which cannot be comprehended by our limited intelligence - and the basis of Christianity
is destroyed. Out of a multitude I will advert but to two facts: the miraculous con-
ception and the resurrection. These are out of the laws of nature – and if Mr. Jefferson’s reason
for disbelieving the flood can justify him in that case, it will justify him for disbelieving in this.
Let it be farther considered that Mr. Jefferson’s argument against the flood comprehends the
sum total of all the objections that have ever been made to Revelation. For any person at all
conversant with this subject knows that the truths of the Bible are disputed because they
are out of the common course "of the laws of nature." Indeed the person who will controvert
this portion of scripture by such an argument must, if at all consistent, use the same in all similar
cases. In page 235 of the same Notes on Virginia, Mr. Jefferson says, "it does
me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty Gods or no God. It neither picks my pockets
nor breaks my leg." If in common life such a position should be advanced by an individual,
he would certainly be set down for a confirmed infidel. Is it therein the opinion of Mr. Jefferson
a matter of no concern whether the nation should believe in twenty Gods or no God? Has philosophy
then a magic in it which can make atheism so innocent? Will a Christian – will he who is zealous
and faithful in the vineyard – who is anxious for the prosperity of the work speak thus? No – his
Bible will restrain him – it will teach him that “the fear of the Lord exalteth a "nation" – that only
"the fool says in his heart there is no God." Speaking of the first progress of Christianity, Mr.
Jefferson says; (page 236) "Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity
could never have been introduced." Here certainly Mr. Jefferson is historically incorrect, a[n] [or]dinary
proficient in Christian history must have known that the first martyrdoms were under the Roman
government and in great numbers – that the Christian doctrines urged their way in defiance
of fire and sword. Can a man of Mr. Jefferson’s learning mistake in so clear a case? Or has he per-
verted facts to suit his purpose. But in complaisance to the learned writer let us meet him
on his ground. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been
introduced! The rashness which could take this ground is truly astonishing! He brings Christiani-
ty at once down to Mahometanism, and Paganism. He ascribes its introduction to human,
rejecting divine means, as if its existence at this day was to be traced rather to a Roman
emperor than to the special interposition of its omnipotent author! Could a Christian say this –
or is it precisely the language of infidelity. There can be no mistake here.
Thus far go the proofs which I have thought it useful to advance to adduce from Mr. Jefferson's
own writings. Farther comment might weaken the conviction which they must infallibly
produce. The most subtle sophist cannot reconcile such declarations with a belief in sacred
writ. – –
is destroyed. Out of a multitude I will advert but to two facts: the miraculous con-
ception and the resurrection. These are out of the laws of nature – and if Mr. Jefferson’s reason
for disbelieving the flood can justify him in that case, it will justify him for disbelieving in this.
Let it be farther considered that Mr. Jefferson’s argument against the flood comprehends the
sum total of all the objections that have ever been made to Revelation. For any person at all
conversant with this subject knows that the truths of the Bible are disputed because they
are out of the common course "of the laws of nature." Indeed the person who will controvert
this portion of scripture by such an argument must, if at all consistent, use the same in all similar
cases. In page 235 of the same Notes on Virginia, Mr. Jefferson says, "it does
me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty Gods or no God. It neither picks my pockets
nor breaks my leg." If in common life such a position should be advanced by an individual,
he would certainly be set down for a confirmed infidel. Is it therein the opinion of Mr. Jefferson
a matter of no concern whether the nation should believe in twenty Gods or no God? Has philosophy
then a magic in it which can make atheism so innocent? Will a Christian – will he who is zealous
and faithful in the vineyard – who is anxious for the prosperity of the work speak thus? No – his
Bible will restrain him – it will teach him that “the fear of the Lord exalteth a "nation" – that only
"the fool says in his heart there is no God." Speaking of the first progress of Christianity, Mr.
Jefferson says; (page 236) "Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity
could never have been introduced." Here certainly Mr. Jefferson is historically incorrect, a[n] [or]dinary
proficient in Christian history must have known that the first martyrdoms were under the Roman
government and in great numbers – that the Christian doctrines urged their way in defiance
of fire and sword. Can a man of Mr. Jefferson’s learning mistake in so clear a case? Or has he per-
verted facts to suit his purpose. But in complaisance to the learned writer let us meet him
on his ground. Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been
introduced! The rashness which could take this ground is truly astonishing! He brings Christiani-
ty at once down to Mahometanism, and Paganism. He ascribes its introduction to human,
rejecting divine means, as if its existence at this day was to be traced rather to a Roman
emperor than to the special interposition of its omnipotent author! Could a Christian say this –
or is it precisely the language of infidelity. There can be no mistake here.
Thus far go the proofs which I have thought it useful to advance to adduce from Mr. Jefferson's
own writings. Farther comment might weaken the conviction which they must infallibly
produce. The most subtle sophist cannot reconcile such declarations with a belief in sacred
writ. – –
Extract of a letter from an American gentleman in France.Havre-De-Grace, Aug. 28, 1802.
"All of us have a desire to see celebrated characters, even though they are noted only for monstrous
vices. But the gratification is rather of a different nature from that of meeting with men eminent
for benevolence and philanthrophy.
vices. But the gratification is rather of a different nature from that of meeting with men eminent
for benevolence and philanthrophy.
I feel my curiosity satiated in having seen Thomas Paine. I have several
times dined and sipped at the same table with him for that purpose. He is a drunken beastly
animal, the most slovenly and dirty in his person of any man I ever met with. His face is
drunkenness personified! and one would almost suppose a candle might be lit at his long
bottle nose, the effect of brandy. He can, however, appear like a man of sense in company and
has a strong memory. He is on his way to America, if he can find here a country-man
who will disgrace himself so much as to convey him to our shores. However, I expect he will be
there shortly, by some means or other. The present government in France does not suit him.
I am informed that on his offering to dedicate some work to Buonaparte, he decline it,
letting him know at the same time that he did not choose to receive that honor from so vile a calumni-
ator of Washington.”
animal, the most slovenly and dirty in his person of any man I ever met with. His face is
drunkenness personified! and one would almost suppose a candle might be lit at his long
bottle nose, the effect of brandy. He can, however, appear like a man of sense in company and
has a strong memory. He is on his way to America, if he can find here a country-man
who will disgrace himself so much as to convey him to our shores. However, I expect he will be
there shortly, by some means or other. The present government in France does not suit him.
I am informed that on his offering to dedicate some work to Buonaparte, he decline it,
letting him know at the same time that he did not choose to receive that honor from so vile a calumni-
ator of Washington.”
From the (Baltimore) Federal Gazette. Dec. 7, 1802. in the Savannah Advertiser inserted.
A young man who later died on board of a ship in consequence of a mortification from a gun
bursting in his hands, and who belonged to Christian parents in one of our principle cities, but who had
studied the writings of Paine in France, said to his companions before he died, “You think perhaps
that I am afraid to die. You are mistaken if you think so, I believe neither in God nor
Devil - a Heaven or Hell. – I have therefore nothing to fear, and expired.
A young man who later died on board of a ship in consequence of a mortification from a gun
bursting in his hands, and who belonged to Christian parents in one of our principle cities, but who had
studied the writings of Paine in France, said to his companions before he died, “You think perhaps
that I am afraid to die. You are mistaken if you think so, I believe neither in God nor
Devil - a Heaven or Hell. – I have therefore nothing to fear, and expired.