Many Infidels, who have not hesitated even to doubt the existence of one eternal God, have nevertheless admitted that a man called Christ once played a certain part in Palestine, and was the founder of the religion bearing his name, These men appeal to reason; and as they profess to be guided by no other authority, they must, if consistent, abide by its decision. "Hast thou appealed unto reason? unto reason shalt thou go"-at that severe tribunal their opinions must be judged-received if sound, and rejected if erro neous. That the unthinking multitude should have held so erroneous an opinion through many ages, is by no means wonderful, as from the cradle to the grave they hear the one falsehood hourly reiterated; and such is the nature of the human mind, and so susceptible is it to the influences, whether of truth or fiction, that the veriest absurdity, oft repeated, is an absurdity no longer, but a serious truth, as observed by Addison-"tell a man anything, however absurd, every morning before breakfast, and depend upon it, he will believe you in the long run;" and what other tale have Christians been allowed to hear since Christianity wedded itself to the civil form, and became part and parcel of the ever-varying law of the land, than that Jesus Christ did this, and Jesus Christ did the other, some eighteen hundred years ago? which, moreover, all were told that, not to believe, was to inherit damnation! Nor are the injurious effects of error confined to the taught but speedily effect the teachers thereof, as it is by no means seldom that expounders of falsehood begin by deceiving, and end by being deceived; error being by its very nature contaminating, like pitch or glue, adhering to those who handle it; hence we find that where superstition prevails (and where does it not?)-both priests and people are more or less the victims of their own arts; and few even among the more cunning, entirely escape the moral infection-whereas, the many are inevitably destroyed by it. "Thou canst not touch pitch without being defiled," saith the Scripture. Sceptics who support their opinion that Christ did not exist as a god, but merely as a reformer, as did Zoroastre, Minos, Moses and others, make great parade of historic proof, which, they contend, shews that it is at all events probable that such a character actually existed; but reject the idle tale about his birth, resurrection from the dead, &c. Nor is it uncommon to hear them treating, in their public discourses, what they are pleased to call the precepts, doctrines, and life of Jesus Christ; and though we may be justified in supposing that not a few of such Sceptics make a shield of the name of Christ, with a view to back up their own weakness and ward off public odium, and thus call the attention of simpletons from their real designs and ultimate objects, yet we cannot doubt that some few of these men are sincere, and really do suppose (being very ill read in the matter) that what is said in the Testamental books is something more than an old wife's fable, made up of the rakings and scrapings of worn out philosophies. Oh, say these oracles, to disbelieve in the existence of Jesus Christ, is to produce a moral earthquake, and throw into the air the very foundations of history—not to believe what the apostles have said, is to shake our belief in the sayings of Plato and Aristotle, or the doings of an Alexander. This is the same in substance as was formerly said by the brother of Cicero, who declared that to deny the truth of the oracles of Delphi, would be to overthrow the foundations of all history; but there are few Christians who will admit, that by attacking these pretended oracles, they would not rather be strengthening the foundations of history; but so it is, each defends his own chimera, and leaves history and science to shift for themselves. When we demonstrate to our readers that the incarnation of Christ is that of the Sun-that what is said of his death and resurrection relate entirely to that brilliant luminary, and that all calling themselves Christians are merely worshippers of the Sun, as the Peruvians that they so cruelly slaughtered, the great question, to wit-whether a man called Christ did or did not exist, shall be freely and fully discussed. If it be demanded whether we consider that the object of the Christian worship was a real being, or merely ideal?- -we reply, that it was certainly real, inasmuch as nothing can be real, if the Sun is not so,-that brilliant star which enlightens every man coming into the world. If we search for evidence of the existence of Christ, whether as philosopher or impostor, in the writings of the Pagan authors, we shall find that none of them at least those of them whose works have floated down to us like light planks upon the waves of time-have treated ex professo that question, or given a history of Christ; but great stress has been laid upon the observations of Tacitus, in his Annals" that the Christians derived their name and origin from Christ, who in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sen tence of the Procurator Pontius Pilate;" but what do these words amount to, when it is evident that they are used by Tacitus to give the etymology of the word Christian? which he informs his readers, came from one Christ, put to death under Pilate; and this too, hap pened somewhere about a hundred years after Christ is said to have existed—that is, Tacitus relates a legend about that time, and we shall hereafter see that the legend was a solar fiction. If Tacitus had spoken of Bramins, he would doubtless have said that they derived their name from a certain Brama who had lived in India; nor would the present Bramins be slow to avail themselves of such historic testimony in their favour; and yet none but silly believers in Brama would, on that account, think it proved that the god came on earth in human shape, especially if they knew that the term Brama is but a name for one of the three attributes of a personified divinity. It is clear that Tacitus, having, in his history of Nero, to give an account of the Christian sect, gives to the name the received etymology, without troubling himself to inquire whether a man or a god really existed, or if he was the hero of a sacred legend, such an examination would have been quite out of place in his work. Suetonius, another author of repute, when speaking of the Jews, states that "there was much agitation among them during the time of Claudius, and that they were moved and incited by a certain Christ —a turbulent seditious man, who was the cause of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome." It would puzzle even orthodox Christians, which of these two historians to believe, seeing that they contradict each other, or at all events, do not accord as to the time and place where and when the pretended Christ lived; but the righte ousness of faith will enable its professors to remove mountains, so that, perhaps, they will find little difficulty in believing both these accounts. The Christians generally, however, seem to prefer Tacitus, and he certainly the most accords with the solar fable. Nothing can be more clear than this-that the above-quoted historians have spoken of Christ upon vague rumour, without atach ing any importance to the tale, and therefore, their testimony by no means offers a safe satisfactory guarantee of the existence of Christ, whether as god, legislator, or impostor. If that existence had been an indubitable fact, it is hardly credible that from the times of Tertullian, authors who had seriously discussed the question and examined the origin of Christianity, should have written that the worship of the Christians was that of the Sun, and by no means connected with a man who had formerly existed. Those persons who pretend to the character of philosophers, and make of Christ a reformer, or an imposter, only display their ignorance of ancient history, and are brought to such an erroneous conclusion because they have not enough of faith to believe in Christ as a god; and on the other hand, not had an opportunity to compare his fabulous history with the solar legend; hence they do not see in his character what it really is-a sacerdotal fiction. Those who cannot admit as authentic history, the famed exploits of Hercules, nor see in him a god, have concluded that he was a great prince, the history of whom has been embellished by the marvellous. Such an explanation certainly has the advantage of simplicity in its favour-and is, moreover, a quick and ready method of getting rid of a subject that its examiners have not had the resolution and patience thoroughly to probe and search into; but, un, fortunately, it does not give us true results; and though such explanations are duly received as genuine, Hercules is no less the Sun personified. But when an error is once established, and considered respectable in the eyes of the people-when spiritual pastors prohibit any but orthodox criticisms-when they make books and destroy them, proving some divine and others heterodoxthere is little chance that the people should be in a condition to get correct knowledge therefrom. If there are ages of light for philosophers--that is to say, for a small number of men, all ages are ages of darkness for the millions-especially in matters which affect religion; nor shall we be wide of the true mark, if we judge of the credulity of the people by the impudence of the authors of the first legends. If we are to believe them, they were eye-witnesses-they saw what they relate. We are told that the authors of the Christian books were plain and simple men: however this may be, one thing is certain that the trashy stories they have told are fit only for idiots or children-differing only from Tom Thumb, Little Red Ridinghood, and the like, in being incalculably more mischievous, and far less amusing. The legend is indeed sufficiently simple,-no one can justly deny that the apostles were simple men-but still men so simple as to believe every thing, or to say that they have seen, when it was quite impossible they ever could have seen,-are surely but bad authorities to rely upon in the building up of our faith. Besides, these writings carry upon the face of them, not to be mistaken signs of imposture. One of them, after having written as nearly as possible the same that is to be found in the books of the other three, says that the hero of his legend had performed such a crowd of miracles, that if a book containing them all could, by any possibility, be made, the universe would be unable to contain it! The hyperbole is rather strong; but how is it possible that, of such a sum of miracles, none have been related to us, save those contained in the four Evangelists, who all confine themselves within the same, or nearly the same, circle of facts. Truly the manufacturers of these books were simple workmen, or they would have managed matters better; but no, out of the more than can be counted of miracles and facts, they have all related the same, or nearly the same, circumstances, with a difference so trifling, that if the four had clapped their simple heads together with a short-sighted intention to cheat the people, they could not have succeeded better. What! out of so many millions of remarkable events, the four evangelicals agree to write only about the same facts!—all the rest are consigned to oblivion-traditions as well as sacred writings are dumb! The author of the legend known under the name of St. John, whether simple or sage, has undoubtedly reckoned upon having none but true-believers for readers-that is, simpletons. Indeed, to admit the testimony of these books as proofs of the existence of Christ, is to believe everything; for if they write truly when they say that Christ lived among them, what possible reason should we have for believing that he lived among them, as they have related he did-especially when we further consider what an abandoned and scandalously impudent band of imposters early Christian writers were how filled to the brim with fanaticism and intoler? One Sant Denis attests, that himself and the sophist Apo ance |