Revelation, when applied to Religion, means something immediately communicated from God to man.

No one will deny, or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But, admitting for the sake of a case, that something had been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is Revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be Revelation to all those persons. It is Revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call any thing a Revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally, or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something, which that person says was a Revelation made to him; and though he may feel himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a Revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it, that it was made to him.”

The first of these paragraphs affords but little matter for comment, except that Mr. Paine has fallen into a singular error, concerning the nature of Revelation, which laid the foundation for the shadowy structure that is raised upon it. "Revelation, as applied to Religion,” does mean something more than a mere "communication immediately from God to man." It means such a communication attested by vouchers which produce conviction.

The communication made "immediately from God" to Moses, Moses did not "feel himself obliged to believe," until extraordinary proofs were given him of its reality. Those proofs (the only proofs that could be afforded) were the power of working miracles; and after he received them, and tried them, he believed it, and not before,

In the second paragraph Mr. Paine and myself, differ toto cælo; and that can excite but little wonder, after having shewn the mistaken sense in which he accepts the word "Revelation." The "case" which he has adduced as an illustration of his definition, although true to his principles, is completely at variance with every example of Revelation, contained in the Scriptures. He supposes

a Revelation to be made to some individual, and not to any other person; and that the person to whom it is revealed, can give no other voucher of its truth, than his word for it. Who does not see the absurdity of this "case," if brought forward as an objection to religious Revelation?

We have seen, above, that the only evidence which can establish a Revelation from Heaven, is a miracle; now, since a miracle is not an inward, invisible operation of the mind, but an outward, and obvious transaction appealing to the senses, it is, certainly, as capable of convincing others, that such a Revelation has been received, as it is him to whom it is immediately made. I shall not assume, but produce a case, that will completly establish this point. If, when Moses heard a voice commanding him to go and redeem the Israelites from the bondage of Pharaoh, he had told the circumstance to any other person, it is probable, that that other person, as well as Moses himself, would not have believed it to have been a divine command. And had Moses persisted that it was, without giving any other proof of it, than saying so, I will then agree with Mr. Paine, that it would have been simply hearsay to that other person. But Moses doubted it himself, and the same evidence that removed his own doubts, was offered to remove the doubts of those, to whom he told the Revelation; for, after performing certain miracles alone, and thereby satisfying himself, he performed "the same signs (miracles) in the sight of the people," and satisfied them also. Mr. Paine may, if he pleases, call the first Revelation, and the second hearsay, but, since the hearsay has precisely the same evidence to attest its truth with the Revelation itself, it must carry with it the same conviction. It is the word hearsay, that has alarmed many. Hearsay is a synonym with rumour, or unauthorized report; but hearsay, as here used, and, as it here ought to be understood, means a truth established by the evidence of our senses: an evidence that no man, no, neither Mr. Paine, nor Mr. Hume, nor any other Deist, ever thought proper to dispute, except when he passed from the practical use

3

of them, to indulge in the disturbed dreams of metaphysical speculation.

The conclusion drawn in the third paragraph, falls to the ground, after the destruction of that contained in the second. If Revelation can be imparted to others, by him to whom it was originally made, with the same evidence that he possessed himself; and, that it can, is, I think, indisputable, after what has been said above, then it follows, that it must be equally obligatory upon them also; and it is "incumbent on them to believe it in the same manner," as if it had (which it virtually has) been a Revelation made to them.

"When Moses told the children of Israel, that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hand of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it, than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it, than some Historian telling me so. The commandments carrying no internal evidence of divinity with them. They contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a Law-giver, or a Legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention."

What! had the children of Israel "no other authority to believe that Moses received the two tabes from the hand of God, than his telling them so?" Was the multitude of miracles in Egypt no authority? Their redemption from Pharaoh no authority? There passage through the red sea no authority? Their miraculous sustenance in the wilderness no authority? I think them of such authority, as to believe, that there never existed a Deist, but would have yielded to their overwhelming weight. To have distrusted such evidence, would have been to have rejected the highest physical proof of truth, of which the mind of man is capable. What, then, shall we answer to Mr. Paine's assertion of "no authority?" Shall we suppose him ignorant of it, and therefore could not produce it; or, disingenuous, and voluntarily concealed it? And had he "no other authority" for believing this relation of

Moses, but "some Historian telling him so?" Is the universal consent of the Jewish people no authority? A peo ple immediately interested in the truth of the narrative; whose forefathers had been witnesses of the miracles he performed, and who, with themselves, had grounded all their hopes of eternal happiness, on the promises contained in the same books, in which those tables are written ? Would they build their brightest hopes on the shades of imposture? Would they not be as jealous as Mr. Paine of delusion? And were they not as competent judges of plain matters of fact as we are? Had they not eyes, and ears, and understanding as we have? And if they had, and could not detect deception, (though it was their interest to do so if they could,) it is impossible for any one to detect it now. Moreover, since, no one ever alledged a suspicion of fraud against those books, for nearly two thousand years, it must be much too late to bring it forward now, except as a manœuvre to favour the cause of infidelity.

But, it appears, that there is another reason for Mr." Paine's unbelief. (viz.) That "the commandments communicated by God to Moses, carry no internal evidence of divinity with them." No internal evidence of divinity! Who is a competent judge of divine wisdom? What kind of evidence did Mr. Paine require? Why did he not draw out a pattern of evidence, such as would have carried an internal mark of divinity with it, and say, thus the Almighty would have commanded; these are sentiments suitable to infinite wisdom? Absurd objection! when the wisest Deist shall have refined his notions of moral and political justice, to the highest degree of perfection, they will still contain no internal evidence of divinity: they will still be human: all that man can conceive must be human; so that had they partaken of the ineffable divine wisdom, they would have been a dead letter to the mind of man. Mr. Paine, however, admits, that "they con tain some good moral precepts; but such as any man qua. lified to be a Law-giver, or a Legislator, could produce

himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention." What Mr. Paine meant by "any man," is not very clear; at least he should have told us, why no such man existed before the propagation of Christianity. Let us consider what the most enlightened heathen nation, thought of these "good moral precepts." Such a comparison will exhibit their value, and furnish some strong evidence of there divine origin. "Thou shalt have none other Gods but me" never occurred to any other man, except Moses, during a period of nearly two thousand years; a pretty strong presumptive proof, that he had a source of infor mation, to which all the world besides, had no access. "Thou shalt not steal," did not form an essential part of the legislative code of Lycurgus. Theft, if practised with adroitness, was an act not punished, but commended. How strange, that so wise a man should overlook so apparently obvious a principle of social jurisprudence! But it was not obvious to him; it had no divine authority annexed to it; his mind had not speculated on the relation of morality to a Supreme Being. "Thou shalt do no murder." This law, which is seldom violated by animals: among their own species; for "the tyger preys not on the tyger kind," entered not, as an universal principle, into the Grecian code. Infants, born with any deformity that was likely to unfit them for the service of the State, were exposed on mount Taygetus to die of hunger, or become the prey of wild beasts; or, in terms of strict truth, were murdered. What, then, was Lycurgus not one of those men qualified to be a Law-giver, or a Legislator? Or was the "any man" of Mr. Paine superior to him? If he were, then, no such man will be found in the records of History, except Moses himself; and, thus, Mr. Paine becomes," however reluctantly, an advocate for the truth of the Revelation made to that distinguished Patriarch.

T

It appears incontestable from the above remarks, that the commandments given by God to Moses, are not among the first thoughts of the human mind: and that circumstance supplies, in one way, the desideratum of Mr. Paine,

F