's wife had a dream, (Matt, xxvii., 19,) (and 
 the Romans firmly believed in dreams,) which must have 
 tended to influence her husband, for she despatched a 
 message to him, sitting on the judgment-seat, — " Have 
 thou nothing to do with that just man." And John (John 
 xix., 12,) tells us that "from thenceforth Pilate sought to 
 release him;" i. e.. after his conversation with him. Now, 
 is it not probable that the soldiers, who were under Pi- 
 late's command, (Matt, xxvii., 27,) were desirous to please 
 their commander, or at least to manifest such a desire ? For 
 he emphatically told them, both by words and deeds, that 
 he leaned towards Christ, and would prevent the penal in- 
 4# 
 
52 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 
 
 fliction, were it not for being impeached as one preferring 
 Christ's claims to regal authority to those of Caesar. 
 (John xix., 12.) They would evidently and naturally 
 rather connive at every step towards his release, than 
 seek to injure him. Pilate also obviously thought the 
 scourging would satisfy his accusers, who, by the way, 
 were not Romans. And some of the soldiers were Jews 
 under Roman authority. Besides, the centurion (Luke 
 xxiii., 47,) expressed his opinion that " Christ was a 
 righteous man." He was standing " over against him." 
 (Mark xv., 39.) 
 
 By tracing the narrative attentively, they are dis- 
 tinguishable from the disinterested Romans by their con- 
 duct. Contumely, insult, and harsh usage were prompted 
 by inveterate envy, and characterize the authors as Jews. 
 Every kindness, every attempt to shield, as forcibly de- 
 signates the Roman. The whole tenor of the narration, 
 together with the true signification of the original, in- 
 duces us to believe his side was not pierced very deep, 
 and that Pilate gave private directions to his own trusty 
 soldiery how to deport. We must remember that deeds 
 are mentioned without much explanatory conversation, 
 which undoubtedly accompanied them, and which, if 
 known, might impose an entirely new aspect on many 
 circumstances. Every defect evolves a mystery for su- 
 perstition to adopt. 
 
 If we proceed farther, we shall ascertain that the gov- 
 ernor was not particularly anxious to be certified of 
 Christ's absolute death. Mark (Mark xv., 44,) represents 
 Pilate as astonished at the sudden exit, and as marvelling 
 <( if he were already dead." We behold his reason for 
 wondering, in the fact that victims generally dragged out 
 an excruciating existence of several days. Nor did he 
 much scruple to surrender the body; nor was he difficult 
 to be satisfied. For he voluntarily relied on the word 
 of the centurion, and the centurion deemed Christ inno- 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 53 
 
 cent. (Mark xv., 45.) And since he seems to have been 
 so easily convinced, we again detect a partial ray emana- 
 ting from favorable feeling. " He washed his hands, 
 saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person. ,, 
 (Matt, xxvii., 24.) This was done in public, " before the 
 multitude;" It was a disavowal of all participation in the 
 proceedings. Would not Pilate have preferred his release 
 to his death by crucifixion? And would he not act accord- 
 ingly in the most, politic manner? 
 
 We have already seen that there was not only no 
 " thrust into his side," and that, if it should be proved 
 there was, an alleged prediction would have been falsified. 
 A thrust is rather too clumsy to verify the prophecy of a 
 puncture. Neither does John say it was " the left side" 
 —but, barely, " pierced his side." In the celebrated 
 painting of Rubens, called "The Descent from the 
 Cross," the artist has represented a scar in the right 
 side, and he probably had as good cause for so exhibiting 
 ife as did the physicians in their manner. Indeed, we 
 have the following account in the Gospel of the Infancy, ^ 
 which was received by a Christian sect in the second 
 century: " Then Judas, who was possessed, came and sat 
 down at the right hand of Jesus. When Satan was acting 
 upon him as usual, he went about to bite the Lord Jesus; 
 and because he could not do it, he struck Jesus on his 
 right side, so that he cried out. And in the same moment 
 Satan went out of the boy. This same boy who struck 
 Jesus was Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him to the Jews. 
 And that same side on which Judas struck him, the Jews 
 pierced with a spear." Rubens may have derived the 
 hint from this source. Nor does John say that the peri- 
 cardium was pierced through. He does not even say 
 that " lymph and blood" issued; nor does he tell us 
 whether it "flowed out" rushed out, or oozed out: but, 
 
 * 1 Infancy, xiv. ? 5 — 10. 
 
54 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 simply, that it " came out." All that we can collect from 
 him is this: (John xix., 31 — 34,) The Jews, because it 
 was the preparation, that the>bodies should not remain on 
 the cross on the Sabbath day, besought Pilate to have their 
 legs broken, and to have them taken away. He accord- 
 ingly soon sent his faithful soldiers, who broke the legs of 
 the two thieves, condemned by the Roman law; but they 
 omitted to break the legs of Jesus. Was not that signifi- 
 cant of Pilate's confidential directions? One of them with 
 a spear pierced his side. Does not precaution eloquently 
 manifest itself in this act? We are told that, euthus exel- 
 then, (singular number) aima kai udor, " forthwith came 
 there out blood and water." Here we have a verb in the 
 singular number, agreeing with two nouns, each in the 
 singular, and coupled by a conjunction. We leave the 
 critics to determine how long kai udor, (i and water," 
 have been incorporated with the context. 
 
 Why the two physicians used the terms ct lymph 
 and blood," is obvious. The pericardium is the mem- 
 brane that surrounds the heart, which is, of course, 
 within, and protected by the ribs. If we reckon the 
 liquor of the pericardium as consisting of 100 parts, 
 92 of those parts are lymph. Hence, they used those 
 terms as they did, to convey the unwarranted idea, that 
 there was a major portion of lymph, and a minor por- 
 tion of blood ; and that, consequently, no membrane 
 but the pericardium could furnish such proportions. 
 But we see no authority for all this. They have trans- 
 posed the words, (or their translators have,) to answer 
 their own purpose, by placing " lymph " before " blood," 
 to cause a belief in the " thrust into the left side," as well 
 as that this imaginary thrust was violent enough to pene- 
 trate the ribs and reach a mortal part. Now, though this 
 might have been indispensable to prove a " thrust through 
 the pericardium," it was not at all essential to make it cor- 
 respond with John's narration. There is lymph on the 
 surface of the cellular membrane. When we raise a 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 55 
 
 blister, commonly called a water-blister, by any irritating 
 application, by burning, by labor, or otherwise, we have 
 lymph at hand. Why then the need of plunging into the 
 cavity of the chest for this fluid? The cellular membrane 
 is near the skin's surface; and the skin is the most sensi- 
 tive part of the animal economy, as is experienced in 
 surgical operations. Why then the need of perforating 
 the pericardium to ascertain whether Christ was dead? 
 and, especially, when he was pierced for another pur- 
 pose, viz., to verify a Scriptural prediction? Besides, in 
 a sound condition of health, the quantity of lymph on this 
 membrane is exceedingly small, — just enough to lubricate 
 the heart in its operations: it would be absolutely imper- 
 ceptible to a casual observer of so much intermingled 
 blood. And if, by a violent death, by epilepsy, by swoon- 
 ing, or by any invasion of the laws of health, the quan- 
 tity of lymph increases in the pericardium by a decompo- 
 sition of the blood, by an unusual separation of the watery 
 fluid from the solid, the same happens to the lymph of the 
 cellular membrane; so that no advantage is gained on 
 this score, in assuming the pericardium as the pierced 
 membrane. Again: even if the pericardium be supposed 
 to have been penetrated, it would have been necessary for 
 the spear to pass through so many fountains of blood, 
 that its consequent flow would have been so disproportion- 
 ate to the lymph, that the latter would have been scarcely 
 noticeable; whereas, on the contrary, the cellular mem- 
 brane being so much nearer the skin's surface, the lymph 
 would naturally be more observable, as not mixed with so 
 much blood. But, what part of the Gospels reads that it 
 was lymph? John is the only narrator of this fact, and 
 he declares it was water. Was it not sweat? Indeed, it 
 would be more reasonable to suppose that the blood, on its 
 issuing, mingled with his sweat, which such intenll and 
 overpowering anguish must have produced in considerable 
 quantity, and thereby presented water to the sight of an 
 
56 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 excited disciple, than that the pericardium was thrust 
 through. For Luke (Luke xxii., 44,) affirms that he 
 sweat profusely, " as it were great drops of Mood," when 
 in an agony, or painful dilemma, in the garden of Gethse- 
 mane: and this position would seem to be confirmed by . 
 John, (John xix., 28,) where he is represented to have 
 thirsted, doubtless from an undue perspiration by the tor- 
 ture of crucifixion. 
 
 From the preceding, the proper inference seems to be, 
 that instead of the soldier being ferocious, in an age of 
 peace established by Augustus, and violently plunging the 
 spear into his side through the pericardium, this soldier 
 was under the guidance of Pilate, who was favorably dis- 
 posed towards Christ; that he was not an accuser with a 
 rabid zeal to have^his vengeance glutted; that he had a 
 human heart and mild feelings, especially if he belonged 
 to that species of Roman infantry called " hastati," be- 
 cause they carried " hastae," or spears, — who, according 
 to the Roman historian, Livy,* were young men, and, of 
 course, had tender susceptibilities as one motive, and a 
 character to establish for promotion in the army through 
 their commander's favor as another, (and the grades of 
 rank were very numerous;) that he received, either per- 
 sonally, or mediately, by the amicable centurion, secret in- 
 structions from that commander, who wished to be unim- 
 peachable in the public estimation, and to assist the un- 
 fortunate victim; and that he accordingly just punctured 
 the sensitive skin, which occasioned the appearance of 
 blood and water, or of blood* mingled with sweat. 
 
 As to the expression "jloiced out," the corresponding 
 Greek word, exelthen, signifies " came from, or out of, or 
 forth," and nothing more. It is altogether different from 
 the words, which signify "to run," "to rush," or "to 
 flow, '•—quite as different as are these words from each 
 
 *Livy 3 VI1L, viii. 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 57 
 
 other in English. Every thing, in fact, attending the 
 circumstance, favors the interpretation " came out," in 
 preference to " flowed out," or any other phrase; and 
 hence it confirms us that the blood and water came not 
 far from the skin's surface, and that the puncture was not 
 mortal, nor severe enough to revive Christ, but that it was 
 a mere matter of form to shield Pilate from any charge of 
 collusion or palpable favoritism. And what does John 
 say? (John xix., 34.) " Forthwith came there out blood 
 and water." He gives blood the precedence. This could 
 not have been for the sake of euphony, since, in his first 
 epistle, (1 John v., 6,) it is written, " This is he that came 
 by water and blood." We are also told that the centurion 
 who exclaimed, (Luke xxiii.,47,) i( Certainly this was a 
 righteous man," was " watching Jesus," (Matt, xxvii., 
 54,) and would have naturally denounced any violence 
 perpetrated by a subordinate; and that " all the people 
 who came together to the sight, beholding the things which 
 were done, smote their breasts, and returned;" (Luke 
 xxiii., 43) — thus evincing agitation and displeasure at the 
 transactions. None of this, by any means, invalidates our 
 belief that the legs were left unbroken by the governor's 
 order; for, we are apprized by John (John xix., 4 and 12,) 
 that having found no fault in him, he was anxious to effect 
 his release; and he evidently entertained a lurking doubt 
 of his actual death. We believe that Pilate's operations 
 were concealed from the public gaze from motives of pol- 
 icy, fearing lest by being too precipitate, he should not so 
 well aid Christ as by being moderate and circumspect. 
 Indeed, Matthew (Matt, xxvii., 24,) plainly assures us that 
 "Pilate saw he could prevail nothing, but that rather a 
 tumult was made," by his public endeavors to appease the 
 Jewish populace in reconciling them to a release of the 
 captive. And if he externally dreaded the jealous dispo- 
 sition of Tiberius, he had an internal monitor, which for- 
 cibly advocated the cause of innocence. The conclusion, 
 
58 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 then, that he plied all the secret means in his power to re- 
 lieve and liberate the accused, is almost, if not quite, un- 
 avoidable. If the person and name of Pilate be unseen, 
 his influence is perceptible, and identifies him as the mas- 
 ter-spirit of the scene. 
 
 For a confirmation of the depth of the wound, we may 
 be requested to consult John John xx., 25 — 27,) once 
 more, who represents the incredulous Thomas as saying, 
 cc Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, 
 and put my finger into the print of the nails, amd thrust 
 my hands into his side, I will not believe," and who in 
 like manner informs us that Christ thus addressed the un- 
 believer: " Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands 
 — and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side." 
 Omitting any comments on the fact that this doubt evi- 
 denced an ignorance, a forgetting, a misapprehension, or 
 a disbelief, of the alleged prophecies concerning the resur- 
 rection, either of which is strange, when we consider his 
 relationship to his master, and Christ's invariably bold, 
 happy, and lucid method of revealing himself, together 
 with the importance of it, we proceed to the subject. 
 
 It is supposed by many that the gospels were written 
 principally in Greek, and not till some years after the 
 events had transpired ; that the Jews, in the time of Christ, 
 spoke the Syriac tongue, but usually the Hebrew, and that 
 all the European versions are from the Latin: so that, on 
 this ground, they were spoken in Syriac or Hebrew, writ- 
 ten in Greek, translated into Latin, (or vice versa,) and 
 re-translated into English, before they became intelligible 
 to us. These writings were committed to the custody of 
 the Fathers of the Church, who were anxious to dissemi- 
 nate them, or their views concerning them. Jerome, one 
 of the number, who flourished in the fourth century, in the 
 same century with the celebrated council of Nice, and of 
 the conversion of Constantine, declared, in his preface 
 to the Gospels, that ho two copies of the Latin versions 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 59 
 
 were alike. If then alterations, interpolations, various 
 translations, and other things had made such a metamor- 
 phosis in them at his time, and he complains of the inter- 
 polation of a marginal note of his own into the body of 
 the*text, what can be expected at this late age, but some 
 uncertainty, generated by spuriousness? To the sixteenth 
 century, the Roman Catholic Church had many of the 
 manuscripts in their private custody. During this inter- 
 val, the verse of the three heavenly witnesses, (1 John v., 
 7,) and we know not how many others, crept into the 
 writings; nor do we know how many crept out. Now 
 commenced the Reformation by Martin Luther, a Catho- 
 lic monk; and the art of printing, about a century before. 
 The difficulty, or rather the absolute impossibility of in- 
 fusing precisely the same signification into a translation 
 as the original imported, (the one bearing a similar rela- 
 tion to the other as the image in a mirror bears to the real 
 face, much depending on the fairness of the mirror,) the 
 certainty of many interpolations, erasures, . mistakes of 
 copyists, forgeries, and corruptions; the probability of nu- 
 merous typographical errors; and the well-known gene- 
 rative and modifying tendency of a false sectarian zeal; 
 all conspire to render a suspicion of alterations extremely 
 probable, at least. And the Unitarian New Version, 
 page 22, corroborates this suspicion, by declaring that 
 more than one hundred and thirty thousand various read- 
 ings are now in the manuscripts of the New Testament. 
 Each reader has doubtless had a standard of his own, to 
 which he has endeavored to make the sense conform by at- 
 taching his own interpretation to this or that word, with- 
 out regard to its primitive innate meaning; as we perceive 
 is now daily done by the different sects to support their 
 respective tenets. They deduce inferences justifiable to 
 their brethren alone; for they are accustomed to sail to- 
 gether in the same channel. Thus was it also that the 
 physicians invested a word, simply conveying the idea of 
 
60 
 
 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 
 
 a puncture, with the unwarrantable force of a thrust into 
 the left side, through the pericardium! to sustain their pre- 
 viously-established belief. They first framed their opinions 
 from hearsay or superficial examination, and then sought 
 for arguments to rally as subsidiaries. Nature and rea- 
 son should be consulted before art; for every thing divine 
 is true, and every thing true corresponds to them with 
 the most undeviating fidelity and accuracy. With these 
 qualifying remarks, how shall we view the translation of 
 the Greek word halo, literally meaning " I shall cast, or 
 throw," and translated "I shall thrust," in one clause, 
 and " I shall put," in another, of the same verse? (John 
 xx., 25.) Or how shall we view the verb itself, — whether 
 interpolated, miscopied, altered or corrupted? How shall 
 we regard the Greek preposition eis, which has upwards 
 of a dozen significations, and is translated "into" in that 
 verse, in the one after it, " in," in the first verse of the 
 chapter, " unto," in the second of Peter, (chap, ii., 22,) 
 "to," in Ephesians, (chap, v., 32,) "concerning" in 
 Matthew, (chap, v., 35,) "by," in 1 Corinthians, (chap, 
 iv., 3,) "for," and differently in other passages?* What 
 shall govern us but the evidently natural sense? Shall 
 we adopt the translation and selection of the bishops, and 
 believe that Thomas, one of the primitive disciples, can- 
 did and sensible, really wished to thrust his hand into the al- 
 leged deep gash, and thereby irritate, aggravate, and renew 
 the pangs of his Master? For, according to Luke, (Luke 
 xxiv., 30 — 39,) Christ was the same after the resurrection 
 as before, with respect to flesh, bones, and appetite. Shall 
 we for a moment believe he was so cruel and barbarous?* 
 Is it natural? Is it reasonable? Or shall we rather be- 
 
 *It is translated " toward n in the following passages : Acts 
 i.j 10 ; Romans xiL, 16 ; 2 Corinthians xiii., 4; Galatians ii., 8; 
 and 2 Thessalonians i., 3. Apply this to the account of the as- 
 cent, or, as it is called, the ascension. 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 61 
 
 lieve he merely desired to be satisfied that his Teacher 
 was tangible, and to identify him by the scars? Ten days 
 (John xx., 26,) had elapsed, and perhaps more, since the 
 incisions were made, and the sanative applications of 
 Christ's friends would tend to heal the wounds in that 
 time. We learn (John xii., 7,) that Mary had kept some 
 precious ointment against the day of his burying. This 
 ointment was a healing balsam. . And the myrrh, which 
 Nicodemus put upon him at his burying, was a gum pos- 
 sessing medicinal or healing properties. Then again, 
 they had several times (Matt, xiv., 26,) supposed him to 
 be a spirit. (Luke xxiv., 37.) Now, is it not altogether 
 more likely that Thomas was only desirous to be cer- 
 tain that he was not a spirit? Was it not sufficient for 
 him^to touch, or " put his hand to " his side, and " to "the 
 mark of the nails? Would not this have answered every 
 purpose, and have been more true to nature at the same 
 time? For, John does not pretend to assert that Thomas 
 did so thrust in his hand. Nor would it be tolerated to 
 surmise that the. doctrines of Christ, especially when de- 
 livered in all their purity, with the eloquent accompani- 
 ment of energetic and impressive action, and then fresh 
 from the genuine source, .produced a callous heart in his 
 disciple, or had that tendency. Neither does the evan- 
 gelist, in his very minute description, mention that the 
 feet were pierced. The other three, are equally silent on 
 this point. With the above reasonable considerations, 
 what becomes of the deep flesh-wound?* 
 
 This completes our examination of the inferential evi- 
 
 * Dr. Wm. F. Alexander, of Charlestown. Jefferson County, 
 Virginia, has recently communicated to the American Journal of 
 Medicine and Surgery, a new case of protracted vitality after a 
 wound of the heart. The subject was stabbed in an affray, 
 the weapon passing entirely through the left ventricle of the 
 heart, entering the pericardium, and wounding the diaphragm. 
 Yet he lived seventy-eight hours after this dreadful wound. 
 
62 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J % 
 
 dence, and the positions of the physicians. And we 
 must confess, that thus far in our inveetigation, we have 
 encountered nothing sufficiently cogent to convince us 
 beyond a reasonable doubt, of the actual death of Christ 
 while on the cross. Soon after the crucifixion, before the 
 body had been removed, which, according to the Jewish 
 law, (Deut. xxi., 23,) was to be interred or carried away 
 that day, commenced the process of 
 
 BURIAL. 
 
 It seems that, Cf when the even was come, there came a 
 rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, who also himself 
 was Jesus' disciple: He went to Pilate and begged the body 
 of Jesus." (Matt, xxvii., 57, 58.) " And Pilate marvelled 
 if he were already dead; and calling the centurion, he 
 asked him whether he had been any while dead. And 
 when he knew it of the centurion," (Mark xv., 44, 45,) 
 " he commanded the body to be delivered." (Matt, xxvii., 
 58.) " And there came also Nicodemus, (which at the 
 first came to Jesus by night,) and brought a mixture of 
 myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound. Then took 
 they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with 
 the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now 
 in the place where he was crucified, there was a garden, 
 and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never 
 man yet laid. There laid they Jesus therefore, because 
 of the Jews' preparation; for the sepulchre was nigh at 
 hand." (John xix., 39 — 42.) " And the women also, 
 which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and 
 beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid." (Luke 
 xxiii., 55.) " Mary Magdalene, and Mary of Joses, be- 
 held where he was laid." (Mark xv., 47.) They were 
 M sitting over against the sepulchre," (Matt, xxvii., 61,) 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 63 
 
 when Joseph " rolled a great stone to the door of it, and 
 departed." (Matt, xxvii., 60.) " And they returned and 
 prepared spices and ointment; and rested the Sabbath 
 day, according to the commandment. " (Luke xxiii., 56.) 
 Here we have a rich man as a disciple, " but secretly, for 
 fear of the Jews." (John xix., 38.) Mark says, (Mark 
 xv., 43,) " he went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the 
 body." Does not this strongly intimate that the governor 
 was either a disciple himself, or at least, indulgently in- 
 clined towards Christ? and that Joseph was cognizant of 
 • the fact? Or why should he fear the Jews, and not Pi- 
 late? Why does it emphasize '''Joseph who also himself," 
 unless it was designed to signify that Pilate was likewise 
 a disciple, but secretly for fear of the Jewish rage, or of 
 impeachment ? 
 
 Then it appears that Christ is in the temporary custody 
 of a disciple, who was " an honorable counsellor." (Mark 
 xv., 43.) However, " on the next day, the chief priests 
 and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we 
 remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, 
 After three days I will rise again: command, therefore, 
 that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest 
 his disciples come by night and steal him away, and say 
 unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last 
 error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, 
 Ye have a watch; go your way, make it as sure as you 
 can. So they went and made the sepulchre -sure, sealing 
 the stone and setting a watch." (Matt, xxvii., 62 — 66.) 
 This closes the series of proceedings appertaining to the 
 burial. We leave the scene of the sealed tomb, and the 
 guards stationed there, to consider the proofs of the - 
 
64 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 
 
 RESURRECTION. 
 
 According to the generally received opinion, the Gos- 
 pels furnish no evidence that there were any eye-witnesses 
 of this remarkable event. Though Christ is said to have 
 been seen after he had emerged from the sepulchre, very 
 few, on account of their secondary ideas, admit that any 
 one saw him in the act of his egress. We, on the con- 
 trary, shall endeavor to satisfy candid minds that he was, 
 at that critical juncture, an object of actual vision; but, 
 in our view, he only rose from the dead, and not from a 
 dead state. And we think the tenor of the narration amply 
 warrants our belief, however unique it may appear. We 
 have seen above, that, in an abstract light, there could be 
 no possible exclusive utility in, or necessity of, a bonajide 
 resurrection; and we now propose to inquire what sub- 
 stantial testimony is extant to invite our assent to the fact. 
 
 The narrative appears to be thus: — u Now upon the 
 first day of the week, very early in the morning," (Luke 
 xxiv., 1, 2,) " Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of 
 James, and Salome," (Mark xvi., 1 — 3,) and " some with 
 them," (Luke xxiv., 1, 2,) started with " the spices which 
 they had prepared," (Ibid) for the purpose of visiting the 
 sepulchre and of anointing Christ. (Mark xvi., 1 — 3.) 
 While they were on their way thither, " they said among 
 themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the 
 door?" (Mark xvi., 1 — 3.) At their arrival, " they found 
 it rolled away." (Luke xxiv., 1,2.) Matthew states (Matt, 
 xxviii., 2 — 4,) that " there was a great earthquake; for 
 the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came 
 and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. 
 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white 
 as snow. And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 65 
 
 became as dead men." The rolling back of the huge 
 stone of course shook the ground, and caused " the earth- 
 quake " in that immediate neighborhood. Indeed, the 
 statement intimates as much; since the descent of an an- 
 gel, the only accompanying occurrence, did not necessa- 
 rily produce the jar, while the concussion of a large stone 
 against the ground would; and we are consequently told 
 that this was the wherefore, the gar, translated "for." 
 The women mention no earthquake, nor did they appa- 
 rently suspect the stone was removed; neither do they al- 
 lude to the watchmen, concerning whom they evidently, 
 at that time, knew nothing. It appears, however, that 
 some of these watchmen " came into the city," when the 
 women were going." (Matt, xxviii., 11.) Hence, they 
 must have witnessed the transactions before the women 
 had set out. They had been stationed to watch; and 
 their post was hear the sepulchre. Their attention was 
 naturally attracted by the trembling of the ground, where- 
 on they were standing, towards the spot whence it origi- 
 nated. Sight convinced them that the stone, which but a 
 few moments since was at the door, was now removed. 
 It was at that time, — offer the trembling, — that they saw 
 " the angel of the Lord " upon the stone. In their terror, 
 they concluded he came from heaven; for, whence else 
 could they expect an angel? Their fright also magnified 
 this being into a supernatural essence: for, they were not 
 entirely free from superstition, as we shall presently see. 
 This accounts for the women's apparent ignorance of the 
 earthquake; for, the shock did not extend far enough to 
 secure their notice. 
 
 Now, was not this angel, with snow-white raiment and 
 shining countenance, the identical Jesus, with a pallid, 
 ghastly face, and in his linen grave-clothes, all illuminat- 
 ed by the uncertain moon-light, recovered from his swoon? 
 Did he not himself roll back the stone, and his sudden ap- 
 pearance terrify the keepers? It appears that even Mary 
 5 
 
66 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 Magdalene, his intimate acquaintance, did not recognise 
 when she first saw him; for, John tells us (John xx., 15,) 
 she mistook him for the gardener of Joseph. Neither did 
 the other women recognise him in the " young man sitting* 
 on the right side of the sepulchre, clothed in a long white 
 garment," (Mark xvi., 5.) Nor did his two disciples, 
 (Luke xxiv., 13 — 28,) as he overtook and accompanied 
 them on their journey to Emmaus; for, they regarded him 
 as a stranger. Again: we find (Johnxxi., 1 — 4 and 14,) 
 that the disciples did not know him when he stood on the 
 sea-shore of Tiherias, though it was the third time that 
 he had showed himself to them. Is it any wonder then 
 that the keepers, in their consternation, did not know him? 
 It would indeed have been wonderful, if they had, in the 
 dim twilight, and virtual strangers as they were to him. 
 They communicated the intelligence of these things to the 
 chief priests, (Matt, xxviii., 11,) and hence, originated the 
 story of the earthquake. Now, is it not more likely that 
 the individual who rolled away and sat upon the stone, 
 was Christ in his white grave-clothes, than an angel, ar- 
 rayed in a shining garment ? Remember that Joseph rolled 
 it to the sepulchre. (Matt, xxvii., 60.) 
 
 History advises us that the Romans were very super- 
 stitious in that age, as well as the Jews. Forty years 
 before Christ, a spectre is said* to have appeared to and 
 addressed Brutus, as his evil genius, before and after the 
 battle at Philippi; and that Cassius, an Epicurean, dis- 
 credited the truth of the story. About eleven years after 
 this, just before the battle at Actium,f many wonderful 
 omens occurred; such as the swallowing of a colony by 
 an earthquake; the perspiring of Antony's statue for 
 many days; the firing of the temple of Hercules by light- 
 ning; the prostration of the statue of Bacchus, and of two 
 other colossal ones called Antonii; and the ousting of one 
 
 * Plutarch in vita Bruti. f Plutarch in vita Antonii. 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 67 
 
 set of swallows from a nest built in the stern of Cleopa- 
 tra's royal galley, by another. The Romans considered 
 even the most common occurrences as ominous. Sooth- 
 sayers, or wonder-interpreters, were numerous among 
 them. They saw portentous signs in the lightning, and in 
 the thunder; in the flight, singing, and croaking of birds; 
 in the feeding of chickens; in a person's sneezing, or 
 spilling salt; in the manner a quadruped crossed the road; 
 and in apparitions. Credited dreams were innumerable. 
 Indeed, we are informed # that these dreams were not 
 confined to the lower classes; for, Augustus Cesar him- 
 self, during whose reign Christ was born, in consequence 
 of a dream, annually on a certain day, begged alms of 
 the people, to avoid adversity; and he is pronounced by 
 the same author to have been very superstitious. And on 
 account of the loss of his ships in a storm, he forbade 
 them to carry in procession, at the Circensian games, JVep- 
 tune's image* with those of the other gods. Neptune was 
 the god of the sea. To the dream of Pilate's wife, (Matt. 
 xxvii., 19,) we have already alluded. Another historian, | 
 born four or five years after the alleged death of Christ, 
 and a contemporary of Suetonius, communicates to us 
 that the angel of Eusebius,J an apostolic father, and that 
 of the Acts, (Acts xii., °2\ — 23, aggelos Kuriou, messen- 
 ger of the Lord,) were identical, being an owl,§ which 
 
 * Suetonius in Augusto, 16,91, 92. fJosephus. 
 
 X Anakupsas de tes eautou kephales uper leather zomenon eiden ag- 
 gelon epi schoiniou tinos. Touton euthus enoese kakou einai aition, 
 — [Eccles. Hist. , Lib. IT., ix. 
 
 Translation. ll And having raised his eyes, he saw an angel 
 sitting upon a certain rope over his head. He immediately 
 perceived this to be the cause or omen of evils. ;; 
 
 § Anakupsas de oun ton bubona tes eautou kephales up erkather zom- 
 enon eiden epi schoiniou tinos aggclon te touton euthus enomjsen ka- 
 kon einai. — [Joseph. Antiq. ; Lib. XIX., ch. viii., sec. 2. 
 
 Translation. " And therefore having raised his eyes, he saw 
 
 5* 
 
63 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 
 
 appeared to Herod Agrippa in the theatre, and which he 
 superstitiously regarded as an evil messenger, or angel. 
 He saw the owl perched on a rope over his head. This 
 was about A. D. 43, during Peter's life, A firm belief 
 in such occurrences obtained among them for many cen- 
 turies afterwards, if we may credit the account of Con- 
 stantino's ominous cross, A. D. 312, and other historical 
 narrations. 
 
 Hence, we perceive no cause for surprise that the 
 soldiers supposed Jesus to be an angel or messenger 
 from heaven. Or, if they were Jewish recruits, which 
 is not very unlikely, as the governor told them " Ye have 
 a watch," and as the watch repaired to the chief priests 
 to make known the strange occurrences, their supersti- 
 tion is indisputable. And, indeed, unless this be the true 
 state of the case, no one is said to have witnessed the resur- 
 rection.* 
 
 an owl sitting upon a certain rope over his head, and this he im- 
 mediately conjectured to be an angel or messenger of evils. JJ 
 
 * If this be not an acceptable view of the matter, and we 
 cannot conceive why it should not be, agreeing as it does with 
 the evangelical account, and needing no subterfuges to harmo- 
 nize it, we have a pretty strong hypothesis to present, which may 
 recommend itself to ecclesiastical adoption : for. all their conside- 
 rations of the event are entirely hypothetical, which disagree 
 with the above, and we know of none that agrees with it. Mat- 
 thew relates that the Jews came to Pilate, and requested him to 
 have the sepulchre made sure until the third day, lest the disci- 
 ples come by night and steal him away; that Pilate, with per- 
 fect non-chalance, told them to go their way, and make it as sure 
 as they could ; and that they went and made it sure. Now, when 
 was this application made to Pilate ? Was it while Christ was 
 on the cross ! Was it even on the day of the crucifixion % Not 
 either. Observe that it was the day after the same ; and conse- 
 quently, that a .niglrf had intervened before the watch was set ! 
 Was any thing more than an empty sepulchre secured? Was 
 Christ at that time in the tomb ? Did not Joseph, or some other 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 69 
 
 In addition to this^it is obvious that it was not expected, 
 believed, nor known by the disciples that he was to rise. 
 That it was not expected, we judge from their conduct, 
 when he came among them after the crucifixion: "they 
 were terrified, and supposed they saw a spirit," (Luke 
 xxiv., 37,) notwithstanding they had been previously ad- 
 vised of his re-appearance by Mary Magdalene and other 
 women, (Luke xxiv., 10.) Nor does it seem that these 
 women expected to see him alive when they went to the 
 sepulchre, the third day; or why should they carry 
 "spices" thither? (Luke xxiv., 1.) That it was not 
 believed, we conclude from the astonishment manifested 
 by the two disciples, who travelled with him the same day 
 to Emmaus, (Luke xxiv., 13 — 25,) at the account of the 
 women who reported him to be alive; and from the reproof 
 he administered to them for their slowness of heart to be- 
 lieve: also, from the incredulity of Thomas, (John xx., 
 25,) notwithstanding the assurance he received of the fact 
 from his fellow-disciples: and from the declaration of 
 Matthew, (Matt, xxviii., 17,) that when the eleven met 
 him on an appointed mountain in Galilee, " some doubt- 
 ed: 55 as well as from the several assertions of Mark, 
 
 disciple of equal strength, (for, Joseph rolled the stone to the 
 door,) during that very night, before the stone was sealed, roll 
 the self-same stone from the door? He, or any one else, even 
 Christ himself, had ample opportunity before the watch was set — on 
 
 THE NIGHT PREVIOUS? 
 
 It is the opinion of some that the application was made that 
 evening. But, the Jews, especially " the chief priests and Phar- 
 isees," were strenuous observers of the Sabbath, and that was a 
 peculiar one, being the day of the Passover celebration ;• hence, 
 others believe they postponed securing the sepulchre until after 
 the completion of the ceremonies of the day. lest they should 
 violate the sanctity, or interrupt their attention to its solemnities. 
 However this may be, the text runs : " Now the next day that 
 followed the day of the preparation,'" &c, Matt. xxvii., 62 — 66. 
 
70 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 (Mark xvi., 10 — 14,) to the same effect. Not only were 
 they far from crediting the probability of the event, but 
 they would not even believe the solemn asseverations 
 made by those of their own number, who had been with 
 and seen him. That it was not known to them at the 
 moment of its occurrence, we infer from the above; for, 
 had they known, they would have believed: and from the 
 remark (John xx., 9,) of his bosom-companion, ' ; as yet 
 they knew not the scripture,* that he must rise again 
 from the dead." That it was not even suspected, may be 
 deduced from their not being on the spot at the time to 
 witness it; and if the precise hour had been told to any, 
 it is supposable that his immediate followers would have 
 been the recipients, and would have acted accordingly. — 
 Instead of this, we are informed (Luke xxiv., 21,) that 
 they " trusted it had been he who should have redeemed 
 Israel," implying disappointment of their confidence in 
 his Messiahship. All this inclines to show that, if they did 
 not expect, believe, know, nor suspect, his resurrection, 
 at the time of, or before, its occurrence, they did not re- 
 gard his death as connected with any such event, nor in- 
 vested with any more importance than common deaths. 
 When they believed he was dead, they evidently thought 
 that was the end of him. The rising from a dead state, 
 was a very difficult and obstinate article of conviction 
 even to familiar acquaintances, notwithstanding the alleg- 
 ed numerous predictions of the same. Their belief in 
 his crucifixion and in his death is not represented to have 
 been so stubborn. That they may have believed he actu- 
 ally died on the cross, [which would have verified the 
 prophecy of the chief priest, Caiaphas, and made him a 
 true prophet!] (John xi., 51,) we do not deny; for, the 
 spirit of the narration seems to involve this idea. Nor do 
 we deny that they may have believed he rose again; for, 
 
 * What scripture 1 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 71 
 
 they obviously had ocular demonstration of it. Neither 
 will we allow that they may not afterwards have believed 
 he did not in reality die, but revived, and rose from dead 
 men; or providentially escaped the jaws of death, and 
 thereby set at naught his enemies' power. 
 
 Having disposed of tljis part of the subject, we now ar- 
 rive at a consideration of the several 
 
 APPEARANCES 
 
 During the forty days mentioned in the Acts. It is 
 clear that he confined himself pretty closely to his friends; 
 so much so that the bribed soldiers, who first witnessed the 
 resurrection, spread a report, which was for some years 
 circulated, that virtually denied the fact. And this could 
 not have been effectually done, had he mingled with the 
 public. He frequented the company of those, who did 
 not understand (Luke xviii., 34,) his alleged prophecies 
 concerning this matter; and avoided them, who appear to 
 have heard something of the kind, (Matt, xxvii., 63,) and 
 who suspected a trick for its accomplishment. Belief in 
 his subsequent existence was very gradual; and embraced 
 even by his disciples by the force of ocular, colloquial, 
 and tangible evidence alone. This seems to imply their 
 apprehension of his mortality; and their belief that he had 
 rather recovered from a swoon, that they were mistaken s 
 in his death, than that he was a re-animated corpse. Some 
 of them however may have thought differently, since the 
 Pharisaic creed relied in the resurrection. (Acts xxiii., 
 8.) But as we have said before, belief in neither case is 
 a fact; nor is it the result of a fact; but, the result on the 
 mind of evidence received concerning the fact. 
 
 The order of his appearances seems to have been as 
 follows: after he had been seen by the guards, (Matt, 
 xxviii., 2 — 4,) and perhaps by Mary of James, and Salome, 
 
72 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 
 
 (Mark xvi., 1 — 5) [for, Mary Magdalene separated from 
 these two, when she saw the stone was removed, and ran 
 to tell Peter, and John that the Lord had been taken away 
 from the sepulchre, (John xx., 2,) as she supposed] neith- 
 er of whom recognised him, w T e are told ' ' he appeared first 
 to Mary Magdalene;" (Mark xvi.. 9,) then, on the same 
 day, to Simon Peter, (Luke xxiv., 34,) who was also 
 called Cephas, (John i., 42,) and to the two disciples, 
 journeying to the village of Emmaus; (Luke xxiv., 15,) 
 next, that evening, to nine or ten of the disciples, (John 
 xx., 19,) [for, it was announced to them that Peter had 
 seen him, (Luke xxiv., 34,) which rather argues Peter's 
 absence, and Thomas was not present;] again after * 
 eight days, to the eleven; (John xx., 26,) afterwards, to 
 seven of them, (John xxi., 1 — 4,) in the morning; once 
 more, (Matt, xxviii., 16, 17,) to his disciples on the ap- 
 pointed mountain, in Galilee; and lastly, on Mount Oli- 
 vet, (Luke xxiv., 50-51,) making nine or ten appearances 
 recorded, up to that date, quite conclusively proving that 
 he was alive after the crucifixion. It was very early, Sun- 
 day morning, that the guards saw him sitting upon the 
 stone, which he had rolled away from the mouth of the 
 sepulchre. After sufficient time had elapsed for them to 
 reach the city, and for the women to walk to the tomb, the 
 latter saw him sitting on the right side of it: they hastened 
 away affrighted. Shortly, came Peter, and went into it, and 
 saw the grave-clothes lying in two different places. But 
 Mary Magdalene stood without; and with weeping eyes, 
 she stooped down and looked in, and saw these white gar- 
 ments, which she, in the uncertain light and through her 
 tears, mistook for two angels sitting, the one [the nap- 
 kin] at the head, and the other [the linen clothes] at the 
 feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. A voice ad- 
 dressed her, which, in her confusion, appeared to issue 
 
 * The feast of the unleavened bread, immediately following 
 the day of the passover, continued seven days. 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 73 
 
 from the supposed angels. She replied, and turned her- 
 self back, and saw one, who, she thought, was the gar- 
 dener; it was Christ. Rumor intermixed this with the 
 prior occurrence; and framed the story of their meeting 
 him and holding him by the feet, which found its way into 
 the Gospel. Where Simon saw him, we are not informed. 
 It was on the same day that he walked sixty furlongs, 
 mostly in company with Cleopas and another disciple, 
 conversed with them, and when he had arrived at the 
 town, went in and sat at meat with them. He left them, 
 and they soon returned to Jerusalem, where they found 
 the assembled disciples. It was in the evening. While 
 they were relating the matter, he came in, and showed 
 them his hands and feet, to identify himself as different 
 from a spirit,' which they took him to be. This journey 
 out and back [one hundred and twenty furlongs] argues 
 a little against the idea of nailed feet, except those 
 ten natural nails, which people generally have in their 
 feet. It was the first time that he showed himself to 
 his disciples. After eight days, while they were again 
 with Thomas in their room, he showed himself to them, 
 the second time. Some days subsequently, he showed 
 himself to them, the third time, in the morning, on 
 the shore of the sea of Tiberias, which is sixty or 
 seventy miles from Jerusalem. There were seven of 
 them present. Being then in Galilee, it is reasonable to 
 suppose that he met them afterwards on the appointed 
 mountain. Between that and the fortieth day, they re- 
 turned to Jerusalem, not far from which place, near or at 
 Bethany, which was situated at the foot of the Mount of 
 Olives, he parted from them. These apparently include 
 not the posterior appearances, to which we shall, by-the- 
 bye, have occasion to allude. But, they induce us to 
 proceed to the next step, and to consider the ascension. 
 
74 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE I 
 
 ASCENSION. 
 
 According to the account of Luke, (Luke xxiv., 50, 51,) 
 Christ conducted them towards Bethany,* where he raised 
 his hands and blessed them: and in the act of blessing 
 them, he separated from or took his leave of them, and 
 went up towards heaven, [up the mount, at the base of 
 which they were?]. In the Acts, (Acts i., 6 — 14,) it runs 
 thus: — They therefore having assembled, asked him, say- 
 ing, Lord, do you at this time, restore the kingdom to 
 Israel? And he said to them, It is not yours to know the 
 times or seasons, which the father has placed in his own 
 authority; but, you shall receive power, the holy spirit 
 having come to you; and you shall be witnesses tome in 
 Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and to the 
 extremity of the earth. And having said these things, 
 they looking, he betook himself up, and a cloud inter- 
 cepted him from their eyes. And thus they were looking 
 earnestly towards heaven, he going or walking, and be- 
 hold, two men stood near them in white clothing: and they 
 said, Galilean men, why have you stood looking towards 
 heaven? This Jesus, having faken himself up from you 
 towards heaven, in like manner will come, as you beheld 
 him going [or walking] towards heaven. Then they re- 
 turned towards Jerusalem from the mountain called Olive, 
 which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath's journey. And when 
 they entered, they went up or ascended to the upper part 
 of a house, where were waiting Peter and James, and 
 John, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and 
 Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon the zealot, and 
 
 * Bethany lay at the foot of the Mount of Olives, on the eastern 
 side. Alexander's Geography of the Bible p. 84. 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 75 
 
 Judas of James; all these were continuing unanimously in 
 prayer and in supplication, with their wives, and with 
 Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. Mark 
 says, (Mark xvi., 19,20.) Therefore the Lord, after hav- 
 ing spoken to them, betook himself up towards heaven, 
 and he sat at the right hand of God. And they, having 
 gone forth, proclaimed every where, the Lord co-operat- 
 ing, and confirming the narration by accompanying signs. 
 John (John xx., 17,) mentions his allusion to the event 
 thus: — Jesus says to her, Do not touch me; for I have not 
 yet ascended to my father: but go to my brethren, and tell 
 them. I ascend to my father and your father, and my God 
 and your God. Matthew (Matt, xxviii., 20,) represents 
 him as having said, " I am with you, all the days, until 
 the end of the age." 
 
 Hence, we conclude that no -evidence of an actual as- 
 cension into heaven is extant concerning Christ; for even 
 if there was, the intercepting cloud obstructed their vision, 
 and they could not have seen him enter. It appears to us 
 that he accompanied them from Jerusalem towards Betha- 
 ny, about three fourths of a mile distant, [the village itself 
 being about two miles from the city,] that he held some 
 conversation with them, and then took his leave; that he 
 ascended the mountain, they looking at him, until a mist 
 precluded their sight; that two men addressed them, and 
 assured them that he would again return; and that they 
 thereupon returned to Jerusalem. His interview with 
 Mary respecting an ascension, was at his first appearance 
 to her. And if his unwillingness in the morning to be 
 touched, argued a non-ascension to heaven, his desire to 
 be touched in the evening of the same day, when he said, 
 (Luke xxiv., 39,) " handle me and see that it is I," ra- 
 ther argues that he had ascended during that day, and 
 had returned: so also does the request to Thomas (John 
 xx., 27,) after the eight days. Iioes it not then mean: — 
 Detain me not now; I have not yet had time to commune 
 with my father: but, go and tell my brethren that you have 
 
?6 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HHE,' 
 
 seen me; and I will, in the mean time, commune with God 
 in prayer and thanksgiving? The manner, in which they 
 separated (Luke xxiv., 52,) from him, almost indicates an 
 assurance of his speedy return to them; for having mani- 
 fested affectionate regard to him, they returned to Jerusa- 
 lem with great joy ; and they were, through all the day, in 
 a devoted edifice, praising and blessing God. After this, 
 they heralded in every direction a statement of the trans- 
 actions, the Lord acting in concert with them, as he an- 
 nounced in the " Lo, I am with you/' 
 
 The evangelical allusion to this alleged event is very 
 slight: Matthew being silent upon it; Mark merely men- 
 tioning that he betook himself up towards heaven; Luke 
 says that he went up towards heaven; and John, like Mat- 
 thew, preserves silence. Not much stress is laid upon 
 this; though, had it been a reality, it would have been 
 more to the point of super-humanity than the egress from 
 a sepulchre under the circumstances, that attended and 
 followed Christ -5 s egress. The apostles might assert that 
 they saw him before and after his resurrection; but, that 
 implies not necessarily an intervening absolute death. — 
 They unay have firmly believed he had been dead; but, 
 just trace the narration, and you will find this belief based 
 upon inference, similar to that of his sitting at the right 
 liand of God. An ascension would have been totally 
 different. If he had in very truth and reality ascended, 
 in their immediate presence, they could have testified to 
 and been certain of the fact; so could they with regard to 
 the crucifixion, and to his resurrection, if they saw him 
 affixed to the cross, and come out of the tomb, which lat- 
 ter they did not*, but we may as well deduce the certainty 
 of his death from his crucifixion and ascension as from his 
 resurrection. * The preachers apparently adhered, with 
 stubborn pertinacity, to the resurrection from the dead; 
 but, their bare allusion #to the ascension induces us to be- 
 lieve they did not invest it with such a halo of wonder as 
 
UR, BOOK OF DOGMAS, 
 
 we do; and that they received it, in its proper light, as a 
 temporary separation* resembling that when he announced 
 himself to Mary Magdalene. We think that all these reli- 
 gious wonders have gradually increased as they have roll- 
 ed down the pyramid of centuries, like a precious stone 
 descending some lofty snow-capped mountain, and increas- 
 ing in bulk of snow until it has become an avalanche: and 
 as the physical sun will in time dissolve the fair envelope 
 and reveal the covered gem, so will the mental sun event- 
 ually disclose the hidden nucleus of truth. 
 
 But, let us inquire what parallels sacred and profane 
 history may furnish to us. We are told in Genesis (Gen, 
 v., 24,) that " Enoch walked with God, and he was not: 
 for, God took him." This is assented to by Paul, (Heb. 
 xi., 5,) who says " he was removed not to see death; and 
 was not found, because God had removed him/' It was 
 about 2973 B. C, according to Biblical chronology. He 
 had lived 365 years, as it is written. About 850 B. C, if 
 we may credit the second book of Kings, (2 Kings ii., 11,) 
 "Elijah went up towards heaven by a whirlwind." As 
 he was conversing with Elisha, they were parted. Fifty 
 men sought three days, and found him not. It seems that 
 they expected to find him on some mountain or in some 
 valley. If we may rely on the Roman historian, Livy,^ 
 and the Grecian biographer, Plutarch, # Romulus is said 
 to have suddenly disappeared in a tempest, during a solar 
 <eciipse, about 713 B. C, The patricians afterwards told 
 the people that he was caught up to heaven, and many 
 believed it, departing with satisfaction: others, however, 
 doubted. Julius Proculus, a senator of great distinction 
 and famed for sanctity of manners, who came from Alba 
 with Romulus, and had been his faithful friend, made 
 solemn oaths before all the people that Romulus met him, 
 as he was travelling on the road, in a form more noble 
 
 * Livy, lib. L, 4. * Plutarch in vita Romuli. 
 
78 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 and august than ever, and entered into conversation with 
 him. Plutarch nourished in the latter part of the first 
 century; and Livy died near the commencement of it. — 
 Herodotus * informs us that the Getae, the bravest and 
 most upright of the Thracians, in his time, believed them- 
 selves to be immortal ; and that whenever any one died, they 
 believed he was removed to the presence of their god, Z am- 
 mo lxis. This Zamolxis was a man, who flourished many 
 years before Pythagoras. Having preached immortality to 
 his guests, he withdrew himself from the sight of his coun- 
 trymen, and resided for three years beneath the earth. His 
 supposed death was lamented; and in the fourth year he 
 again appeared among them, according to his prediction, 
 about 600 B. C. We learn that, according to the popular 
 acceptation, Enoch was walking with God, Elijah was 
 conversing with Elisha, Romulus was reviewing his sol- 
 diers, and Christ was blessing his disciples, respectively, 
 when they disappeared. But, who saw either of them go 
 into heaven? In other words, we not only ask " who 
 shall declare his genean or birth"; but, who shall declare 
 his thanaton or death, his anabiosin or resurrection, or 
 his anabasin or ascent, in accordance with the general be- 
 lief ? 
 
 Here concludes our examination of the evangelical testi- 
 mony; and we proceed to a recapitulation. 
 
 * Herodotus lib. iw, sec. 93— -95 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 79 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Our investigation has been as faithful as our limited 
 abilities would allow. We have been told that Christ was 
 affixed to the cross, and of the kind treatment rendered by 
 the soldier in proffering such drink as he himself used in 
 the army. This was received; and soon after, the victim 
 to envy and persecution " gave up the ighost." He had 
 been on the cross about three hours, when ordinary men 
 lived thereon three or more days. They kindled no fire 
 beneath to suffocate him; they let no wild beast devour 
 him; they broke not his bones to disable him; they did 
 nothing effectually to hasten his death. According to an 
 alleged prophecy, a friendly soldier [at least, he had no 
 grounds for enmity,] punctured his skin with a spear, 
 which brought blood. Any other sharp instrument, large 
 or small, could have done the same. He knew that he 
 could not legally remain on the cross over night, in Judea. 
 He also knew that Pilate was favorably inclined, and 
 that Pilate commanded the soldiers, who were the over- 
 seers and managers of the crucifixion. Pilate's doubts 
 as to the reality of his death were readily quelled, when 
 Joseph came for the body, which was surrendered with- 
 out reluctance. This friend and secret disciple was ex- 
 actly the appropriate man to take it away, dead or alive, 
 without exciting the suspicion of the Jews; for, he was a 
 member of the Sanhedrim. He and Nicodemus, (John 
 iii., 1,) another Jewish ruler, wrapped it in linen with 
 myrrh and aloes, probably together with some healing 
 ointment, similar to that prepared by the women, (Luke 
 xxiii., 56,) as Christ had once alluded to something of the 
 kind for his burying. (John xii., 7.) He was deposited 
 in Joseph's tomb. On the next day, the stone which 
 
80 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 
 
 was manageable by one man, was sealed, and a watch 
 set. Early in the morning of the next day but one after 
 his crucifixion, he was again among his acquaintances. 
 When he was first recognised, he had evidently been 
 out some time; for, he had procured clothing, and was 
 thereby mistaken for the gardener of Joseph, in whose 
 garden was the sepulchre. — (John xix., 41.) After 
 that, he partook food with two of his disciples in, or 
 near the village of Emmaus. When he had left them, 
 they remembered his blessing and breaking the bread, 
 which did not at the instant occur to them, as he was not 
 expected, and concluded that it must have been he, ac- 
 cording also to the women's report. In a few hours sub- 
 sequent to this, while these two were communicating the 
 intelligence to the chosen and others, he came among 
 them, and they were terrified. They had finished their 
 principal meal, which was taken about six or seven 
 o'clock, P. M. He asked for something to eat; and they 
 gave him a piece of broiled fish and of an honey-comb. 
 This participation of refreshments twice within so short 
 time, and their examination of him, prove him to have 
 been neither a spirit, nor exempt from human nature's 
 law of hunger. His travelling about twelve or fifteen 
 miles, from Jerusalem to Emmaus and back, and consum- 
 ing about the same time as the two disciples, prove him 
 to have possessed locomotive powers not very dissimilar 
 from those of humanity, and also to have been strong 
 enough to roll back the tomb-stone. These considera- 
 tions, together with that of his conversation, evinced a 
 soundness of lungs incompatible with the idea of a peri- 
 cardial thrust, but in perfect unison with that of a gentle 
 incision, warranted by the evangelist, who would natural- 
 ly, under such exciting circumstances and in his relation 
 to the sufferer, magnify the matter as much as it would 
 consistently bear, without the aid of physicians or episco- 
 pal translators. The former would defeat the prophecy 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 81 
 
 of a slight puncture, by endeavoring to prove a violent 
 thrust of a spear; the latter would nullify the mild influ- 
 ence of Christ over his disciple, and falsify nature, by 
 endeavoring to convert a gentle touch into a cruel and 
 inhuman thrust of the hand into the side. He was again 
 among his disciples, after or within eight days, when he 
 satisfied Thomas. And some time afterwards, he showed 
 himself the third time to them, at the sea of Tiberias. He 
 •was preparing a breakfast of broiled fish and bread. 
 When they had breakfasted, (John xxi , 15,) [which the 
 translators have metamorphosed into a dinner,] he con- 
 tinued his conversation with them. And it was not till he 
 had passed forty days with the apostles after his crucifix- 
 ion, that he took his leave of them at Bethany. They 
 were about one hundred and twenty in number. Thus, as 
 generally viewed, closes the scene; — thus terminates 
 the train of incidents, which superstition has chronicled 
 in the catalogue of supernatural wonders, and illogically 
 deduced therefrom an universal resurrection of bodies, 
 but not on the third day of their death, which would be a 
 fairer inference from that alleged event than an indeter- 
 minate postponement; nor an ascension forty days after 
 the same. Age has made these opinions, as it has many 
 others, venerable; but no more true. We would have 
 the liberal, the candid, sift them, as they have some of the 
 already exploded dogmas, which were tenderly cherished 
 for years. Nothing can be expected from the bigoted 
 and the ungenerous. No truth shrinks from scrutiny. 
 It rather invites the tests; and nothing is too sacred for 
 their application. 
 
 Now, what is the result of the investigation? That 
 there is a marked deficiency of substantial evidence to es- 
 tablish beyond a reasonable doubt, a point deemed indis- 
 pensably essential to the security of human happiness. 
 This deficiency clearly demonstrates its want of positive 
 utility. And yet the truth of that point is most sincerely 
 6 
 
82 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 believed and held sacred by many: which tends to show 
 that neither examination nor knowledge is requisite to 
 superstitious belief; but, that a reliance upon the opinions 
 of others, especially when they are represented as subsi- 
 diary to the salvation of self, is the foundation of the 
 greater portion of such belief in the world. — We have 
 likewise seen how exceedingly slight and fragile is the 
 basis, on which the teachers have grounded their admit- 
 ted infallibility, in this particular case. Neither of the 
 evangelists [and they were all liable to an erroneous im- 
 pression in such a nice matter,] positively declares, in so 
 many words, that Christ died on the cross, as they speak 
 of absolute death in other parts of their gospels; and 
 John alone asserts that his side was pierced. From these 
 uncertain and meagre materials, the ingenious have nev- 
 ertheless constructed a tower of credence, which the 
 waves of reason would soon topple and demolish, were it 
 not fortified by the adamantine wall of prejudice and 
 superstition. And indeed, many of its turrets have been 
 shattered by the well-aimed shafts of fearless inquiry, 
 notwithstanding its beetling ramparts. 
 
 Finally, though a survey of all the circumstances, — his 
 crucifixion, his speedy loss of sense, his sepulture, his re- 
 appearance, the conduct of his disciples, his journeying, 
 his conversation, his hunger, and his ascent, may incline 
 to persuade us that he swooned from the intense anguish; 
 yet, it is far, very far from sufficient weight to convince a 
 reasonable, investigating, and candid mind, that Jesus 
 Christ actually died while affixed to the cross on mount 
 Calvary. 
 
 Thus have we passed over the four gospels for the ex- 
 press purpose of learning what they will warrant any one 
 to assert on their authority concerning this interesting 
 subject. Our conclusion is obviously inevitable. And if 
 we, in like manner, traverse the territory, the subsequent 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 83 
 
 portions of the New Testament coincide with and cor- 
 roborate this rational view. However arduous may be 
 the attempts to pervert their sense, and to bend them 
 to the support of a darling theory ; however ingenious 
 may be the constructions imposed by the self-interested; 
 and however plausible inferences may be unwarrantably 
 deduced; the tenor of the narration, the history, the 
 facts, will make their forcible appeals to every reasona- 
 ble mind. Inasmuch as these conform to nature and com- 
 ply with common sense, mankind will, to that degree, be 
 radically convinced; conviction will be felt in the heart, 
 and assented to by the intellect, as well as expressed by 
 the lips. They are as directly addressed to every person 
 of this age, as they were to the first reader of them; and 
 for an unbiassed decision, they are presented to his rea- 
 son, to his calm, cool, deliberate judgment, not to his ex- 
 cited, phrenzied passion or exaggerating imagination, — 
 to his thought, not to his fancy. Let us then muster some 
 of the most prominent facts, and candidly inquire into 
 their unavoidable implication. We will first look to 
 
 THE ACTS. 
 
 Peter informed (Acts iii., 26,) the Jews that God, hav- 
 ing raised his son Jesus, sent him first to them blessing 
 them in turning away every one of them from their in- 
 iquities. This was at or after the day of Pentecost, ten 
 days after the ascent. While the apostles were in prison, 
 (Acts v., 18 — 20,) the angel of the Lord by night opened 
 the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, Go, 
 stand and speak in the temple to the people, all the words 
 of this life. And they, having heard, entered into the temple 
 6* 
 
84 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 
 
 early in the morning and taught. While Philip (Acts viii., 
 26 — 40,) was in the city of Samaria, the messenger of the 
 Lord ordered him to arise and go toward the south; and he 
 went. He saw a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, returning in 
 his chariot from Jerusalem, whither he had come to wor- 
 ship. Philip was directed by the Spirit to approach him; 
 which he did, and announced Jesus to him. After the 
 eunuch was baptized, the Spirit of the Lord caught away 
 Philip, and he was found at Azotus; from whence he pro- 
 ceeded to Cesarea. However these may be construed, we 
 hasten to consider the conversion of Paul. 
 
 " A young man," says Paley,* " who had signalized 
 himself by his hostility to the profession, and had pro- 
 cured a commission from the council at Jerusalem to 
 seize any converted Jews whom he might find at Damas- 
 cus, suddenly became a proselyte to the religion, which 
 he was going about to extirpate." A few years, " at the 
 most only seven or eight, perhaps only three or four after 
 Christ's death,"* intervened, before Paui proceeded on his 
 mission to Damascus; (A'cts xxii., 5,) and consequently, 
 it was not until some time after the ascent that he was 
 converted. He was born about two years | B. C, at 
 Tarsus, a city three hundred miles from Nazareth. He 
 had been (Acts xxii., 3,) " brought up in Jerusalem at the 
 feet of Gamaliel;" and was his pupil. He had also learned 
 to tie a tent-mal^er. Gamaliel (Acts v., 34,) was " a 
 Pharisee, and a doctor of the law, had in reputation 
 among all the people." Paul was then about forty years 
 of age when he started on his persecuting tour for Da- 
 mascus, a Syrian city little more than a hundred miles 
 from Jerusalem. It appears that, as he approached the 
 city, (Actsix., 3 — 2°2.) "suddenly there shined roundabout 
 
 ^Paley's Evidences of Christianity, Part i., 4. 
 
 t Life of Christ and the Apostles by Rev. John Fleetwood, 
 p. 328 ; — Quarto Edition. 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 85 
 
 him a light from heaven; and he fell to the earth, and 
 heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why perse- 
 cutest thou me? And he said, who art thou, Lord? And 
 the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. And 
 he trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou 
 have me to do? And the Lord said to him, Arise, and go 
 into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 
 And the men which journeyed with him, stood speechless, 
 hearing the sound but seeing no man. And Saul arose from 
 the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: 
 but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Da- 
 mascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither 
 did eat nor drink. And there was a certain disciple at 
 Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in 
 a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. 
 And the Lord said to him, Arise, and go into the street, 
 which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas 
 for one called Saul of Tarsus: for, behold he prayeth, and 
 hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, 
 and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his 
 sight. Then answered Ananias, Lord, I have heard by 
 many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy 
 saints at Jerusalem: and here he hath authority from the 
 chief priests, to bind all that call on thy name. But the 
 Lord said to him, Go thy way : for he is a chosen vessel to 
 me to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and 
 the children of Israel: for I will show him how great 
 things he must suffer for my name's sake. And Ananias 
 went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his 
 hands on him, said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, 
 that appeared to thee in the way as thou earnest, hath sent 
 me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with 
 the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes 
 as it had been scales; and he received sight forthwith, and 
 arose, and was baptized. Then was Saul certain days 
 with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straight- 
 
86 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 
 
 way he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the 
 Son of God. Bat Saul increased the more in strength, 
 and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, prov- 
 ing that this is very Christ." " And when Saul was come 
 to Jerusalem, he essayed to join himself to the disciples; 
 but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he 
 was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him 
 to the apostles, and declared to them how he had seen the 
 Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how 
 he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. " 
 (Acts ix., 26, 27.) It was three years (Gal. i., 18,) after 
 Paul's conversion, that Barnabas thus introduced him. — 
 The brethren subsequently brought him down to Cesarea, 
 and sent him forth to Tarsus. 
 
 This account, given by Luke, one of the evangelists and 
 a companion of Paul, informs us that Paul actually heard 
 the voice of Jesus. In another passage, (Acts xxii., 9,) it 
 farther appears that " they who were with him saw indeed 
 the light, and were afraid, but heard not the voice of him 
 that spoke to him," and that they were all prostrated to 
 the earth. (Acts xxvi., 14.) The shock was evidently 
 more severe upon his fellow-travellers, depriving them of 
 hearing as well as of sight. The reason why they saw no 
 man, was because they were blinded " by the glory of the 
 light." (Acts xxii., 11.) It is perfectly natural, and ab- 
 solutely conclusive. And not only did he hear a voice, 
 but it was in the Hebrew language; (Acts xxvi., 14,) and 
 Paul conversed with him at considerable length. Farther 
 mention (Acts xxvi., 16,) of the address of Christ is given, 
 which expressly asserts that he appeared to Paul at that 
 time, thus; "Rise, and stand upon thy feet: for, I have 
 appeared to thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister 
 and a witness, both of these things which thou hast seen, 
 and of those things in the which I will appear to thee, de- 
 livering thee from the people and the Gentiles, to whom 
 now I send thee." This accurately corresponds with his 
 
0R 3 BOOK OF DOGMAS. 87 
 
 declaration to Ananias, that Paul was his chosen vessel to 
 the Gentiles ;" and developes how he knew Paul was in 
 the house of Judas, praying. It seems that Paul was led 
 by the hand of some one of them, who were near him; and 
 •as he was blind, he could not see by whom; neither could 
 his fellow-travellers, very well; for, (Matt, xv., 14,)*' if 
 the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." 
 And it is by no means likely that all the men, who accom- 
 panied him, took hold of his hand to lead him. Now, who 
 led him into the city to the house of Judas? Jesus knew 
 he was there; for, he appeared to Ananias, and directed 
 him to go to that house, and inquire for Paul. Ananias 
 went, and " said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, who 
 appeared to thee in the way, hath sent me." This latter 
 conversation and conduct transpired after he had entered 
 the city. Ananias was one of the disciples that resided 
 at Damascus. (Acts ix., 10.) Judas was also a disciple, 
 doubtless the same with J tide, a brother of James, (Acts 
 i., 13,) and one of Christ's brethren. (Mat. xiii., 55.) 
 Among other places, he (Judas) preached in Syria, in 
 which country is Damascus.* — Again, "Is not this the 
 carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary ? and his 
 brethren, James and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" 
 Hence, we perceive why he was conducted to the house 
 of Judas. — Even Barnabas, another disciple, three years 
 afterwards, (i brought Paul to the apostles, and declared 
 to them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he 
 had spoken to him." (Acts ix., 27.) Now, what can prove 
 more conclusively that Christ was really living, and ap- 
 peared to Paul? We do not deny that he sincerely be- 
 lieved Christ had been dead; for, such was the common 
 belief of. the Jews; but, belief is not knowledge. This 
 very astounding fact of hearing and conversing with an 
 individual, whom he believed to have died, and being con- 
 
 * Fleetwood's Lives of the Apostles, p. 380. 
 
• 
 
 88 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 vinced of his existence, not only by the assertions of the 
 disciples, but also by his own experience, was enough to 
 convert the enthusiastic Paul or any other roan. 
 
 The Lord's appearance to Cornelius, the centurion, was 
 in this manner: (Acts x., 1 — 33,) About three o'clock^ 
 P. M.j he saw in a vision clearly a messenger of God com- 
 ing in to him, and saying, Cornelius. He asked, what is 
 it, Lord? He was then told to send men to Joppa, about 
 twenty-five miles distant from Cesarea, for Simon Peter to 
 come and give him instructions. The .messenger left 
 him; and he proceeded to obey the orders. About twelve 
 o'clock the next day, the men reached Peter's place of 
 residence; near which hour also Peter had a conversa- 
 tion with the Lord; and while he was thinking " of the 
 vision, the Spirit said to him, Three men seek thee; arise, 
 and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing; 
 for, J have sent them. Peter accordingly went." The 
 Spirit identities himself as the individual who despatched 
 the messengers; and he could speak. In the 30th verse, 
 Cornelius informs us that this angel or messenger was a 
 man, and he arrived at Peter's house perhaps a little before 
 them, — in season to warn him not to call any one common 
 or unclean. Whether Peter's trance and Cornelius 5 vis- 
 ion were such as alleged, is not altogether certain. Peter 
 regarded his release from prison by an angel (Acts xii., 
 9,) as a vision, and did not know that it was a reality. 
 And when Rhoda, who knew his voice, announced that he 
 was knocking at the gate, they exclaimed, It is his angel. 
 In this instance, Peter was mistaken; why not in the 
 other? And if he was, was not Cornelius, or their nar- 
 rators, transcribers, or translators, liable to error also? 
 Who was this Spirit? — When Peter reached Jerusalem, 
 the apostles called him to account for eating with the Gen- 
 tiles; and he explained himself to their satisfaction. 
 Cornelius had been partially cleansed; for, "he prayed 
 to God always." And in connection with this, we would 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 89 
 
 ask, who was the messenger that directed Philip toward 
 the south, and who accompanied him to Azotus? This 
 and Paul's transportation may explain how he happened 
 to be in Cesarea with Cornelius; for, Philip went thither, 
 — so did Paul. After the alleged resurrection, believing 
 it literally as they apparently did, they may have denom- 
 inated Christ a Spirit; for before his crucifixion, he was 
 deemed to be such, (Mark vi., 49,) as well as soon after- 
 wards. (Luke xxiv., 37.) John's .paracletos is translated 
 in one place (John xiv.. 26,) "Comforter;" in another, 
 (I. Johnii., 1,) "Advocate;" and is pronounced by him 
 to be identical with the Holy Spirit, (John xiv., 26,) 
 and to be Jesus Christ. (1 John ii., 1.) In the Rev- 
 elation, we find, " He that hath an ear let him hear 
 what the Spirit saith unto the churches." Hence we 
 perceive nothing to prevent our regarding " Spirit," 
 in many passages, as synonymous with "Christ." 
 Nor should we be surprised to find the word Ka- 
 rion, meaning " of the Lord," translated "of God," 
 and thereby representing Christ as God. Thus, (Acts 
 xx., 28,) " Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock 
 over which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers, to 
 feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with 
 his own blood." Here, Jesus is held forth either as the 
 Holy Ghost or as God. From all these considerations, 
 can we believe otherwise than that Christ was meant by 
 " the Spirit " in those and other scriptural verses? — Who 
 also was the messenger or angel (Acts xii., 7,) that visit- 
 ed Peter while in prison, and addressed him with author- 
 ity, releasing him from his chains? A perusal of the nar- 
 ration may unravel it. While the inmates of the house 
 were looking out with astonishment at Peter, who was 
 knocking, he beckoned forthemto keep silence, and " de- 
 clared to them how the Lord had brought him out of 
 prison." He again repaired to Cesarea. — We are told 
 (Acts xiii.j 2,) that as the prophets and teachers in the 
 
90 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 church at Antioch " ministered to the Lord, the Holy 
 Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work 
 whereunto I have called them. So they, being sent forth 
 by the Holy Ghost, departed to Seleucia." The Holy 
 Ghost appears to be a person, here. And an injunction, 
 uttered probably at the same time to Barnabas and Saul, 
 proves to have been commanded by the Lord, thus, (Acts 
 xiii., 47,) " I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles." 
 — They also " commended the elders, whom they had or- 
 dained, to the Lord." (Acts xiv., 23.) — When Paul and 
 Silas, in the course of their travels, had reached Thessa- 
 lonica, they were accused (Acts xvii., 7,) of assert- 
 ing, besides Caesar, the existence of " another king, one 
 Jesus. "— Soon after that, Paul reached Corinth, where he 
 remained about eighteen months. (Acts xviii. 4 — 11.) 
 While there, he preached in the synagogues, calling Je- 
 sus Christ to witness, to which the Jews opposed them- 
 selves. He however tarried with the chief ruler of the 
 synagogue. Here Christ addressed him in the night, tell- 
 ing him to fear not, but to speak, and to hold not his peace; 
 " for, I am with thee. And no man shall set on thee to 
 hurt thee; for, I have much people in this city." That 
 is, my friends, who are numerous here, will protect you 
 against violence. — While he was in Ephesus, there were 
 also certain exorcists there, endeavoring to cast out evil 
 spirits by the name of Christ. One of the spirits declared 
 his knowledge of Christ, thus: (Acts xix., 15,) " Jesus I 
 know, and Paul I know; but, who are ye?" It appears 
 that the man then knew him; for, he used the present 
 tense, and the same phraseology, as he did concerning 
 Paul. — At Miletus, he addressed (Acts xx., 22 — 24,) the 
 .elders of the Ephesian church, in this manner: " I go 
 bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things 
 that shall befal me there, save that the Holy Ghost wit- 
 nesseth in every city, saying, That bonds and afflictions 
 abide me." He also alludes to " the ministry he received 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 91 
 
 of the Lord Jesus." Compare, " for, I will show 
 him (Paul) how great things he must suffer for my 
 name's sake." (Acts ix., 16,) — When he had been some 
 days in Jerusalem, he was apprehended and bound. In 
 his defence, he divulged more of his conversation with 
 Ananias, who told (Acts xxii., 14,) him that " God had 
 chosen him, that he should see that Just One, and should 
 hear the voice of his mouth;" also, more of his conversa- 
 tion with Christ. The night but one (Acts xxiii., 11,) 
 following, " the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good 
 cheer, Paul; for, as thou hast testified of me in Jerusa- 
 lem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome." At his ar- 
 raignment before Festus, he was accused of having af- 
 firmed one Jesus who was dead, to be alive. (Acts xxv., 
 19.) From thence he went to Rome. — All these passages 
 are certainly fraught with eloquent significance. To 
 press the subject as far as the narration warrants, would 
 be to transcribe the whole of the enumerated Acts. Ac- 
 cording to Lardner, they were recorded at Greece about 
 A. D. 64.* 
 
 As we advance, many expressions will be observed, 
 which are difficult to be understood in any other than a 
 literal sense. Such of these as relate to *our subject 
 rather indicate that Christ was for some years after the 
 ascent alive on the earth, and was seen by his disciples. 
 Whether he was seen by all, the scant materials handed 
 down will not enable us to determine. They travelled in 
 various directions to disseminate the gospel doctrines, and 
 soon spread them over the then known world. It is not a 
 matter of great wonder that the fact of his every appear- 
 ance is not expressly and numerically declared; for, of 
 course, it became an old story with his few intimate ac- 
 quaintances. At first, it was wonderful; but, frequency 
 
 * See Appendix D. 
 
92 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 naturally diminished the novelty. And it must be remem- 
 bered, that these writings purport to be by his followers, 
 who would not be likely to harp forever on a fact (viz., his 
 existence,) familiarly known to them. Hence, the indi- 
 rect allusions, which presume their knowledge of it. 
 Besides, we should not forget that these writings have 
 been sifted by the church and its interested sectarian 
 bishops; while the best we can say is that but a part of 
 the original have descended to us, — many (Luke i., 1,) 
 having been lost. With these preliminary remarks, we 
 begin our brief examination of the 
 
 EPISTLES. 
 
 In almost all these, will be found interspersed passages 
 of a similar import. Taking a few of them, in order, as 
 they stand in the collection, we learn that Paul thus wrote 
 to the Romans: (Rom. vi., 10,) "Knowing that Christ, 
 being raised from the dead, dieth no more; for, in that he 
 died, he died unto sin once; but, in that he liveth, he liv- 
 eth unto God." — Also, (Rom. xiv., 9,) " For to this end 
 Christ both died, and rose, and revived." — Again, (Rom. 
 xiv., 14,) " I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, 
 that nothing is unclean of itself." — To the Corinthians, he 
 wrote, (1. Cor. i., 17, and iv., 19,) "Christ sent me not 
 to baptise, but to preach the gospel." — And " I will come 
 to you shortly, if the Lord be willing." — And, (I Cor. 
 vii., 10,) "Unto the married I command, yet not I, but 
 the Lord." — He also makes this significant inquiry, (1 
 Cor. ix. 1,) "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" 
 — It farther appears he had had other conversation with 
 Christ, in which he heard an account (1 Cor. xi., 23,) of 
 certain transactions immediately preceding the crucifixion, 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 93 
 
 thus: " J have received of the Lord that which also I de- 
 livered to you, that the Lord Jesus, the night in which 
 he was betrayed, took bread: and when he had given 
 thanks, he broke it and said, Take, eat; this is ray body." 
 —We learn likewise (1 Cor. xv., 5—8,) that Christ " was 
 seen by Cephas, then by the twelve: after that he was 
 seen by above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the 
 greater part remain unto this present, but some are 
 fallen asleep. After that, he was seen by James: then 
 by all the apostles. And last of ail he was seen by me also, 
 as by one born out of due time." If he appeared to the 
 twelve, as Paul asserted, it must have been after Matthias 
 was added,— after the ascent. His appearance to James 
 is omitted in the gospels; and we find no evangelical 
 specification of that to the five hundred. James was a 
 son of Joseph, (Matt, xiii., 55,) and one of Christ's breth- 
 ren. He was made bishop of Jerusalem,* some time af- 
 ter that appearance to him; and died twenty-four years 
 after the ascent, aged 95. He is alluded (Gal. i., 19,) to 
 by Paul as "the Lord's brother." He and Peter were 
 the only apostles Paul saw when he went to Jerusalem, 
 (Gal. i., 19,) at which visit he doubtless obtained his in- 
 formation. Christ's subsequent appearances, if not some 
 of the above, must have been posterior to the ascent.— 
 Again, Paul said, (2 Cor. v., 16,) "Though we have 
 known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we 
 him no more."— And, (2 Cor. xiii., 4,) " Though he was 
 crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of 
 God."— Once more, (1 Cor. xvi., 7,) " I trust to tarry a 
 while with you, if the Lord permit."— These passages 
 are replete with meaning. They furnish us, so far as 
 fragments can, # strong evidence of what Paul witnessed. 
 Their import cannot candidly be mistaken.— To the Gala- 
 tians, he wrote, (Gal. i. } 12,) "I neither received the 
 
 ^Fleetwood's Lives of the Apostles, p. 376. 
 
94 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 
 
 gospel of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revela- 
 tion of Jesus Christ." [I received it not second-handed.] 
 — Again, (Gal. iii,, 1,) " O foolish Galatians, who hath 
 bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before 
 whose eyes the crucified Jesus Christ hath been evidently 
 set forth among you?" — To the Ephesians. while he was 
 at Rome, in April, A. D. 61, he wrote, (Eph. iv., 7, 8,) 
 c ' Unto every one of us is given grace according to the 
 measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, [in 
 the present tense,] when he ascended on high, [towards 
 the summit,] he led captivity captive, and gave gifts to 
 men." — To the Philippians, the next year, he wrote, 
 (Phil, i., 23,) (i I am in a strait betwixt two, having a de- 
 sire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better." 
 — To the Thessalonians, while he was at Corinth, A. D. 
 52, he wrote, (1 Thes. iv., 15,) " This we say unto you by 
 the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain 
 unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them which 
 are asleep." — To Timothy, he wrote, (2 Tim. iv., 16, 17,) 
 Ci At my first answer no one stood with me. Notwith- 
 standing, the Lord stood near me, and strengthened me." 
 — To the Hebrews, while he was at Rome or elsewhere 
 in Italy, A. D. 63, he wrote, (Heb. ii., 9,) " We see Jesus, 
 who was made a little lower than the angels, crowned 
 with glory and honor." — And, (Heb. iv., 14, 15,) " We 
 have a great high priest, who passed into the heavens, 
 Jesus the son of God. For, we have not an high priest 
 which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmi- 
 ties." — St. John, while at Ephesus, A. D. 80, wrote thus, 
 (1 John ii., 13,) {i I write to you, fathers, because ye have 
 known him from the beginning." — And so late as A. D. 
 96, at Ephesus, John was prompted to write a declaration 
 made to him, (Rev. i., 11, 18,) "I am Alpha and Omega, 
 the beginning and the ending." — " I am he that liveth, and 
 was dead." — (Rev. xxii., 16,) " I, Jesus, sent my messen- 
 ger to testify to you." — Could all this have been entirely 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 95 
 
 visionary? It must have been, were Christ not alive. 
 Was it not rather, a portion of it at least, a reality ? — 
 These indicate a series of appearances, or a long compan- 
 ionship with Paul. For, it is no reason that Christ was 
 not on earth, because every interview with him was not 
 particularized. The evangelists omitted the mention of 
 his appearances to the twelve, to the five hundred, to 
 James, and to Paul. If then these, which occurred so 
 soon after the resurrection, were unrecorded, why should 
 we expect them to mention others of later occurrence? It 
 certainly can no more be justly doubted that he was seen 
 oftener than is specified in the epistles, because they do 
 not explicitly proclaim the fact, than that he was seen 
 oftener than is recorded in the gospels, because the fact is 
 there unmentioned; for, as above, we have two or three 
 enumerated appearances not contained in the evangelical 
 writings. What else then can be reasonably inferred 
 from the whole than that Jesus was yet alive, and among 
 his disciples and acquaintances? Especially too, when 
 we consider that Paul unqualifiedly asserts (Acts xiii., 
 37,) that "he whom God raised again, saw no corrup- 
 tion!" What other deduction can be drawn from the 
 premises? We know that .the body, immediately at its 
 death, begins to decompose. Could Christ then have ac- 
 tually died, according even to this single declaration? 
 And do not all our facts, indiscriminately taken, prove 
 that he was alive and seen after the ascent? If they do 
 not, we would honestly ask, what do they prove? Either 
 Paul meant what he wrote, or he did not: if he did not, 
 no reliance is to be reposed in him, — he is a dead letter; 
 if he did, and wrote truth, Jesus . Christ "was visible for 
 years after the alleged ascension. 
 
 Let us now prosecute our inquiry another step, and 
 consult the ancient fathers. 
 
96 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 
 
 ANCIENT FATHERS. 
 
 What says St. Ambrose,* who died near the close of 
 the fourth century? He " tells us that when the people 
 perceived the danger to which St. Peter was now ex- 
 posed, they prayed him to quit Rome, and repair for a 
 while to some secure retreat, that his life might be pre- 
 served for the benefit of the church. Peter, with great 
 reluctance, yielded to their entreaties, and made his es- 
 cape by night; but, as he passed the gate, he was met by 
 a person in the form of his great and beloved Master; and 
 on his asking him whither he was going, answered, ' To 
 Rome, to be crucified a second time;' which Peter taking 
 for a reproof of his cowardice, returned again into the 
 city, and was soon after apprehended, and cast, together 
 with St. Paul, into the Mamertine prison. There they were 
 confined eight or nine months, and spent their time in the 
 exercises of religion, especially in preaching to the pris- 
 oners, and those who resorted to them. During this con- 
 finement, it is generally thought, St Peter wrote the 
 second epistle to the dispersed Jews." This was about 
 A. D. 66.+ He and Paul were condemned by Nero, about 
 two years before that tyrant's suicide. This occurrence 
 was about three years after Paul wrote his last epistle 
 from Rome, according to Lardner's computations;! and 
 if recorded by him, must have been in some subsequent 
 communication, not now extant. 
 
 Shortly after, at the close of Nero's reign, we are told 
 
 * Fleetwood's Lives of the Apostles, p.*325. 
 t Supplement to the Credibility, vol. iii. ; p. 4. 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 97 
 
 by Eusebias* who lived in the days of Constantine, near 
 the end of the third and the commencement of the fourth 
 centuries, St. Mark, who had been sent by Peter to preach 
 in Alexandria, continued laboring in the cause for some 
 years. Finally, however, "the inhabitants, about- the 
 time of Easter, when they were celebrating the solemni- 
 ties of Serapis, tumultously entered the church, forced St. 
 Mark, then performing the divine service, from thence; 
 and binding his feet with cords, dragged him through the 
 streets, to a precipice near the sea, leaving him there in a 
 lonesome prison for that night; but, his great and beloved 
 Master appeared to him in a vision, comforting and en- 
 couraging his soul under the ruins of his shattered body." 
 Whether this account be true or not, our readers can 
 judge as well as we. If Eusebius is unworthy of confi- 
 dence, almost all the ecclesiastical history of the first three 
 or four centuries rests upon a frail foundation; for, he 
 was the chief historian of that period: others have extract- 
 ed from him as from a fountain. One thing is quite cer- 
 tain, — that there was a channel of communication be- 
 tween Rome and Alexandria; for, Titus embarked at the 
 latter city for the former, after he had besieged Jerusa- 
 lem. 
 
 In addition to all this, enough in itself to establish our 
 position as correct, in any reasonable mind, we would ad- 
 duce the evidence of Papias,| who died A. P. 116, and 
 is said to have been acquainted with John. He was one 
 of the apostolic fathers. His testimony corroborates what 
 we have advanced. He declared that Jesus Christ lived 
 to be a very old man, and died in the bosom of his own fam- 
 ily. Knowing that fact, he deemed the circumstance of 
 his death by crucifixion improbable. — And, if we can col- 
 
 * Fleetwoods Lives of the Apostles, quarto edition, p. 382. 
 fEuseb. Ecc. Hist. lib. 3. 
 
98 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 lect aught from St. John's assertion, (Rev. i., 13, 14,) we 
 have another coincident argument, confirming Papias, and 
 strengthening our ground. John says, " I saw in the 
 midst of the seven candlesticks, one like the Son of man, 
 clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about 
 the paps with a golden girdle. His head arid his hairs 
 were white like wool, as white as snow.' So far, the 
 representation accords with nature: he then launches into 
 the unknown. Can any one deny that John had no sub- 
 stantial basis to build his assertions upon? Were they 
 altogether imaginary? When Christ was crucified, he 
 was comparatively young, and far from being grey; and 
 an entrance into heaven is understood rather to renew a 
 person's youth than to advance his age. Hence, a vision 
 like the above, without foundation, would not comport 
 with the Biblical ideas. Is not the probable and reasona- 
 ble inference, therefore, that he actually saw Christ, while 
 a venerable, hoary-headed sage, as represented by 
 Papias? It may be well to state that this Revelation was 
 written A. D. 96. 
 
 It is in this manner that all the circumstances so admi- 
 rably harmonize, that it seems difficult to doubt their im- 
 port. And none would presume to doubt it, if they re- 
 garded the Bible as a mass of writings to be judged by 
 human reason, rather than as a magazine of ghost stories, 
 to be adopted without examination, — to be literally swal- 
 lowed without being masticated. Instead of this, they 
 understand it to impart what they wish it to impart, and 
 not what it does, in reality. They see in it what others 
 declare is in it; as is frequently done in fixing the conjec- 
 tured resemblance of a picture, to which all adherents 
 who are told of the standard will agree, while the un- 
 moulded, original, independent opinions will differ from 
 them, and detect the true likeness. Preconceived or 
 prereceived notions wield a tremendous influence over 
 one searching the scriptures. They almost, if we may 
 be allowed the expression, put the words in the Bible's 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 99 
 
 own mouth, and make them the mere echoes of manufac- 
 tured sentiments, instead of granting it the liberty to 
 speak for itself. A glance at the various sectarian meth- 
 ods employed in explaining its tenor, according to their 
 respective views, established by some one or more men, 
 will exemplify this. Such dogmas must be founded on a 
 distrust of the power of truth. Truth is simple, modest: 
 it needs no pompous parade to usher it into a man's cre- 
 dence. Its irresistible advocate responds to its utterance, 
 and seizes it with a gigantic grasp soon as it enters the 
 heart. Its acceptance is belief; its superficial rejection 
 is unbelief: the one meets approval; the other encounters 
 disapprobation. And upon this is based the often pervert- 
 ed axiom, that "he who believes [the truth] shall be 
 saved; and he who believes not shall be condemned;" for, 
 he acts in accordance with his belief, and corresponding 
 consequences naturally attend his conduct. A person 
 then who requires a prodigy to prove a truth's reality, 
 has not full confidence in the intrinsic force of that truth. 
 We leave this for the purpose of considering the float- 
 ing doctrine of the 
 
 SECOND ADVENT. 
 
 It may appear incongruous that, at the same time Paul 
 is strongly intimating and occasionally asserting the ac- 
 tual existence of Christ long after his alleged death, he is 
 also continually speaking of his coming. But, it is no 
 more incongruous than some other kindred points in the 
 Bible appear when taken in an unconnected, unqualified 
 sense. If we carefully consult the several parts as con- 
 stituting a whole, — as rays converging from different di- 
 rections to a common focus, the main object of their writ- 
 
 7* 
 
100 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 
 
 ing and preaching; and remember that but scant materials 
 of the original accounts have reached us, — more than 
 fifty gospels and epistles which were extant in the first four 
 centuries being lost, and such as we have having suffered 
 much perversion by interpolations, mutilations, transcript 
 errors, mistranslations, &.c, we shall willingly admit that 
 they agree as well as can be reasonably expected of them 
 under the circumstances. Then add to this, that every 
 reader is indoctrinated with a certain view of the Bible in 
 his youth, so that when he arrives at the years of discre- 
 tion, he is apt to conform his interpretation of it to the 
 standard already planted in his mind; and should he have 
 courage to begin to investigate for himself, he would 
 rather incline towards the old track. In accordance with 
 the manner of the sects, he selects some prominent pas- 
 sage as the basis, and then bends all the rest to square 
 with that. Should we tell him that, if our sources can be 
 depended on, we have traced Christ from Samaria to Azo- 
 tus, to Damascus, to Cesarea, to Joppa, to Rome, to 
 Alexandria, and it may be to Ephesus or Patmos, where 
 John, his favorite disciple, wrote the Revelation at an ad- 
 vanced stage of life, he would be apt to summarily ex- 
 clude it as a dangerous heresy. But, to return from this 
 rambling digression. 
 
 The key to his second coming, so often alluded to in the 
 .epistles, may be found in the gospels of Matthew, (Matt, 
 xxiv., 3 — 51, and xxv. } 31 — 46,) Mark, (Mark xiii.,) and 
 Luke, (Luke xvii., 20 — 37.) His disciples came to him 
 privately, as he sat upon the mount of Olives, saying, 
 What shall be the sign of thy coming? (Matt, xxiv.) 
 Among other answers, he gave the following, — " As the 
 lightning cometh out of the East and shineth even to the 
 West, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." — 
 30 v., " And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man 
 in heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth 
 mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 101 
 
 clouds of heaven with power and great glory." — 33 v., 
 " So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know* 
 that it is near, ercnat the doors." — 37 v., "As the days of 
 Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man 
 be." — 42 v., " Watch therefore; for, ye know not what 
 hour your Lord doth come." — 44 v., "Therefore, be ye 
 also ready; for, in such an hour as ye think not, the Son 
 of man cometh." — In xxv., 31, " When the Son of man 
 shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, 
 then shall he sit upon the throne in his glory." — They 
 were assured that that generation should not pass till all 
 those things were fulfilled; (Matt, xxiv., 34,) and that pre- 
 viously to his coming in this manner, the gospel should be 
 preached in all the world, and then should the end come; 
 (Matt, xxiv., 14,) also, that false Christs and false proph- 
 ets should arise: (Matt, xxiv., 24,) and farther, that he 
 himself did not know on what day it would occur. (Mark 
 xiii., 32.) 
 
 He had intimated these things to them before, (Matt. 
 xvi., 27, 28,) — " The Son of man shall come in the glory 
 of his Father, with his angels. Verily, I say to you, 
 There be some standing here, which shall not taste of 
 death, till they see the Son of man coming in his king- 
 dom." — He likewise made a similar declaration in the 
 presence of the Jewish council, when the high priest ad- 
 jured him to tell if he were the Christ, (Matt, xxvi., 64,) 
 the Son of God; " Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man 
 sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the 
 clouds of heaven." 
 
 All these expressions seem to refer to more ancient 
 ones. Isaiah predicted (Isaiah xxiv., 21, and xiii., 10,) 
 what "shall come to pass in that day." " The stars of 
 heaven shall not give their light; the sun shall be dark- 
 ened; the moon shall not shine," &c. Daniel (Dan. 
 vii., 13,) saw in a vision "one like the Son of man 
 come with the clouds of heaven." And Malachi (Mai. 
 
102 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 
 
 iv., 1, 5,) said, " Behold the day cometh that shall burn 
 «s an oven, saith the Lord;" and "I will send you 
 Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and 
 dreadful day of the Lord." Likewise "Enoch, the 
 seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, Behold the Lord 
 cometh with ten thousand of his saints." (Jude 14.) 
 
 It was then natural for the disciples, so fast as they be- 
 lieved their Teacher, to be on the watch expecting this 
 great event. And St. Paul especially, so well read as he 
 was in the law and prophecies, must have been in posses- 
 sion of all these facts; and hence we find that he, as well 
 as the others, lays considerable stress upon it throughout 
 the epistles, believing, as it is said they did, that Christ 
 died, rose again, ascended to heaven, and sat on the right 
 hand of God. To the Thessalonians, A. D. 52, he wrote, 
 (1 Thes. iv., 15 — 17,) " This we say to you by the word 
 of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain to the 
 coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them which are 
 asleep; for, the Lord himself shall descend from heaven 
 with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the 
 trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then 
 we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together 
 with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and 
 so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore, comfort 
 one another with these words. But of the times and sea- 
 sons, ye have no need that I write to you; for, yourselves 
 know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a 
 thief in the night."— To Timothy, (1 Tim. vi., 14,) A. D. 
 56, he gave directions to " keep the commandment until 
 the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ." — In the next 
 year, in his letter to the Corinthians, (2 Cor. i., 14,) he 
 alludes to "the day of the Lord Jesus." — He reminded 
 the Romans, (Rom. xiit., 12,) Feb., A. D. 58, that "the 
 day is at hand:" and he intimated it to the Ephesians, 
 (Eph. iv., 30,) April, A. D. 61, under the name of "the 
 day of redemption." — The following year, he mentioned 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 103 
 
 the same, two or three times, in his epistle to the Philip- 
 pians. He declared (2 Thes. ii., 7,) to the Thessalonia'ns 
 that the mystery of iniquity already worked, and tp the 
 Colossians (Coios. i., 23,) that the gospel was preached 
 to every creature under heaven; and hence, these being 
 two of the signs (Matt, xxiv., 12 and 14,) to precede the 
 " end of the world " or the coming of Christ or the day 
 of the Lord, all which the apostles evidently believed 
 were to be of simultaneous occurrence, Paul numbers 
 himself among those, who were to meet the Lord in the 
 air; and it also identifies the source of their doctrine and 
 belief. — James, (James v., 7, 8,) in his epistle to the 
 twelve tribes, about A. D. 61 or 62, enjoins them to " be 
 patient to the coming of the Lord," and he asserts that 
 "the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." — And Peter, 
 (2 Peter i., 16, 17,) A. D. 64, seems to have considered 
 the transfiguration as a type of the expected coming, thus: 
 "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, 
 when we made known to you the power and coming of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye witnesses of his 
 majesty; for he received from God the Father honor and 
 glory, when there came such a voice to him from the ex- 
 cellent glory, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well 
 pleased." He was one of the three spectators of that 
 splendid scene. (Matt, xvii., 1.) — He also furnishes an- 
 other mark of identity (Matt, xxiv., 43 and 44,) to the 
 above, in the expression, " the day of the Lord will come 
 as a thief in the night;" (2 Peter iii., 10, 13,) and goes on 
 with a description, saying, that " the heavens shall pass 
 away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with 
 fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein 
 shall be burned up. Nevertheless we, according to his 
 promise, look for new heavens, and a new earth." Peter 
 was then in Rome; and likewise, when he wrote (1 Peter 
 iv., 7,) " the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore 
 * sober, and watch to prayer." — Even an indirect identifi- 
 
104 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 
 
 cation of the source of their sentiments is involved in the 
 allusion by Jude, (Jude 18,) A. D. 65, that " there should 
 be mockers [deceivers] in the last time." (Matt, xxiv., 5, 
 and 24.) — In A. D. 80, or ten years after the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, St. John while at Ephesus dwells on the same 
 topic. He was then pretty well advanced in age; and 
 doubtless, bore in mind the expression of Christ to Peter 
 after the resurrection, recorded in his own gospel, (John 
 xxi., 22,) A. D. 68, <c If I will that he [John] tarry till I 
 come, what is that to thee?" He was then also near the 
 close of that generation, before the obliteration of which 
 (Matt, xxiv., 34,) he believed the event was to transpire; 
 and hence his sanguine declaration, (1 John ii., 18, 28,) 
 4 c It is the last time : and as ye have heard that Anti-Christ 
 shall <come, even now are there many Anti-Christs: where- 
 by we know that it is the last time." — "And now, little 
 children, abide in him; that when he shall appear, we may 
 have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his 
 coming." — " Beloved, we know that, when he shall ap- 
 pear, we shall be like him; for, we shall see him as he 
 is." (1 John iii., 2.) — And in nine or ten years afterwards, 
 he wrote, (2 John, 7,) " Many deceivers are entered into 
 the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in 
 the flesh. This is a deceiver and an Anti-Christ." See in 
 connection with these passages, Matthew xxiv., 5 and 24. 
 — He likewise doubtless remembered the promise, (John 
 xiv., 2 and 3,) " I go to prepare a place for you. 
 And if I go and prepare a place for you, 1 will come 
 again, and receive you to myself; that where I am, 
 ye may be also;" as well as the assertion made by him 
 at the end of the last supper, " I will not drink henceforth 
 of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it 
 new with you in my Father's kingdom." (Mat.,xxvi., 29.) 
 — Once more, in A. D. 95 or 96, near the expiration of 
 John's life, who died at the age of 97, he wrote at Ephe- 
 sus or Patmos, the revelation of Christ concerning events ' 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 105 
 
 shortly to come to pass, (Rev. i., 1,) in which among 
 ether things he said, (Rev. i., 7,) "Behold, he cometh 
 with clouds; and every eye shall see him; and they that 
 pierced him; and all kindreds of the earth shall wail be- 
 cause of him." This partially corresponds with Mat- 
 thew, (Matt, xxiv., 30,) " Then shall all the tribes of the 
 earth mourn:" especially if we consider the original 
 Greek in the latter, tote kopsontai pasai ai phulai tes ges, 
 Izai opsontai ton uion tou anthropou erchomenon epi ton ne- 
 phelon tou ouranou; and that in the former, erchetai meta 
 ton nephelon — kai kopsontai epi anion pasai ai phulai tes 
 ges. It will be obvious to any one making the compari- 
 son, that the words translated " kindred " and " wail," in 
 the one, are translated "tribes" and "mourn," in the 
 other; and are precisely the same in both, in the original: 
 the two passages also otherwise bear a strong resem- 
 blance, and again identify the source of John's views in 
 the matter. Besides, he wrote his Revelation more than 
 twenty years after the destruction of Jerusalem. — Again, 
 John asserted (Rev. xxii., 20,) that " he which testifieth 
 these things, saith, surely, I come quickly." 
 
 These are but specimens of the whole tenor of the epis- 
 tles on this point: they abound in such. Do they not all 
 tend to show the implicit confidence and expectation of the 
 apostles with regard to a coming at some future period, 
 and which to them did not appear to be at a great dis- 
 tance? It was evidently a coming to be attended with 
 stupendous magnificence; and. not by any means demon- 
 strating that Christ was not then on earth; for, they be- 
 gan to anticipate his appearance to restore the kingdom 
 to Israel, soon after his ascent; and he announced his be- 
 lief of it, before the crucifixion. The Old Testament 
 seems to have been the suggester of these sentiments to 
 
 CO 
 
 him, as well as that of the appellation "Son of Man," 
 which he apparently adopted. Balaam said to Balak, 
 (Num. xxiii., 19,) "God is not a man, that he should lie; 
 
106 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 nor the Son of man, that he should repent." God and 
 the Son of man cannot hereby be identical. If, then, 
 Christ was the Son of man, how could he be the supreme 
 God? — Job (xxxv., 8,) says, "Thy righteousness may 
 profit the Son of man." — David also mentioned the sons 
 of men. (Ps. iv., °2.) — Isaiah (Is. li., 12,) asks, " Who art 
 thou, that thou shouldst be afraid of a man, that shall die, 
 and the Son of man, which shall be made as grass?" — -Eze- 
 kiel (Ezek. xxii.. 2, &c.,) represents the word of the 
 Lord as saying, " Now, thou Son of man, wilt thou judge 
 the bloody city?" — Daniel (Dan. vii., 13,) says, " One 
 like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven." 
 This expression is not very uncommon in the ancient 
 scriptures; and how can it be applicable to Christ, if he 
 were not bom of man, as alleged? — The terror appended to 
 the coming, seems to have been also derived from the Old 
 Testament. — Isaiah (Is. lxvi., 15,) says, "The Lord will 
 come with fire;" and Malachi (Mal.iv., 1 and 5,) declares, 
 "The day cometh-that, shall burn as an oven, and shall 
 burn up the proud and the wicked, saith the Lord; and I 
 will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the 
 great and dreadful day of the Lord." And the disciples 
 evidently understood that Elias [or Elijah] had already 
 come in the person of John the Baptist. (Matt, xvii., 12.) 
 — From all which, we conclude that the Second Advent 
 was sincerely expected by them, to occur during their 
 life. 
 
 Now, if the belief of the Jews concerning the actual 
 death of Christ while affixed to the cross on Calvary, and 
 the belief of the apostles concerning the second coming, 
 were equivalent to absolute and certain knowledge, it 
 would subvert the position we have been induced to take; 
 but, as they were mistaken or misunderstood him in the 
 one case, as they evidently did, instead of invalidating, it 
 rather contributes to fortify us; for, why might they not 
 have been mistaken in the other? The Jews discredited 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 107 
 
 his reappearance or resurrection; because, they were so 
 taught: they also believed in his death, for the same 
 reason. They naturally inferred, as any one would at the 
 present or at any other day, that, if he died, and a report 
 of his resurrection was circulated by one party, to whom 
 he had appeared, and contradicted by another who had 
 not seen him, the contradiction was the more credible; 
 and it required stronger evidence to establish such an un- 
 wonted fact. Hence, we perceive that even some of the 
 disciples were tardy believers. But, it is observable that 
 the Jews were partially mistaken in the reappearance, 
 which presumes their liability to mistake in the death; and 
 on their faith in the latter, they based their disbelief of the 
 former. It must be remembered that Caiaphas, the Jew- 
 ish high priest, predicted the death of Christ; and this 
 circumstance, from such authority and their confidence in 
 it, tended to rivet their secondary and adopted conviction, 
 which evidently misled them. If he had been very public 
 among them, the story of the priests and soldiers that his 
 body had been stolen, would have been very short-lived 
 and of limited extension. Thus, we seethe popular opin- 
 ion had some considerable countenance for support. — 
 They deceived themselves likewise by misinterpreting the 
 ancient writings, if those writings indicated him as a 
 spiritual ruler; for, they expected a temporal one. This 
 was common to the Jews proper and to the disciples, even 
 after the resurrection. Hence, we detect another mis- 
 take, of which it was difficult to convince them. 
 
 If then they erred in these two palpable particulars, how 
 much more probable that they were deluded in such a criti- 
 cal matter as that of life and death ! It is a point of no small 
 nicety to determine whether a man is really dead, especi- 
 ally when circumstanced as was the alleged decease of 
 Christ. Consider the brevity of time he was on the 
 cross, the fact that they did not break his legs with the 
 mallet as was done to others, notwithstanding the Jews 
 
108 
 
 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE! 
 
 urged it, (John xix., 31,) and that a soldier under the 
 command of the friendly Pilate merely pierced his side 
 with a spear; that he was deposited in a friend's tomb by 
 the hands of a disciple; that the superstitious guards fled 
 at his reappearance; that he was entombed not more than 
 thirty-six hours; i. e., one hour on Friday, twenty-four 
 hours on Saturday, and eleven hours on Sunday, includ- 
 ing two nights and one whole day; that he walked, con- 
 versed, eat, and drank with his disciples, before the as- 
 cent; and that he was seen and heard for years after- 
 wards in different places. Then take into the account 
 that, in all ages, persons have been buried alive. Many, 
 very many, have been sadly deceived in judgment con- 
 cerning the extinction of life in their dearest relatives and 
 friends: suspended animation has eluded the most vigilant, 
 interested, and experienced eyes. Indeed, " instances 
 are recorded by Pliny*" of individuals who came to life 
 again on the funeral pile, after it was set on fire, so that 
 they could not be preserved; and of others who, having re- 
 vived before the pile was kindled, returned home on their 
 feet :"• and the Romans kept their corpses two or three 
 days. Even the files of our newspapers testify to the 
 same. Likewise, a remarkable instance occurred about 
 that time. Caligula proposed to place his statue in the 
 temple of Jerusalem. When king Agrippa heard of the 
 proposal, he fainted away, and did not recover his senses 
 till the third day. Others might be enumerated; but, the 
 truth is so self evident, that it needs no series of specified 
 cases to sustain it. In consideration of all these hints, 
 then, how problematic must have been the death of Christ, 
 his body having been interred on the same day! The 
 evidence in favor of his having survived the pangs of 
 crucifixion certainly appears to us stronger than that 
 against it. 
 
 And yet notwithstanding the signal disappointment of 
 
 * Pliny vu\, 52, s. 53, and xxvi., 3, s. 8. 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 109 
 
 those who were better furnished with the means of know- 
 ing than any succeeding generation, this dogma has, every 
 three or four centuries since the commencement of the 
 Christian era, lashed a certain portion of mankind into a 
 phrenzy of fear. It has been Lo, here! and Lo, there! 
 through and from the age of the apostles. St. John in 
 the first century, Justin Martyr and Irenjsus in the 
 second and third, Tertullian and Lactantius in the 
 third and fourth centuries, kept up a continual agitation 
 among believers concerning a millennium. With occa- 
 sional pauses, it has been carefully preserved in the ark 
 of safety, and transmitted for the edification of posterity; 
 so that, should this earth be ever destroyed, the prophecy, 
 or their interpretation of the dictum, may be fulfilled 
 to the letter. It will only be necessary to lengthen the 
 prophetic years a little more. Towards the close of the 
 fifteenth century, Florimoncl* wrote a work on the Anti- 
 christ. " The increase of sorcery and witchcraft, ? ' said 
 he, " all agree, is to distinguish the melancholy period of 
 Christ's advent; and was age ever so afflicted with them 
 as ours?" One would naturally infer from the accounts, 
 that, instead of a benevolent Saviour of mankind, we were 
 to be visited by a ruthless and relentless ravager and de- 
 stroyer,; instead of a gentle Lamb, we were to expect a 
 rabid tiger; instead of the meek and lowly Jesus, we 
 were to witness the advent of a hideous, terrific, and un- 
 feeling demon. And the advocacy of such revolting senti- 
 ments, as emanating from the Bible, has invested that 
 book with a forbidding aspect, and has been exceedingly 
 fruitful in unbelief. In lieu of a melancholy period, we 
 should predicate a cheerful one, to be consistent with 
 Christ's character. Should there, however, be any thing 
 dreadful or melancholy about it, those who, after having 
 
 ^Florimond on Anti-christ, ch. vii., n. 5 3 quoted by Delrio de 
 Magia. p. 820. 
 
110 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE J 
 
 secured the honest confidence of their hearers, have con- 
 taminated the world with their corrupt doctrines, by in- 
 dustriously disseminating them broadcast, and declaring 
 them to be proper principles of action, fit examples for 
 imitation, and worthy of universal adoption and applica- 
 tion, those are the individuals who will probably experi- 
 ence the horror. Others have contributed their aid to 
 keep the chain of this doctrine's promulgation unbroken. 
 Even among ourselves, we find it revived, and blazing 
 forth with all its pristine brilliancy. We have indeed no 
 sorcery or witchcraft to speak of; but, all nature seems 
 to reel and to be in commotion; at least, we are so told by 
 the news-journals. And if there be any truth in reported 
 sigfis, the Biblical expounders of this generation have 
 certainly an equal claim with their predecessors to a be- 
 lief in an approaching millenium. But, however much 
 such movements may subserve a temporary expedient; or 
 gain accessions to this or that denominational altar; or 
 terrify people into a supposition that they have religion; 
 their consequences will be direful ravages of the moral, 
 intellectual, and the physical domain. Having deemed 
 the instructions of the Bible infallible, and finding its ap- 
 parent predictions fail, they will be apt to doom the whole 
 indiscriminately to condemnation, as they now do those 
 who cannot believe their assertions. 
 
OR. BOOK OF DOGMAS. 1 1 1 
 
 REFLECTIONS. 
 
 Thus have we cursorily surveyed the ground, by mak- 
 ing selections of the most prominent themes and dogmas, 
 adhered to by most theologians: we have ventured to ex- 
 amine and to pass our judgment on them seriatim; and we 
 find how little independent thought has been bestowed 
 upon these dangerous excrescences of superstition, and 
 now wofully fettered are the reasoning powers of our 
 race! Our examination has introduced us to the secret 
 of unbelief, and into a view of the errors of belief. 
 
 In his youth, man has been taught to respect and revere 
 his parents' spiritual teacher, as an inspired messenger of 
 God; and his unsuspecting confidence has thereby been 
 won. His childish simplicity has adopted their assertion 
 of his own ignorance of the subject, of the minister's riper 
 age, judgment, and abilities, of his superior means through 
 his profession and devoted study to investigate it, of his 
 conscientious regard for the truth, of his exceedingly in- 
 tense desire to search for it, and when found, to divulge it 
 faithfully to his hearers, all these combined, have tended to 
 invest him with a species of infallibility, and to constitute 
 him an oracle. Through the years of youth to manhood, 
 this idea daily buried itself deeper and deeper, and fastened 
 itself stronger and stronger in his mind. His surrounding 
 friends, — the whole domestic and neighboring atmosphere 
 — were and are all tinctured with the same: and when he 
 has attained manhood, the least distrust or doubt of the 
 minister's infallibility, though observation presses convic- 
 tion upon him, — or the unwillingness he has to believe 
 
112 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 himself to have been so long deceived by such a prepos- 
 terous idea, though the ghastly fact of deception stares 
 him broad in the face, — wounds his pride, and makes him 
 shrink even from private ^//"-acknowledgement. He re- 
 gards the doubt as the ringleader of traitors; artd his own 
 heart, as the council-chamber of treason. He is immod- 
 erately diffident of his powers of discrimination; and 
 dreads to say, " our minister is but a man, liable to err 
 like other men." This is not strange: for, he has been 
 taught that the verse, "He that believeih not, shall be 
 damned" is especially and almost solely applicable to 
 those who hear the minister, — and enjoins them to admit 
 •all he says without hesitation or doubt. He has been 
 steeped in a vapor-bath of mysteries; and before his rea- 
 son had become matured, like the shorn Samson, it war 
 bound, fettered, and manacled, with the forged chains of 
 worse than Egyptian servitude. And if he now venture to 
 insist on a satisfactory answer to an independent inquiry, 
 while in this helpless condition, he is unceremoniously ex- 
 communicated and anathematized as a worthless outcast. 
 These impressions then have an additional guard: they 
 are environed by a circle of fire, — the fire of persecution. 
 They are fastened to the inmost recess of the mind with 
 the thongs of terror. Precisely so has it been before with 
 Unitheism, if we consider Socrates drinking the fatal 
 hemlock. So also was it once with Reformation, if we 
 glance at the crucified Jesus on Calvary. In like man- 
 ner was it with Science, if we contemplate Galileo in the 
 dungeons of the Holy Inquisition. And even so was it with 
 Liberty, if we recal to mind the dangers of the Revolution' 
 ary Heroes. A doubt was their leading genius: and 
 though it conducted them through the severe road of 
 persecution, it finally led them to an unfading immortali- 
 ty. The identical principle of distrust in the prevailing 
 corrupt opinions of their respective ages, which was so 
 stigmatized and doomed by bigotry, preserved their names 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 113 
 
 from oblivion. And yet, brazen-faced intolerance con* 
 tinues to roam about the world, and to arrogate to her- 
 self alone the right of independence, and the perfect crite- 
 rion of faith! Now, what self-evident truth requires a 
 verse of condemnation to secure its credence? And what 
 truth should be more self-evident than one, on the unqual- 
 ified credence of which depends a man's eternal happi- 
 ness ? 
 
 But, man still labors under the lethargy inculcated to 
 him by his pastor, and refrains from examination. He 
 proceeds to reason upon the assumption that all the doc- 
 trines he has been habituated to hear, are in the Bible: he 
 then either continues his belief in them, or discards the 
 whole book with disgust as a useless farrago. He has 
 indeed been urged to " search the scriptures like the 
 noble Bereans, whether those things were so"; but, he 
 must not see any thing therein different from his pulpit's 
 instructions; he must not construe a syllable differently 
 from the general acceptation of the parish: he must use 
 the minister's spectacles, not his own. Thus, is he con- 
 vinced that it is about as well to admit the pastoral in- 
 terpretation without dispute; for, however much he may 
 search, he will, after all, be compelled to arrive at the 
 same result; and he naturally chooses the easiest, the 
 shortest, the least perilous way, and thereby sinks into 
 the above named lethargy. He has indeed avoided heresy, 
 but contracted a mental paralysis. We hope, however, 
 that ere long, the Samson, REASON will recover its shorn 
 locks, and dash the pillars of superstition's temple, involv- 
 ing in one common destruction the host of Philistine pre- 
 judices and errors, while itself will rise triumphant from 
 the massive ruins. And since they are determined to 
 keep them clipped, it becomes every true friend of lib- 
 eral principles and of the human race, every admirer of 
 pure Christianity, to seize the shears, and beat thern into 
 a plough-share and a pruning-knife ; and let them no longer, 
 8 
 
114 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE; 
 
 by their opening for this unholy purpose, describe a min- 
 iature cross in mockery of the emblem of our religion! 
 
 Thus, we perceive that the believer and the unbeliever 
 have started from the same point, and neither of them 
 have advanced in a right line. Both have diverged from 
 the proper track; and every progressive step increases 
 the distance between them, and diminishes the effect of 
 their interchanged shots. And yet, they belong to the 
 same parentage, are derived from the same stock, are 
 members of the same human family, are professedly in 
 pursuit of the same vital object, and are destined to the 
 same bourne. Both have deviated from reason: inasmuch 
 as the one has indiscriminately adopted all the main doc- 
 trines imparted by his teacher, as contained in the Bible, 
 and the sentiment that all contained therein is genuine 
 and true; while the other has as indiscriminately rejected 
 the whole, without allowing it a fair hearing: for, it com- 
 prises many truths and much wholesome advice. Were 
 it but a magazine of the notions we have been consider- 
 ing', not even the pulpit would save them. 
 
 We now design to frame a brief 
 
 SYNOPSIS OF THE DOGMAS 
 
 cursorily touched upon by us, and the main consequence 
 of each; and then to conclude our essay. The idea of 
 plenary inspiration is the first stumbling block, and in- 
 volves a little of the ridiculous: for, what person, in his 
 sober senses, would ever dream that it required divine in- 
 terposition to relate that the "Lord met Moses by the 
 way in an inn, and sought to kill him"? (Exodus iv., 24,) 
 or that Paul needed it to ask Timothy to " bring his cloak 
 that he left at Troas with Carpus, and the boohs and parch- 
 ments!" (2 Tim. iv., 13,) or that it was necessary for the 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 115 
 
 interpolation of the verse of the three heavenly witnesses? 
 (1 John v. 5 7.) This idea not only presumes every word 
 of the Bible to have been inspired, but it shelters under 
 the same sacred cover such doctrines as the ministers may 
 allege to be therein, whether they are really so, or not. — 
 The system of faith, as preached from some pulpits, exerts 
 an evil influence. A hearer believes that his minister 
 preaches a correct view of the Bible's contents; that, 
 however incompatible with reason and common sense it 
 may appear, himself must necessarily be wrong, and his 
 teacher invariably right; for, " he says the Bible says so 
 and means so, and I believe he is ordained to interpret it." 
 Then comes the verse, "He that believeth not, shall be 
 damned." (Mark xvi., 16.) Who uttered this sentiment? 
 Christ. The fact is not to be disputed. But, now to the 
 assumed application and construction: " He that believeth 
 not" the Bible, as expounded by the minister, "shall be 
 damned " bxj the Almighty, If therefore an unbeliever in 
 these peculiar tenets is condemned by God, it must be the 
 imperative duty of the pastor to deal out the condemna- 
 tion, as a commissioned agent: for, in his estimation, such 
 a course is in accordance with the divine will, and receives 
 the divine approbation. So also think his flock. Hence, 
 they feel countenanced and commanded to persecute an 
 unbeliever. The doctrine is accordingly productive of 
 intolerance and persecution; and is based in self-conceit. — 
 Implicit faith is the foundation of half the gossip in circu- 
 lation; for, did not the community evince such a readiness 
 to believe, gossips would not be so ready to communicate, 
 (Matt, v., 37,) magnify, and fabricate. The term mystery 
 is a secret closet, in which, we are told, lie concealed the 
 significations of many dogmas, apparently unreasonable 
 and absurd; and that it is sacrilegious to pry into them, 
 or to doubt the assertions to this effect, made by the min- 
 ister: for, he knows, — only God has not seen fit to endow 
 him with the gift of explaining the mystery. This implies 
 
1J6 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 a distrust of the minister, after all; for, why not admit him 
 into full communion? If he does not know, why this de- 
 ception? By means of the alleged mysterious significa- 
 tions, many abominable doctrines have been servilely suf- 
 fered to disgrace the earth. In embracing the Trinity, 
 you embrace a body without an inherent soul; for, the 
 soul is in the secret closet, and you are not permitted to 
 enter, or even to attempt an entrance of, the sacred en- 
 closure. Its self-evident absurdity has created many an 
 unbeliever in the whole Bible. It has paganized Christ- 
 ianity, by deifying the son of man. It has duped reason, 
 by insinuating itself into the credence through the gate of 
 imagination or some passion, or by climbing up some 
 other way; (John x., 1,) and it has effected a perversion 
 of reason. The doctrine of original depravity is fruitful 
 in misanthropy and slander; for, it imbues one with detest- 
 able ideas of his fellow-creatures: and he is thereby liable 
 to regard a neighbor as his lawful prey. Such believers 
 cannot certainly have much confidence in their own integ- 
 rity. The doctrine of arbitrary grace generates reckless-, 
 ness of conduct. That of election produces bigotry. That 
 of indiscriminate, unqualified, adulatory prayer promotes 
 hypocrisy. That of regeneration allows a criminal to 
 prosecute a wicked course for years, and to be pardoned 
 in a few moments; and involves an absurdity. That of 
 vicarious atonement confounds the distinctions of right and 
 wrong, prompts to injustice between man and man, shields 
 crime, and presupposes no merit in good acts. That of 
 endless punishment recommends eternal grudges among 
 mankind for every slight misdemeanor, a perpetual re- 
 membrance of an affront without pardon, no forbearance, 
 no forgiveness, and the continuance of a black system o 
 hatred and revenge. That of hell, damnation, devil, and 
 the by-word use of God's name, bandied by men of current 
 respectability from the pulpit, is instrumental to the cause 
 of profanity. Indeed, most of the rank errors afloat in the 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 117 
 
 community are attributable to these prolific sources; for, 
 the example is set directly or indirectly by the preaching. 
 The terrors of all of them are well calculated to drive 
 people to insanity. Protracted and crowded meetings and 
 their consequent excitement ruin health, do no good what- 
 ever, and are pestiferous with evil. If the above-enumer- 
 ated unreasonable perversions should be universally acted 
 upon by the human race in their daily transactions, a de- 
 plorable state of affairs would obtain. And yet, such as 
 have unconsciously imbibed those principles, and have con- 
 ducted according to their tenor, are vehemently denounced 
 by their very promulgators, for so doing; thus, proving 
 their generation of ingratitude also, the basest of evils! 
 
 We respectfully invite the believer and the unbeliever 
 of every grade to abandon the extremes of diverging and 
 rancorous separation, and to meet each other half way, on 
 the middle ground, where they can profitably unite in one 
 common cause, and blend their energies together in the 
 advancement of truth. The remaining doctrines and their 
 consequences .we leave to the candid consideration of 
 each, that he may form his own opinion concerning their 
 value and tendency, while we hasten to the 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The faculty of reason, according to the adaptation of 
 means to ends, is introduced within us to make nature's 
 operations intelligible to us; and it follows that a faculty 
 or attribute of similar properties must have created ours, 
 as well as the things cognizable by it, planning and con- 
 trolling those operations. This faculty has always been 
 cramped by servility of belief, and subjugation to others' 
 opinions, to too much confidence in foreign appliances, 
 8* 
 
118 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE ; 
 
 and too little exercise of itself. Ancient philosophers 
 were prone to the same. In essence, their philosophies 
 were like our sectarian tenets. Did the Almighty reason 
 chain itself to a sect, it would be fallible. It is never in 
 full power, unless freedom attends it. What absurdity, 
 what cruelty, what infamy, to recommend, dictate, enforce 
 a course insuring its prostration, to disarm it entirely, and 
 then to deride and decry it! And that too, by professing 
 to use your own, which must be equally fallible! So did 
 the taunting Philistines mock Samson, after they had de- 
 prived him of his strength and his eyes. — The mental fac- 
 ulties are progressive almost ad infinitum. They are not 
 stationary and impotent, except from abuse advised by ig- 
 norant men, — ignorant in the most useful matter. It is 
 therefore clear as crystal that, if any one subserviently 
 submits to another's judgment, he does wrong: if he be- 
 lieves, merely because others for ages preceding have be- 
 lieved the" same, he does wrong: if he accepts or rejects a 
 question of so much importance as religion, with rash 
 precipitancy, he also does wrong. - 
 
 We would then have every one peruse the truths record- 
 ed in the Bible, as truths in themselves considered, not 
 subject to alteration, either by the addition or the want of 
 a miracle, either by the application or the disagreement 
 of a prophecy, as truths independent of every extraneous 
 consideration, — stamped with the immutable basis of right, 
 as truths embodying the same essence, whether inscribed 
 on the page of a Grecian, a Chinese, or of a Jew, wheth- 
 er uttered by the mouth of Isocrates or by Christ; let 
 him do this, and he will not be liable to fall into such egre- 
 gious errors; nor will he wreck so many credulous follow- 
 ers on the quicksands of fear. He will rather look 
 within, and nurture the germ implanted by his Maker in 
 his heart at the first moment of his existence, and make the 
 exercise of well cultivated faculties and well balanced 
 passions, lodged within a sound and healthy body, the 
 
OR, BOOK OF DOGMAS. 119 
 
 source of happiness — the kingdom of heaven, (Luke xvii., 
 21,) than he listlessly and tremblingly gazing about at 
 every Lo, here, and Lo, there, for a supply of religion, as 
 merchants look for mercantile commodities from a foreign 
 shore. If he has deviated from the path of nature, or vio- 
 lated any of its laws, he will labor to repair 'the breach 
 soon as possible; for, the science of amelioration consists 
 in conforming the human head, heart, and body to the 
 standard of nature, whose Author is God, rather than in 
 eradicating every natural principle as a corrupt root. We 
 would have him thoroughly understand before he believes; 
 and rely mostly upon his own judgment in affairs of con- 
 science; for, he alone is responsible for his own acts, and 
 these are prompted, controlled by his creed; and if his 
 judgment be defective, the blame cannot be imputable to 
 him. Besides, if he depend on another, he would be a 
 Catholic in Spain, a Mahometan in Arabia, and bend 
 his knees before the Grand Lama in Tartary. There 
 would be no stability in him. His religion would chalge 
 with his residence, and often even without it. He must 
 use his REASON; for, to what other faculty could a rev- 
 elation be directed? What other one can comprehend 
 any thing rational, or distinguish it from an absurdity? 
 He will deduce religion, capable of boundless expan- 
 sion, from that internal germ, which infuses more and 
 more substantial happiness, as it increases and radiates its 
 mild beams from its centre outwardly, rather than be de- 
 luded into the idea that he can have it from an external 
 source, at a moment's warning. Religion comes by sys- 
 tem, it is true; but, it is the system of nature, not of art 
 nor intriguing artifice. Its basis is reasonable affection, 
 not terror nor insanity. " God is love. There is no fear 
 in love. Fear hath torment. Perfect love casteth out fear. 
 He that feareth is not made perfect in love." (1 John iv., 
 16, 18.) Like every other natural production, religion 
 thrives better in tranquillity than in excitement. 
 
120 THE THEOLOGICAL BEE-HIVE. 
 
 Let then the doctrines of the Bible be regarded in this 
 light of moderation. Test them by that faculty, to which 
 they are addressed. Read them with your own eyes; con- ( 
 strue them with your own intelligence; feel them with 
 your own heart. For each one individually, indepen- 
 dently , and" directly, were they designed. No keeper nor 
 dispenser was ever divinely commissioned to dole them out, 
 in just such portions, in just such a manner, and with just 
 such a tinge, as may please him. Let them be candidly 
 viewed with the eye of reason, and we shall be able to 
 distinguish between truths embodied and errors engrafted; 
 to discard the latter as irrational excrescences, instead of 
 rejecting the whole book as incorporating them. We 
 shall be willing to allow credit to the salutary instructions 
 therein contained, and the persevering labors of those who 
 collected, promulgated, and disseminated them. We 
 shall truly discern the corruptions unwarrantably ascribed 
 thereto as genuine, and treat them as troublesome inter- 
 lojfcrs, — the inquisitorial creatures of artful sectaries. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 (A.) 
 
 u This, verse is now generally given up; being in no Greek 
 manuscript save one at Berlin, which is discovered to have been 
 transcribed from the printed Biblia Complutensia: and another 
 modern one at Dublin, probably translated or corrected from the 
 Latin Vulgate. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to tell the reader, that, in 1516 and 
 1519, Erasmus published his first and second editions of the 
 Greek Testament, both which omitted the three heavenly wit- 
 nesses; that, having promised to insert them in his text, if they 
 were found in a single Greek MS., he was soon informed of the 
 existence of such a MS. in England, and consequently inserted 
 1 John v., 7, in his third edition, 1522; that this MS., after a 
 profound sleep of two centuries, has at last been found in the 
 library of Trinity College, Dublin : that the Complutensian edi- 
 tion, which was not published till 1522, though it professes to 
 have been printed in 1514, has the seventh and eighth verses 
 patched up from the modern Latin MS., and the final clause of 
 the eighth verse, which is omitted in its proper place, transferred 
 to the end of the seventh; that Colinseus, in 1534, omitted the 
 verse on the faith of MSS.; that R. Stephens, in his famous edi- 
 tion of 1550, inserted the verse, and marked the words en to 
 ouranOj [in heaven,] as wanting in seven MSS.; that Beza, sus- 
 pecting no mistake, concluded that these seven MSS. contained 
 the rest of the seventh verse, and the eighth with the words en 
 te ge, [in earth.] 
 
 Sir Isaac Newton, in his Dissertation on this passage, says that, 
 when the adversaries of Erasmus had got the Trinity into his 
 edition, they threw by their MS. as an almanac out of date. 
 
 The text is not contained in any Greek MS., which was writ- 
 ten earlier than the fifteenth century. — 2. Nor in any Latin MS. 
 
122 APPENDIX. 
 
 earlier than the ninth century. — 3. It is not found in any of the 
 ancient versions. — 4. It is not cited by any of the Greek ecclesi- 
 astical writers; though to prove the doctrine of the Trinity, they 
 have cited the words both before and after this. — 5. It is not 
 cited by any of the early Latin Fathers, even when the subjects, 
 upon which they treat, would naturally have led them to appeal 
 to its authority. — 6. It is fitst cited by Vigilius Tapsensis, a 
 Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century, and 
 by him it is suspected to have been forged. — 7. It has been 
 omitted as spurious in many editions of the New Testament 
 since the Reformation : — in the first two of Erasmus, in those of 
 Aldus, Colinaeus. Zwinglius, and lately of Griesbach. — 8. It was 
 admitted by Luther in his German Version. In the old English 
 Bibles of Henry VIIL, Edward VI., and Elizabeth, it was printed 
 in small types, or included in brackets : but between the years 
 1566 and 1580, it began to be piinted as it now stands:'' like a 
 hypocrite sneaking stealthily about when known among honest 
 men ; and when the popular voice countenances him in his prin- 
 ciples, appears in full size, and bold without a blush. 
 
 "It is evident that, if this text had been known from the be- 
 ginning of Christianity, the ancients would have eagerly seized it, 
 inserted it in their creeds, quoted it repeatedly against the here- 
 tics, and selected it for the brightest ornament of every book 
 that they wrote on the subject of the Trinity. In short, if this 
 verse be really genuine, notwithstanding its absence from all the 
 visible Greek MSS.' except two: one of which awkwardly trans- 
 lates the verse from the Latin, and the other transcribes it from a 
 printed book; notwithstanding its absence from all the versions 
 except the Vulgate, and even from many of the best and oldest 
 MSS. of the Vulgate; notwithstanding the deep and dead silence 
 of all the Greek waiters down to the thirteenth, and most of the 
 Latins dow r n to the middle of the eighth century: if, in spite of 
 all these objections, it still be genuine, no 'part of Scripture what- 
 soever can be proved either spurious or genuine." 
 
APPENDIX. 1^3 
 
 (B.) 
 
 " What the Latins have done to this text, (1 John v., 7.) the 
 Greeks have do.ie to that of St. Paul (1 Timfchy iii., 16.) ; for, 
 by changing o [which] into ® the abbreviation of Tkeos, [God] 
 they now read, " Great is the mystery of godliness: God was 
 manifested in the flesh :" whereas all ihe churches, for the first 
 four or five hundred years, and the authors of all the ancient ver- 
 sions. Jerome as well as the rest, read, " Great is the mystery of 
 godliness, which was manifested in the flesh.*' — The authors, 
 who wrote, in the fourth and fifth centuries, for the Deity of the 
 Son, and incarnation of God, and some of ihern largely and in 
 several tracts, were many ; and yet I cannot rind that they ever 
 allege this text to prove it, excepting that Gregory Nyssen once 
 urges it, [if the passage crept not into him out of some marginal 
 annotation.] In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian con- 
 troversy, it never came into play; though, now those disputes are 
 over, they that read. l God was made manifest in the flesh,* 
 think it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the busi- 
 ness.'' — [Dissertation of Sir Isaac Newton written between the 
 years 1690 and 1700. 
 
 (C.) 
 
 11 Owners of MSS. often wrote glosses or paraphrases of partic- 
 ular passages between the lines, and ignorant transcribers some- 
 times mistook these notes for interlined omissions by the original 
 scribes, and accordingly, in re-copying the MSS., incorporated 
 these glosses or paraphrases into the body of the text. For in- 
 stance, Jerome, in one of his letters, says that an explanatory 
 note which he himself had made in the margin of his Psalter had 
 been incorporated by some transcriber into the text j and Dr. 
 Bently, in the 96th page of his Epistle, annexed to Malala's 
 Chronicle, has proved Sina oros estin ente Arabia, [is Mount Sinai, 
 in Arabia,] to be of the same stamp." — [Catalogue of MSS. of the 
 King's Library, Preface, p. 21. 
 
124 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 (D) 
 
 Table of the time^and places when and where the Gospels, the 
 Epistles, and me Revelation, were written, according to 
 Dr. Lardner. 
 
 Gospels. 
 Matthew's, 
 Mark's, 
 Luke's, 
 John's, 
 Acts, by Luke, 
 
 Places. 
 Judea, «or near it, 
 Rome, 
 Greece, 
 Ephesus, 
 Greece, 
 
 Epistles of Paul. 
 
 1 Thessalonians, Corinth. 
 
 2 Thessalonians, Corinth, 
 
 Galatians, 
 1 Corinthians, 
 
 1 Timothy, 
 Titus, 
 
 2 Corinthians, 
 Romans, 
 Ephesiaus, 
 
 2 Timothy, 
 
 Philippians, 
 
 Colossians, 
 
 Philemon, 
 
 Hebrews. 
 
 Corinth or Ephesus, 
 
 Ephesus, 
 
 Macedonia, 
 
 Macedonia, or near 
 
 Macedonia, 
 
 Corinth, 
 
 Rome, 
 
 Rome, 
 
 Rome, 
 
 Rome, 
 
 Rome, 
 
 Rome or Italy, 
 
 Years. A. D. 
 
 About 64 
 
 64 
 
 63 or 64 
 
 68 
 
 63 or 64 
 
 A. D. 
 
 52 
 
 52 
 
 Near the beginning of 53 
 
 Beginning of 66 
 
 56 
 
 it, Before the end of 56 
 
 About October, 57 
 
 About February, 58 
 
 About April, 61 
 
 About May, 61 
 
 Before the end of 62 
 
 Before the end of 62 
 
 Before the end of 62 
 
 In the Spring of 63 
 
 General Epistles. 
 Of James, Judea, 
 
 Of Peter, Rome, 
 
 John's 1st, Ephesus, 
 
 John's 2d & 3d, Ephesus, 
 Of Jude, Unknown, 
 
 Revelation, - Patmos or Ephesus, 
 
 A. D. 61. or the beginning of 62 
 
 64 
 
 • About 80 
 
 Between 89 and 90 
 
 64 or 65 
 
 95 or 96 
 
-^ ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 'i 
 
 # 
 
 
 
 •'^ .A^' 
 
 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: August 2005 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 *0 Q \ a world leader in paper preservation 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
 (724)779-2111 
 y <r „ .. o ? -VT 
 
\> 
 
 kP < 
 
 
 
 'K 
 
 
 4> 
 
 
 ' fJ 'r & 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,0 c?. 
 
 .v 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 ? .- ** 
 
 
 ,0o 
 
 .0 J